Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Domus Acipenseris

Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Aerospace Documents Collection Point

    F-16 handbook. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf
  2. Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Garzke and Dulin Armor Penetration formula http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-109.pdf
  3. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    The Pulqui II was based upon the Ta-183, a plane that was a failure due to instability.
  4. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    Is that the case? I've read the HAL Marut was a good airframe with poor engines.
  5. Unified Naval Documents Thread

    The Fundamentals of Salvo Warfare https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34844/90Mar_Cares.pdf;sequence=1
  6. Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Kiel and Jutland book from 1921. https://archive.org/details/kieljutland00haseuoft Weight of Shell Must Tell : A Lanchestrian reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99759/1/Jutland.PreReview.pdf
  7. Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Hull material selection for patrol boats. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA403155
  8. Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Lightweight torpedo propulsion concepts. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a079034.pdf
  9. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    More on the P-38, including a study of Merlin power. And more here.
  10. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    Does anyone have any info. on bubble canopies? I've read that many pilots preferred the razorback P-47 because it was faster, a more stable gun platform, and easier to escape from if the plane became inverted on the ground compared to the bubble canopy version. Of course, we all know that the F-35 will be clubbed like a baby seal because it lacks a bubble canopy. The reason the US lost so many planes in Vietnam? Yes, you guessed it, no bubble canopies.
  11. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    No docs in this post, sorry. The P-38 was designed as an interceptor. As such, it was expected that the pilot could do things like switch fuel tanks, change prop pitch, and adjust the mixture at his leisure. The main reason for the difference in combat performance between the PTO and ETO was the lack of an Integrated Air Defense System in the PTO. Japanese interceptors were trying to climb up to reach the American strikes and the P-38's had the advantage in situational awareness and energy. In the ETO the Germans had the edge in both due to their high quality (for the time) IADS. The P-38's switchology was too difficult for the average pilot whereas the P-51 gave the pilot a better chance. Other factors in the P-38's performance in the ETO were lack of experience and relative numbers. The P-51 arrived when the US had more knowledge and more planes and the Germans had fewer. The P-47 was a better fighter bomber than the P-51 due to greater range-payload and lower vulnerability. The P-47 was capable of handling the German fighters but at $80,000 a piece vs $50,000 for a P-51 the P-47 had to be used where it was most effective.
  12. Tank Layout

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3837.html This 1991 RAND Corporation study goes into some detail on tank layouts.
  13. Bash the F-35 thred.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective.