New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

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

"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 =---

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

"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 =---

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.

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.

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.

"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 =---

"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

"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.