Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> What if scenario, A diferent equipped Romanian Army
Florin
Posted: April 26, 2012 03:45 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (udar @ April 26, 2012 10:10 am)
..................Or, imagine we really invested in industry and scientific research, since late 20's, and have Henri Coanda coming back in the country then, and have at disposition everything he needed to develope his jet airplane or even his "flying saucer"/"aerodina lenticulara" (patent obtained in France in 1935 i think, even if i saw a clip from Discovery Science with Radu Manicatide saying that he saw a small prototype flying in 1932 if i am not mistaken)?
..................

Just as information, Radu Manicatide was 16 or 17 years old in 1943, when with material help from I.A.R. he built a glider able to lift a person. He could not see that thing in 1932, because he would have to live in France, and he would be a little kid.

Also, the Germans continued the path opened by Henry Coanda, invested heavily into it, with at least one factory dedicated solely for lenticular aircrafts (near Prague), but this eventually was resources that could have better use. After the war the German scientists involved in lenticular aircrafts worked for both Soviet Union and the United States, and neither of them had notable use of these technologies.
PM
Top
udar
Posted: April 26, 2012 03:52 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2012 03:34 pm)
Udar, I am not arguing with the "what if" scenario of Romania as superpower.
What is happening in history is that superpowers are willing to bow to no one, and the others are teaming against them.
The worst possible scenario in 1940 was a combined simultaneous attack of USSR, Germany and Hungary against us. In 1940 even Yugoslavia was ruled by a pro-German government, and Bulgaria of course, and they could probably participate into this.
If 3, 4 or 5 of these countries would attack in the same time (Germany, USSR and Hungary being in any combination), the best Romania could do, even as "superpower", was to withdraw behind the Carpathian Mountains and then to negotiate a honorable and advantageous surrender.
Remember Germany, a real superpower. Squeezed between the red star and the white star, it simply could not stand.

I dont said we'll became an expansive, imperialist superpower. I just said would be strong enough to detter some possible attacks.

In that scenario mentioned by you, i do believe that Germany at least would had another approach, and try to get a deal with us, without supporting teritorial demands of Hungary and Bulgaria, and even those of USSR. This because they needed our oil too. And in case of war, the oil fields and refineries would be destroyied, and need at least a year to be rebuilded and start again production (maybe not at the previous levels)

This combined with the fact that wasnt sure who will reach there first. Lets say Soviets reach first, as they had the bigger army and better terrain to go thru. What would Germany do?

Lets say the Soviets lose hundred of thousands of troops, but Germans reach the oil fields first. Do you think Stalin would like that, and USSR wouldnt lose most of morale and image? It was clear then (in 1940) that sooner or later the Germany and USSR, still the best friends at that moment, will broke this friendship, and both tried to aquire the better position for the very probable future clash.
PMEmail Poster
Top
udar
Posted: April 26, 2012 04:03 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2012 03:45 pm)

Just as information, Radu Manicatide was 16 or 17 years old in 1943, when with material help from I.A.R. he built a glider able to lift a person. He could not see that thing in 1932, because he would have to live in France, and he would be a little kid.

Also, the Germans continued the path opened by Henry Coanda, invested heavily into it, with at least one factory dedicated solely for lenticular aircrafts (near Prague), but this eventually was resources that could have better use. After the war the German scientists involved in lenticular aircrafts worked for both Soviet Union and the United States, and neither of them had notable use of these technologies.

Are you sure?

Look here, its say other things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjm6mgJSSM&feature=gv&hl=ro

We dont know very sure how much or on which basis someone invested or continued Henri Coanda's work. As you can see in the movie, Radu Manicatide describe the flight of the small prototype, which seemed to be quite successful.

I am sure others go on that path as well, what i am not sure is if the real results are the one presented usual for the public (like Avro and so on). And i am not sure if we want to go a bit deeper in more secret or controversial or even conspiracist theories here

PMEmail Poster
Top
Florin
Posted: April 26, 2012 04:10 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (udar @ April 26, 2012 10:52 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2012 03:34 pm)
Udar, I am not arguing with the "what if" scenario of Romania as superpower.
What is happening in history is that superpowers are willing to bow to no one, and the others are teaming against them.
The worst possible scenario in 1940 was a combined simultaneous attack of USSR, Germany and Hungary against us. In 1940 even Yugoslavia was ruled by a pro-German government, and Bulgaria of course, and they could probably participate into this.
If 3, 4 or 5 of these countries would attack in the same time (Germany, USSR and Hungary being in any combination), the best Romania could do, even as "superpower", was to withdraw behind the Carpathian Mountains and then to negotiate a honorable and advantageous surrender.
Remember Germany, a real superpower. Squeezed between the red star and the white star, it simply could not stand.

I dont said we'll became an expansive, imperialist superpower. I just said would be strong enough to detter some possible attacks.

In that scenario mentioned by you, i do believe that Germany at least would had another approach, and try to get a deal with us, without supporting teritorial demands of Hungary and Bulgaria, and even those of USSR. This because they needed our oil too. And in case of war, the oil fields and refineries would be destroyied, and need at least a year to be rebuilded and start again production (maybe not at the previous levels)

This combined with the fact that wasnt sure who will reach there first. Lets say Soviets reach first, as they had the bigger army and better terrain to go thru. What would Germany do?

Lets say the Soviets lose hundred of thousands of troops, but Germans reach the oil fields first. Do you think Stalin would like that, and USSR wouldnt lose most of morale and image? It was clear then (in 1940) that sooner or later the Germany and USSR, still the best friends at that moment, will broke this friendship, and both tried to aquire the better position for the very probable future clash.

So, in this "what if" scenario started by me and continued by you, I see Romania as a ravaged battleground, a kind of Germany in 1945.
If so, did it really worth the effort to become superpower?
I agree with you when you assume possible "courtship" from both USSR and Germany, each trying to lure us on their side.
Germany did that anyway, in the real history. Stalin was not the kind of personality to try it.

Thinking of all this subject started by your topic, a nation resembles with a person. You have opportunities in your life. If you miss them, they never return.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: April 26, 2012 04:23 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (udar @ April 26, 2012 11:03 am)
Are you sure?

Look here, its say other things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjm6mgJSSM&feature=gv&hl=ro

We dont know very sure how much or on which basis someone invested or continued Henri Coanda's work. As you can see in the movie, Radu Manicatide describe the flight of the small prototype, which seemed to be quite successful.

I am sure others go on that path as well, what i am not sure is if the real results are the one presented usual for the public (like Avro and so on). And i am not sure if we want to go a bit deeper in more secret or controversial or even conspiracist theories here

After reading your post, I searched the birth date of Radu Manicatide, and I discovered that he was born on April 17, 1912 - Iaşi. He died on March 18, 2004 - Bucharest.
I was wrong. I blame the magazine where I read that as teenager (16 or 17), he built a glider in 1943. The magazine was from "Sport si Tehnica" / "Sports and Technics" series, printed in 1960's...1970's.

Udar, the problem with lenticular aircrafts is the power of the engine. If the superpowers would have something good, they would not resist to don't use it with any occasion. Think of B-117 and B-2: they are in the air with any possible excuse.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 26, 2012 04:24 pm
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: April 27, 2012 08:07 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



There were numerous attempts to make circular flying machines, but they always failed because such objects suffer from poor aerodynamics. There is too much drag and too little lift. It is good SF, but only in an universe where Newton's laws are repealed. :-)

Coanda was no longer involved in aircraft design after 1918 and never really returned to aircraft design. On balance, he was just an average aeroplane designer, nothing fantastic. His most successful designs were the aircraft he designed for Bristol before WW1. After that, his aeroplane designs failed.

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
udar
Posted: April 27, 2012 08:26 am
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



Well, regarding the "flying saucers", that Discovery Science documentary say otherwise (look on youtube for "Adevaratele farfurii zburatoare" or "The real flying saucers"-Discovery Science)

Coanda was a genius, dont forget he invented and build the world first jet airplane in 1910. Sure, it was a rudimentary one, but imagine if he would have the means to develop it and an industry behind to support him, after WW 1, starting with 1930 let say? I saw pics with another jet airplane model made by him in 30's i think, but again just a scale model.

His "flying saucer" was too the first of its kind, way beyond its time actualy, even more then the jet plane, and other projects follow his design, at least partially or at the base (see the documentary). We dont know for sure how that evolved, what others plans and developments goes, and what Coanda himself did later, after WW 2, and what improvements he did to his design (as general details and descriptions of such type of aircrafts exists from that era, some coming right from Coanda, in 60's if i am not mistake).

The fact that the "great public" dont know or know very little about such developments doesnt mean they are not made. The missing of evidences for existence of something doesnt mean a evidence of missing, just that they might be better kept in secret.


PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: April 27, 2012 08:48 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (udar @ April 27, 2012 08:26 am)
Well, regarding the "flying saucers", that Discovery Science documentary say otherwise (look on youtube for "Adevaratele farfurii zburatoare" or "The real flying saucers"-Discovery Science)

Coanda was a genius, dont forget he invented and build the world first jet airplane in 1910. Sure, it was a rudimentary one, but imagine if he would have the means to develop it and an industry behind to support him, after WW 1, starting with 1930 let say? I saw pics with another jet airplane model made by him in 30's i think, but again just a scale model.

His "flying saucer" was too the first of its kind, way beyond its time actualy, even more then the jet plane, and other projects follow his design, at least partially or at the base (see the documentary). We dont know for sure how that evolved, what others plans and developments goes, and what Coanda himself did later, after WW 2, and what improvements he did to his design (as general details and descriptions of such type of aircrafts exists from that era, some coming right from Coanda, in 60's if i am not mistake).

The fact that the "great public" dont know or know very little about such developments doesnt mean they are not made. The missing of evidences for existence of something doesnt mean a evidence of missing, just that they might be better kept in secret.

Udar, are you serious or is this a prank? :blink:

For "flying saucers" I recommend that you get the book "Flying Saucer Technology" by Bill Rose. This lists and describes all attempts to make such devices, with photos, drawings and proper historic accounts.

I recommend that you get Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was not really a genius, just a "wacky" designer driven by the desire to "think outside the box". He failed more than he succeeded and he did not build a single aeroplane after the end of WW1. He simply moved on to other things and never returned to aviation. Here is an exercise for you: put together a list of all aircraft designed by Coanda. Check how many flew. Check how many made it into series production. Of those that entered series production, how many crashed and killed their pilots due to poor design. Check how many were made after 1918. You will get a very clear picture of Coanda's "genius". Get Dan Antoniu's book, it is a very non-emotive and factual description of his work. Stick with the facts. Forget the propaganda.

Coanda did not invent the jet engine. This was discussed many times before, even on this forum. If Coanda had invented the jet engine in 1910, WW1 would have been fought by jet engines. No strategist, no industrialist, no investor would have ignored such a monumental invention. His device of 1910 was what you would call today a "ducted fan" (elice intubata). That is not a jet engine, not even related, not even close. It did not work.

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: April 27, 2012 10:03 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (udar @ April 27, 2012 08:26 am)
Well, regarding the "flying saucers", that Discovery Science documentary say otherwise (look on youtube for "Adevaratele farfurii zburatoare" or "The real flying saucers"-Discovery Science)

I tried to find these documentaries on YouTube, but found nothing with these titles. I found a lot crazy stuff though, the kind of stuff that even morons would be doubtful about. I hope you are not basing your "research" on stuff about Hitler's flying saucer base in New Schwabland. :D
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
udar
Posted: April 27, 2012 11:02 am
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



@Radub

I think you jump to quickly on some conclusions, or you are too sure on what you know, which sometimes can be tricky. I remember we had a while ago a discussion about a medieval battle or something, when you was very sure about the numbers involved, and when you was prouved wrong you changed the tone and direction.

I am not saying that Coanda was the ultimate genius of humanity, but, he clearly was a genius in some fields, a visionary with many achievements, and not just regarding the aviation.

About his jet, yes, it was indeed a jet, a rudimentary jet sometimes called "air-jet", and this is pretty much recognized by anyone who is neutral. I know there some Brits try to disagree, so to promote Whittle as first, which is obviously wrong (even if he did invented the "turbojet", which is today the most common encounteres jet, but ofcourse not the only one).
Some probably may fell on that Whittle propaganda, if they are more easily influenced, but i can easily show you enough material, coming from various people (like the Director of National Air and Space Museum from USA, former fighter jet pilot and colonel in US Air Force and a very good historian of aviation) who said that Coanda is indeed the inventor of the first jet.

Sure, it was a rudimentary one, because the concept itself was way ahead of its time. Gustav Eiffel even told Coanda "young man, pitty you was born 30, if not 50 years ahead of your time".

Infact the "Coanda effect" was discovered by Coanda when he did a short accidental flight with his plane, and saw how the flames from the exhaust bend near the plane surface.

He didnt go on with building this because nobody wanted to invest in such a new and rather dangerous invention, because was still too advanced as concept, so less developed.
And back then it was needed as much as many simple planes, so the classic models prevailed.

I find kinda hard to think someone will jump in 1914 on Coanda jet concept, knowing the only prototype burned and knowing that even clasic concepts are weak and not extremely reliable even if continously developed and improved, and the aviation was just at the begining.

Things might be different if we would invest here starting with 20's, in a larger aviation industry, and allow Coanda to work free on that concept. As i said i saw photos with another model done by him in 30's, another jet model.

About the "flying saucers" now, i am not sure what you may say against Radu Manicatide interview? Do you think he lied? Are you in such position to contradict him? :roll:

And well, this is the documentary, is kinda fragmented, but you can saw there photos, sketches, drawings, real footage and interviews with peoples involved in such projects or who have/had knowledge about them (some of them real scientist, not "conspiracy theorists" from internet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQeiWORkius...player_embedded

After that go on with next clip, 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., not sure if the very last part of documentary isnt missing and i dont have time and mood to search now for the english version and check there too

This post has been edited by udar on April 27, 2012 11:05 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: April 27, 2012 11:44 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (udar @ April 27, 2012 11:02 am)

About his jet, yes, it was indeed a jet, a rudimentary jet sometimes called "air-jet", and this is pretty much recognized by anyone who is neutral.

Infact the "Coanda effect" was discovered by Coanda when he did a short accidental flight with his plane,

Udar,
The Coanda 1910 was not a "jet" plane. It has none of the features of a jet plane. Maybe the confusion is caused by such words as "air jet" and thinking that just because it contains the word "jet" it is a "jet engine". I can make an "air jet" when I whistle. That does not mean that I have a jet engine in my mouth. Vuia's engine was in every single way similar to the way your vacuum cleaner uses a motor to turn a turbine and generate a difference in pressure, thus creating a "jet of air". That does not mean that the vacuum cleaner is a jet engine. A "jet engine" works by compressing air, heating it, and then using the resulting "jet of hot gases" for propulsion. Coanda's propulsion device had none of those things. The invention of the "jet engine" is shared between Von Ohain and Whittle who, separately, perfected the system.

The Coanda 1910 plane never flew. Coanda made a claim that he flew that plane and the plane went on fire, but there is no record of any kind of this flight. He displayed the plane at the Paris Air Show in 1910 (so the plane was not burned yet) and at the end of the show he sold the plane to a person called Weymann who took it with him. This appears to be Charles Terres Weymann, a very famous pilot at the time. So... when could Coanda fly it?
That flight (and subsequent ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris) was not recorded by any newspaper, photographer, eye-witness, no one. Planes were the "hottest thing" at the time. A plane in the air was the most exciting thing at the time. A plane in the air was headline material at the time. Yet, there is absolute silence about this flight. It never took place. Evidence of this flight has been the "holy grail" of aviation historians for many decades, yet not a single mention of such a flight has ever been found.

The first claim about this flight was made by Coanda during an interview on TVR in the late-sixties (no such mention ever existed between 1910 and that interview). By that stage, he was already losing his marbles and it is hard to say whether he made the whole thing up for attention or his feeble mind was convinced it took place.

As for his genius as an aviation designer (and I am referring to him as an aviation designer), as I said, please read Dan Antoniu's book. You will quickly realise that he was simply a poor designer (actually reckless) and in his search for "unusual" designs, he created crazy contraptions or utter deathtraps. After 1918 he moved on to other stuff and never returned to aviation.

He obtaind the patent for the Coanda Effect in the mid-thirties, by which stage he was interested in fluid dynamics, so it is very likely that he came across it during his fluids research rather than his aviation research.

In the mid-twenties, Coanda wrote to the War Minstry with a plan to "revive the armament industry". His plan was rejected. So, to answer your "what if" question, Coanda tried and failed to "fix" he military industry in Romania. No point in asking "what if Coanda got involved"?

Now, I suggest you go and read Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was a very interesting man, but strangely enough he is remembered for stuff he did not do and the stuff that he did successfully is forgotten.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on April 27, 2012 11:59 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
udar
Posted: April 27, 2012 12:54 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



QUOTE (Radub @ April 27, 2012 11:44 am)
 



 

QUOTE
Udar,
The Coanda 1910 was not a "jet" plane. It has none of the features of a jet plane. Maybe the confusion is caused by such words as "air jet" and thinking that just because it contains the word "jet" it is a "jet engine". I can make an "air jet" when I whistle. That does not mean that I have a jet engine in my mouth. Vuia's engine was in every single way similar to the way your vacuum cleaner uses a motor to turn a turbine and generate a difference in pressure, thus creating a "jet of air". That does not mean that the vacuum cleaner is a jet engine.  A "jet engine" works by compressing air, heating it, and then using the resulting "jet of hot gases" for propulsion. Coanda's propulsion device had none of those things. The invention of the "jet engine" is shared between Von Ohain and Whittle who, separately, perfected the system.


Well, i understand you are convinced by Brtis propaganda, which is OK, we live in a democracy and everyone is free to believe what he/she wish. Whittle and Von Ohain invented the "turbojet" engine, a variant of jet engine.
Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane in the world, and i have more trust in what reliable or neutral avaiation historians or scholars say. I already give you an example.
Coanda-1910 did had "heater" devices on the air gases exhaust, so thats how the he observed the "Coanda effect". I think those appear in his sketches of the plane and was mounted before the first and last flight

QUOTE

The Coanda 1910 plane never flew. Coanda made a claim that he flew that plane and the plane went on fire, but there is no record of any kind of this flight. He displayed the plane at the Paris Air Show in 1910 (so the plane was not burned yet) and at the end of the show he sold the plane to a person called Weymann who took it with him. This appears to be Charles Terres Weymann, a very famous pilot at the time.  So... when could Coanda fly it?
That flight (and subsequent ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris) was not recorded by any newspaper, photographer, eye-witness, no one. Planes were the "hottest thing" at the time. A plane in the air was the most exciting thing at the time. A plane in the air was headline material at the time. Yet, there is absolute silence about this flight. It never took place. Evidence of this flight has been the "holy grail" of aviation historians for many decades, yet not a single mention of such a flight has ever been found.

The first claim about this flight was made by Coanda during an interview on TVR in the late-sixties (no such mention ever existed between 1910 and that interview). By that stage, he was already losing his marbles and it is hard to say whether he made the whole thing up for attention or his feeble mind was convinced it took place.


What the heck are you talking about? A ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris? Is this a joke, are you for real? Do you think it was like a Concorde with burning engines falling from the skies? Good God.
It was a simple taxiing of the plane, when it suddenly took off on the camp near Paris. Coanda reduced the gases and the plane crushed.
It is possible that that guy, Weymann, to express his desire to buy the plane, but surely didnt. More then that, he was alive in 50's-60's (and no way when you say, late 60's) when Coanda talk more about that flight, but never contradict him. They was both in France anyway.
The plane crushed and a part of it (like the tail and so) was salvaged and reused later with a conventional rotor blade.
This because Coanda didnt have money to build other planes or develope his concept.
There are eye witnesses of that flight however, is not my fault you dont know much about that

And your supposition toward his state of mind in late 60's is just rude and unprouven, to not say other things. It looks like you have a real problem with Coanda, psichological wise.

QUOTE
 
As for his genius as an aviation designer (and I am referring to him as an aviation designer), as I said, please read Dan Antoniu's book. You will quickly realise that he was simply a poor designer (actually reckless) and in his search for "unusual" designs, he created crazy contraptions or utter deathtraps. After 1918 he moved on to other stuff and never returned to aviation.


If i get my hand on that book, i will, ofcourse. Just look after another one, "Coanda si avioanele sale" by Craciunoiu and Sandachi. I think they say the other way, that was a jet plane and had a flight (the doomed one). And they come too with photos and documents who show that wasnt a simple made up story.
About the fact he moved from aviation after 1918 it was just rejected by Radu Manicatide interview, i fail to understand how you still believe that. Gosh, there are pics with parts of his "flying saucer" patents obtained in 50's and 60's flowing on the internet

QUOTE
He obtaind the patent for the Coanda Effect in the mid-thirties, by which stage he was interested in fluid dynamics, so it is very likely that he came across it during his fluids research rather than his aviation research.


Yet his flying saucer model fly in early 30's (like two years before the Coanda effect patent). Or you still believe Radu Manicatide lied? And if so, on which basis?

QUOTE
In the mid-twenties, Coanda wrote to the War Minstry with a plan to "revive the armament industry". His plan was rejected. So, to answer your "what if" question, Coanda tried and failed to "fix" he military industry in Romania. No point in asking "what if Coanda got involved"?


Yes, our politicians and leaders back then was as idiots as ever in the last period. Few was up to the task to lead the country.
But the purpose of this "what if" discussion is to imagine how would be if, we already know what was.

QUOTE
Now, I suggest you go and read Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was a very interesting man, but strangely enough he is remembered for stuff he did not do and the stuff that he did successfully is forgotten.

Radu


Ah, i understand you saw that documentary and give up to "flying saucer" debate :lol:

Yes, i said i will sometimes, just try to check too the one i told you, and until then look a bit here

http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri...a_The_facts.pdf

PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: April 27, 2012 01:30 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



You may realise the silliness of your statements about Coanda after you read Dan Antoniu's book.
As I said, Coanda "got involved" and failed, irrespective of the causes or reasons. So, subject "fumat", move on.
I have no interest in talking about flying saucers. It is OOT (and silly).
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Florin
Posted: April 27, 2012 04:22 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



Sometimes models at reduced scale may behave better than the full scale product, especially when the power of engines and the weight of the aircraft are essential factors.
Decades before the beginning of the XXth century, a model plane with propeller and a little steam engine was successfully tested. I am not aware of a full scale operational airplane to be ever powered by a steam engine.

I am not as good as others in the history of lenticular aircrafts, but I remember that first of all Coanda wanted to prove that his "Coanda effect" was able to provide lift from fluid flowing along the lenticular object. In his laboratory testing, that flow of fluid was provided by external means and was not generated by the lenticular object itself. It would be like the lift of an airplane would be assured by the blow of a huge fan installed in front of him. So we are back to the basics: the power to weight ratio.
The evolution of aviation toward speeds of 3600 km/h outpaces any hope for lenticular aircraft able to match this (with the technologies available to us).
As for vertical taking off, it looks that people get along well with the fragile and noisy helicopters.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 27, 2012 04:23 pm
PM
Top
Agarici
Posted: April 27, 2012 06:40 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ April 25, 2012 08:33 am)
QUOTE (Agarici @ April 22, 2012 12:30 am)
For the airforce, I think a 1000 hp engined PZL P 24, built earlier and in greater number, and the in time delivery of the ~ 100 IAR 80 ordered as a substitute for the PZL P 11 (plus that of the ~ 50 Hurricanes and 72 Messerschmitts) could have made a difference, as well as a sustained serial production of the SM 79 as a medium bomber.

The PZL P24 was a poor fighter. Visibility was limited by the position of the wing. It could carry a limited amount of armament and was fitted with two 20mm MG-FF cannons, each with 60 rounds, giving it a firing power of roughly 10 seconds. Putting a bigger engine on this would have not improved anything and would have diverted valuable engines from the I.A.R.80 and S.M.79.
Radu


ON-TOPIC:

That could be so, but for 1936-1937 I think it was a resonable choice. I was thinking of ~ 70 planes (instead of 30) - two fighter groups, deployied in the East, facing the Soviets - with a bigger ~ 1000 hp engine to increase the speed. Since the IAR 80 was ready for serial production only by 1939, the 2-3 years until then could had been used for manufacturing the PZL.
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0269 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]