Comments on: Speed, the need for

By: Airminded · The widening margin

Airminded · The widening margin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:40:05 +0000

[...] further. To begin with, the data is slightly dodgy. It’s mostly drawn from the same source as this, which is fine as far as it goes. But that means that I’m showing how long it would have [...]

By: Airminded · Speed 2, the need for more

Airminded · Speed 2, the need for more — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:52:37 +0000

[...] As promised, here’s a revamped version of the speed plot I did the other day, this time distinguishing between biplanes (and triplanes), monoplanes and jets (just the one—the Meteor). It’s now a bit harder to read, though—it’s still red for fighters and blue for bombers, but now biplanes are represented by crosses (of the appropriate colour), monoplanes by open triangles, and jets by filled triangles. Also I noticed that my criteria for inclusion in the dataset had changed part-way through, so I’ve added a few aircraft to make that consistent (mainly torpedo-bombers)—I’ll update the original post shortly. [...]

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:55:45 +0000

Yes, moving away from external bracing was a big improvement, but it’s not like braced monoplanes weren’t an improvement themselves. The Boeing P-26 entered USAAC service at the end of 1933, with a top speed in excess of 230 mph. The RAF didn’t have anything that fast until 1935 (Gloster Gauntlet). The Polikarpov I-16 was even faster — over 280 mph. The RAF may have skipped a generation of monoplanes, but it was lucky that it didn’t have to actually fight any in the mid-1930s.

Certainly, the Hurricane and Spitfire were something new for the RAF. But it was not necessarily clear at the time that they were the answer to the problem of the bomber. I’ve read arguments that they needed cannons instead of machine-guns, had their guns synchronised at the wrong ranges, etc. There was some enthusiasm for turret fighters for attacking bombers (ie because it was thought tail-approaching fixed-gun fighters would be easy prey for a bomber’s gunners). And indeed, the RAF itself was hedging its bets, with biplanes (Fury II, Gladiator) being introduced concurrently with the Hurricane, and turret fighters (Defiant) coming in in 1940. Still, I’m sure that the impressive-looking fast monoplane fighters helped increase confidence in air defence. (Not so much radar, which was a secret until 1941 or 1942.)

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:32:17 +0000

Key points: Shift not just from biplane to monoplane, but from braced monoplanes like the Boeing P29/Polikarpov to true, clean structures – the RAF did this in one jump. RR’s development of better and better liquid cooled engines via the Schneider Trophy – good decision to kill the RR Goshawk steam-cooled model.

Interceptor fighter concept – about 1935. Monoplane+Merlin+8 guns. Radar next year.

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:56:34 +0000

Please do feel free to use them for classes! (I’ve never actually said so, but my basic attitude to re-using material I put up here is essentially this.) If you click on them, you’ll get a larger version which would probably look better projected.

That’s a good idea, Scott — I’ll do that when I get a chance! There’s only the one jet on there at the moment, but I could add post-war aircraft too.

By: Scott W. Palmer

Scott W. Palmer — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:53:04 +0000

When you have the time, how about amending the chart so that it distinguishes biplanes, monoplanes, and jet aircraft? You’d end up with a handy visual that would illustrate clearly the impact of the monoplane and jet engine “revolutions” on aircraft performance.

Then I could use it when I teach my flight culture class next spring…

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:24:33 +0000

Nice charts. I was just talking about the revolution in air power (World History since 1500, after all), and these charts might well find their way into my classroom….