Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1. In the game, I am planning to use the Blohm & Voss BV 222 flying boats to evacuate injured German soldiers from the Alpenfestung to the Allied port of Trieste.

Since wen are the Alps so high as Himalaya ?
the Blohm & Voss BV 222  service ceiling  is 7300 meter
last time i looked the Alps are much lower that or has this change ?
(even at 4500 meter for cruise speed the BV222 can fly easy over that part of Alps to get to Trieste...)

2. Could the Messerschmitt Me P.1112 be in the flying prototype stage by May 1946?
NOPE, That program start In early 1945 with completion of a Wood Mockup in April 1945, planned first prototype flight  for June 1946.
Here lies the problem "planned" not mean, it will flight on that date, but realistic much later

Oh By the Way,
Messerschmitt had several production sites and Büros near the Alps
like the design department  in Oberammergau and several Small production sites for Me 262.
go for more advance Me 262 Variant or P.1101 who had it prototype completed in April 1945

3. Could the BMW Strahlbomber II (and with it the BMW 018 turbojet engine) be produced from late 1945 onwards to replace the Arado Ar 234 C?

I have No idea how far that Program went at BMW, most literature only mention the design, not the program
Can be that BMW design was only a "Papertiger" collecting dust in archive of RLM

in that case go for Messerschmitt P.1100
it based on Me 262 so it's the production sites can modify by building the Bomber Fuselage instead

Thanks for the answer, it seems you really know your stuff. But I think I need to clarify some things:

About the BV 222: Its not the cruising altitude that is the problem, its the climbrate. You see, in the Alps there isnt enough room to circle and gather altitude slowly (at least not for a BV 222), because at one point you are going to run into a mountain and then we have a problem. Thats why normal Bramos or Jumo 222s aint going to cut it.

I am already planning to have Me 1101 in the game,  great thining about the 1100 tough. Do you have any ideas for the production designation maybe?
Tom A = helicopter fenestron tail rotor page 113

That'll be the Mi-24 prototype that was fitted with a fenestron tail rotor then :)
Most likely, tested in 1975, only one photo published to my knowledge.

Chuck E = aerohydrodynamic research vessel
First, "Chuck" doesn't resemble a Russian location (a transliteration would rather be "Chuk"). Second, that vessel is classified as a watercraft, not as an aircraft (note the NTP assignment is X and not W).
Tom A = helicopter fenestron tail rotor page 113

That'll be the Mi-24 prototype that was fitted with a fenestron tail rotor then :)
Propulsion / Re: Gas Turbine Development Question
« Last post by CaseyKnight on Yesterday at 01:59:47 pm »
I'm posting these replies on behalf of somebody else

red admiral

Propulsive efficiency is related to difference in jet velocity and aircraft velocity. If you're doing 100kts as in the early 1920s a turbojet is a really pants propulsion method. Lots of the work in the 1920s and 30s on gas turbines looked at reducing the jet velocity i.e. turbofans and turboprops. This is what AA Griffith was working on for example to maximise efficiency from a gas turbine. Turbofans and turboprops are heavier and more complicated than single spool turbojets and didn't really work with the technology available in the 20s and 30s.

Whittle was initially interested in turbojets and shaw that they would enable faster higher aircraft; but in the late 20s these faster (400mph+) higher aircraft weren't technically achieveable. For the slower aircraft of the period a turbofan or prop was a better choice. By the time Whittle had his mechanically "simple" turbojet working in the late 30s aircraft design e.g. aerodynamics had almost improved to the point that a turbojet was a good choice for propulsion.
Whittle anticipated a high velocity from his design, do you have any idea what he was expected?


If you have looked at Buckingham's report then read no further. If not, I have noted a couple of things.

He wasn't referring to a gas turbine. His arrangement, what he called an obvious alternative to an airscrew, replaced the propeller with a piston compressor, combustion chamber and propelling nozzle.
Why was this report used almost as a cudgel against those supporting gas-turbine if it wasn't even about them?

From a propulsive efficiency point of view only, both speeds which determine it were very different from subsequent gas turbine applications. His aircraft speed was 250 mph. Whittle's enthusiasm for jet propulsion was for speeds of 500 mph.
By February of 1923, speeds of 232.91 mph were already achieved, by November, 250 mph would be exceeded.  I'm not sure how much Buckingham studied aircraft design and speed records, but that does raise a question.  The fact that Whittle seemed to start his research a few years later explains his interest in higher speeds.  By the end of March 1928, a speed of 300 mph would be exceeded (318.62).

His exhaust velocity was about a mile per second. Turbojet exhausts were less than a third of that.
During the conceptualization & development of gas-turbines in the UK and US, what did we expect in velocities?
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: USN Distributed Lethality
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 12:17:45 pm »
General Atomics received $532,614,821 for manufacture, assembly, inspection, test and checkout of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) delivered onboard CVN 80 aircraft carrier, including installation and checkout spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes.


Ford-Class has 4 catapults @ >$500M.  How many would a CVL have? 

Would a CVL be able to generate the electrical power required for an EMALS systems or would a different CATOBAR solution be necessary?

Two EMALS catapults that require 7.5 MW of prime power each. 
So Zumwalt IPS+ or a scaled-up version of the hybrid
system on LHD-8.
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 11:11:47 am »
CVA-01 studies included Tartar if I recall correctly. So it is also possible they'd carry on with the Cruiser (carrier) studies as they would with Next Generation Destroyers.

Assuming a Q-band Tartar. The next possible steps are:-

Applying NIGS and SIGS technology to an alternative missile that fits the launcher. In essence I-band TIR.

Reducing the size of the successor missile to fit more in the same launcher. Possibly down to Sparrow size or less?

Stretching the size and weight limits for the launcher to cope with CF.299 potentially opening up this launcher to other large and heavy weapons excluded from the standard USN launchers of Tartar

Improvements to the Q-band TIR set and computer to extend range and number of targets intercept-able.
That last opening up for a potential new more potent missile for local area defence aka System C or more likely one of the ruled out earlier options. Which could be ruled in in this scenario.
Designation Systems / Re: Russian/Soviet Navy missiles
« Last post by Ilya A. on Yesterday at 10:44:14 am »
A great post with a table of all Soviet and Russian naval missile systems with all their components and domestic designators (in Russian), and also background information on designation systems:
Propulsion / Re: Maritime Engine types
« Last post by Tzoli on Yesterday at 10:34:15 am »
Question would be, what arrangement to be used on the Yamato preliminaries?
Because you sure need 4 shafts to move 60-70.000 standard tons (lightest being A-140 D with 55.000tons and all diesel) and for max speed I'm not sure two shafts will be enough to go at max rotation.
I'm not an expert in water flow but probably having 3 or 4 shafts in which 2-1 or 2-2 moves at a different speeds are not helping to reach the desired speed.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10