Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?
45-Shooter    1/18/2013 9:22:46 PM
Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
Belisarius1234       1/28/2013 11:07:38 AM

Thesis:

I feel that both of these arguments are valid and cannot be taken in isolation.

1. Any plane that is designed for a purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, that it performs another role is valid assessment but can it be the whole?

2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue?

3. If hat plane was unavailable (say due to being required to perform its design role) would another aircraft have fulfilled it?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

I assume by the thesis that you mean that aircraft design intent and aircraft adaptation to fit the actual reality are co-mutual arguments?

That would be true if in the middle of the design process, someone said, “Whoops, we just discovered how we intend the plane to be used, won't work because the end-user has changed his mind, or this new real world example shows that it won't work.

There was an Army helicopter program called the Cheyenne. This bird was phenomenal. It was bells and whistles galore with an HMS aimed auto-cannon and free fire bombardment rockets. It could strafe like a Sturmovik better than a Sturmovik. It was at the time it test flew, the FASTEST helicopter in the world. Looked like the ideal platform for Army aviation.


There was one problem. The Russians about this time deployed something called the ZSU-23-4. By this time, the US was smart enough to war-game simulate with analog systems how the new Russian four barrel AAA system would work against US aircraft. It came as a shock that the little flak-tank was deadly enough to make dive bombing almost suicide for US jet fighter bombers. The Cheyenne, when tested in the same simulations had no chance at all. It had to get to close and fly right into the ZSU-23-4's optimum kill-envelope.

Then someone on the US side realized that the Russians weren't stupid. The Russians must have war-gamed the Cheyenne. The Russians had designed the ZSU-23-4 specifically to kill something like the Cheyenne, but made the mistake of first deployment.

The Cheyenne was canceled because it was designed so wrong that there was no way to salvage the bird. The US, instead, changed the way attack helos were to be used. The US developed special stand-off missiles (HELLFIRE) that could kill ZSU-23s out of the flak-tank's effective gun range. The APACHE was born as a hovering missile launch platform that could hide in dead ground and among trees as a flying artillery piece.

That example shows the INTENT half of an aircraft design process done correctly.

[next post]

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/28/2013 11:27:11 AM
No I meant that both intent and practice are both valid assessment of an aircraft, an aircraft whose original role dispears because of changes to situation cannot be judged as it
a/ never performed the designed role  
b/ never had chance to perform another role
 
so basically it can be ignored (unless you take into account leasons learned which is a different matter)
 
What I mean was you can judge an aircraft on what it was intended to do and what it actually did, both make up its history and both are valid, and both should be considered
 
if it failed in both then its a failure, if it succeeded in both then its a success. The difficulty is when it failed on one and succeeded on the other, ie it was a success but not in its intended role, then is it valid to say it was a failure? i would say no, however can it be argued that is was a success? now i would have to say it would depend on the role it was successful in andhow successful it was but it would be possible
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Wait for it...   1/28/2013 11:37:49 AM

Thesis:


I feel that both of these arguments are valid and cannot be taken in isolation.

1. Any plane that is designed for a purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, that it performs another role is valid assessment but can it be the whole?

2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue?

3. If hat plane was unavailable (say due to being required to perform its design role) would another aircraft have fulfilled it?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


Answers to questions


  1. The intent is what the aircraft must meet as the first criterion. You cannot mix the desired aircraft characteristics (assuming you solve the technical and physical limitations imposed by your science and physics) without knowing what exactly you want the aircraft to do. That is engineering common sense.


Let's try the cargo plane as an example. (Bomber versus airliner)


  1. If the plane is supposed to carry people, then you want the main wingspar at the BOTTOM of the fuselage. The wing is a single point bridge load for the cigar that is the fuselage. That makes it easy to put the distributed load along the length of the wing above the wing control bend moment and yaw shove loads for the pilot.

  2. If the plane is supposed to carry bombs? A bomb is about the heaviest most concentrated piece of mass a plane can carry. You want that load UNDER the wing, or immediately before and after it as a pendulum load as close to the center of mass and center of gravity on the aircraft as you can manage. STRENGTH of airframe versus weight demands this. It's simpler to design a bomb shackle system that hangs from the main strength member of the aircraft (fuselage spine spar off a wing or the wing spar itself, than it is to hang the bomb shackle off the FUSELAGE ROOF. An added advantage is that under the wing, you can have LONG bomb bays with LONG skinny bombs if you design the aircraft properly.

    Look:

    ... http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3147/2764976805_39893e14cc_z.jpg" name="graphics1" align="BOTTOM" border="0" height="426" vspace="48" width="640" alt="" />

  3. WRONG.

    ... http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/museum/IWMDuxford/Hangar1/800/images/081%20Avro%20Lancaster%20Bomb%20Bay.jpg" name="graphics2" align="BOTTOM" border="0" height="423" vspace="21" width="573" alt="" />

    ...

  4. RIGHT.

(next post)

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Wait for it...   1/28/2013 12:15:47 PM

Thesis:

I feel that both of these arguments are valid and cannot be taken in isolation.

1. Any plane that is designed for a purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, that it performs another role is valid assessment but can it be the whole?

2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue?

3. If hat plane was unavailable (say due to being required to perform its design role) would another aircraft have fulfilled it?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

 
As we have answered one, (1) the plane must at least fit its role the most efficiently it can, meaning in the bomber example, that a bomber must be able to carry bombs efficiently a set distance and drop them, which is why the JU-288 was better designed as a bomber than the B-17 to do the same exact thing (same bomb-loads on half the engines, crew, and 2/3 fuel for the same range).
 
As we have answered two (2), At least with examples like the XB-70 and the Cheyenne, the Americans learned to force the Russians to invest, design, and fast deploy counter systems that were ultimately colossal wastes of time and money to the Russians when the Russians saw the Americans not deploy what the reds expected. The ultimate US cancelled program, Star Wars collapsed the Russian strategic rocket forces as the Russians tried to design rockets that could survive a (fictional) gamma ray laser. That put their strategic rocket program into the toilet until 2040. Meanwhile the US improved TRIDENT to the point where it can't be stopped. OOPSIE.
 
So that leaves three (3).
 
Let's talk about two planes, the Grumman Avenger, and the Curtiss Helldiver. The Curtiss plane was supposed to be the replacement for the Heinemann designed miracle-plane, the Douglass Dauntlass. The Helldiver was a DISASTER. It was a pilot-killer that earned the nickname Son of a b-tch, second class. (SB2C) The Navy deployed it, anyway.  They instantly regretted it. Expensive to make, inaccurate as a dive-bomber, and almost impossible to fly; if the gunner's aft canopy was slid to the open position, it was one of the MANY reasons Curtiss Aircraft no longer exists. It was a piece of JUNK        
 
Grumman's TBF Avenger had its own problems. The crappy Wright Cyclone R-2600-20 radial (Curtiss-Wright POS engine natch) being one of its main ones. Damned thing liked to spray oil and fog up the pilot's windscreen with the ejecta. But it could DIVE BOMB! Not as well as the Dauntless, but those were wearing out and not being replaced after 1943. (Stupid Navy decisions delayed the Douglass follow-on.)
 
So, since the Helldiver couldn't dive-bomb, it was used to scout, and the Avenger did the dive-bombing until enough Avengers were made to scout as well. The Helldiver was rapidly retired, postwar, while the Avenger went on to grow a radar and become the first Navy AWACs, COD plane, and dedicated ASW hunter.      
 
Remarkable plane, the Avenger. Even with its crappy engine, it was the finest carrier plane of the second world war. It did so many things well. Never gets the respect it deserves.    
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 2:15:58 PM

Radio-controlled Navy developed semi-active radar homing glide bomb. Max effective-range approximately 18000-25000 meters. Impact speed varied with release height but 200 m/s was the expected HORIZONTAL impact speed.  Was USED in 1945 to sink and damage Japanese ships in a CLUTTERED signal return environment. Was designed as a glide bomb around a conventional 1000 pounder by NISTI. Delivered to target either by Avengers or modified Liberators You forgot PBY Catalinas. as launch platforms and target illuminators. BOMB self-steered in  a two axis left right up down signal chase logic similar to the one used on FIDO. Accuracy in WAR 25% hits or betterCONFIRMED.      Let me count the ways... In which you have screwed the pooch as we used to say;
1. It was not Semi-active homing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_(guided_bomb)link />2. Max effective range was at least >32,000 meters! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_(guided_bomb) 3." target="_blank">link It did not work well, if at all in a cluttered environment. See pages 33-41-51-156-356-435, and 27 to 88 of "Principles of Naval Weapons Systems" edited by David R. Frieden, LtCdr, Naval Institute Press, as used in official Naval ROTC and Accadamy classes. 4. It was not designed around a "Conventional" 1,000 pound bomb, but a "Semi-Armor Piercing" Bomb. Refferances in both Wiki and the Book above. 5. It did not require "Target Illumination" just a display and switch box in the launching AC. 6. The hit Percentage was NEVER "CONFIRMED"!
Now what were you asking, Stuart?
  WOW! only SIX major mistakes and that WO doing more than 10 minutes worth of research.
Be CAREFUL what you ask. This is NOT the Douglass twin-engine plane that failed because the Continental LC IC hyper-engine intended for it did not work I never said it was.
Satisfied? You are not the expert here. Emmenently! You have demonstrated a complete lack of working knowledge that even my feeble mind was able to recall from classes I taught so long ago.
B.
Thank you for responding.
S.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:01:35 PM

Thesis: I feel that both of these arguments are valid and cannot be taken in isolation.

Fair enough.
1. Any plane that is designed for a purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, Yes, as long as alowance is made for changing environment during it's life time. that it performs another role is valid assessment but can it be the whole? No, both parts of the equasion are required for true assessment.
2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue? This is a faulty assumtion! No design team in, or after WW-II "Knew" that the design would "Fail" and it was not until long after the B-52 that they made the choises that you use to indicate that the mission changed. It's like that 80% Fail number you toss around. It was a factiod tossed out by the Navy in the "Our jets can shoot down the B-36". When it WAS tested, it was shown to be completely false. Just like claims that Mach-II jets would make the B-52 helpless over North Viet Nam. Yes they lost some planes, but if you ever saw the strike pics, you would know the truth of the matter and why it struck such fear and out right terror into all in it's path! 3. If hat plane was unavailable (say due to being required to perform its design role) would another aircraft have fulfilled it? This is certainly a valid question, but it requires more information to make a valid choice and answer. I assume by the thesis that you mean that aircraft design intent and aircraft adaptation to fit the actual reality are co-mutual arguments? -No.  Intent at the time of design is always several steps behind history and change by the time the plane gets into service.

That would be true if in the middle of the design process, someone said, “Whoops, we just discovered how we intend the plane to be used, won't work. That would be true, if it actually applied to the system in fact.

There was an Army helicopter program called the Cheyenne. I know it well! It was a beautiful bird and full of promis. This bird was phenomenal. It was bells and whistles galore with an The worlds FIRST HMS! aimed auto-cannon and rockets. It could fire/launch guided missiles too! It was the FASTEST helicopter in the world. Also true! Looked like the ideal platform for Army aviation. I truly believe that it was, if they could fix the remaining bugs, BUT it was killed by Interservice fighting because the USAF did not want to give up the money it represented in the over all budget! I do know all about it. 
There was one problem. The Russians about this time deployed something called the ZSU-23-4. This was not a problem at all as the fix was already in hand and the super fix was waiting in the wings! The first Gen ATGM had enough range to make the ZSU totally in-effective Vs Helos and the "Enhansed Range Missile was already done with T&E! By this time, the US was smart enough to war-game simulate with analog systems Not true, we did NOT War Game the ZSU to any great extent untill after the October War in the Middle East. I know about that too from first hand experiance. It came as a shock that the little flak-tank was deadly enough to make dive bombing almost suicide for US jet fighter bombers. The Cheyenne, when tested in the same simulations had no chance at all. Not true at all! The Cheyenne did not use "Dive Bombing Tactics at all. It and it's "Ridged Rotar was designed to fky "Nap-of-the-Earth" which when combined with the TOW Missile made the little Flack Tank completely ir-realivant under most conditions.

Then someone on the US side realized that the Russians weren't stupid. The Russians must have war-gamed the Cheyenne.

Even cursory parusal of the Red'scold war documents shows this to be wrong! It's true capacity was a huge shock to them and they then went about making many changes to the ZSU. This was all the stuff inside that can not be seen, but can be detected by Elint

 

I like a reasoned debate like this.
45-S.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:03:23 PM


No I meant that both intent and practice are both valid assessment of an aircraft, an aircraft whose original role dispears because of changes to situation cannot be judged as it
a/ never performed the designed role  
b/ never had chance to perform another role
so basically it can be ignored (unless you take into account leasons learned which is a different matter)
What I mean was you can judge an aircraft on what it was intended to do and what it actually did, both make up its history and both are valid, and both should be considered

if it failed in both then its a failure, if it succeeded in both then its a success. The difficulty is when it failed on one and succeeded on the other, ie it was a success but not in its intended role, then is it valid to say it was a failure? i would say no, however can it be argued that is was a success? now i would have to say it would depend on the role it was successful in andhow successful it was but it would be possible
 

 
Great piece of logic here!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:15:43 PM

Thesis:

1. Any plane that is designed for a
purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, that it
performs another role is valid assessment but can it be the whole?

Good so far!

2. If a design team knew that a plane
would fail in its design role would they continue?

Serrious failure here! Why would any designer continue IF he knew it would fail?

Answers to questions

  1. The intent is what the aircraft
    must meet as the first criterion. Yes! You cannot mix the desired
    aircraft characteristics Wrong! (assuming you solve the technical and
    physical limitations imposed by your science and physics) without
    knowing what exactly you want the aircraft to do. That is
    engineering common sense.

  2. Let's try the cargo plane as an
    example. (Bomber versus airliner)   

  3. If the plane is supposed to carry
    people, then you want the main wingspar at the BOTTOM of the
    fuselage. The wing is a single point bridge load for the cigar that
    is the fuselage. That makes it easy to put the distributed load
    along the length of the wing above the wing control bend moment and
    yaw shove loads for the pilot. Again great so far.






     

If the plane is supposed to carry
bombs? A bomb is about the heaviest most concentrated piece of mass
a plane can carry. Fair enough. You want that load UNDER OR in the wing as between the spars. the wing, or immediately before and after it No, experiance has shown this to be the wrong choice IF it can be avoided! as a pendulum load as close to the center of mass and center of gravity on the aircraft as you can manage. True!
STRENGTH of airframe versus weight demands this.Absolutely true and why the B-17/24 is stronger than the Lancaster. It's simpler to design a bomb shackle system that hangs from the main strength
member of the aircraft (fuselage spine spar off a wing or the wing
spar itself, than it is to hang the bomb shackle off the FUSELAGE
ROOF. Not really!  An added advantage is that under the wing, you can have LONG
bomb bays with LONG skinny bombs if you design the aircraft properly.
This, as we now know, is a huge mistake! It almost certainly led to the loss of many Lancs when a shakle failed to release it's bomb far from the Center of Balance, most likely on one of the last three racks.


Look:




...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3147/2764976805_39893e14cc_z.jpg" width="640" height="426" />




  1. WRONG.




    ...

    http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/museum/IWMDuxford/Hangar1/800/images/081%20Avro%20Lancaster%20Bomb%20Bay.jpg" width="573" height="423" />




    ...




  2. RIGHT.




(next post)










 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:19:19 PM

  



     

 


Look: Absolutely terrific pics of both planes and ilistrative of the design choices made at their inception.




...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3147/2764976805_39893e14cc_z.jpg" width="640" height="426" />




  1. WRONG.




    ...

    http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/museum/IWMDuxford/Hangar1/800/images/081%20Avro%20Lancaster%20Bomb%20Bay.jpg" width="573" height="423" />




    ...




  2. RIGHT.




(next post)










 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Incompetent, you are, Shooter.   1/28/2013 3:25:25 PM
 
 
The parent weapon was PELICAN.
 
 
[quote]



PB4Y-2B Privateer of VPB-123 equipped to launch BAT missiles (USN).
Note: wing-racks and the lowered position of the radome under the A/C

 

 


Fantastic photograph contributed by Roy Balke
    

BAT - OPERATIONAL USE

In 1944, the definitive BAT finally emerged and its’ first operational use occurred on April 23, 1945 when PB4Y-2B Privateers of Patrol Squadron VPB-109 flew from Palawan in the Philippines - due to mechanical failures, only one BAT was dropped and that was dropped "blind" and missed. However, on April 28, 1945, VPB-109 sank two small Japanese freighters with BAT missiles during an anti-shipping strike in Balikpapan harbor, Borneo. During this strike, another BAT homed on the strongest RADAR return-signal that it received. Sadly, this target was a large oil tank at the Pandansari oil refinery. Normally, the destruction of the Japanese oil supply would be deemed a good thing, but the Navy had been asked NOT to harm the refinery by the Dutch owners who had hoped the refinery could be spared for their own use after the war.

VPB-109 had been the first squadron to be equipped with the BAT, but was followed soon thereafter by VPB-123 and VPB-124 .The war ended in September 1945, but Navy Squadrons had run out of targets long before that time. Though initial results were less than expected (50% accuracy), the majority of BAT failures can be attributed to insufficient training of flight crews & insufficient technical support & repair facilities in the field, and not to the device itself. Post-war testing demonstrated that this device was very accurate

After WWII and without and immediate enemy, post-war Privateer crews had to maintain their proficiency by attacking icebergs in the North Atlantic with Bats. In 1953, an upgraded version of the BAT made its appearance, but was removed from naval inventory soon thereafter. The BAT project produced nearly 3500 weapons, innumerable government patents, & chewed up 8 million man-hours of research effort becoming the Worlds’ first fully-automatic target-seeking smart-bomb. The BAT project cost $700 million (in 2004 dollars) and was exceeded only by the Manhattan Project.
 
[unquote]
 
I admit that I misremembered hit accuracy (50%!!!! not 25%)
 
But I do KNOW my guided missiles, Shooter. Unlike you I am not a LIAR.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics