Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Domus Acipenseris

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Domus Acipenseris

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

220 profile views
  1. Domus Acipenseris

    Aerospace Documents Collection Point

    F-22 Restart study.
  2. Domus Acipenseris

    The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread

    USN carriers are lightly armed for several reasons. One is that the tonnage and deck area is put into aircraft. A second is that a jet fuel spill/fire could soak a VLS while it cannot easily reach the launchers in the position they are in on US carriers. A third is that the vertically launched missile exhaust plumes can damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings. In addition, the defensive systems have radars that emit and give away the location of the carrier.
  3. Domus Acipenseris

    Aerospace Documents Collection Point

    F-16 handbook. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf
  4. Domus Acipenseris

    Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Garzke and Dulin Armor Penetration formula http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-109.pdf
  5. Domus Acipenseris

    Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    The Pulqui II was based upon the Ta-183, a plane that was a failure due to instability.
  6. Domus Acipenseris

    Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    Is that the case? I've read the HAL Marut was a good airframe with poor engines.
  7. Domus Acipenseris

    Unified Naval Documents Thread

    The Fundamentals of Salvo Warfare https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34844/90Mar_Cares.pdf;sequence=1
  8. Domus Acipenseris

    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
  9. Domus Acipenseris

    Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Hull material selection for patrol boats. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA403155
  10. Domus Acipenseris

    Unified Naval Documents Thread

    Lightweight torpedo propulsion concepts. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a079034.pdf
  11. Domus Acipenseris

    Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    More on the P-38, including a study of Merlin power. And more here.
  12. Domus Acipenseris

    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.
  13. Domus Acipenseris

    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.
×