Chat Forum
It is currently Sat May 30, 2020 10:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5101
Location: Te Ika a Maui
The second one is longer, with armour and air recon too...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 10:11 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6712
Location: Middle of the Lothians
usermame wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:
Image

#OTD in 1945, 154 Brigade of the 51st (Highland) Division moved to an area near Bremerhaven where it carried out the disarming of the German troops in that district. Four days later they held a parade in the city (pictured). #VEDay [image © IWM Art.IWM ART LD 5457] https://t.co/m5uhf2MRkq

I've "borrowed" the above from @HighlandHistory on twitter.

Hey look, moving pictures...

https://youtu.be/poJBWQET4Hc

TBF, the writings I've read of members of 2nd NZ Division gave a good opinion of 51st Highland Division.


Montgomery later commented on the 51st "Of the many fine divisions that served under me in the Second World War, none were finer than the Highland Division. It was the only infantry division in the armies of the British Empire that accompanied me during the whole of the long march from Alamein to Berlin."

During the European campaign the division suffered over 90% battlefield casualties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7312
Location: FTFT
usermame wrote:
The second one is longer, with armour and air recon too...

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2966
A very proud moment for my father last night.The street he lives in was having a Social distancing street party with music, bingo party food etc. He went outside his house to see how it was going, and was given a standing ovation by all his neighbours. I think he is the sole surviving veteran of WWII in the street.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22860
GWO2 wrote:
A very proud moment for my father last night.The street he lives in was having a Social distancing street party with music, bingo party food etc. He went outside his house to see how it was going, and was given a standing ovation by all his neighbours. I think he is the sole surviving veteran of WWII in the street.

:thumbup:

But did he fúck a waaf on a barrage balloon?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2966
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
A very proud moment for my father last night.The street he lives in was having a Social distancing street party with music, bingo party food etc. He went outside his house to see how it was going, and was given a standing ovation by all his neighbours. I think he is the sole surviving veteran of WWII in the street.

:thumbup:

But did he fúck a waaf on a barrage balloon?

He hasn`t ever said and I aint asking him. :blush: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2020 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
GWO2 wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
A very proud moment for my father last night.The street he lives in was having a Social distancing street party with music, bingo party food etc. He went outside his house to see how it was going, and was given a standing ovation by all his neighbours. I think he is the sole surviving veteran of WWII in the street.

:thumbup:

But did he fúck a waaf on a barrage balloon?

He hasn`t ever said and I aint asking him. :blush: :lol: :lol: :lol:


:lol: ... no need! I'm going to certify it plausible!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18807
Location: Centre of the Universe
French Resistance

Image


2, 1, 3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2966
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2020 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22860
GWO2 wrote:
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752

Well you wouldn't land there deliberately, would you??


Good read, thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752

Well you wouldn't land there deliberately, would you??


Good read, thanks


Shame it doesn’t actually say what the tech advances were - all I’ve ever read about was that they pinched the cooling systems and enabled radials to be used in high speed fighters without being huge aircraft with large frontal areas (like American thunderbolt and Corsair ), ultimately leading to Bristol engined tempests


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752

Well you wouldn't land there deliberately, would you??


Good read, thanks


Shame it doesn’t actually say what the tech advances were - all I’ve ever read about was that they pinched the cooling systems and enabled radials to be used in high speed fighters without being huge aircraft with large frontal areas (like American thunderbolt and Corsair ), ultimately leading to Bristol engined tempests

It's not like the Napier Sabre were slim though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752

Well you wouldn't land there deliberately, would you??


Good read, thanks


Shame it doesn’t actually say what the tech advances were - all I’ve ever read about was that they pinched the cooling systems and enabled radials to be used in high speed fighters without being huge aircraft with large frontal areas (like American thunderbolt and Corsair ), ultimately leading to Bristol engined tempests

It's not like the Napier Sabre were slim though



2200 hp to start off with, ended up 3500 hp ish
1016mm x 1168 mm frontal

Merlin was 1000hp initially, ended up 1600 hp ish
780mm x 1020

Both 2m ish long

Compare to say radial Hercules 1600 hp 1400mm diameter , and Centaurus 3000 hp 1400 diameter

For its power, sabre was pretty beefy for its frontal space tbf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
GWO2 wrote:
This was an interesting article

The German World War II fighter pilot who accidentally landed his plane in West Wales... and helped the Allies win the war

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... er-8072752

Well you wouldn't land there deliberately, would you??


Good read, thanks


Shame it doesn’t actually say what the tech advances were - all I’ve ever read about was that they pinched the cooling systems and enabled radials to be used in high speed fighters without being huge aircraft with large frontal areas (like American thunderbolt and Corsair ), ultimately leading to Bristol engined tempests

It's not like the Napier Sabre were slim though



2200 hp to start off with, ended up 3500 hp ish
1016mm x 1168 mm frontal

Merlin was 1000hp initially, ended up 1600 hp ish
780mm x 1020

Both 2m ish long

Compare to say radial Hercules 1600 hp 1400mm diameter , and Centaurus 3000 hp 1400 diameter

For its power, sabre was pretty beefy for its frontal space tbf


Yes pretty close to radial once you encase it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Not really
1.4 diameter gives 1.54m area
Sabre frontals give 1.186m area or only 77% of the area for similar power

In aerodynamics I’m sure that’s quite a lot. Was also easier to boost an inline engine iirc ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
Not really
1.4 diameter gives 1.54m area
Sabre frontals give 1.186m area or only 77% of the area for similar power

In aerodynamics I’m sure that’s quite a lot

The Tempests do look more like a butcher bird then a spit with either engines but the sabre uses a rather standard radiator configuration.
Image
to compound it the 190D had a V engine rather than a radial
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff

looks good / I could be irish ...

My sources tend to be french on aviation though.

a decent source of online news and some historical stuff thrown in...

https://www.avionslegendaires.net/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff

looks good / I could be irish ...

My sources tend to be french on aviation though.

a decent source of online news and some historical stuff thrown in...

https://www.avionslegendaires.net/


French aviation of the era was aircraft without propellers / gunsights / couldn’t actually take off (that one Bloch fighter prototype)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff

looks good / I could be irish ...

My sources tend to be french on aviation though.

a decent source of online news and some historical stuff thrown in...

https://www.avionslegendaires.net/


French aviation of the era was aircraft without propellers / gunsights / couldn’t actually take off (that one Bloch fighter prototype)


French factories where most likely building the butcher bird at the time of the tempest...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff

looks good / I could be irish ...

My sources tend to be french on aviation though.

a decent source of online news and some historical stuff thrown in...

https://www.avionslegendaires.net/


French aviation of the era was aircraft without propellers / gunsights / couldn’t actually take off (that one Bloch fighter prototype)


French factories where most likely building the butcher bird at the time of the tempest...


Mais non
Nothing vital was built anywhere outside of Germany - indeed shortage of manpower meant they couldn’t use all their plant tools they had nicked when they invaded countries . Iirc french factories only made transport and communication liaison aircraft, not front line stuff.
There were masses of gnome Rhône 9 cylinder engines of low power that were used in rear echelon equipment like seaplanes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
Nice article I just found

https://www.historynet.com/the-magnificent-merlin.htm

PR can be very educational once you discount Irish and jizz type stuff

looks good / I could be irish ...

My sources tend to be french on aviation though.

a decent source of online news and some historical stuff thrown in...

https://www.avionslegendaires.net/


French aviation of the era was aircraft without propellers / gunsights / couldn’t actually take off (that one Bloch fighter prototype)


French factories where most likely building the butcher bird at the time of the tempest...


Mais non
Nothing vital was built anywhere outside of Germany - indeed shortage of manpower meant they couldn’t use all their plant tools they had nicked when they invaded countries . Iirc french factories only made transport and communication liaison aircraft, not front line stuff.
There were masses of gnome Rhône 9 cylinder engines of low power that were used in rear echelon equipment like seaplanes.


Sorry ...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.900


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
You’ve lost me there, my french is rusty but surely 1946 was after the fighting had finished ?
I agree that french factories were probably building stuff after the war had ended :o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
backrow wrote:
You’ve lost me there, my french is rusty but surely 1946 was after the fighting had finished ?
I agree that french factories were probably building stuff after the war had ended :o

these were built in france (and captured there).

Used after the war by Normandie/Niemen.
Who hated them having fought them on the russian front.
and because the french workers had done their best to leave hidden defects ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2020 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Laurent wrote:
backrow wrote:
You’ve lost me there, my french is rusty but surely 1946 was after the fighting had finished ?
I agree that french factories were probably building stuff after the war had ended :o

these were built in france (and captured there).

Used after the war by Normandie/Niemen.
Who hated them having fought them on the russian front.
and because the french workers had done their best to leave hidden defects ...


So you made 70 German craft , mostly after the fighting had finished, and they had defects.
Would have quiet about that tbf

I will concede (which being French, you should understand) and agree that it does indeed look like a french factory did indeed make a front line fighter during the war, I did not know this :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 8:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


I think that was more a side benefit - was more to do with us and Japan didn’t have inline engines that were anything like as good as British or German in lines. Fw190 mostly had a radial initially just so it wouldn’t compete with the inline 609 used in a me 109&110. Radials had to have armoured bits too as their fans were right at the front in the cowling, this was one thing the 190 pioneered it seems from Reading up on it just now.

Like most things it was a trade off between power, availability , weight, dimensions etc. The thunderbolt , Corsair and hellcat were all designed around the big twin wasp engine, hence their large sizes. Americans also not really fussed about making their planes small, who would have thought !

Fast forward today though and I don’t think any modern prop combustion engine craft use any radials, all inline opposed flat jobs, with aerodynamics a key thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... namics.pdf

Has mustang as best aerodynamic, then spit 9, then fw190a8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
More pictures !!!

The weird bucket

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
without googling i'd say Defiant, Dornier Pfiel, and that Blihm und Voss recon protype whose name and number escape me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


I think that was more a side benefit - was more to do with us and Japan didn’t have inline engines that were anything like as good as British or German in lines. Fw190 mostly had a radial initially just so it wouldn’t compete with the inline 609 used in a me 109&110. Radials had to have armoured bits too as their fans were right at the front in the cowling, this was one thing the 190 pioneered it seems from Reading up on it just now.

Like most things it was a trade off between power, availability , weight, dimensions etc. The thunderbolt , Corsair and hellcat were all designed around the big twin wasp engine, hence their large sizes. Americans also not really fussed about making their planes small, who would have thought !



Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire. Around this time the US also had the most advance inline engines available, the Curtis d12, which had a massive influence on the later RR kestrel and merlin. The Japanese didn’t have any decent inlines but nothing stopped them from license producing one, as they did with radials such as wright cyclones, P and W hornets and Bristol Jupiter. Off course they did this with the later db601

The FW190 had armour in its cowling, AFAIA, not because of its engine cooling fan (and I can’t think of any other aircraft that used one) but because it had an annular oil radiator in front the engine. Getting a hole in your fan is far preferable to getting one in your radiator.

This is a really good channel for anyone interested in the design and technical aspects of piston engined fighters

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg



Quote:
Fast forward today though and I don’t think any modern prop combustion engine craft use any radials, all inline opposed flat jobs, with aerodynamics a key thing.


I really doubt that. If you’re a light aircraft manufacturer looking to fit your plane with a piston engine of around 350-400hp there is not much choice. A lycoming or continental flat 6 , or a m14 9 cylinder radial from Russia. Both lycoming and continental have been making boxer style engines since the 1930’s while I think the m14 can also trace its origin back to then. At the speeds these aircraft are flying and the ease with which you can streamline a radial, it seems unlikely that the radial’s large frontal area would be a problem. As you might be aware the piston engine world record holder care bear is powered by a radial, iiirc from the hub of a connie. And the duplex cyclone does have a massive frontal area; it was also developed as an engine for large bombers during WW2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17415
Location: balbriggan
Greg's channel is Excellent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


I think that was more a side benefit - was more to do with us and Japan didn’t have inline engines that were anything like as good as British or German in lines. Fw190 mostly had a radial initially just so it wouldn’t compete with the inline 609 used in a me 109&110. Radials had to have armoured bits too as their fans were right at the front in the cowling, this was one thing the 190 pioneered it seems from Reading up on it just now.

Like most things it was a trade off between power, availability , weight, dimensions etc. The thunderbolt , Corsair and hellcat were all designed around the big twin wasp engine, hence their large sizes. Americans also not really fussed about making their planes small, who would have thought !



Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire. Around this time the US also had the most advance inline engines available, the Curtis d12, which had a massive influence on the later RR kestrel and merlin. The Japanese didn’t have any decent inlines but nothing stopped them from license producing one, as they did with radials such as wright cyclones, P and W hornets and Bristol Jupiter. Off course they did this with the later db601

The FW190 had armour in its cowling, AFAIA, not because of its engine cooling fan (and I can’t think of any other aircraft that used one) but because it had an annular oil radiator in front the engine. Getting a hole in your fan is far preferable to getting one in your radiator.

This is a really good channel for anyone interested in the design and technical aspects of piston engined fighters

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg



Quote:
Fast forward today though and I don’t think any modern prop combustion engine craft use any radials, all inline opposed flat jobs, with aerodynamics a key thing.


I really doubt that. If you’re a light aircraft manufacturer looking to fit your plane with a piston engine of around 350-400hp there is not much choice. A lycoming or continental flat 6 , or a m14 9 cylinder radial from Russia. Both lycoming and continental have been making boxer style engines since the 1930’s while I think the m14 can also trace its origin back to then. At the speeds these aircraft are flying and the ease with which you can streamline a radial, it seems unlikely that the radial’s large frontal area would be a problem. As you might be aware the piston engine world record holder care bear is powered by a radial, iiirc from the hub of a connie. And the duplex cyclone does have a massive frontal area; it was also developed as an engine for large bombers during WW2


It was ‘Rare bear’ and record is now held by a mustang I think .
Let’s just agree to disagree then, you really don’t think aerodynamics play a part in engine choice ??m
Aa fire wasn’t really considered in 20’s and 30’s so might have been an issue on seaborne maintenance , but AA only got serious consideration on ships when prince of wales got sunk
Nearer to ww2 it’s still true that the US was lagging on inline engine tech , and with their radials so good and powerful and light it wasn’t really a problem or case of ‘which was better’

BUT there was one plane, forget which right now, but whose performance and thirst got worse when it was fitted with more powerful radial wasps, because it just wasn’t as aerodynamic. Will check to see which one :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Nope, can’t find it right now , soz

Altitude was another factor -naval planes didn’t need to fly as high, and needed to be stronger so were heavier planes than pure land ones ; this suited radials better due to cooling and being nearer to ground fire as you say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
backrow wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


I think that was more a side benefit - was more to do with us and Japan didn’t have inline engines that were anything like as good as British or German in lines. Fw190 mostly had a radial initially just so it wouldn’t compete with the inline 609 used in a me 109&110. Radials had to have armoured bits too as their fans were right at the front in the cowling, this was one thing the 190 pioneered it seems from Reading up on it just now.

Like most things it was a trade off between power, availability , weight, dimensions etc. The thunderbolt , Corsair and hellcat were all designed around the big twin wasp engine, hence their large sizes. Americans also not really fussed about making their planes small, who would have thought !



Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire. Around this time the US also had the most advance inline engines available, the Curtis d12, which had a massive influence on the later RR kestrel and merlin. The Japanese didn’t have any decent inlines but nothing stopped them from license producing one, as they did with radials such as wright cyclones, P and W hornets and Bristol Jupiter. Off course they did this with the later db601

The FW190 had armour in its cowling, AFAIA, not because of its engine cooling fan (and I can’t think of any other aircraft that used one) but because it had an annular oil radiator in front the engine. Getting a hole in your fan is far preferable to getting one in your radiator.

This is a really good channel for anyone interested in the design and technical aspects of piston engined fighters

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg



Quote:
Fast forward today though and I don’t think any modern prop combustion engine craft use any radials, all inline opposed flat jobs, with aerodynamics a key thing.


I really doubt that. If you’re a light aircraft manufacturer looking to fit your plane with a piston engine of around 350-400hp there is not much choice. A lycoming or continental flat 6 , or a m14 9 cylinder radial from Russia. Both lycoming and continental have been making boxer style engines since the 1930’s while I think the m14 can also trace its origin back to then. At the speeds these aircraft are flying and the ease with which you can streamline a radial, it seems unlikely that the radial’s large frontal area would be a problem. As you might be aware the piston engine world record holder care bear is powered by a radial, iiirc from the hub of a connie. And the duplex cyclone does have a massive frontal area; it was also developed as an engine for large bombers during WW2


It was ‘Rare bear’ and record is now held by a mustang I think .
Let’s just agree to disagree then, you really don’t think aerodynamics play a part in engine choice ??m
Aa fire wasn’t really considered in 20’s and 30’s so might have been an issue on seaborne maintenance , but AA only got serious consideration on ships when prince of wales got sunk
Nearer to ww2 it’s still true that the US was lagging on inline engine tech , and with their radials so good and powerful and light it wasn’t really a problem or case of ‘which was better’

BUT there was one plane, forget which right now, but whose performance and thirst got worse when it was fitted with more powerful radial wasps, because it just wasn’t as aerodynamic. Will check to see which one :)



Care bare lol, I’ll put that down as a typo, still the official record holder according to a quick Google :P

AA fire as in any gunfire directed at an aircraft, and this was certainly an issue in the 20’s and 30’s. The US navy standardised on radial engines for two main reasons 1 reduced vulnerability to gunfire and 2 increased simplicity. This isn’t my opinion; the navy clearly stated their reasons at the time. And this was despite of the Curtiss d12, a powerful and the most advance v12 aircraft engine at that time being available. America also led the world in aerodynamics through NACA, and it was their cowling for radials introduced in 1927 that largely negated the radials frontal area disadvantage.

Obviously aerodynamics are important, but if you are designing a modern piston engine plane and you are looking for an engine between say 300 to 400hp there isn’t really much of a choice, you choose one of the America boxers or the Russian radial. As for the reason why lycoming and continental selected the boxer layout back in the 30’s, I’m sure a relatively small frontal played a part, but so too having a short crankshaft, easier air cooling and greater smoothness than a straight engine. If aerodynamics was the overriding concern i suppose they would have gone for water cooled straight. Anyway the radial v inline debate is something that ended when the jet engine was invented. Piston engines just aren’t really important in aviation and are becoming less and less so, especially petrol ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17071
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image
Quote:
After Pearl Harbor, a Nebraska farm boy named Ben Kuroki volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Corps. He could not have been more American: born in the breadbasket of America, one of ten children, growing up in a small town of with a population of about 500, vice-president of his high school senior class. His parents had come to the United States from Japan, started a family, and settled into a happy life in their adopted country. Outraged as an American when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Ben Kuroki and his brother Fred enlisted in the U.S. Army.

Kuroki somehow slipped through the filter that placed all Japanese American enlistees in segregated units and he became a gunner in a B-24 squadron based in Europe. He served with distinction and completed 30 combat missions, more than the standard full tour of 25. He returned to the United States for rest and recuperation, and as a war hero made appearances to engender support for the war. In particular, he was toured through the Japanese American incarceration camps to garner support and recruitment of other Japanese Americans to fight. He quickly found himself at the center of a firestorm of controversy—exploited by the government and distrusted by his fellow Japanese Americans wrongfully imprisoned in camps. Kuroki fiercely fought for his country and wanted to be seen as every other American in uniform doing his duty. But his Japanese heritage placed him in the complex duality of American hero and “suspect citizen.”


U.S. Army Air Force technical sergeant Ben Kuroki, who served in the Europe and Pacific theaters during World War II. (San Diego Air & Space Museum)
His dedication undeterred by this circumstance, Kuroki returned to the fight by serving another full tour of duty as a B-29 gunner in the Pacific. He was the only Japanese American to serve in air combat in the Pacific, and one of very few soldiers at all to have fought in both the European and Pacific theaters. He completed a total of 58 combat missions and was awarded three Distinguished Flying Crosses and the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters. After the war, Kuroki did a series of speaking tours addressing issues of racial injustice, funded with his own savings and small donations. When asked about his experience, Kuroki remarked, “I had to fight like hell for the right to fight for my own country.”

Ben Kuroki was an American hero by any measure, and his experiences tell us much about World War II air combat. But what makes his story truly important for us to know today is the powerful example it provides that we are all individuals that make up this great nation. No one should be judged by generalization, and no one should walk in fear of recrimination based on unfounded perceptions of a group to which they belong. If we can respect each other as individuals, then we become an unstoppable collective force. Ben Kuroki showed us being American was who he was and what he stood for in spite of other’s attempts to label him or make assumptions based on his ethnic heritage. But he also showed us we are a better America for embracing people of all backgrounds, especially under the most arduous of circumstances. As we observe the 75th anniversary of VE-Day this month, as well as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, let’s remember what Ben Kuroki did for our country in World War II, and what his inspiration can mean for us today.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/ai ... M5NjUyOQS2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The French built the Storch and used them in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_ ... production

@backrow , wasn't the radial preferred over the inline because they didn't have a vulnerable coolant system? the US and Japanese carrier fleet was all radial .


I think that was more a side benefit - was more to do with us and Japan didn’t have inline engines that were anything like as good as British or German in lines. Fw190 mostly had a radial initially just so it wouldn’t compete with the inline 609 used in a me 109&110. Radials had to have armoured bits too as their fans were right at the front in the cowling, this was one thing the 190 pioneered it seems from Reading up on it just now.

Like most things it was a trade off between power, availability , weight, dimensions etc. The thunderbolt , Corsair and hellcat were all designed around the big twin wasp engine, hence their large sizes. Americans also not really fussed about making their planes small, who would have thought !



Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire. Around this time the US also had the most advance inline engines available, the Curtis d12, which had a massive influence on the later RR kestrel and merlin. The Japanese didn’t have any decent inlines but nothing stopped them from license producing one, as they did with radials such as wright cyclones, P and W hornets and Bristol Jupiter. Off course they did this with the later db601

The FW190 had armour in its cowling, AFAIA, not because of its engine cooling fan (and I can’t think of any other aircraft that used one) but because it had an annular oil radiator in front the engine. Getting a hole in your fan is far preferable to getting one in your radiator.

This is a really good channel for anyone interested in the design and technical aspects of piston engined fighters

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg



Quote:
Fast forward today though and I don’t think any modern prop combustion engine craft use any radials, all inline opposed flat jobs, with aerodynamics a key thing.


I really doubt that. If you’re a light aircraft manufacturer looking to fit your plane with a piston engine of around 350-400hp there is not much choice. A lycoming or continental flat 6 , or a m14 9 cylinder radial from Russia. Both lycoming and continental have been making boxer style engines since the 1930’s while I think the m14 can also trace its origin back to then. At the speeds these aircraft are flying and the ease with which you can streamline a radial, it seems unlikely that the radial’s large frontal area would be a problem. As you might be aware the piston engine world record holder care bear is powered by a radial, iiirc from the hub of a connie. And the duplex cyclone does have a massive frontal area; it was also developed as an engine for large bombers during WW2


It was ‘Rare bear’ and record is now held by a mustang I think .
Let’s just agree to disagree then, you really don’t think aerodynamics play a part in engine choice ??m
Aa fire wasn’t really considered in 20’s and 30’s so might have been an issue on seaborne maintenance , but AA only got serious consideration on ships when prince of wales got sunk
Nearer to ww2 it’s still true that the US was lagging on inline engine tech , and with their radials so good and powerful and light it wasn’t really a problem or case of ‘which was better’

BUT there was one plane, forget which right now, but whose performance and thirst got worse when it was fitted with more powerful radial wasps, because it just wasn’t as aerodynamic. Will check to see which one :)



Care bare lol, I’ll put that down as a typo, still the official record holder according to a quick Google :P

AA fire as in any gunfire directed at an aircraft, and this was certainly an issue in the 20’s and 30’s. The US navy standardised on radial engines for two main reasons 1 reduced vulnerability to gunfire and 2 increased simplicity. This isn’t my opinion; the navy clearly stated their reasons at the time. And this was despite of the Curtiss d12, a powerful and the most advance v12 aircraft engine at that time being available. America also led the world in aerodynamics through NACA, and it was their cowling for radials introduced in 1927 that largely negated the radials frontal area disadvantage.

Obviously aerodynamics are important, but if you are designing a modern piston engine plane and you are looking for an engine between say 300 to 400hp there isn’t really much of a choice, you choose one of the America boxers or the Russian radial. As for the reason why lycoming and continental selected the boxer layout back in the 30’s, I’m sure a relatively small frontal played a part, but so too having a short crankshaft, easier air cooling and greater smoothness than a straight engine. If aerodynamics was the overriding concern i suppose they would have gone for water cooled straight. Anyway the radial v inline debate is something that ended when the jet engine was invented. Piston engines just aren’t really important in aviation and are becoming less and less so, especially petrol ones.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_(aircraft)

Record holder but not official as didn’t beat rare bear by more the one percent , which seems daft to me

Can you back up the AA gunfire request in the 1920’s thing please as I have never heard this, can’t see anything on this myself when searching, and until late 30’s the doctrine in RAF and Germany was very much still Doret’s “The bomber will always get through” - see as the US badly lagged in arms race up until their belated entry into WW2 I find it hard to agree they were are the forefront of knowing combat survival differences between engine types.

US led the world in aerodynamics at the time ? Engines ?Again, that’s a no from me - no absolute records since 1923 until post ww2 on piston engines, Hughes had a landcraft record for a while that was way shorter than the seaplane record , and no ‘most powerful’ records either from what I can see.

What I can agree on absolutely, is the ‘easy to maintain’ bit - isolationaoist US congress between the Wars was obsessed by cost, and the cheaper radials that were reliable , good power to weight , were ideal. When they had aircraft as un-aerodynamic as biplanes, then differences between radial or inline are more moot point - but once over say 300mph, the frontal area thing was very important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 8:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21210
Spitfire mk1 - service 1938 - inline engine 1030hp - speed 362mph
Hawk p36a - same year, 20 hp more, radial - speed 313mph
Buffalo, same year , 1200hp radial - 321 mph
Wildcat, 1940, 1200hp radial - 331 mph (I’ve seen 318 shown as well)

Hurricane ii from 1940 could do 342mph and that was an old design by then.


Sorry but I’m still not convinced that US 1930’s engine choices were anything other than to do with ease of making (inline requires more exact manufacture I’ve read), ease of maintenance, good cooling at low altitude, and cheap cost. I think you’ve been Red herringed about AA safety, the most famous ground attack aircraft had inlines not radials (il2, Stuka)
Japan also used radials for much the same reasons.

And sorry but you’ve not convinced me at all that USA led the way on aerodynamics until they made the mustang, by which time they had lots of wartime data to study. They made sheds in the thirties , slower than Italian biplanes ! (Cr42 fiat at 323mph, oh and in a version that had the inline DB601 engine)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 572
backrow wrote:
Spitfire mk1 - service 1938 - inline engine 1030hp - speed 362mph
Hawk p36a - same year, 20 hp more, radial - speed 313mph
Buffalo, same year , 1200hp radial - 321 mph
Wildcat, 1940, 1200hp radial - 331 mph (I’ve seen 318 shown as well)

Hurricane ii from 1940 could do 342mph and that was an old design by then.


Sorry but I’m still not convinced that US 1930’s engine choices were anything other than to do with ease of making (inline requires more exact manufacture I’ve read), ease of maintenance, good cooling at low altitude, and cheap cost. I think you’ve been Red herringed about AA safety, the most famous ground attack aircraft had inlines not radials (il2, Stuka)
Japan also used radials for much the same reasons.

And sorry but you’ve not convinced me at all that USA led the way on aerodynamics until they made the mustang, by which time they had lots of wartime data to study. They made sheds in the thirties , slower than Italian biplanes ! (Cr42 fiat at 323mph, oh and in a version that had the inline DB601 engine)


I wonder how much this ridiculous thing influenced US aircraft design ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville ... _Sportster


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm
Posts: 959
I just love this thread!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anagallis_arvensis, Bogbunny, clementinfrance, frankster, Google Adsense [Bot], Gwenno, Leinster in London, lm99, Raggs, rett and 81 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group