A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 04, 09:41 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message

I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an Junker J1
style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).


What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.

The type remained in service until 1932

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #2  
Old June 9th 04, 04:13 PM
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message

I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an

Junker J1
style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).


What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.

The type remained in service until 1932

Keith


At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.


  #3  
Old June 9th 04, 05:20 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eunometic" wrote in message
...



At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.


Which is like saying the only thing that save the Me-109
from being a flop is that it was a good fighter.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.



I doubt it, as WW2 showed you need much more range
and payload than that for the strategic mission.

Better aircraft such as the He-111 and Do-17 failed
in that role

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #4  
Old June 11th 04, 12:22 PM
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
...



At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.


Which is like saying the only thing that save the Me-109
from being a flop is that it was a good fighter.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.



I doubt it, as WW2 showed you need much more range
and payload than that for the strategic mission.

Better aircraft such as the He-111 and Do-17 failed
in that role

Keith



However both these fine aircrat, virtualy invulnerable in the Spanish
civil war and against Polish aircraft, had to face of against
spitfires and hurricanes. In this hypothetical situation our
technology would provide enough of a leap to make them immune to any
interception. The performance I mentioned, perhaps the range is a
little short, would allow attack as low as 5000 feet with freedom from
interception by biplane and with a very low chance of being hit by the
AAA of the day. Level bombing at 5000 feet even without computing
bomb sights is very accurate and at 1000 feet even moreso.

Without the need to attack at night or high altide with low accruracy
they would deliver great and accurate destruction. I've heard it said
that a squadran of Ju 87 Stukas could do more damage than a squdran of
Lancasters as long as they were either escorted or not heavily
opposed.
  #5  
Old June 10th 04, 01:30 PM
Nicholas Smid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eunometic" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message

I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an

Junker J1
style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).


What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.

The type remained in service until 1932

Keith


At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.

The Atlantic/Fokker B-8 from 1929/31 pretty much fills that order, top speed
of 160 mph, 950 mile range 1600 lb bomb load, steel tube and wood
construction. It had 600 hp V-12's, a fair step up from the Liberty but
probably not an impossible jump, though you're probably going to have mass
production problems.
For a fighter you could start with the PW-8, top speed of 171 mph and a 435
hp V-12, structure is wood and fabric and its a bi plane so not too many
nasty shocks for the pilots, from 1922/24, one of them flew with a
turbocharger, one of the first though building them might be a bit tough,
and not really needed for WWI.



  #6  
Old June 11th 04, 12:29 PM
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Nicholas Smid" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message

I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an

Junker J1
style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).

What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.

The type remained in service until 1932

Keith


At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.

The Atlantic/Fokker B-8 from 1929/31 pretty much fills that order, top speed
of 160 mph, 950 mile range 1600 lb bomb load, steel tube and wood
construction. It had 600 hp V-12's, a fair step up from the Liberty but
probably not an impossible jump, though you're probably going to have mass
production problems.
For a fighter you could start with the PW-8, top speed of 171 mph and a 435
hp V-12, structure is wood and fabric and its a bi plane so not too many
nasty shocks for the pilots, from 1922/24, one of them flew with a
turbocharger, one of the first though building them might be a bit tough,
and not really needed for WWI.


It would seem to me that the engine and aircraft constructors would be
able to quickly produce superior aiircaft with their then current
fabrication and knowledge becuase.

1 The vibration and cooling problems they had would be solved by the
plans given them.
2 The alloys would have to be made but would have the appropriate
properties.
3 Some issues such as fuels and maybe oils (some vegetable oils are
superior to synthetics) but

4 I suspect that they engine designes could be adapted for the lower
grade fuels but still achieve superior performance.

The aircraft would have to be hand made by craftsmen and this would
slow down production.

5 Devices such as accurate altimeters and artificial horizons did not
yet exist but I believe these shouldn't be to difficult.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: 1988 "Aces High" (Military Airplanes) Hardcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 August 23rd 04 05:18 AM
Ever heard of Nearly-New Airplanes, Inc.? The Rainmaker Aviation Marketplace 1 June 23rd 04 05:08 PM
SMALLL airplanes.. BllFs6 Home Built 12 May 8th 04 12:48 PM
FS: 1990 Cracker Jack "War Time Airplanes" Minis 6-Card (CJR-3) Set J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 April 12th 04 05:57 AM
Sport Pilot Airplanes - Homebuilt? Rich S. Home Built 8 August 10th 03 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.