|
hobbesmaster posted:They thought they could get to Indiana. Not actually all that outrageous, the Me 264 supposedly had a range of 9,500 miles.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not actually all that outrageous, the Me 264 supposedly had a range of 9,500 miles. This is frustrating aircraft friends: it depends on what you mean by "range." People use it in two senses: the total distance that a particular aircraft can fly, and how much distance it could cover before turning around and returning to its start point. I try to use the second sense, just because if you know it is 5,500 km from France to New York, you can double that number and get the total flight distance, IE 11,000 km. You kind of have to know what does what in order to pick out one type of range from the other. With the Me 264, it's range was mostly projections, and those projections sometimes used projected engines. The range gets better the higher the engine output, but beyond a certain point, the engines turn into vaporware. According to one of my source books, the Me 264 with a bomb load and the DB 603 engines (same engines as the He 219 and the Me 410) had a range of 11,500 km / 5,750 km - good enough to get to New York City, but not with the 10% reserve the Luftwaffe wanted. With the similarly rare and hot Jumo 213, it could fly 20,000 km / 10,000 km in reconnaissance trim. I'm pretty sure that'd get you Indiana; 7000 km gets you Georgia or Saskatchewan. These might be internal Messerschmitt numbers though, so take with a pinch of salt. The Me 264 wouldn't get those engines, though. The prototype flew with Jumo 211s (engine for the Ju 88) and they were later switched out for BMW 801 radials. Ardeem posted:Is this crazy for Blohm und Voss, or just their SOP as compared to everybody else? TBH it was pretty sensible and middle of the road for them
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not actually all that outrageous, the Me 264 supposedly had a range of 9,500 miles. In addition to it being optimistic, how are they going to make it that far inland unescorted? Never mind making it past Wright Patt at the peak of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
How loving long would a trip to Amerika take on an Amerika Bomber though? I can't imagine it'd be the comfiest of trips on a not-even-turboprop plane
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Some WWII-era prop planes had ridiculous endurance... the Catalina, slow as it was could stay in the air for 24 hours. The Japanese built an experimental twin, the Ki-77, which could fly for 60 hours and cover 18000km at 300km/h cruise speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Some WWII-era prop planes had ridiculous endurance... the Catalina, slow as it was could stay in the air for 24 hours. Extra question: why aren't wings in these planes perpendicular to the fuselage? Better structural integrity? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
It's called a dihedral angle (or just "dihedral") and it increases roll stability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Inversely, downward sloping wings are called anhedral and they increase maneuverability. Here's a fun page to experiment with these effects on folded paper airplanes. Also, not having a right angle between wing and stabilizer helps reduce radar cross section a bit, though this was probably not a factor in a this design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How loving long would a trip to Amerika take on an Amerika Bomber though? I can't imagine it'd be the comfiest of trips on a not-even-turboprop plane I think it would have been torturous. That 20,000 km trip is estimated to be 60 hours. Oh and hope we get pressurization worked out so you don't have to do it in a bulky flight suit 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
It looks like they would follow the time honored tradition of pissing into the wind for restrooms. Might have made for hilarious stories for ships in the atlantic and strange object falling from the sky. 
VanOwen fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I think it would have been torturous. That 20,000 km trip is estimated to be 60 hours. Man, of all people, you'd think the Krauts would know where to put the defensive armaments on a heavy bomber that makes it hard to attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Man, of all people, you'd think the Krauts would know where to put the defensive armaments on a heavy bomber that makes it hard to attack. I imagine they didn't have nearly the weight/volume margin the B-17 designers had to work with, to place more turrets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Lubricating material container? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Lubricating material container? "oil tank" i imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that now that we have aerial refueling, the main limitation on how long a plane can stay in the air is oil consumption, so I can believe it was an even bigger issue in the 1940s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:I imagine they didn't have nearly the weight/volume margin the B-17 designers had to work with, to place more turrets. I wonder sometimes how many people that say, 'if the Germans had developed a 4 engine bomber...' are familiar with the attrition in the 8th Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I remember reading somewhere that now that we have aerial refueling, the main limitation on how long a plane can stay in the air is oil consumption, so I can believe it was an even bigger issue in the 1940s. True of both turbine and piston-engined aircraft. The oil capacity (and consumption) numbers on big round engines is eye-opening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I wonder sometimes how many people that say, 'if the Germans had developed a 4 engine bomber...' are familiar with the attrition in the 8th Air Force. This is a good point by itself; the Germans always got the details of strategic bombing wrong and its limitations, even as the Allies were offering them object lessons on both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I wonder sometimes how many people that say, 'if the Germans had developed a 4 engine bomber...' are familiar with the attrition in the 8th Air Force. Or the people that think if the ME 262 was put into widespread construction earlier that it would have changed the course of the war, forgetting that the allies didn't push jet aircraft because they didn't have to. I'm confident that if suddenly we couldn't match up against German aircraft that the Meteor or the P-80 would have been pushed into service earlier. And then we would have made more of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Those Amerika Bombers would have gotten slaughtered once they reached the east coast and if Germany had somehow managed to hold on until the end of '45, Little Boy would have been dropped on Berlin instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
What kind of radar services/coverage and air patrols/ anti air defense did the East coast have during WW2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:What kind of radar services/coverage and air patrols/ anti air defense did the East coast have during WW2? Well, there was the battle of los angeles
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Those Amerika Bombers would have gotten slaughtered once they reached the east coast and if Germany had somehow managed to hold on until the end of '45, Little Boy would have been dropped on Berlin instead. Good name/post combo Yeah, there is a lot of fuzziness between the various things the Nazis wanted to do, some of them possible, some of them not. Some sort of kraut dolittle raid was imagined, (possible) recon of the western Atlantic (possible, tho I'd get the eastern Atlantic properly recon'd first) hunting ships with guided munitions, (sure why not) disrupting American industry (not possible but clearly a desire), flying to Japan for trade (possible if Nazi communications had not been compromised like they had been.) Oh, and make a proper heavy bomber for attacking British and Soviet industry. Nearly all of these were within the reach of WW2 technology, but yeah, given how the Nazis crippled themselves with strategic bombers, they could probably build one airframe to do some of these things - and they did, it was called the Ju 290 and they only managed 50 from July 1942 to spring 1944. Scenarios where fleets of bombers are flying across the ocean to attack America require such black gay Hitler that you have to stay for the floorshow, because even nerds like us will think it excellent. Bob A Feet posted:What kind of radar services/coverage and air patrols/ anti air defense did the East coast have during WW2? That's a good question. I know anti-aircraft emplacements happened in Canadian east coast port cities, (St. John's had a light and heavy battery) and I've seen pictures of American factories that were camouflaged from aerial observers. I don't know about radar, though. For sure in a world where even one Nazi recon plane flew over Connecticut there would be some quickly if there was not before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
The US had a massive network of spotters in observation posts on both coasts from 1941-44, and I know there were some air defense radar installations on the US mainland during the war, but I can't find anything saying exactly where those installations were. For air patrols, there was a significant presence on the east coast to watch for U-boats, but I'm not sure about fighter patrols. I know there were AAA and interceptors along the east coast to defend cities like Boston and New York, but I'm not sure exactly how good the defenses actually were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:... now I kinda want to see fighter jets in airline liveries. Well, it's not entirely a fighter, but still  The Aermacchi MB-326D, four aircraft built as jet trainers for Alitalia In a vaguely similar vein, there's also the Tupolev Tu-104G, which were not actually Tu-104s (because it would be fun to confuse researchers, presumably), but Tu-16 bombers disarmed and used to familiarize Aeroflot pilots with jet flying for the actual Tu-104 airliners, and the Ilyushin Il-20:  Il-28 bombers built or converted as high-speed mailplanes. (this being the second use of the Il-20 designation, it was used a third time later for a totally unrelated Il-18 derivative, because again, glorioski, let us confuse future historians) Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Two unrelated posts from the OHSA thread:Lime Tonics posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Two unrelated posts from the OHSA thread: The gently caress happened on the China Eastern? FOD? Nose cowl overpressure? Fan blades all look present and intact. E-spoke to a buddy, same thing happened on an Emirates 330. Acoustic liner honeycomb starts delaminating then intake air gets into cowl, then overpressure then kaboom (that's the theory anyway). 
Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:
I'd assume the first raid would get away scott-free, and every subsequent raid would get murdered by hundreds of fighters jostling to get the first shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Two unrelated posts from the OHSA thread: There's nothing quite like making a trans-pacific flight while staring at a giant crack in the co-pilot's side window. Yes, it was only the outer pane, but it's more of an irrational fear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:I'd assume the first raid would get away scott-free, and every subsequent raid would get murdered by hundreds of fighters jostling to get the first shot. Yep. The first raid might get through but they probably wouldn't hit anything important anyway, just propaganda like the Doolittle Raid. The second and subsequent raids, if they were even attempted (we sure didn't try repeating the Doolittle Raid) would get murdered. Also, technology advanced a lot during the war, by 1945 we could have made AA guns with radar directed, computer controlled fire control and radar fused shells. Not quite modern SAMs, but big prop-driven bombers would have been easy targets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Two unrelated posts from the OHSA thread: So are those window cracks a "return to airport' *immediately* thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Not sure if this matters to anyone, but I found another Me 264 cutaway that is a tad more sensible than the previous one:  Of note: more space for the crew, a toilet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Pilot apparently OK, but that plane is jacked up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lq2oT9Bnzo
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pilot apparently OK, but that plane is jacked up. Mood ruined by hilarious autogyro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pilot apparently OK, but that plane is jacked up. Looks like the brakes locked up on him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Hard to tell. Obviously no completed investigation yet but some witnesses mentioned a potential irregularity in the field surface.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are those window cracks a "return to airport' *immediately* thing? Not necessarily. There's multiple layers of windscreen, and the planes are certified to max pressure differential with a significant fraction of them cracked through. We got a memo recently that crews were being overly conservative with cracked windscreens and diverting for no need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are those window cracks a "return to airport' *immediately* thing? There's a lot of "depends" factors on that. Generally, no. But definitely possibly yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Play it in 0.25x to see better how one blade exits stage right and the spinner starts wobbling. Looks more like he just lifted the tail too high, perhaps the ground was softer than expected, and the prop dug in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pilot apparently OK, but that plane is jacked up. I don't have my glasses on and definitely thought that at 0:21 a fat naked guy ran up to the plane
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:49
|
|