Aircraft of the Republic

[Sachmle]

The kW to mass ratio might be off a bit.(1/9 really? You were lucky to get 1/11 in a twin engine in 1922!)  Max speed computes to around 175 k/h in at service which at this date is ~ 3000 meters. No reliable supercharger yet. Engines have to breath. at MSL to work as rated in those days.

A max altitude for an Albatross V for example was listed as where the engine quit because it choked out. That was usually around 4450 meters.

The HP to lbs ratio might be off a bit. Max speed computes to around 109mph in at service which at this date is ~ 9842ft. No reliable supercharger yet. Engines have to breath. at MSL (Median Sea Level) to work as rated in those days. (I.e. you loose power the higher you go because the engine can't get enough oxygen out of the thinner air at higher altitudes.)

There, imperial'd it for ya.

[Walter]

Not sure what the mods think, but when it comes to incendiary stuff for planes, it is my belief that...

1913: historical 1916 aircrafts => Le Prieur incendiary rockets.
1917: historical 1918 aircrafts => Incendiary rounds.

[Logi]

My belief is guns rounds have little to do with aircraft technology, and rather has to do with gun technology.

For that matter phosphorus rounds were used in 1916, and tracer on aircrafts in 1917.

The HP to lbs ratio might be off a bit. Max speed computes to around 109mph in at service which at this date is ~ 9842ft. No reliable supercharger yet. Engines have to breath. at MSL (Median Sea Level) to work as rated in those days. (I.e. you loose power the higher you go because the engine can't get enough oxygen out of the thinner air at higher altitudes.)

There, imperial'd it for ya.

Thank you. I don't calculate by HP:lb ratio. The mater is how heavy the chassis is, how heavy the engines are, and everything added. I used weights, not ratios.

Each 300hp engine should, at most, weight 1500lb which leaves 4000lb for the plane to redistribute on the structure. And the 2000lb from loaded and empty are perfectly computed for the weaponry and complement etc.

And I do know that you lose power at higher altitudes, I never said it goes 122 mph at the ceiling. That is ridiculous. It is assumed that it is understood it is 122mph at standard altitude and less when it is at a higher altitude.

And if I am reading this right, no.... 109mph is NOT the max speed at MSL.

[damocles]

3000 lbs of engines on a slow 6000 pound loaded airframe made of 1920 metal and wire?

That plane will have skin I can poke my finger through and it will come apart from the torque loads I see in my minds eye.. Even the metal skinned German fighters of the era used 90 % wood and open truss construction for the airframe because they knew it worled.

The designers were just not comfortable with metal until they could progressively play with it, like we do with composites today. Does anybody here remember what happened to the deHavilland Comet?         

[Walter]

My belief is guns rounds have little to do with aircraft technology, and rather has to do with gun technology

Yes, I read that incendiary rounds were available before that, but it's more about what a plane can carry and what people at that time think is needed, not what you think with hindsight what's needed. I really think that 20mm is overkill.

Even the metal skinned German fighters of the era used 90 % wood and open truss construction for the airframe because they knew it worled.

From what I read, the Junkers J 1 is all metal, not just metal skinned. The Breguet 14 used large amounts of metal rather than wood in its structure.

Does anybody here remember what happened to the deHavilland Comet?

Yeah, it mutated into the Nimrod. :)

[Logi]

That plane will have skin I can poke my finger through and it will come apart from the torque loads I see in my minds eye.. Even the metal skinned German fighters of the era used 90 % wood and open truss construction for the airframe because they knew it worked.

Not true, according to you, your idea of skin can poke through then includes all the airplanes of ww1 regardless of metal construction or not.

The designers were just not comfortable with metal until they could progressively play with it, like we do with composites today. Does anybody here remember what happened to the deHavilland Comet?

Also not true. Metal was simply more expensive, but there was a good many designs that used all metal-construction in WW1, such as the J1.

3000 lbs of engines on a slow 6000 pound loaded airframe made of 1920 metal and wire?

The core structure is all-metal, everything else is good-old wood and fabric. And the airframe is by no means slow, many on a high altitude, but at MSL, hardly.

Also, I did say, at most each engine weights 1500lbs. I never said they do weigh that much.


------------------

It might seem absurd to you, but most airplane layouts of ww1 planes that I have looked at, at similar. (Maybe a tad less armed).

[Walter]

Not true, according to you, your idea of skin can poke through then includes all the airplanes of ww1 regardless of metal construction or not.

You might want to read again what he said, especially the "3000 lbs of engines on a slow 6000 pound loaded airframe made of 1920 metal and wire?" (i.e. he thinks that the plane's weight is way too low)

[Logi]

I know, I meant, more airplanes have a large engine weigh compared to the rest of the airframe.


...... or maybe I've been overestimating aircraft engine weights....

[damocles]

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/66967/

Still problem plagued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J_1

It was slow, underpowered, heavy on the controls, and a dog to whip around to face an attacker. For all that it was advanced in its cantilever frame, it used sheet steel, steel as used on electrical transformers is not good stressed skin  metal for fuselage or wing stiffness.

   

[maddox]

Just asking, what is wrong with Wooden Construction whatsoever?

[Logi]

Nothing really, I just like the metal look :P But there is the fact that metal construction does not need the external bracings of wood designs.

I will redesign such that it is a wood construction for comparison.

[Logi]

The plane heavily resembles a bomber now. Weight shifted around for higher speed.

Oh, yea. And I realized I probably heavily overestimated engine weight.

For the Fokker D. VII where weighed 1,543lb empty and had 1 x 160hp Inline Engine. I would have estimated a weight of ~900lb. That would make the engine weight 58% of the total aircraft weight.

Better yet, the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV weighs 1,190lb empty with 1 x 160hp Inline engine. I again, estimate ~900lb engine weight. Results in engine being 75.6% of the total aircraft weight.

Name: Model 1919
Contractor: ???
Type: Heavy Fighter (Biplane now)
Crew: 3 - Pilot, MG Gunner, 20mm Gunner
Length: 38 ft
Winspan: 52 ft
Height: 18 ft

Empty Weight: 5,000 lb
Loaded Weight: 7,000 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 10,000 lb

Powerplant: 2 x Dading 300hp Inline Engine

Maxium Speed: 128 mph
Range: 654 miles (327 miles combat radius)
Rate of Climb: ~736 ft/min
Ceiling: 4000m

Armament: 2 x twin 0.5" (12.7mm) Fixed Forward-Firing MG with 200 rounds each
1 x 20mm Becker (Automatic) Fixed Forward-Firing with 50 Incendiary Rounds - Phosphorous
Payload: None

[Sachmle]

Well, the Mercedes D.III inline 6 engine in the Fokker D.VII weighed ~700lbs dry and the rotory Siemens-Halske Sh.III in the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV weighed only 430lbs.

[Logi]

Huh, I would have expected the weight of 430lb to come from a rotary, not an inline.

[Sachmle]

Huh, I would have expected the weight of 430lb to come from a rotary, not an inline.

the rotory Siemens-Halske Sh.III in the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV weighed only 430lbs.