This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Re: Schmorgasboard!

Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:32 pm

rreis wrote:
Jiggersfromsphilly wrote:ME 110


I think there's one the the RAF Museum in Hendon and surely there is one at the Technik Museum in Berlin.


Thats right, I forgot!

Re: Schmorgasboard!

Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:32 pm

rreis wrote:
Jiggersfromsphilly wrote:ME 110


I think there's one the the RAF Museum in Hendon and surely there is one at the Technik Museum in Berlin.


Thats right, I forgot!

Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:10 am

My vote for the most complex warbird goes to ....

a Zeppelin !

Image

The bill to build a replica of one of these would make a billionaire shudder

(just noticed BDK mentioned the Zeppelin at the beggining of the thread , oh well , my vote still stands )

Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:14 am

aseanaero wrote:My vote for the most complex warbird goes to ....

a Zeppelin !

The bill to build a replica of one of these would make a billionaire shudder


Yeah OK, it's BIG, but otherwise I'm not sure that I agree. What exactly is it about a zeppelin that you think is so "complex" or expensive? Can you explain your position further?

I'm guessing that the steel framework is pretty simple and not even up to "real" aviation structural standards. (Does it have to withstand 3 g's or more?) You don't need A&P mechanics to rivet it together - all you need are some old bridge workers.

Better yet, to build a zeppelin, all you have to do is wrap an old truss-type bridge in canvas, dope & seal it, and pump it full of gas (preferably helium, please!)

Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:24 am

Hi Rajay,

to do is wrap an old truss-type bridge in canvas, dope & seal it, and pump it full of gas (preferably helium, please!)


Ok , if the Russians built airships in the 1920s I would agree with you but with the Germans engineering is taken to a complex art form.

Main reason for complexity is the sheer size of the beast , the logistics of assembling a Zeppelin would require a huge hangar , enormous manpower etc.

Then all the components, fittings etc would have to be built from scratch as there aren't lots of disused Zeppelins or Zeppelin parts laying around.

Have a look at the duralumin truss work in the lower left hand corner of the picture below , this isn't bridge construction

Image

And there's MILES of it

Image

Image


787 feet in length and 115 feet in height

Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:05 am

Not to mention a few HUNDRED ground crew!!!! :shock:

Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:13 pm

Rajay wrote:I'm guessing that the steel framework is pretty simple and not even up to "real" aviation structural standards. (Does it have to withstand 3 g's or more?) You don't need A&P mechanics to rivet it together - all you need are some old bridge workers.

Guess again, or have a look at the published data on the development of airships. Don't kid yourself that they were anything but the cutting edge of aviation technology in their day, and it's clear you've missed the critical point of the massive requirement for weight saving - something to match the modern airliner building business with the demands.

Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:23 pm

JDK wrote:
Rajay wrote:I'm guessing that the steel framework is pretty simple and not even up to "real" aviation structural standards. (Does it have to withstand 3 g's or more?) You don't need A&P mechanics to rivet it together - all you need are some old bridge workers.

Guess again, or have a look at the published data on the development of airships. Don't kid yourself that they were anything but the cutting edge of aviation technology in their day, and it's clear you've missed the critical point of the massive requirement for weight saving - something to match the modern airliner building business with the demands.


Other than trying to get the previous poster to explain his position beyond just throwing "zeppelin" out there on its own, everything else about that post of mine, especially the bridge construction references, was just an attempt at some light humor. Obviously, it was lame and fell flat since none of you seemed to take it that way.

Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:05 pm

A Zero: Lot's of small parts. Or Hurricane, very English.

Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:04 pm

Image

I still in awe of how complex the truss work is (lower left photo) , in the upper left photo the seemingly simple trusswork of the modern airship pictured is made from .... carbon fibre

Your intentions and humor is noted Squirrel , as long as Moose stays in retirement all is well. Best regards Boris and Natasha
Post a reply