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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries. Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to the needed tolerances? No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of sufficiently high octane to allow it to produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the engine, and chances are the oil would be inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should now weigh in). If you want to postulate time travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that could actually be produced 20 years earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen. Guy |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. The typical bomb used for anti personnel use was the 25lb cooper bomb which was a fragmentation weapon,essentially a large hand grenade. They also dropped flechettes. 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 =--- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and dominate the skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time. With a thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic bomber. It should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last so long. Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable. Hardly, the Swordfish was catchable by most late WW1 fighters and didng have much more disposable load than a Vimy I said a Swordfish in *1914*, which is beyond unbeatable by the planes of 1914. I don't even think it's catchable by fighters of 1918. A Spad XIII has a top speed of 135 mph, an Fokker D. VII has a top speed of 120 mph, and a Swordfish has a top speed of 138 mph. Remember, a fighter has to be significantly faster than the bomber to catch it and make repeated passes at it. A Swordfish may be able to do that clean, but it cruises at 85-90 kts loaded, and most all of the inline engine fighters of 1918 are faster than it, even ignoring that they will considerably outclimb it and will most likely be making diving attacks. Its bombload is 1,500 lb, no big deal for 1918 if you look at multi-engined bombers, and its range isn't very exciting either -- you are apparently assuming that it can achieve its maximum range while flying at maximum speed and carrying its maximum load, and that isn't the case for any a/c. Here's the Swordfish II range with a 1,610 lb. Mk. XII torp and the max. fuel (143 Imp. Gal.) it can carry with that load: 450nm @ 90 knots; combat radius would be around 1/3rd - 2/5ths of that. In 1914 it would very difficult to catch, but about the only way it might change the war significantly would be if it was used as a torpedo bomber carrying 18" full-size torps in a mass sneak attack on the German (and/or Austro-Hungarian) fleets in harbor. Even then it would have to operate from land, because no one had a carrier during the war with sufficient deck run and speed for it to take off from fully loaded, barring very high (and consequently rare) winds. Loaded with a torp and 143 gallons of fuel, a Swordfish II required a 540 ft. deck run with 20 kts. WoD (Wind over Deck), and 345 ft. with 30 kts. WoD. In late 1918 (i.e. after the end of the war) HMS Argus would have been able to launch them given sufficent natural wind (550 ft. flight deck, 20 kt. speed), but couldn't have spotted more than a half dozen or so at a time. HMS Furious was faster, but had a much shorter takeoff deck at the time, only 228 feet (before her conversion to a full carrier), and her a/c capacity was limited, so any kind of carrier-launched mass attack during 1914-1918 was out of the question. But that assumes that sinking a fair number of one of the Central Powers fleets in harbor would have significantly changed the war in the allies favor, and that seems a bit questionable. Guy |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine. Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate The Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the trenches be a significant addition? Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus bombs as it was. Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing would be a challenge. Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication trenches which allowed troops to move into the front line without being exposed to attack. There were also more than one line of trenches. The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination of new technology which included fighter bombers and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks than the preceding 4 years. 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 =--- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message om... Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a weapon without defense. Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication trenches which allowed troops to move into the front line without being exposed to attack. There were also more than one line of trenches. The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination of new technology which included fighter bombers and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks than the preceding 4 years. Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the trenches or die. You don't fire napalm, although there were instances of pouring it into caves, you drop it from the air. You make the trench systems traps, the same way the proper use of tanks made them traps. http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/publi...4/1/upload.htm |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Linthicum" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you could afect a short stretch Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the trenches or die. And lets not forget that those WWI trench systems used a lot of wood in their construction, which would burn fiercely once hit with a napalm bomb. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |