Crude by modern standards but very clever

[yosimitesam]

Below are images of a 2-page article from 1945 Naval Aviation News ("Restricted" classification). It describes a "radar training" device that is essentially a simulator. They created an exact scale (topographically) model of the Tokyo bay area. This was immersed in a water tank and a quartz crystal was used to send ultrasonic pulses (like electromagnetic pulses in actual radar) over the model in the manner of true radar. The trainee would then "fly" the radar source (quartz crystal) to get into a proper approach track to the target. (Sound travels much faster and better in water and that's why the terrain model was submerged.) The article states that it could mimic the radar returns of several models of radar. This simulator would closely mimic actual radar returns as seen on a scope in an aircraft. Such things as terrain shadowing due to undulating topography would be shown realistically. This simulator is very clever in design and it amazes me how forward thinking it was. Radar training was difficult during the war and required flying trainees in aircraft for practice. This device allowed the students to actually "see" what they would on a combat mission to Japan. Interestingly, this device was probably more useful for B-29 pilots in night bombing missions but was published in a Navy periodical. (Note that the editors didn't catch the errors in the image captions on the left on the second page.) I left the images large so that the text could be read, especially the photo captions.

 

[SaparotRob]

Cool!

 

[imipak]

Simulators of this kind would be realistic and include exotic edge effects and other weirdness that computer simulations still struggle with. As such, they're arguably better than a lot of what came later and there will still be a few cases where they'd be more accurate than computer simulations today. Crude can be better than advanced but incomplete. There is a lot we can learn from physical simulations of this kind, and I think modern thinking can sometimes miss a trick.

 

[elbmc1969]

(Note that the editors didn't catch the errors in the image captions on the left on the second page.)

What are the errors in the captions?

 

[yosimitesam]

What are the errors in the captions?

Un-capitalized and un-bolded lead-in to the captions to the photos on the left side. I appears to be just a "layout" error. Printing stuff was complicated in those days.

 

[elbmc1969]

Un-capitalized and un-bolded lead-in to the captions to the photos on the left side. I appears to be just a "layout" error. Printing stuff was complicated in those days.

It's a two-page spread. You need to read across from the "Three imensional" and "Tokyo five" text on the first page.

"Three dimensional trainer relief map of area around bomber flies over nearing Tokyo; radarman uses ..."

 

[yosimitesam]

It's a two-page spread. You need to read across from the "Three imensional" and "Tokyo five" text on the first page.

"Three dimensional trainer relief map of area around bomber flies over nearing Tokyo; radarman uses ..."

!!!
Didn't figure that out. The only copy of the "magazine" I had was single page PDF of poor quality. If I had viewd them side-by-side I would have seen this, instead of being confused. Another "senior moment" on my part. Thanks.

 

[elbmc1969]

!!!
Didn't figure that out. The only copy of the "magazine" I had was single page PDF of poor quality. If I had viewd them side-by-side I would have seen this, instead of being confused. Another "senior moment" on my part. Thanks.

Nah, I only realized because the captions on the first page were ungrammatical gobbledegook and the captions on second page ran across this way.

 

[yosimitesam]

Nah, I only realized because the captions on the first page were ungrammatical gobbledegook and the captions on second page ran across this way.

But compared to me, you are a genius. Like the poster in the thread "What Cheered You Up Today" said: "I walked into a room today, and remembered why." My batting average on this is less than .200 .