|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 8:06:33 GMT -6
Was it possible to operate medium range bombers from aircraft carriers? By this I mean that the bombers can both take off and land on the carrier. Say by using something with the size of the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2017 9:25:44 GMT -6
Was it possible to operate medium range bombers from aircraft carriers? By this I mean that the bombers can both take off and land on the carrier. Say by using something with the size of the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano? Takeoff yes, landing no. 16 B-25's took off from the USS Hornet but it was a one way trip, they would drop their bombs on Tokyo, then fly to China and either crash land or land on fields. It was tenuous as the first aircraft did not have the necessary length of take off area so they had to go to full power, sit for a minute to gain complete RPM's, then launch, pulling the wheel back and climbing quickly. Many dropped off the edge of the deck but managed to stay in the air. The later aircraft had it much easier. I don't believe a B-26 could have fit due to its long thin wings. You would have to examine the length of wings for a particular aircraft, engine power then compare it to the length and width of the deck. Here is the complete takeoff procedure for that operation:
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 10:29:56 GMT -6
I see. Thank you for the input. Yeah I can see why even with the size of Shinano, it was still impossible to utilize medium bombers. I guess island airfields really were the only viable means to utilize them safely and effectively. Anything else would cause too much casualties from accidents.
Also what would be the best use of the autogyro? It seems to compete with the float plane for function and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2017 10:58:54 GMT -6
.... Also what would be the best use of the autogyro? It seems to compete with the float plane for function and purpose. Well, the principal merit of the autogyro or gyroplane is its low landing speed which when you need the high speed of level flight, simply disappears. It is not the most efficient system compared to the airplane. The blades on a an autogyro are not powered but freely rotating, which means in the descent, you have no real power control over the descent except for the your main engines. Generally, these kind of aircraft do not have good load capacities so they make poor transports. They do not have high ceilings as the density of air decreases with altitude so that the lift decreases dramatically. This also makes them vulnerable to ground fire. Their best use might be as an ASW search aircraft from battleships and cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 11:58:35 GMT -6
Interesting. Still that role could be covered by floatplanes, and from what I understand floatplanes simply offer a better job at it. Maybe the autogyro could be used by transports and merchant ships? Those are what submarines prefer to target.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 27, 2017 12:25:56 GMT -6
Interesting. Still that role could be covered by floatplanes, and from what I understand floatplanes simply offer a better job at it. Maybe the autogyro could be used by transports and merchant ships? Those are what submarines prefer to target. The floatplane is a better choice for ASW on transports and merchants. It has a better lift capability so it can carry depth charges, it is faster to avoid the submarines guns and it can fly much higher . Just a technical note: In order to maintain a sufficient ratio of tip speed to forward speed, the stall speed of a gyro will rise as the maximum speed of level flight increases. In this case, the low landing speed of the gyro disappears, and that is its main advantage.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 28, 2017 10:45:02 GMT -6
That is indeed interesting. Thanks for the input. By the way, how expensive was it to manufacture and maintain the autogyro? If it was cheaper then that could be a serious advantage over the floatplane. The numbers that could be produced could lessen the disadvantages the autogyro has over the floatplane.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2017 11:19:06 GMT -6
That is indeed interesting. Thanks for the input. By the way, how expensive was it to manufacture and maintain the autogyro? If it was cheaper then that could be a serious advantage over the floatplane. The numbers that could be produced could lessen the disadvantages the autogyro has over the floatplane. Well, with mass production, you could get the costs of production below the helicopter. The Weir W.3 Autogyro of 1936 would cost about 500 Pounds. At the 1936 exchange rate of $4.97 that would be $2485.00 in USD. Based on the inflation rate, that's about 42,592 in 2016 money. Unless you can get sufficient orders from your military to buy the autogyro, the development and production costs would not be worth the effort since its only advantage is short takeoff and landing. Keep in mind, that if I develop JATO tubes, I can launch almost any aircraft off of a short runway easily and they are reusable since they can be dumped upon takeoff. The Ar-334 Blitz bomber used Walther RATO units to takeoff. The US had developed JATO tubes as early as 1941.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 28, 2017 12:28:59 GMT -6
Ouch, no wonder the autgyro was seldom used. It's advantages were not unique enough or great enough to justify their use. Also thank you for telling me about the existence of JATO tubes and similar devices. I just learned about them just now.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 6, 2017 7:04:45 GMT -6
Just read about contra-rotating propeller, my question is what advantages did it offer compared to other kinds of propellers. From what I read like the Boeing XF8B, it was not used because jet planes became the new standard. Assuming that research was done earlier, and the kinks worked out, how effective would it have been?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2017 9:22:30 GMT -6
Just read about contra-rotating propeller, my question is what advantages did it offer compared to other kinds of propellers. From what I read like the Boeing XF8B, it was not used because jet planes became the new standard. Assuming that research was done earlier, and the kinks worked out, how effective would it have been? Here is a good link with diagrams and pictures to help explain it. www.avialogs.com/index.php/avialogs/how-it-works-contra-rotating-propellers.htmlOne of the control issues for pilots with single props was the tail swinging to the right when power is applied. It required the pilot to add right rudder on takeoff to keep the nose pointed straight ahead. The two external forces caused by the rotation of a single prop created control issues as the engine power was decreased and increased, especially during combat. The contra-rotating prop essentially eliminated that.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 6, 2017 11:01:44 GMT -6
I see, better control is certainly a plus. If it weren't for the fact that jet planes were already being developed the use of the contra-rotating prop would have seen more use. Thanks for the link by the way.
Though that got me thinking, from what I have read about the contra-rotating prop, it was mainly used for torpedoes. Was it possible to use this kind of prop for warships?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2017 11:59:59 GMT -6
I see, better control is certainly a plus. If it weren't for the fact that jet planes were already being developed the use of the contra-rotating prop would have seen more use. Thanks for the link by the way. Though that got me thinking, from what I have read about the contra-rotating prop, it was mainly used for torpedoes. Was it possible to use this kind of prop for warships? Absolutely, it works in the air and in the water. But again, the complexity can out way the advantages. Only the simple in war generally works the best. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2092678216303806
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 7, 2017 10:38:10 GMT -6
Thanks for the link. And yeah I can definitely see your point. An increase in some aspect of performance is not worth the risk of mechanical failure and rendering inoperable something as expensive and limited in numbers as warships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2017 11:14:21 GMT -6
Thanks for the link. And yeah I can definitely see your point. An increase in some aspect of performance is not worth the risk of mechanical failure and rendering inoperable something as expensive and limited in numbers as warships. Weapons of war have to achieve a balance between operational effectiveness and reliability. It makes no sense to have an effective weapon if its reliability is less than 60%. The question that weapons designers have to ask is " can a high school student maintain this weapon?" If it requires people with experience and education to maintain it at the O level, which is the level of the carrier maintenance, then the designer has a problem. Contra-rotating props are an excellent idea, but should probably only be used on commercial transports and cruise ships. Torpedoes work well also, but I don't believe they are a good idea for a warship. I could be wrong of course.
|
|