New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

"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 =---

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
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).

Not a Petroleum Engineer, but some of teh vehicles in the Family
Collection date from that period (In particular, the FWD 3-5 Ton
Truck, and the Van Dorne 6-ton Tank (Renault FT). The Gasoline back
then was a lot better than most people think - it was a byproduct of
Kerosene production, and they'd basically boiled & squeexed anything
that wasn't Iso-Octane out in order to maximize the yeld for teh other
products. Of course, here aren't any good samples lying around, but
I'd place teh Octane Rating at somewhere above 80, so it wouldn't be
too dissimilar from 80/87 AVGAS.

Pete, thanks for jumping in. I had/have a vague memory of reading that WW1 Avgas was around 60 octane, but that
could be way off. However, see below.

Materiels werent' a problem either -
The Engine Block, Intake Manifolds, Transmission and Transfer Case on
the FWD are Alumin(i)um, and nearly pure at that - (I took a sample to
the Materiels Lab when I was working for the World's Largest Producer
of Consumer Batteries and checked it out) much better than most
Aluminum stock these days, but probably as expesive as All Get Out.

A lot of that Octane Rating was wasted, though. Because of the need
to actually get the thing started, and because the Electric Motors of
teh day weren't up to it, the maximum Compression Ratio that was
practical to use was around 4-4.5:1. (It took 3 guys to prop a 1650
cu-in Liberty, for example, and the 400 Cu-in on the FWD is a serious
workout, even with an Impulse unit on teh Magneto to help)
Note that this wasn't just confined to the 1910-1920s - many engines
used flywheel starter systems, either hand-cranked or electrically
driven, to store up enough energy to get the bit engines turned over.

The big drawbacks to producing a high-powered engine at that time were
Carburetion and Ignition. Carburetoes were simple in the extreme, adn
weren't very good at atomizing fuel, or at adjusting to the varying
air densities encountered by an airplane engine.
Ignition systems were crude - they all worked with extremely high
voltage, (70 Kvolts or so), to try to get the strongest spark they
could, with the Spark Plugs that existed at that time. That's all
well and good, but there weren't any good insulators available. This
led to internal breakdowns in the Magnetos, and arcing and shorting of
the plug leads. It's bad enough at Sea Level, and it's horrid at high
altitude, where the dielectric properties of the air are much worse.
(Heat tolerance by these materials was poor, as well.) Insulators
were ceramic, Natural Rubber, and Mica. It took the development of
Plastics in the late 1920s-early 1930s (Most Notably Bakelite and
Formica) to produce reliable high-power Ignition Systems.

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.

Concur - there were a lot of steps that had to be made before you
could build anything more advanced than they were. In fact, teh Forst
World War, and the technology race that it spawned was the major
driver for those advances.

Googling found this:

www.enginehistory.org/OX5to3350.pdf

aka "OX-5s to Turbo-Compounds: A Brief Overview of Aircraft Engine Development", covering roughly 1920-1950. It
basically says that improvements were made more or less concurrently in seven areas, fuel being one of them. It also
states that "early" [no idea what period, but presumably pre-1920] gasoline had octane ratings from 25-50.

Guy

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(alfred montestruc) wrote in message . com...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.

The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
to be feared.

A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
and recon especially given their speed and range.


-snip

problem: that aluminum wing spar

What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.

http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/

---quote
As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
due to their excessive weight.
---end quote

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"alfred montestruc" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a
manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or
just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.


It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
anything achievable in 1918.

Hogwash.

Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
till the introduction of electronic chips.

The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
it can be built.

Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
reasonable substitutes did.

Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.

Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
it from the steel mill on.

I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
reviewed the designs of many more.

Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
industrial society in WWI era could build them.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"alfred montestruc" wrote in message
om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the
Austro-Hungarians
the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a
manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or
just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.


It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
anything achievable in 1918.

How about a Boeing P-26 Peashooter?

"alfred montestruc" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...


Hogwash.

Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
till the introduction of electronic chips.


Apart from the alloys available, lubricants, cooling systems
and ignition systems

The fact is you couldnt get the materials to manufacture the
engine from, most engines of WW1 were cast iron, the
lubricants were simple mineral oils or vegetable oils,
cooling was a major problem , hence the rotary engine
and ignition systems were extremely crude

The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
it can be built.

Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
reasonable substitutes did.


Evidence please

Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.


None of those tests were in common use in WW1, steel production
was still more of an art than a science.

Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
it from the steel mill on.


They didnt have gas chromatographs in 1914

I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
reviewed the designs of many more.


So have I

Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
industrial society in WWI era could build them.

Yet first rate engineers like Harry Ricardo were severely constrained
in their engine designs by the technology available. Some of his designs
could not be manufactured until the 1940's, his sleeve valve engines
required techniques that were still difficult to master in 1939

Keith

(alfred montestruc) wrote in message . com...
(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(alfred montestruc) wrote in message . com...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.

The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
to be feared.

A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
and recon especially given their speed and range.


-snip

problem: that aluminum wing spar

What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.

http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/

---quote
As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
due to their excessive weight.
---end quote

True, little thin pieces of aluminum, not a full depth wing spar,
which required a special new aluminum developed by Sumitomo. In later
years the few Zeros still extant had this spart crystalize and fail.

"It was the first aircraft credited with using wing spars that
provide high strength, but were constructed of light weight aluminum.
" http://www.pacificwrecks.com/reviews/roaring_a6m5.html

"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.

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(alfred montestruc) wrote in message . com...
(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(alfred montestruc) wrote in message . com...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.

The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
to be feared.

A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
and recon especially given their speed and range.


-snip

problem: that aluminum wing spar

What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.

http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/

---quote
As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
due to their excessive weight.
---end quote

True, little thin pieces of aluminum, not a full depth wing spar,

Sure they could. Aluminum extrusion was invented before 1905.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0102/fig2.gif

that timeline GIF file is from this website.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ders-0102.html



which required a special new aluminum developed by Sumitomo. In later
years the few Zeros still extant had this spart crystalize and fail.

"It was the first aircraft credited with using wing spars that
provide high strength, but were constructed of light weight aluminum.
" http://www.pacificwrecks.com/reviews/roaring_a6m5.html

I think others have shown that statement to be in error.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"alfred montestruc" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...


Hogwash.

Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
till the introduction of electronic chips.


Apart from the alloys available, lubricants, cooling systems
and ignition systems

The fact is you couldnt get the materials to manufacture the
engine from, most engines of WW1 were cast iron,

Silly them.

the
lubricants were simple mineral oils or vegetable oils,

some vegetable oils are very good lubricants, they are just expensive.

cooling was a major problem , hence the rotary engine
and ignition systems were extremely crude

The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
it can be built.

Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
reasonable substitutes did.


Evidence please

Artillery gun tubes of that era. They were (obviously) subjected to
high stresses for many thousands of repititions. Obviously the
pressures in a gun tube near the breech during fireing of an artillery
gun are much larger than in an IC engine that has a peak compression
ratio of 10:1 at most.

Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
gun tube is made from.

I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
to the block. See any showstoppers?

This would not be the way to duplicate the engine of a zero, but the
alloys of the cylinders, crankshafts, pistons and so on cannot have
been vastly superior to those of gun alloys, else one would have seen
a revolution in artillery technology in WWII, and that did not happen,
and little improvement in basic artillery gun tube materials has been
made since the very early part of the 20th century till now. As in
WWI gun tubes are not hopelessly obsolete.





Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.


None of those tests were in common use in WW1,

Most were available, including tensile testing (quite old) and Charpy
impact testing which became popular soon after the Titanic sank.


steel production
was still more of an art than a science.

Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
it from the steel mill on.


They didnt have gas chromatographs in 1914

One does not use a gas chromatagraph to determine the chemistry of
steel, even now. In modern times several methods are used, a popular
one being Optical Emission Spectroscopy, but in those days one kept
track of what one put into the mix and you could also get a read on
Carbon and Sulfer content by combustion analysis using a bomb
calorimeter IIRC, and doing tests on the combustion products.

http://www.materials.co.uk/chem.htm




I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
reviewed the designs of many more.


So have I

Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
industrial society in WWI era could build them.

Yet first rate engineers like Harry Ricardo were severely constrained
in their engine designs by the technology available.

But if the design and a working example is handed to him?


Some of his designs
could not be manufactured until the 1940's, his sleeve valve engines
required techniques that were still difficult to master in 1939


As I recall the radial engines we are discussing use pretty standard
cam actuated cylinder head valves.