Could use some help.

[ThePlayboySloth]

I am currently working on a research paper covering the subject of characteristics of the German, Japanese, American, Russian, and Russian aircraft and how these traits affected the outcome of the the nation's aerial warfare. I've had a hard time finding sources that go into the subject of common traits shared between the planes. If anyone could provide me with some information or links it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Njaco]

Best I could suggest is to troll the forum. There are TONS of reference material from pics to written hanging around here. One of our members just collated threads about technical manuals. I'm sure there should be something there.

 

[meatloaf109]

Have to agree with Njaco, there is abundant info for your research.

 

[drgondog]

The first observation is that the subjest is too broad and probably lacks sufficient boundary conditions to make the research objective and quantifiable.

Some generalities exist. Namely Japanese and Russian designers focused on lightest possible structure. Another attribute might be consistently smaller and lower powered engines. These two characteristics combined with good airframe design relative to airfoil/wing sizing enabled exceptional manueverability versus much larger airframes (i.e Zero vs P-47).

Messerschmidt was a fanatic about weight but always had powerful engines and much better in the vertical than their Russian and US until late in the war. Most German and Russian fighters stored fuel in fuselage as long range was not near the top of design criteria and specs.

US Fighters tended toward big radial engines/lot of fuel (USN and P-47) or big In-Line engines/lot of fuel. Fuel storage was mostly in both wings and fuselage at the end of the war, but dominantly fuselage only early on. Top speeds were high on priority list and two fighters in particular were produced with turbo superchargers for consistent high speed performance at high altitudes - which was fairly unique.

Brit fighters were all in'line' with rare exceptions with fuel storage dominantly in fuselage.

Japanese Zero and succeeding IJN fighters all had long range which was very high on Specifications

I would be hard pressed to name any unique 'design' philosophy other than the IL2 which never had any other purpose than CAS and survive in a high threat environment - much like the A-10.

Major performance innovations included application of Laminar Flow wing (P-51 and later P-63), Turbo Superchargers (dictating Big airframes) for high altitude performance emphasis, Leading Edge slats (Bf 109) for improved low speed performance and eliminate washout and relative increment of induced drag of wing twist.

All the Axis/Allied airframes tended to be smaller than US class by Class when compared to each counterpart except for true heavy bombers where payload and range dictated close to same sizes - B-29 is the primary exception

 

[Njaco]

Nice work Bill!!!

.

 

[tyrodtom]

My middle name is Claude. Guess what nickname a A-hole senior gave me when I started high school and he learned my middle name ?

Except he'd usually say " Claudeballs, by wildcat's revenge"

 

[drgondog]

@Pop tart Whisperer..LMFAO

 

[vikingBerserker]

 

[dobbie]

My middle name is Claude. Guess what nickname a A-hole senior gave me when I started high school and he learned my middle name ?

Except he'd usually say " Claudeballs, by wildcat's revenge"

Don't feel too badly. I ended up losing a leg in my service, so all the amputee jokes came my way. "what do you call an amputee in a lion's den?"
"Clawed" LOL

 

[Thorlifter]

My middle name is Claude. Guess what nickname a A-hole senior gave me when I started high school and he learned my middle name ?

Except he'd usually say " Claudeballs, by wildcat's revenge"

HUH??????

 

[tyrodtom]

HUH??????

Look at the address on Njaco's essay.

 

[CobberKane]

Punny nicknames, gotta love 'em. I read a list of the 10 best porn movie titles once. My favourite was "Shaving Ryan's Privates".

 

[Aozora]

I am currently working on a research paper covering the subject of characteristics of the German, Japanese, American, Russian, and Russian aircraft and how these traits affected the outcome of the the nation's aerial warfare. I've had a hard time finding sources that go into the subject of common traits shared between the planes. If anyone could provide me with some information or links it would be greatly appreciated.

Gotta agree with drgondog, this is way too wide in scope: not only will you be neck deep in data but a lot of it will be contradictory, or vague opinion, and before you know it you'll be waking up every night with the screaming fits. If you can it would be better to make your research and your paper more focused by concentrating on (say) one nation or one aircraft type (eg: heavy bombers) and ( for example) decide how various philosophies and doctrines influenced the development of aircraft.

For example, the Japanese did not use armour or self-sealing fuel tanks for most of their early WW 2 aircraft - was this because of the Samurai doctrine that attack was always preferable to defense, or was it simply because of expediency and design constraints, and the performance demanded in the specifications issued by the JAAF and JNAF?

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think we could make some generalizations.

Germany and Russia tended to concentrate more on tactical then strategic bombers.
The US UK worked on both types of bombers
Japanese navel aircraft put emphasis on range.
Japan utilized a lot of fighters on floats.
The USN favored air cooled engines and aircraft with folding wings for better storage.

 

[meatloaf109]

I can generalize even further. Most had wings, and many had landing gear.
Some looked cool and some performed better than expected. Some were ugly and some were a disaster.
But there was one that was the coolest looking and long lasting to boot;
Gentlemen, I present the Bf-109. Small and deadly, it remained (as an airframe) in service from a 1930's design into the 1950's.
Pretty darned good, by anyones standards.
Just sayin'!

 

[Marcel]

I think we could make some generalizations.

Germany and Russia tended to concentrate more on tactical then strategic bombers.
The US UK worked on both types of bombers
Japanese navel aircraft put emphasis on range.
Japan utilized a lot of fighters on floats.
The USN favored air cooled engines and aircraft with folding wings for better storage.

And the Dutch preferred cheap

 

[Airframes]

heck Marcel, I need to get some new glasses! I thought you'd typed "And the Dutch prefer cheese"!!
I had visions of Fokker Edams and imported Moraine Goudas!

 

[Marcel]

heck Marcel, I need to get some new glasses! I thought you'd typed "And the Dutch prefer cheese"!!
I had visions of Fokker Edams and imported Moraine Goudas!

Oh we prefer cheese allright, but we found out that they don't fly well. Fokkers actually fly slightly better.

 

[Airframes]

Yep, the Swiss have that problem too, with all those holes in their cheese! And now, back to the thread ....