Ideas

[Ricky]

Ok guys, we need to think up new avenues to discuss.

Let's see - we've had 'best' strands
and the 'worst' strands
and a few interesting 'what if' strands

Surely we can't have talked ourselves to a standstill?

[simon]

Trying to help, see my new thread!

[Ricky]

Seen it - now racking my brains...

(fantastic new topic btw)

[B-24WillowRun]

Out of interest why not talk about how airpower changed the way that the war was fought on the ground? We talk a lot about what aircraft was good, bad or what not, but not how they interacted. Ok a little, but that can be expanded.

For instance we touched a little on Paratroops, and why not more? The Germans used them with effectivness in the beginning of the war and the idea had some great promise. The US and English, develped paratroops that did have problums. But even when the US troops dropped all over the place in Normandy they were still helping to confuse the Germans. So any takers?[8D]

[B-24WillowRun]

For thought I am trying to find the reasons for why the B-24 program never changed the engines from the 1200Hp P&W even with all the changes that brought the whieght up.:(

[simon]

Good idea about a Paratroop thread, post the thread and I'll respond at least!

[Romantic Technofreak]

First I thought Ricky was talking about holiday destinations, but then I got it. There are still "strands" we were not talking about:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/aircraft/images/1929/1929-p1716-BPaul-Sidestrand.jpg

Boulton-Paul Sidestrand

http://www.jaapteeuwen.speedlinq.nl/pictures/gallery/boulton%20paul%20p75%20overstrand.jpg

Boulton-Paul Overstrand

Or might I still have misunderstood something?[8)] Credited to my English?

Earnestly, just take your time everybody and you get an idea what to discuss next. And remember any good post takes time.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

For thought I am trying to find the reasons for why the B-24 program never changed the engines from the 1200Hp P&W even with all the changes that brought the whieght up.:(


Or why RAF Bombers seemed to need higher power engines for lower performance?

I mean, look at the Halifax - 1,800 hp Hercules giveing at best the same performace as 1,200hp P + W

Anybody ever heard of someone doing a paper exercise of putting a Hercules or a Merlin on a B-17 or B-24?

[meister]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

First I thought Ricky was talking about holiday destinations, but then I got it. There are still "strands" we were not talking about:

Hi RT
Not everyone knows that the word "Strand" will be interpeted foremost by every German as "Beach" a geographical feature associated with most tourist destinations.
I must express a compliment on your command of the English language.

[B-24WillowRun]

PMN1, I would agree and should look into it or we can talk more. I do like the Halifax, my second favorate bomber, but never thought about the Hp differance. mybe it is just the differances in production. Quality could be it, but the english engines were of good high quallity. but the Halifax was lighter and had less guns then the B-24 and was a poorer range, but payload was nice. Still a thought. [:0]

As for the English engines in B-17s I might have seen a snipit on a website, but I am not shure. try emailing the RAF museum they have helped me out in the past.:)

[Romantic Technofreak]

Thank you, Helmut. Sometimes I cannot help making jokes with the language. But I admit I use a dictionary here (on travels I leave it at home):).

PMN1, you know that I am not at loss for the kind of paper experiment you are looking for. This one for the B-17:

The B-17 running 462 kph with 4 x 1200 = 4800 hp. It´s drag characteristic is 462 / cubic root of 4800 = 462/16.869 = 27,39.
With 4 x 1800 = 7200 hp it runs 27,39x cubic root of 7200 = 27,39 x 19.310 = 528,90 kph.

[GregP]

Hi RT,

The calculations are OK as long as the airframe was designed to go that speed. It COULD be that the design flutter speed is below the new maximum, so the top speed is limited by either power or design, whichever is lower.

For instance, most light aircraft of today have a redline airspeed on the ASI. That is the maximum demonstrated design speed. The airframe itself may well be safe above that speed, but the flutter margins have never been demonstrated beyond that speed. So ... if YOU go faster, you are a test pilot. Keep in mind that the company test pilot did not feel safe going faster!

[Romantic Technofreak]

I see, Greg, but you must consider these 530 kph are for horizontal flying. While sinking or diving, the aircrafts could reach a lot more. The last attacks on London with the He 177 end of August 1944 were executed the following way: they had to reach the absolute ceiling and then make a dive for to reach nearly 800 kph before releasing the bombs. Of course, they could not become intercepted this way (sorry, I cannot quote this).
OK, the He 177 was originally designed as a diver, but the B-17 also had very good flight charateristics. 530 kph surely was nothing for it!

[B-24WillowRun]

With out a lot of thought and digging I would say that the B-17 was not designed to take the added strain from the 1800ph engines. Also with your paper work look at the wieght of the engines and the loads for the wing. I would agree that the strain on the airframe is the big factor. [8D]