Hurricanes in France with AT-Rockets under the wings? Mobile, Radar Guided AA in time for TTL-Overlord? More Spitfires to kick the stuffing out of the Luftwaffe over East Anglia?
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hurricanes in France with AT-Rockets under the wings? Mobile, Radar Guided AA in time for TTL-Overlord? More Spitfires to kick the stuffing out of the Luftwaffe over East Anglia?
Actually boosting the UK's national income would enable you to afford more. One of the weakeness is that each service has its own ministry and the ideas have to pass their respective ministries before challenging the other ministries bright idea.
At least there's a ghost of plan to use those retarded biplanes. They had decent monoplanes in the RAF at the end of WWI, so who was the retard who thought biplanes superior?
Whittle should go to Churchill direct.
At least there's a ghost of plan to use those retarded biplanes. They had decent monoplanes in the RAF at the end of WWI, so who was the retard who thought biplanes superior?
Whittle should go to Churchill direct.
- 1
- 1
trekaddict - Yes.
Chief Ragusa - Really what are these decent biplanes? Because honestly I'm struggling on that one, damned if I can think of any WW1 monoplanes that were actually any good. (The Eindekker partially excluded, but even that had been replaced by a biplane well before 1918)
Almost all the monoplanes were slower and far, far less manoeuvrable than the equivalent biplane. Indeed it wasn't till the early/mid 1930s that the engineering was good enough to produce the strong, thin wings which gave monoplanes a decisive advantage.
There are countless reasons to castigate the Air Ministry and RAF/RFC, but a prejudice against monoplanes is not one of them. Frankly given the choice of a 1920s biplane against a 1920s monoplane I'd take the two decker every time, even if I do have a speed disadvantage (very unlikely given the low engine powers of the day) I'll out turn the bugger every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Chief Ragusa - Really what are these decent biplanes? Because honestly I'm struggling on that one, damned if I can think of any WW1 monoplanes that were actually any good. (The Eindekker partially excluded, but even that had been replaced by a biplane well before 1918)
Almost all the monoplanes were slower and far, far less manoeuvrable than the equivalent biplane. Indeed it wasn't till the early/mid 1930s that the engineering was good enough to produce the strong, thin wings which gave monoplanes a decisive advantage.
There are countless reasons to castigate the Air Ministry and RAF/RFC, but a prejudice against monoplanes is not one of them. Frankly given the choice of a 1920s biplane against a 1920s monoplane I'd take the two decker every time, even if I do have a speed disadvantage (very unlikely given the low engine powers of the day) I'll out turn the bugger every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
- 1
The Bristol M1C was the British one. There was a clear prejudice against monoplanes. They didn't believe a monoplane could handle the strain of biplane engines that they didn't try. Added to which the line was designed by a Romanian engineer and they definitely had prejudices against Romanians knowing anything about aircraft design. The air ministry didn't even ask the Fokkers post WW1 about monoplanes. Everytime the Germans had issues with a Fokkers monoplane they came back with a design that met those criticisms.
- 1
trekaddict - Just don't forget their occasional success. Or that other Air Ministries were just as bad at getting things horrifically wrong on occasion, the German dive bombing obsession for instance or French aviation in general.
Chief Ragusa - There was prejudice against monoplanes but that was because they weren't any good in the 1910s/20s. Fears of collapse were entirely justified, it wasn't until the development of the cantilever wing and mono-strut construction (both in the 1930s) that monoplanes became clearly superior. Until then a biplane would out turn any monoplane and could take a far larger engine without putting too much load on the wing.
Taking the German example the final monoplane the Fokker E.IV was an utter dog, the wings couldn't cope with the gyroscopic forces of the engine and turning at the same time. It was so bad in fact it was declared obsolete and replaced by a biplane, hardly 'responding to the criticism', more 'proving the prejudice correct'.
Chief Ragusa - There was prejudice against monoplanes but that was because they weren't any good in the 1910s/20s. Fears of collapse were entirely justified, it wasn't until the development of the cantilever wing and mono-strut construction (both in the 1930s) that monoplanes became clearly superior. Until then a biplane would out turn any monoplane and could take a far larger engine without putting too much load on the wing.
Taking the German example the final monoplane the Fokker E.IV was an utter dog, the wings couldn't cope with the gyroscopic forces of the engine and turning at the same time. It was so bad in fact it was declared obsolete and replaced by a biplane, hardly 'responding to the criticism', more 'proving the prejudice correct'.
- 1
The two examples you gave were made to pay. The French by having to be rescued by Brits, Canucks and Yanks, the Germans by loosing the war and being partitioned for decades. The Air Ministry of the UK on the other hand was rewarded by the Spitfire and winning the BoB.
- 1
That was rather the point, the '30s/40s Air Ministry for all it's faults didn't do that badly overall so perhaps should get a bit of credit occasional.
The post-war Ministry though, that's a completely different matter....
- 1
- 1
The last Fokker was the EV and it had the cantilever design. It won a competiton in July 1918. Had one confirmed kill either side almost of wing failures, which grounded the aircraft. Changes in design and better worker training lead to the Germans ordering 335 of what became known as trhe DVIII variant. By 8 October 289 had been delivered. A DVIII, referred to by allied pilots as the Flying Razor, had the last confirmed kill of WWI. The plane then saw service with the Polish, Dutch and US airforces.
I think that qualifies for meeting criticisms.
I think that qualifies for meeting criticisms.
Last edited:
- 1
Not giving those old biplanes to the scrap merchants? Step Toe would me most disappointed..
- 1
Not giving those old biplanes to the scrap merchants? Step Toe would me most disappointed..
Why would this guy be disappointed?
- 1
Steptoe_and_Son was a 1970's UK "comedy" of dubious comedic merit in which the 2 main characters were a father and son scrap metal merchants. The picture is of the father.
- 1
Ah-I watched the US version Sanford & Son in reruns when I was a kid.
As for the Air Ministry, thankfully TTL they can't commit their greatest wrong--nerfing the FAA.
Last edited:
- 1
Chief Ragusa - The Fokker E.V/D.VIII) did not have a cantilever wing, it was a parasol wing which is (in engineering terms) completely different and quite emphatically not as good. I'm not saying the D.VIII was useless, merely that a top notch biplane would be better in most quantifiable ways.
I would further suggest that the list of operators underlines the point it was not exactly a front line aircraft, all those nations lacked an indigenous aircraft industry (or at least one that was any good) so had to rely on war loot. Once they started making their own they all went for biplanes, as did everyone else in the world.
Sir Humphrey - Steptoe would always be disappointed, was he in fact every happy?
DonnieBaseball - The Fleet Air Arm can run free earlier than OTL, thank heavens for small mercies and all that.
I would further suggest that the list of operators underlines the point it was not exactly a front line aircraft, all those nations lacked an indigenous aircraft industry (or at least one that was any good) so had to rely on war loot. Once they started making their own they all went for biplanes, as did everyone else in the world.
Sir Humphrey - Steptoe would always be disappointed, was he in fact every happy?
DonnieBaseball - The Fleet Air Arm can run free earlier than OTL, thank heavens for small mercies and all that.
- 1
Does that include procurement? (I think this has already been answered, but I cant be bothered to look through the entire thread again, sorry.)
- 1
Fair enough, I occasionally feel the same about tacking back to old plot points in yours
( )Procurement is now through the Admiralty so in theory they are independent. However the practical reality is the Air Minister still has all the experts so they'll end up being involved in some function for the short term at least.
- 1
Fair enough, I occasionally feel the same about tacking back to old plot points in yours
If that happens again, feel free to ask away.
Hrm. At least that should make sure that the FAA gets monoplanes and later Jets on time and not five years after everybody else.
- 1
Well, gee, El Pip, guess the people who wrote that the EV D VIII had fully cantilevered wings didn't know what they were talking about. They can't have been right about the Germans only giving the D rating to planes that had wings as sturdy as biplanes. The Fokkers were Dutch, too, not German and that presented a further hurdle.
Allied fighters don't name a plane the Flying Razor, if it's something they want to go up against. Being faster those top-notch biplanes could run away.
The EV won its July 1918 competition against biplanes, too. Had the Luftwaffe existed post WWI, the EV D VIII would have been its primary fighter. How long would it have been before the French and British followed suit? All those biplane exports lost and 10s of thousands of biplanes scrapped?
Now you're in a race against time to get monoplanes to replace all those biplanes.
So you're developing jet engines, guided missiles and presumably radar. Your other research would therefore be fighters for the fleet air arm and fighter command.
Allied fighters don't name a plane the Flying Razor, if it's something they want to go up against. Being faster those top-notch biplanes could run away.
The EV won its July 1918 competition against biplanes, too. Had the Luftwaffe existed post WWI, the EV D VIII would have been its primary fighter. How long would it have been before the French and British followed suit? All those biplane exports lost and 10s of thousands of biplanes scrapped?
Now you're in a race against time to get monoplanes to replace all those biplanes.
So you're developing jet engines, guided missiles and presumably radar. Your other research would therefore be fighters for the fleet air arm and fighter command.
- 1