Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

Battle of Hypatia questions

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by Daryl   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:42 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3278
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Dad's gone, so too late to ask him.
He did say that there was a manual pump to top up the sump, then you dropped the empty tank.
Mind you I remember a brand new Skoda Octavia hire car in France that needed an oil top up with every second tank of fuel. Apparently common in VW engined vehicles.

Relax wrote:
Daryl wrote:Late coming so apologies for changing the topic back.
My late dad flew Spitfires (also Kitty Hawks) in the Pacific.
If you understand British engines of the era (car,motorbike or plane) they all leaked oil.
Thus on long flights the Spitfire had a drop tank for oil as well as for fuel. The Merlin engine was a classic, but after long flights the fuselage needed cleaning down of oil.

A drop tank for oil? I have never read that one before. Cool. Got some more details? I have always read they just increased the oil tank volume to coincide with the longer missions the extra fuel provided.
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by Theemile   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:22 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4456
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

lyonheart wrote:
Hi all!

<snip>

Regarding the time pods can be traitored externally, I never read any textev that mentioned it, but it'd RFC's universe; and he may have felt the need to place some limits on tractoring pods.
It would have been a considerable tactical hinderance having to replace the pods frequently for Home Fleet's SD's etc, if they were in the middle of switching in the next batch when Tourville arrived.

<snip>

These and other questions continue to puzzle if not haunt my understanding.

Any insights will be very appreciated.

Bet wishes to all,


Hi Lyonheart - long time no see, definitely missed your contributions to the conversation.

David posted awhile back that the Fusion pods had a "tactical" lifespan when the internal tractor was live - more than a day, less than a week. He didn't get more specific than that, probably to keep him out of any writing traps. I'm calling it most likely somewhere between 75 and 100 hours of use, or "high 10s of hours."

Without the tractor, an active pod reactor at standby levels will last ~30 days without refurbishment and refueling, which has been defined as replacement of the fuel, refurbishing a part or 2, and replacement of 1 or 2 wear parts that are undefined, but any warship can carry them in abundance. This is the same use period if the pod is in standby or if the pod is in system defense mode.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by tlb   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:52 am

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, looking at the engine + turbo diagrams for a P-47 or P-38 the turbos and related components for a WWII era aircraft engine seem huge and you need a lot of volume to fit them and all their ductwork. It looks like most of the fuselage behind a P-47's cockpit is taken up by its turbo. As such big beasts (compared to engine driven superchargers) they seem easier to fit onto multi-engine bombers or transports than onto your typical fighter or naval strike aircraft (and the USAAF used them far more extensively on bombers).

So compactness and lower combat altitudes seem to say that the USN probably made the right choice in eschewing any turbos in its carrier aircraft.

tlb wrote:And the presence of the turbocharger explains why you could not pull this same trick to add range to the P-47.

Relax wrote:Not true, just look at the P47 cutaway drawing. It is wide open behind cockpit for a fuel tank of equal size. The intercooler and turbo is a good 3 bulkheads behind the cockpit or roughly 5ft.

It should be noted that ~late 43' the USAAF cut back... WAAAYY back on designating amount of fuel for:
Warm Up/Taxi, forming up, Combat, and reserve fuel. These changes alone gave an additional ~100+ miles of range to all fighters. If you want nitty gritty go to Greg's Planes and Automobiles channel and watch P47 Range video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLa078v69k where he goes into the Eggs and Braids Bureaucratic Bull Cover Your Ass malarky which is where the absurd notion of the P51's as escort fighters compared to the P47 comes from.... All due to abject arrogance that the Bomber would get through and would not need those fancy Dan fly boys... So arrogant they expressly BANNED $$$ to go towards drop tanks... You will note Lockheed Martin was selling drop tanks to the Brits in 1940... for their Ventura aircraft. Republic designed, tested 200gallon drop tank for high altitude for the P47 FROM THE OUTSET... Instead USAAF personnel had to go to Brit manufacturers and get crappy paper tanks made with vastly more drag instead of the high altitude streamlined tanks already designed by Republic...

Another addendum, NIT: Republic never bothered to put a fuel tank back there. P47D added 70+ gallons of fuel itself to the wings at same time the P51 added ~80 gallons itself behind the cockpit in late B models. P47 Could have added more... Which they did with the N model and had an ultimate radius/range WELL over 2300nm with warm up, climb, 10min combat added in...

Wonderful that the N variant had all that added range, but what puzzles me is why the Mustang trick of a fuselage tank was not used more widely. I was not trying to state a fact, but Jonathan S's statement seemed to be an explanation; which you now state is incorrect. It seems that would have given the needed extra range much earlier, just like with the Mustang beginning at the B variant.
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:55 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Admiral

Posts: 2468
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Theemile wrote:Without the tractor, an active pod reactor at standby levels will last ~30 days without refurbishment and refueling, which has been defined as replacement of the fuel, refurbishing a part or 2, and replacement of 1 or 2 wear parts that are undefined, but any warship can carry them in abundance. This is the same use period if the pod is in standby or if the pod is in system defense mode.


If they need to do maintenance on system defence pod shoals every 30 days, that's a monumental task. Not to mention all too easy for someone to make a list of where they are and sneak in contact nukes.

I'd expect the Mk40 system defence Apollos and their pods to have a longer shelf life.

Then again, how long does it take to go from storage to firing, in case of an emergency? Warships can do that with resupply from colliers within a few hours at best.
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by Relax   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:42 pm

Relax
Admiral

Posts: 2922
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

tlb wrote:Wonderful that the N variant had all that added range, but what puzzles me is why the Mustang trick of a fuselage tank was not used more widely. I was not trying to state a fact, but Jonathan S's statement seemed to be an explanation; which you now state is incorrect. It seems that would have given the needed extra range much earlier, just like with the Mustang beginning at the B variant.

Johnathan S's statement is not incorrect. Rather, not the whole story. Like most things in life, we prefer simple explanations, with a kernel of truth even if it is not complete. WWII Authors have repeated this simple explanation verbatim so many times that NO ONE has questioned otherwise UNTIL, the archives were opened 50 years later and all kinds of "truths" have been found out to be complete LIES or at best, partial truths to hide some VERY ugly part of history like Operation KEELHAUL for instance.

The simplistic explanation for why the P51 was chosen over the P47 for the majority usage, in terms of an escort fighter is not simple in the slightest. Especially since the P51 IS superior in terms of Fuel usage/mileage. Of course it has far less survivability and was the main reason why the P47 was relegated to forward interdiction and ground attack role instead of escort even though it was faster and more maneuverable at high elevation than the P51.

The more convoluted reason: It mostly has to do with Generals high up in the USAAF covering their ass instead of admitting their MORONIC ARROGANT idea that bombers would always get through and can bomb a "pickle jar" instead of having fighter escort was pitifully negligent and stupid. Careers had to be saved after all instead of admitting their arrogance and lack of forethought/planning got thousands of airmen killed/wounded. So, the USAAF Generals cooked the books is the short explanation to show that the P47 did not have the range but the P51 did, which did not show up until AFTER the disasterous 1943 daylight bombing campaigns over Schweinfurt.

So, If the P47's had their already designed/tested/verified drop tanks made by Republic in 1941 and written into the range chart IN the OPERATION MANUAL for ALL P47's, which EVERY pilot had to know by heart, and be tested on, had been manufactured and bought by the USAAF, then the P47 would have been doing escort missions all the way over Germany in Middle of 1943 covering those early disasterous raids. Something the P51B could not do until it received the fuel tank behind the pilot. And then the initial restrictions on fuel use were lifted as it was found that absolutely no one dualed in the sky for 5 minutes as 80% of all kills were energy "boom and zoom" and only 20% could be classified as "dogfights" and the majority of these happened VERY early in the war over France/UK/Eastern Front + a few early on in the Pacific.

PS: I believe the Spitfire XIV and later models had a fuel tank behind the pilot as well. I suppose your real question is why the Hellcat/Wildcat/Corsair did not add this fuel tank behind the pilots. I do not know, but they already had long endurance comparatively speaking to their USAAF/German/UK contemporaries with the additional consideration that long range missions were not common other than by land based patrol aircraft. Why? Islands/Carriers are just too danged small compared to the vast distances of the Pacific between islands. We are talking over 1000nm in most cases. It should also be pointed out that Carriers/escorts range limit by fuel is a not unfounded consideration. Everyone asks, WHY the Japanese did not send a 3rd wave to Pearl Harbor... Fuel is the main reason, lack of surprise is another, did not know where the USN carriers were was also upper most in their minds. Refueling ships at sea, while in its infancy in WWII usually happened in a harbor or behind a reef somewhere so in effect carriers were not really used as forward operation bases as they are today, but rather strike force for specific targets.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:17 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 7209
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Relax wrote:I suppose your real question is why the Hellcat/Wildcat/Corsair did not add this fuel tank behind the pilots. I do not know, but they already had long endurance comparatively speaking to their USAAF/German/UK contemporaries with the additional consideration that long range missions were not common other than by land based patrol aircraft.

I'd speculate (and this is just speculation) that carrier launched fighters might have needed to be a bit more takeoff weight conscious than land based fighters; and adding the weight of even more fuel could have negatively affected their ability to operate from the existing carriers.

Remember that at this time use of the catapults for launching carrier aircraft was the exception, and not the rule it is today. (They only had 1 or 2, and it would take far to long to launch the kind of mass strikes they used off of those. Instead they'd be used for things like flying off a few replacement CAP fighters while the rear of the flight deck was being used for landing, striking down, or staging other aircraft. Only the little escort carriers tended to use their catapults for routing launches). So more weight = either longer takeoff roll (and you've only so much length of flight deck) or more wind required over the bow.



I the escort carriers kept operating earlier USN fighters become some of the late war ones couldn't be easily operated off them due to takeoff requirements; so it's not implausible that adding more weight could make you run into that even on the longer, and faster, Essex-class fleet carriers.

Whereas for a land based aircraft more weight (within reason) just means you need to operate them from a bit longer runway; something that's much easier to come by (or quickly extend) during a war.
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by tlb   » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:27 pm

tlb
Admiral

Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Thanks to both of you, things are clearer now.
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by lyonheart   » Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:20 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Howdy Theemile!

Good to hear from you too!

More below.


Theemile wrote:
lyonheart wrote:
Hi all!

<snip>

Regarding the time pods can be traitored externally, I never read any textev that mentioned it, but it'd RFC's universe; and he may have felt the need to place some limits on tractoring pods.
It would have been a considerable tactical hinderance having to replace the pods frequently for Home Fleet's SD's etc, if they were in the middle of switching in the next batch when Tourville arrived.

<snip>

These and other questions continue to puzzle if not haunt my understanding.

Any insights will be very appreciated.

Bet wishes to all,


Hi Lyonheart - long time no see, definitely missed your contributions to the conversation.

David posted awhile back that the Fusion pods had a "tactical" lifespan when the internal tractor was live - more than a day, less than a week. He didn't get more specific than that, probably to keep him out of any writing traps. I'm calling it most likely somewhere between 75 and 100 hours of use, or "high 10s of hours."

Without the tractor, an active pod reactor at standby levels will last ~30 days without refurbishment and refueling, which has been defined as replacement of the fuel, refurbishing a part or 2, and replacement of 1 or 2 wear parts that are undefined, but any warship can carry them in abundance. This is the same use period if the pod is in standby or if the pod is in system defense mode.


Do you mean internal reactor not tractor?

If I'm understanding things, having the pods tractored to the hull in system inside the ship's protective fields but dormant, they could be carried for quite some time, while the active reactor lifespan was much more limited, to lend some verisimilitude rather than lasting forever like some "erternia" battery.

The logistical limitations haven't ever been mentioned in the textev, where they could easily impinge on the tactical situation; where half of Home Fleet or wherever the defenders were, could have ben caught with their pants down switching out the pods for fresh ones, too far out of position to intercept properly etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

Best wishes,
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by lyonheart   » Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:20 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Howdy Theemile!

Good to hear from you too!

More below.


Theemile wrote:
lyonheart wrote:
Hi all!

<snip>

Regarding the time pods can be traitored externally, I never read any textev that mentioned it, but it'd RFC's universe; and he may have felt the need to place some limits on tractoring pods.
It would have been a considerable tactical hinderance having to replace the pods frequently for Home Fleet's SD's etc, if they were in the middle of switching in the next batch when Tourville arrived.

<snip>

These and other questions continue to puzzle if not haunt my understanding.

Any insights will be very appreciated.

Bet wishes to all,


Hi Lyonheart - long time no see, definitely missed your contributions to the conversation.

David posted awhile back that the Fusion pods had a "tactical" lifespan when the internal tractor was live - more than a day, less than a week. He didn't get more specific than that, probably to keep him out of any writing traps. I'm calling it most likely somewhere between 75 and 100 hours of use, or "high 10s of hours."

Without the tractor, an active pod reactor at standby levels will last ~30 days without refurbishment and refueling, which has been defined as replacement of the fuel, refurbishing a part or 2, and replacement of 1 or 2 wear parts that are undefined, but any warship can carry them in abundance. This is the same use period if the pod is in standby or if the pod is in system defense mode.


Do you mean internal reactor not tractor?

If I'm understanding things, having the pods tractored to the hull in system inside the ship's protective fields but dormant, they could be carried for quite some time, while the active reactor lifespan was much more limited, to lend some verisimilitude rather than lasting forever like some "erternia" battery.

The logistical limitations haven't ever been mentioned in the textev, where they could easily impinge on the tactical situation; where half of Home Fleet or wherever the defenders were, could have ben caught with their pants down switching out the pods for fresh ones, too far out of position to intercept properly etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

Best wishes,
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Battle of Hypatia questions
Post by cthia   » Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:30 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 13794
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

By internal tractor, I thought he was referring to the internal tractors that the pods use to attach themselves.

Getting caught with pants down reminds me of what happened to the Japanese on that fateful carrier in WWII, when Nagumo changed his tactics yet again right before launching his planes and ordered a second change of torpedos to be loaded on the planes and he got caught with a lot of ordnance all over the flight deck with an American squadron barreling down on him.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Return to Honorverse