>As conventional fuels were in extremely short supply by

>Ramjet

Just take a look what it is or how it works... sums up why nobody really made em
Germany in the otherhand probably would've made if they had time/resource

>>34672779
the best coal has slightly less energy density than jet fuel, but barely over half the specific energy of jet fuel.

It isn't efficient at all. Why use coal when oil is perfectly fine?

>>34673431
because germany didnt have oil

>>34673422
>1940s

>jet fuel comparison

File: 1274059557887.jpg (12KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 120x120px

That thing was both unbelievably retarded and unbelievably brilliant at the same goddamn time. The engine design was full fucking retarded, but worked. The fuselage and airfoil configuration was completely idiotic but incredibly stable, even in the transonic region.

I have no doubt that this would have gone on to be produced out of sheer desperation and kicked way more ass than something this fucking stupid has any right to had the war gone on to '46.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.

>>34673662
Imagine in some alternate reality there is a world where coal-powered planes are a thing and the cold war contained some examples of them in the Chinese / African armies. Plus some sort of coal powered concord.

>>34674226
>Coal powered Concord
Stop, Anon, the erection cannot be contained!

Burn the coal, pay the toll.

>>34673431

What >>34673441 said.

On of many reasons Germany invaded Russia in 1941 is because Southern Russia had (and still has) oil fields.

Germany also invested a lot of time into synthetic fuels research during the war.

One natural resource they did have in abundance was lignite.

>>34673422
yeah, but it's cheaper and somebody could want to experiment with that engine

it's a pity nobody tried to build such a plane post-war

File: coal.jpg (87KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 630x420px

The idea of using coal-based vehicles at a time of oil crisis didn't die with the Nazis.

>Coal-fired Oldsmobile land barge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAN5nO1ag0

Why the fuck isn't there a good 1946/Conceptual Cold War game?

Why can't I be a tanker in the Fula Gap, removing American forces as nuclear fire bleaches everything red? Why can't I be a Mosquito pilot, running for my life as I'm pursued by a coal-powered ramjet interceptor?

Either of these settings would be great, why is there nothing?

>>34674226
>Coal'd War
interesting...

>>34677223
Gas is a lot cheaper when you don't have B-25s over all your refineries.

>>34677266

>what is Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis
>what is Arma 1
>what is Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising
>what is Red Alert
>what is World In Conflict
>what is DCSworld

File: Stokers.jpg (103KB, 640x487px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x487px

>>34672779
Call the engine room. We're going to afterburners.

>>34672779
>why is this impractical last ditch way of powering and airplane by a declining power with limited access to strategic resources and manpower was not implemented by a superpower with unlimited resources?
I don't know... but sounds like an extremely smart and by no means a retarded as hell question really

>>34677315
not sure if kerosene is cheaper than the specially prepared coal if we had a large scale facilities to prepare coal for jet engines but at the very end somebody might build a flying experimental/novelty aircraft liek that, grr

also b-25 is a frontline bomber, you mean b-24 like those used in the failed tidal wave operation

>>34678266
If you want to see zone five coalburning, just tour Fort Stewart.

>>34677228
yes, there still exist wood powered trucks in the north korea

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/how-north-korea-fuels-its-military-trucks-with-trees/

but those are mere cars

if north korea was ingenious they could make a 3rd-4th generation coal powered fighter jet/

File: 1495958916828.png (281KB, 371x532px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 371x532px

>>34678393
Or if you REALLY want primitive technology

>wood
>fired
>T-55

File: 1494819114399.png (320KB, 495x450px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 495x450px

>>34672779
>11:50, December 24, 1945
>High above Stuttgart the battle for the skies of the Third Reich rages on.
>Allied fighters race between the wings of their fellow bombers as the Luftwaffe scrambles to intercept the raid
>Night fighters tow up a flight of Lippisch P.13a's to assist in the attack
>With a deafening roar, their coal ramjets engage and tow lines are released.
>The jets trail black smoke against moonlit clouds as their scream towards the allied bombers.

>A young boy watches from his bedroom window as sparks and gunfire flash in the sky.
>He prays that Saint Nicholas will find his home well, bringing his family happiness.
>His brother has died on the eastern front.
>His father was killed in a bombing raid.
>His mother barely speaks anymore.
>He watches some strange aircraft burn and fall back to earth, passing high over his house
>Something patters on the roof
>He runs to the family room where their modest tree stands
>Coal
>Coal everywhere
>The boy cries.

>>34681294
>11:50 more than six months after the war ended

>>34681348
So here's a tip; if you're going to write about a prototype aircraft in combat, it makes a lot more sense to establish a hypothetical scenario to accommodate that rather than shoehorning the aircraft into already written history. There's a reason you don't see lasers in novels about World War II that take place in 1943.

Also fuck you.

>>34678748
Doesn't North Korea still have T-34s?

>>34681475
I doubt it. We turned most, if not all of them into scrap metal by the time the Korean War ended, and by then they were important enough, along with China, to be getting better Soviet tech than surplus WWII vintage tanks. The Soviets wanted to remain influential on the peninsula, so arming the Norks with shitter T-34s would have been a bad idea. That being said, if any survived you can bet they're still in active use... you know, when they have fuel for them.

>>34681294
aww, cute!
all your dreams are coal

>>34681475
according to the wiki t-34 was reitred there

File: luy_FvZ9n5QdPp-6hbrc1ByA3YzSkYFoHVrwvEWLhGs.jpg (68KB, 601x357px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 601x357px

>>34681475
they still have a few, but not in active service they only show up in parades

File: Naamloos-2.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

>>34677228
Well I guess thats whats really meant by "rolling coal"

>>34672874
Russians and Americans both used ramjets in several applications

>>34677266
Il2 1946, please buy it its fantastic

>>34681475
They still use mig-15s as trainers

>>34673662
>>34674226
A nation under oil embargo in an alternate timeline where air power was taken very seriously (as opposed to ours where it was seen as a novelty or full of bullshit theories that persisted for decades) might very well make something like this and use it with great effect in a defensive context.

>>34673422
While it has less specific energy what you need to remember is that with subsonic and transonic aircraft there's this threshold of "good enough" that's easily met. I say that because air combat of both WWI and WWII was actually quite forgiving as far as technology was concerned, "obsolete" was more or less a mild handicap if the performance gap wasn't absurdly big. (Sopwith Camel versus Fw-190) Even early war aircraft developed during the 30's were still able to hold their own with aircraft entering service in 1945, and even the early jets with their cutting edge technology were still vulnerable to some jackass in a Curtiss Hawk or it's derivatives.

During the later years when jets started really getting fast the obsolete fighters still could piss in your cereal, and when air-to-air missiles came about the old jets still found their use in air forces. They didn't even have to do their original thing, F-86s were first flown in 1947 and only retired in 1994 in Bolivian service, their last conflict was in the Indo-Pakistani War (1971) and managed to score kills against more modern designs flown by the IAF. A more modern example is the F-16, it really isn't the best aircraft out there but it does a lot of stuff and it does them all "good enough" and continues to do so cheaply enough, upgrades continue to prove it's effectiveness. There's other examples all throughout history just like it too.

So again, the bar of "is it good enough?" is really all that needs to be met. Being able to fly planes that do the job is more important than being able to field the best planes for the job.

File: tumblr_otelt8RWZk1twki9io1_1280.jpg (43KB, 600x332px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x332px

>>34672779
What if you used weed instead of coal?

>>34682568
You get higher altitudes

File: 1469031924842.jpg (25KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x300px

>>34683249

>coal powered planes

nazis were utterly fucking retarded

>>34683296
shut up fag

meantime some dudes try to design a synthetic fuel for convenient jet engines, made from coal

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/417217/cleaner-jet-fuel-from-coal/

not that cool as a real coal engine though

>>34681715
i believe that only late war superprops could compete with jets having a comparable climb and while being slower the early jets needed time to build speed. for a kittyhawk jets would be uncatcheable and only killable if they make some grave mistake

for the same reason biplanes died out early-mid war

File: images (4).jpg (9KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 273x185px

>>34672779
I've read quite a bit about the flying dorito, aerodynamically it was incredible for its time. The engine was a rather good idea but born of need.

I'm skeptical of the ramjet producing enough thrust for take off, especially with the airfields Germany had left late war, but if this thing could get up to speed with some rocket boosters itd likely be able to go a bit over the sound barrier.

>>34681348
Die nigger

>>34681648
Die in a fire, Carlos.