Big ships can be fast but big planes cannot.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damned charming :)
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planes Ships
AI Thread Summary
Large planes and tanks before World War II were often slow and impractical, unlike battleships that combined speed with heavy armament. The discussion highlights the evolution of military vehicles, noting that tanks like the King Tiger were introduced later in the war compared to earlier models. Speed ratios reveal that large carriers and planes generally have lower maximum speeds compared to smaller, faster vessels and aircraft. The limitations of displacement hulls in ships restrict their speed, while airplane speed is more influenced by design than size. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the historical challenges of balancing size and speed in military technology.
Damned charming :)
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Just before world war 2 there were many big planes and tanks that had lots of guns but were slow. People were trying to make the equivalent of battleships which had lots of guns and armor and were often faster than than smaller ships. however large planes and tanks were impractical. Why?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It is not clear what you mean?

Tanks grew through out WWII, compare a King Tiger to a PzIII or better yet a PzII, it was the PzIIs and PzIIIs that went into Poland in '39 and France in '40. The Tigers were not introduced until '44 and '45. Likewise for the Planes compare a Super fortress to the bombers used in The Battle for Britain.

Now what is your question.
 
Most Carriers (big) can do about 30 knots on a sprint. The HSVs (fast) do about 50 knots. Speed ratio (big/fast) = 0.6

The C5 Galaxy (big) does about 500 mph, while the SR-71 has a top speed of over 2000 mph. Ratio < 0.25 (Ratio's small, < 0.3, even if you compare with an F-15).

Is this the question ?
 
@Gokul43201 that is in essence is my question. I would like it answered in general and I want to know why the speed ratio was even more drastic in the 1930s.

@Integral
I am talking about land battleship tanks with many turrets experimented with before world war 2 such as the t32
http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/t321.htm
similar mistakes were made with experimental planes.
 
A ship that doesn't plane has what's called a "displacement hull." Displacement hull ships have a top speed that's proportional to the square root of the water line length. At "hull speed" (the max speed for that ship), the ship sits in a trough between the bow and stern waves and going faster means lifting the ship out of the water to ride up the bow wave. So while a frigate tops out at 29 knots - and I know from experience that doubling the engine output at 25 knots only pushes you up to 29 - a carrier actually tops out at about 45.

For airplanes, all subsonic jets go about the same speed plus or minus 10% (mach .8 or so). And then, the difference is only due to wing cross section and sweep.

One of the first SR-71 sketches was of a hydrogen powered monster that would have been 300 feet long. Size is not a major factor in airplane speed.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
A ship that doesn't plane has what's called a "displacement hull." Displacement hull ships have a top speed that's proportional to the square root of the water line length. At "hull speed" (the max speed for that ship), the ship sits in a trough between the bow and stern waves and going faster means lifting the ship out of the water to ride up the bow wave. So while a frigate tops out at 29 knots - and I know from experience that doubling the engine output at 25 knots only pushes you up to 29 - a carrier actually tops out at about 45.

Hey thanks, I learned something new today.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
88
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
2
Replies
96
Views
9K
Back
Top