View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-War home page.
[Stanley Sandler asks:] "I'm wondering about Erick Lund's assertion that the Kurds of 70 years ago were being bombarded from RAF "heavy bombers." Even at the time would these aircraft be so considered -considering the Russian, German, Italian, and British four-engine bombers of World War I?" The quick, nitpicking answer to that question is that since there was as yet no such category as a "heavy bomber," no. I was thinking of the Vickers Virginia and Handley Page Hinaidi of the late '20s, and these were both classified as night bombers. The question is whether the comparison is really realistic, in the sense that the wartime heavy bombers (to grant them the name) really represented working aircraft. Let's look at a comparison of the Virginia and the wartime Handley Page V/1500. The Virginia had a tare weight of 9,650 lb, all up weight 17,600 lbs, span of 87 feet 8 inches, length of over 62 feet, wing area of 2178 square feet, 2x570 hp 18 cylinder liquid cooled "arrow" Napier Lions. Comparable figures for the V/1500 are 17,602 lbs/30,000 lbs, span 126 feet, length 64 feet, wing area 3000 square feet, 4x375 hp liquid cooled V-12 Rolls Royce Eagles. Although substantially smaller than the V/1500 (except in length), the Virginia was actually much closer to the larger aircraft in wing area and enginen power than might have been expected. This is reflected in two figures of merit often used in assessing the airworthiness of an aircraft, the wing loading and power loading. V/1500 Virginia Max. wing loading 10 lb/sq ft 8 Max power loading 20 lb/hp 15 The wing loadings are low, power loading high compared to propeller-driven monoplanes, reflecting their biplane construction. More surprising is the V/1500's surprisingly short body, with correspondingly reduced leverage on the tail surfaces. I am reminded of the comments of one contemporary observer who, in the course of a very favourable review of the German heavy bombers noted that he did not know whether the very small size of the elevators on these aircraft was intended to reduce control strain, or to prevent the pilots from putting enough control force on the aircraft to break the structure in mid air! Seriously, the V/1500s and their relatives had totally inadequate controls and were structurally weak. They were simply not airworthy. Although a few very limited operations were undertaken in them, their accident rates, especially in takeoffs and landings, verged on tragic. Fortunately, they were generally going so slowly that the crews had high survival rates. For this reason I'm inclined to call the Virginia a heavy bomber in the context of the 20s, just as I would call the B-17 a heavy bomber up to 1944, notwithstanding the existence of the XB-15 and XB-19. The WWI giants belong with these aircraft, the Dornier Do X, _Maxim Gorkii_, and other attempts to push beyond the limits of statics, engine design, and aeroydnamics. Erik Lund PS: I don't know if there is anyone out there seriouslly researching the life of T. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia, but for some reason the middle initial isn't coming to me), but he suffered a severe head injury when the Handley Page O/400 or V/1500 he was flying in overturned on landing at Rome. This was just weeks before his first major demonstration of "eccentricity" at the Damascus talks, and ever since learning of this I've wondered if brain damage might have played a role in his subsequent behaviour.
|