Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Hitler uses his resources efficiently from 1933

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Duncan View Post
    Gents,
    Mods are spending far too much time looking at this area of the forum. If you think a thread is not worth your time - don't spend time there. Personal attacks and insults will only get you banned.
    I would respectfully point out to you that, logically, your first sentence in the above should generate two obvious questions, which are:-

    1). Why should the Moderators feel obliged to act in this manner?

    2). What is causing the annoyance and frustration which has led to regular contributors suddenly behaving out of character, and how can it be resolved?

    Does it not occur to you that, when individuals who have posted reasonable and sensible comments over a period of years suddenly either cease making contributions, or resort to what you have identified as ‘personal attacks and insults,’ then some specific factor must have generated this reaction, which should be of serious concern?

    For my part, I have more or less abandoned the site in accordance with your earlier instructions: I cannot comment on the reasons why others have disappeared, although I suspect that they are fairly obvious. Clearly, I do still look in from time to time, simply to observe whether this part of the site is continuing to degenerate into utter absurdity; I am rarely disappointed!


    In several years of participation in a number of similar forums, I have never encountered a situation quite as bizarre as this. I am surprised that things have been allowed to reach this level, and disappointed that the only response to the frustration which those still bravely battling on appear to receive is so negative.

    Perhaps my comments above do not represent a majority view, but I suspect that in truth they would probably receive considerable support.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tsar View Post
      I know that I'm going to regret this but...
      Darco you do realize that any attack on Belgium will result in a DOW by Britain don’t you?
      If you doubt it look at the war that happened 20 years earlier.
      I do not doubt it at all, I know Britain and France will declare war so soon as all those neutral nations (not just Belgium) are invaded. I also know Britain can do nothing, not even bomb Germany after it sees what 8 engine bombers do to neutral cities and Belfast, in order to subdue the army (as it actually occurred in Rotterdam with small bombers).
      I also know that with U and E-boats, planes, DDs, etc, operating from Belgium, Ireland, Holland, Denmark, etc, Britain will suffer enormous shipping and warship losses and be blockaded a week after Ireland enters the war.
      I also know that seeing the rapid loss of Egypt, Northern Ireland, shipping, etc, the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, etc, will consider France and Britain untenable and stop selling them armament, food, munitions, etc, and providing men and start arming themselves and mobilizing for fear of an invasion.
      The America first committee would not have a difficult time convincing the people to press congress to stay out of the war, facing an extremely strong axis (Germany, Italy, China, Japan, Turkey, etc,) and having no allies.
      Millions of Irish Americans will be glad when Northern Ireland returns to Ireland. Millions of Italian Americans will be glad to now that North and East Africa belong to Italy. Millions of Polish and Czech Americans will be glad to see that the mighty axis attacks the USSR, helping Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc, Even Chinese and Japanese Americans will be glad to see their countries gain British and French territories and then attack the Communists.
      Of course millions of German Americans would be quite content with German success.
      Last edited by Draco; 20 Aug 14, 16:25.

      Comment


      • #63
        Enough is enough, it's time to walk away.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by redcoat View Post
          Enough is enough, it's time to walk away.
          Heck no. If Draco's right about his Multi wing centipedecraft, I want a top exec . job...

          BTW, I believe the Blanket effect was named after Caproni had to wrap his hypothermic flight crew, after they pulled the nine wing wonder form Lake Maggiore...
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
            I would respectfully point out to you that, logically, your first sentence in the above should generate two obvious questions, which are:-

            1). Why should the Moderators feel obliged to act in this manner?

            2). What is causing the annoyance and frustration which has led to regular contributors suddenly behaving out of character, and how can it be resolved?

            Does it not occur to you that, when individuals who have posted reasonable and sensible comments over a period of years suddenly either cease making contributions, or resort to what you have identified as ‘personal attacks and insults,’ then some specific factor must have generated this reaction, which should be of serious concern?

            For my part, I have more or less abandoned the site in accordance with your earlier instructions: I cannot comment on the reasons why others have disappeared, although I suspect that they are fairly obvious. Clearly, I do still look in from time to time, simply to observe whether this part of the site is continuing to degenerate into utter absurdity; I am rarely disappointed!


            In several years of participation in a number of similar forums, I have never encountered a situation quite as bizarre as this. I am surprised that things have been allowed to reach this level, and disappointed that the only response to the frustration which those still bravely battling on appear to receive is so negative.

            Perhaps my comments above do not represent a majority view, but I suspect that in truth they would probably receive considerable support.
            I can only hope that someday any post that is completely void of any information or argument relevant to the thread (such as this one) be deleted.

            It is interesting that while allied level bombers did extremely little damage to shipping before skip bombing was adopted, a very few Condors caused so much damage to British convoys that they started using tiny carriers like Audacity (whose Wildcats shot down Condors) and catapult-launched Hurricanes, which were lost (often with the pilot) when they alit in the water, hopefully after shooting down a Condor.
            Large numbers of 6 and 8 engine bombers with longer range and much greater bomb loads would probably be devastating. Especially operating from Tunisia, Sicily and Ireland. They would certainly be more difficult to shoot down by Wildcats, Hurricanes or AAA than the Condors.
            Last edited by Draco; 20 Aug 14, 17:04.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
              Heck no. If Draco's right about his Multi wing centipedecraft, I want a top exec . job...

              BTW, I believe the Blanket effect was named after Caproni had to wrap his hypothermic flight crew, after they pulled the nine wing wonder form Lake Maggiore...
              The plane suffered structural failure, which has nothing to do with the configuration's ability to fly. I did specify that in order to avoid downwash interaction the wings have to be at different levels. Of course using monoplane, instead of triplane wings results in much less drag (no struts and wires) and makes placing the wings at different levels much easier. Had Caproni done that, all airliners today would have 2 or more equal wings.
              Last edited by Draco; 20 Aug 14, 17:08.

              Comment


              • #67
                While no expert on aerodynamic design, best as I can determine the tandem wing is rarely used because it imparts little advantage, except in limited circumstances, over a more conventional aircraft configuration.

                http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=AD0641246

                The PDF listed.

                Anyway, basically, the tandem wing configuration is a variant of the biplane where the second wing is placed aft (and usually) and above the front wing.

                Big military disadvantages are:

                Much lower maximum speeds particularly as you approach transonic regions. That is, this configuration works up to about 300 mph or so and then increasingly causes more and more drag along with having odd compressibility features. It is completely unusable for transonic and supersonic flight for that reason (eg., it violates the area rule).

                Stability may or may not be increased depending on a number of factors.

                Drag is usually increased due to the greater surface area particularly as speeds increase.

                Basically, there is no real advantage to using this design and several drawbacks in military aircraft where speeds are intended to be higher or where a high dive rate is desired.

                Not much appears to be written on this design with respect to aerobatics and maneuverability but the indications hint at it being inferior in these aspects.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Draco View Post
                  ...Had Caproni done that, all airliners today would have 2 or more equal wings.
                  Patently absurd and demonstrating no grasp whatsoever of aerodynamics.

                  This is Alternate Timelines, not alternate physics.
                  Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                  Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
                    Patently absurd and demonstrating no grasp whatsoever of aerodynamics.

                    This is Alternate Timelines, not alternate physics.
                    I see no alternative physics. A tail that provides a downward force that has to be compensated by additional lift in the wing is inefficient. A huge wing with the same area and aspect ratio as two equal wings has the same surface drag and lift, but is completely unstable, while two wings are completely stable. If you have wingtip tanks wingtip drag in the shorter wings is similar and each vortex is much smaller, so that there is less turbulence in the wake of the plane, so other planes can take off with less risk and without having to waste long for the vortices to disipate.
                    The only disadvantage is that the plane is less maneuverable, precisely because it is inherently stable (so it is not good for a fighter).
                    Any pressure or air speed fluctuation at the wingtips affects the single, huge wing much more than short the tandem wings.

                    Visibility, stealth and FLAK wise the plane with two wings is better. The plane also fits through a narrower hangar door.

                    Production wise, instead of having to make a lot of different ribs and skin pieces, fewer dies are needed and each rib or skin piece is used twice as often. No tooling is required for the horizontal stabilizer. Having eight 1,100 hp engines with smaller 6 blade props closer to the plane's axis, instead of four 2,800 hp engines of the B-29, result in much less eccentric force if an outer engine fails, so that a smaller vertical stabilizer and rudder are required (less cost, drag and weight).
                    Last edited by Draco; 20 Aug 14, 19:49.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      It is a major fail to design an aircraft with more engines of less power than to go with fewer that are more powerful.
                      More engines = more weight in auxiliaries and controls.
                      More engines = greater complexity and more things to go wrong or break.
                      More engines = more maintenance.

                      Looking at three radials:

                      The Pratt & Whitney R1830, R2800, and R4360 we find that it takes 3 R1830 to match one R4360 and 1.5 R2800's to do the same.

                      In terms of drag, area taken up, and complexity it is clear that one R4360 is far, far more preferable to three R1830's. There is not advantage in hp/wt but there is likely to be one in fuel consumption where the smaller engines will be harder to balance out for optimum performance over having only one engine to worry about.

                      Regardless of how they are configured, 8 engines will have more of a weight and drag penalty than four that have the same total horsepower. That is why aircraft designers and aero-engine designers tried for the most powerful engines they could get.
                      By Draco's reckoning an Me 110 would be better off with four 800 horsepower engines than two 1600 horsepower ones, etc. The same goes for bombers or whatever.

                      So, right now his advocacy is for an advanced low speed, unmaneuverable, biplane (the tandem wing which is really just a biplane arranged in a manner that eliminates the struts and such) with lots of low power engines instead of a high powered monoplane with better speed and handling characteristics.

                      I say aeronautical and aircraft engineers got things right all along.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        It is a major fail to design an aircraft with more engines of less power than to go with fewer that are more powerful.
                        More engines = more weight in auxiliaries and controls.
                        More engines = greater complexity and more things to go wrong or break.
                        More engines = more maintenance.

                        Looking at three radials:

                        The Pratt & Whitney R1830, R2800, and R4360 we find that it takes 3 R1830 to match one R4360 and 1.5 R2800's to do the same.

                        In terms of drag, area taken up, and complexity it is clear that one R4360 is far, far more preferable to three R1830's. There is not advantage in hp/wt but there is likely to be one in fuel consumption where the smaller engines will be harder to balance out for optimum performance over having only one engine to worry about.

                        Regardless of how they are configured, 8 engines will have more of a weight and drag penalty than four that have the same total horsepower. That is why aircraft designers and aero-engine designers tried for the most powerful engines they could get.
                        By Draco's reckoning an Me 110 would be better off with four 800 horsepower engines than two 1600 horsepower ones, etc. The same goes for bombers or whatever.

                        So, right now his advocacy is for an advanced low speed, unmaneuverable, biplane (the tandem wing which is really just a biplane arranged in a manner that eliminates the struts and such) with lots of low power engines instead of a high powered monoplane with better speed and handling characteristics.

                        I say aeronautical and aircraft engineers got things right all along.
                        The otherwise excellent design of the He 177 was rendered useless and a flying coffin by completely unreliable, massive engines. Even when the engines did sporadically work, the supersonic tips of the huge 4 blade propeller produced much less thrust per hp (or unit fuel mass) than the 4 blade props of the much less powerful Merlin engine of a P-51. Had they used four 1,100 hp engines with 6 blade propellers from the outset, they would have razed Britain, instead of having thousands of expensive coffins.

                        The Constellation's massive engine is impossible to cool well, so very often at least one engine failed in a long trip. The same ocurred with the B-29. Which is why pilots joked about the Connie being the best 3 engine plane in the world.

                        The fuel (and power) wasted in supersonic prop tip turbulence and the additional fuel needed to fly the plane with heavy rudder when an outer engine fails more than makes up for the greater weight of 4 engines. Besides, wasting lots of fuel every flight is much mor expensive than paying once for the additional metal of the engines.

                        It is much easier to produce in series 8 small engines than 4 extremely complicated monsters. It is much easier to remove and repair or replace a small engine than a massive monster. When a massive engine is destroyed or heavily damaged by FLAK, fighters, oil failure, overheating, etc, the loss is much greater than when a mass produced small engine is lost.
                        That is why the B-17, B-24, Halifax or Lancaster were much more functional and effective than the He 177.

                        The idea that two, massive 100,000 hp turbofans for the 787 are optimal is completely absurd.
                        The plane has to be able to take off even if one engine fails, so the plane has to be able to take off with 100,000 hp. Therefore two extremely expensive and heavy engines and a gross power excedent results. If one engine fails eccentric force is massive, so a huge rudder and vertical stabilizer are needed.
                        If they used three much less expensive, easy to produce, 50,000 hp engines (one on the tail), the plane still has 100,000 hp and can take off with one engine out. Even if an outer engine fails, the eccentric force is minimal, because one engine is on the axis and the other engine has half the thrust of the massive engine.
                        The 3 smaller engines are much less likely to suck up damaging debris from the airstrip. Having a spare to replace a damaged engine is less expensive and removing and installing the smaller engine is much easier.
                        The plane which went down in the Hudson because the 2 huge engines ingested some gueese would not have gone down with three much less massive engines.
                        As Bertrand Russel said "Just because all experts agree, it doesn't mean that they cannot all be wrong".
                        Last edited by Draco; 20 Aug 14, 23:12.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Plus, Tj, the German engineers would have been linking four engines to each Humongous propeller.

                          we could be wrong on the wings - the X- fighter in Star wars used four....
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Of course, if the He 177 had had a longer fuselage and two identical wings like the one it had, each with four 1,100 hp engines, 6 blade props, wingtip tanks and no horizontal stabilizer, it could have carried over twice the bomb load for a longer range, with the same crew and would have been more difficult to shoot down. Naturally, it would not have been a dive bomber, as the absurd specifications required. Idiots making crucial and costly decisions.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Draco View Post
                              The otherwise excellent design of the He 177 was rendered useless and a flying coffin by completely unreliable, massive engines. Even when the engines did sporadically work, the supersonic tips of the huge 4 blade propeller produced much less thrust per hp (or unit fuel mass) than the 4 blade props of the much less powerful Merlin engine of a P-51. Had they used four 1,100 hp engines with 6 blade propellers from the outset, they would have razed Britain, instead of having thousands of expensive coffins.
                              A lot of what you said about the He177 is not accurate (though the propeller inefficiency I would grant, assuming it's accurate), it was not a flying coffin, it's crews liked it, the engine fires are greatly exaggerated, particularly with latter models, the engines did become fairly reliable. The main reason for the configuration IIRC was due to aerodynamic reasons for speed and range (not due to dive bombing, though it helped with that as well).

                              Though early models did have significant engine troubles, though some of it was due to bad maintenance practices and poor training.

                              Even so if they had not issued the dive bombing requirement you might get it into proper service by 1942.

                              Most 4 engine bombers took about 5 to 7 years to get it into service from the day the specs went out.

                              Though the Do 217 I believe had a notably short and largely trouble free development of around 2 years.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                                A lot of what you said about the He177 is not accurate (though the propeller inefficiency I would grant, assuming it's accurate), it was not a flying coffin, it's crews liked it, the engine fires are greatly exaggerated, particularly with latter models, the engines did become fairly reliable. The main reason for the configuration IIRC was due to aerodynamic reasons for speed and range (not due to dive bombing, though it helped with that as well).

                                Though early models did have significant engine troubles, though some of it was due to bad maintenance practices and poor training.

                                Even so if they had not issued the dive bombing requirement you might get it into proper service by 1942.

                                Most 4 engine bombers took about 5 to 7 years to get it into service from the day the specs went out.

                                Though the Do 217 I believe had a notably short and largely trouble free development of around 2 years.
                                More importantly, the He 177 takes about 8 to 10 metric tons of fuel to fly one mission. A squadron of 12 would require around 100 tons to fly one mission as a whole. When you look at German fuel production a few squadrons of these planes would have used up a huge fraction of Germany's available aviation fuel. That is why almost all of them were grounded by early 1944. There simply was no fuel to fly them.

                                Henkel did develop a 4 engine version the He 277 but it didn't get anywhere until about 1943 and by then development was pointless. Three prototypes were built before things were cancelled in 5/44.

                                There was also a high altitude version the He 274. One prototype was completed. It didn't fly once in German hands. However, as it was in France and captured more or less intact, the French repaired it and flew it out of Bretigny-sur-Oge as the AAS 01A.
                                It was mainly used for developing pressurized cabins and survived until 1953.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X