History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Light Bombers UK/Germany
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11106
Royal Air Force
BE-2 -1.37 1913
FK.8 6.37 1916
RE-8 8.61 1916
G-100 9.89 1916
DH-4 19.57 1917
DH-9 13.27 1917
DH-9A 20.91 1918
Salamander 16.92 1919
Fawn 19.98 1922
Fox 35.57 1926
Atlas 22.79 1927
Wapiti 19.47 1928
Gordon 25.41 1931
Audax 28.01 1931
Hart 28.52 1931
Hind 34.57 1935
Lysander 40.12 1938
Royal Navy
Skua 38.18 1938
Barracuda Mk.II 59.15 1943
Short 184 6.95 1915
Cuckoo 10.51 1917
Kangaroo 17.68 1918
Dart 16.73 1922
Baffin 20.86 1933
Shark 28.59 1934
Swordfish 26.67 1936
Albacore 40.98 1940
Firebrand 88.87 1945
Wyvern 107.06 1953
Sea Harrier 432.85 1969
Germany
Albatross B.1 0.41 1913
Albatross C.1 3.34 1915
AGO C.II 4.14 1915
LVG C.II 4.43 1915
Rumpler C.I 8.77 1915
Albatross C.III 6.25 1916
AGO C.IV 14.92 1916
Albatross C.V 8.39 1916
DFW C.V 10.01 1916
Halberstadt CL.II 9.06 1917
Albatross C.VII 11.29 1917
Hannover CL.II 12.61 1917
Hannover CL.III 12.86 1917
Rumpler C.IV 15.58 1917
Hannover CL.V 16.56 1918
Halberstadt CL.IV 10.40 1918
Junkers CL.1 11.76 1918
Junkers J.2 14.39 1918
Ar-66C 15.71 1933
He-45C 38.24 1934
He-50 29.88 1935
Hs-123 49.70 1936
Hs-126 40.69 1937
Fi-167 48.79 1938
Ju-87A 35.54 1937
Ju-87B 48.85 1938
Ju-87D-1 62.52 1942
Ju-87D-7 75.52 1943
HS-129 66.17 1942
FW-190F-3 82.27 1943
Alphajet 192.14 1978

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 498
Location: West Bend, WI
I'm surprised at the number for the DH4. I would of expected it to be closer to the DH9 rather than almost as good as the DH9a.
What top speed did you use for the DH4?
There are a lot of sources that credit the DH4 with 143 mph even though that was only a single test plane for a 375hp RR Eagle VII engine. Production versions with the 230hp engines were between 95 and 115 mph depending on the load.

Here is a document for WW1 performance figures that I've used. The chart for the DH4 is on pg 55.
http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/WWIAircraftPerformance.pdf

_________________
"Carpe Dementia!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11106
bekosh wrote:
I'm surprised at the number for the DH4. I would of expected it to be closer to the DH9 rather than almost as good as the DH9a.


According to the stuff I found, the DH-9 was regarded as being a particularly serious failure having much inferior performance and reliability to the DH-4. In fact, according to the source you quote "Although the D.H.9 was intended to replace the D.H.4 it’s performance was so poor that D.H.4 production had to be restarted" The DH-9A was a "rescue program" for the DH-9 that gave it a more powerful and reliable engine. In effect the DH-9A took the improvements made with the DH-9 and applied them to an aircraft with the performance of the DH-4.

DH-9As served a long time post-war although they can't match the Hawker Hinds that flew their last combat missions in 1959.

Quote:
What top speed did you use for the DH4?

123 mph which seems to be about the average. It's notable that the German reports describe it as being a very difficult aircraft to intercept because of its speed. This was very similar to the DH-9A but significantly greater that the DH-9. Reports from the time say that the DH-9 was incapable of keeping up with the DH-4.

Quote:
Here is a document for WW1 performance figures that I've used. The chart for the DH4 is on pg 55.
http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/WWIAircraftPerformance.pdf


Got that; thank you though. I did use it to make one data correction to the BE-2 which was overstated in the speed and engine power departments.
What is key here is that engines were rarely standardized per type. We touched a little on this in the fighter charts were we do list significant engines and the canges they made on performance. So, here, I used an average power output and kept my fingers crossed. I think we got the DH-4/DH-9/DH-9A progression right ie Good basis/failed improvement/fixed improvement.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6473
Location: Cambs, UK
This issue over the DH.4 tang some bells so I pulled out my Dad’s old Observer’s Guides dating back to the early ‘60s.

DH.4 with 375hp RR Eagle engine is credited with a top speed of 138mph- the same as the S.E.5a with the 200hp Wolseley Viper engine.

DH.4 with the 260hp Siddeley Puma engine is credited with 123/ 126mph. Interesting that 115hp was needed to increase performance by an additional 10-15mph.

Imperial German machines have max speeds of:
115mph (DR.1)
120mph (most Albatrosses)
128mph (D.7, D.8)

I know some of the Siemens machines were >130mph but numbers built were in the several dozens to low hundreds in total. So the assertion of the DH.4 being hard to intercept does seem to be backed.

Ja, das ist ein schnell bomber indeed...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5890
Location: Sweden
Is the armed Hawk version going to be on one of the lists? (”Other”?)
It’d be a bit interesting to compare the various jet trainers that have had some combat capability with one another. :)

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11106
Micael wrote:
Is the armed Hawk version going to be on one of the lists? (”Other”?)
It’d be a bit interesting to compare the various jet trainers that have had some combat capability with one another. :)

Good point; I'll put the various Hawk armed versions in after the Lysander.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5201
Location: EGUD
Could you possibly do the Fairey Gannet, and do you have enough data for the Fairey Spearfish? While the Gannet was an ASW aircraft the payload and speed actually look fairly decent at first glance, so it would be interesting to see how it compares.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group