(L) Strike Witches TV (Mecha Musume)

[darkchibi07]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABjrggmeoU

Go to 9:40 for an awesome event in Katsucon!

[MitsubishiZero]

lol, cosplaying Miyafuji and Sakamoto..........and why do they want to play with those paper planes...........why dont they just watch the anime once more and enjoy it in the process......

[Neoman15M]

I watched that video too, and I think the cosplay is just part of the fun. such a shame i cannot watch the dub version /.\

[MitsubishiZero]

HEHA! OK, Afrika latter part. (vol. 3)


Marseille and the "STORM WITCHES" is such a win.......and what are you dooooing Lucchini?!?!?! No don't go that way! You are crashing into more chaos and trouble......and LOL at Lucchini and Shirley's punishment afterwards.........

Originally Posted by MitsubishiZero

hint: it's found in an English Anime forum, not Animesuki.........

Found it at the same old place.........I love you zolder215

Now that vol. 3 is in the bag, I really look forward to vol. 4 in Nyantype 6......god knows what adventures Lucchini and Shirley are going to have in Afrika........

[NinjaYali]

Originally Posted by Neoman15M

I watched that video too, and I think the cosplay is just part of the fun. such a shame i cannot watch the dub version /.\

Lynette and Yoshika pics for you guys to enjoy.

Spoiler for Image dump:

[olympian819]

Hi I am new here. I am a great fan of Strike Witches and finally found a place where people actually discuss about it.

One question though, in vol. 3 of the manga what is the prototype of "Star of Africa" Hanna-Justina Marseille's striker unit? Is it the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 or the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Shirley in vol. 3 said during the chasing of Lucchini " it's like the high-altitude performance of the G55 has been completely ignored." G55 uses the DB605, which is liquid-cooled. Bf 109 uses DB605 while Fw190 uses BMW 801. Won't air-cooled engines overheat in the desert heat?

[selkirk]

Originally Posted by olympian819

Hi I am new here. I am a great fan of Strike Witches and finally found a place where people actually discuss about it.

One question though, in vol. 3 of the manga what is the prototype of "Star of Africa" Hanna-Justina Marseille's striker unit? Is it the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 or the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Shirley in vol. 3 said during the chasing of Lucchini " it's like the high-altitude performance of the G55 has been completely ignored." G55 uses the DB605, which is liquid-cooled. Bf 109 uses DB605 while Fw190 uses BMW 801. Won't air-cooled engines overheat in the desert heat?

Marseille uses a Bf109F-4 Trop, like the real Marseille.

[Maximum Burst]

Here's a new scan from "The Sneaker"


Source is this blog that I've been following.

Miyafuji's new Striker Unit looks neat with the two-tone color.

[NinjaYali]

Originally Posted by olympian819

Hi I am new here. I am a great fan of Strike Witches and finally found a place where people actually discuss about it.

One question though, in vol. 3 of the manga what is the prototype of "Star of Africa" Hanna-Justina Marseille's striker unit? Is it the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 or the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Shirley in vol. 3 said during the chasing of Lucchini " it's like the high-altitude performance of the G55 has been completely ignored." G55 uses the DB605, which is liquid-cooled. Bf 109 uses DB605 while Fw190 uses BMW 801. Won't air-cooled engines overheat in the desert heat?

Decided to watch the series out of strict interest in faux-WW2 setting and I must say this is some really lulzy alternate history right here. So I'm guessing at the Tehran Conference all the leaders decided that they had a common interest in underaged girls' underwear. I'm guessing that sort of makes sense.

Amirite Hitler?



But in any case, while watching the introduction I kept on thinking the concept sounded a little familiar.

Spoiler for Speculah about series:

+x=

So yeah, remember this if you wonder why the world is as it is.

[MitsubishiZero]

Originally Posted by Maximum Burst

Here's a new scan from "The Sneaker"


Source is this blog that I've been following.

Miyafuji's new Striker Unit looks neat with the two-tone color.

That's inline with the Fuso (or JAAF in real case) colour coding......I though green and yellow would be more welcoming though.....and the engine part could be painted black for anit-glare..........

I am rather interested in how many new Strikers are going to be in Strike Witches 2......and would any of those Kais or radical German WW2 concept planes appear......

[Tk3997]

Originally Posted by selkirk

Marseille uses a Bf109F-4 Trop, like the real Marseille.

It's worth noting he also crashed and died in in 1942 and if he'd lived he'd have certainly had to go to later models like the G in order to stay competitive. Since Marseille survives in the SW time line at least in 43 by the looks of it, it seems probable she'll trade up at some point.

[MitsubishiZero]

Originally Posted by Tk3997

It's worth noting he also crashed and died in in 1942 and if he'd lived he'd have certainly had to go to later models like the G in order to stay competitive. Since Marseille survives in the SW time line at least in 43 by the looks of it, it seems probably she'll trade up at some point.

Well actually I doubt that. the Doujins Strike Witches : Witch in Afrika and Tiger in Desert Marseille lost her tsukaima (tsukaima died but Marseille lived, quoted as rare incident) in a battle and is unable to be a Witch again. If the manga follows this route then she's not trading up any thing. If she and her tsukaima both survives in this manga, then she could consider some other planes. ME 262/He 343/Ho 229/Me P.1101/H.XVIII anyone?

[Tk3997]

Originally Posted by olympian819

One question though, in vol. 3 of the manga what is the prototype of "Star of Africa" Hanna-Justina Marseille's striker unit? Is it the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 or the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Shirley in vol. 3 said during the chasing of Lucchini " it's like the high-altitude performance of the G55 has been completely ignored." G55 uses the DB605, which is liquid-cooled. Bf 109 uses DB605 while Fw190 uses BMW 801. Won't air-cooled engines overheat in the desert heat?

Technical questions!? Oh happy day! How did I miss this before?

*prepares to ramble*

Spoiler for Way to much infomation...:

Well first off ground temperature may or may not be a factor, if you're flying a 20,000+ foot top cover for bombers or the like it's going to be something like 100 degrees colder then at sea level which means pretty much anywhere on the planet would be classed as "nippy".

Down low in the weeds on strafing runs or the like then ground temperature would matter more, but perhaps not as much as you might think. Remember a World War II fighter is probably going to be buzzing along at around 200 miles per hour at least in anything but a very steep climb or hard turn. In level cruise flight probably over 300 and wind like that obviously is a big boost to cooling. Actually that's one of the main reasons fighters could even have such powerful engines that weighed so little the constant air flow allowed far better cooling.

As for the issue of air cooled radial verse inline liquid cooled in general… that’s a somewhat interesting debate. Cooling actually wasn’t one of the major factors that drove the choice of a radial or inline (for our purposes assume I really mean “V engine” when I say inline) The big thing was that inline engines were lower profile and could by and large have tighter fitting cowlings; both of these meant planes could be more streamlined. Air cooled engines on the other hand had to be more open and larger to allow air to flow around and into them to provide the needed cooling. This meant a wider cross section and more drag, but they had higher power to weight ratios, far better damage tolereance, and they could more easily incorporate additional cylinders.

Either type of engine could operate in any environment IF the cooling solution devised was adequate and well designed. Thus overheating issues tended to come down to the specifics of a particular plane rather then an engine type.

On that note overheating was, from some things I've read more of a Bf-109 issue as it was simply not designed with the high performance engines it ultimately ended up with in mind. It's radiator was too small to start with and then compounded by bad placement which meant that due to aerodynamic interactions off the airframe it then didn't even get as much air as it might have. As a bonus when the engine overheated it oftne leaked oil, onto said overheating engine starting fires... at that point the pilot had to get out of the plane or die.

Just how bad the overheating issues were seems to be somewhat debated, but they’re mentioned enough for me to be fairly sure they existed to some degree. They seem to have been worst on the ground were the tight cowling and small radiators would naturally allow little air flow. It seems like priority was given for getting into the air quickly once the engines were started on 109s. It also seems to have been vital to have the radiator completely open at take off to avoid overheating. (Radiators had different settings because they were a drag source so minimizing that while keeping the engine cooled was important. Thus most of them could be closed or opened as needed to balance drag verse cooling)

As another random factoid I’ve also seen some reports that the tropical filters fitted on F models in the desert to keep out sand also restricted airflow resulting in noticeably faster overheating problems. Another guy produced some documents that seem to indicate maximum speeds were only attainable in later models 109s for a short period as the radiator lost efficiency at high airspeed due to poor design with regards to boundary layers on the airframe.

The 190 had some early overheating issues, but these were resolved rather quickly with the A-2 model having already fixed most of them in late 1941. I’ve not heard about later models suffering similar difficulties in that area either. This is likely because the 190 was designed with high powered engines from the start and its power grew only modestly during the war and did not outpace its initial designs ability to compensate.

As for the “it's like the high-altitude performance of the G55 has been completely ignored."

As for that data on the 55 is pretty sparse most likely because like most Italian machines they were produced in absurdly small numbers. (less then 300 during the war! 300! We crapped out more P-51s in a week!) I haven’t been able to find climb or speed charts for it just a few numbers that can be bent into whatever context you want.

Still it had only had like 125 extra horsepower while weighing quite a bit more (500 pounds at least empty and apparently even more of a difference loaded probably due to the heavier guns and more fuel). I wouldn’t be surprised if the F model was considerably spryer in climb and acceleration at altitude with that sort of difference. I’ve heard the G55 was easier to fly and turned better though at all altitudes and the 109 could be a bitch for the inexperienced.

If it was any kind of climbing fight though then getting owned probably makes sense. 109s are dangerous in vertical fights at any altitude I’ll tell you that from first hand experience. They accelerate fast and they climb like rockets; though they turn like dump trucks and dive like them too (that is straight down, into the ground at several hundred miles per hour).

I've never much liked the 109 series though as I'm more of a Fw-190 or P-47 man as I need that firepower. (My Motto: "Close and spray and the poor marksmen way!")

[pauldy]

Hi people, I'm kinda new to anime suki, anyways

I really love strike witches and would want to delve deeper into it.

I was wondering where you got those information regarding the other characters outside the anime.

[MitsubishiZero]

Originally Posted by pauldy

Hi people, I'm kinda new to anime suki, anyways

I really love strike witches and would want to delve deeper into it.

I was wondering where you got those information regarding the other characters outside the anime.

Yahoo, google and wikipedia is your friend....or you can get out the older posts, there are lots of info and resources hidden in there.....

[wavehawk]

Originally Posted by MitsubishiZero

wikipedia is your friend...

- No it isn't.

I'd recommend you look up Wikipedia--and THEN look up other reliable sources. Wiki gets edited too quickly and too often to be a sole point of reference. It's good as a starting point, but never use just Wiki foryour info, otherwise you could very well be eating crow.

[MitsubishiZero]

Originally Posted by wavehawk

- No it isn't.

I'd recommend you look up Wikipedia--and THEN look up other reliable sources. Wiki gets edited too quickly and too often to be a sole point of reference. It's good as a starting point, but never use just Wiki foryour info, otherwise you could very well be eating crow.

Of course, there are lots of sites with Strike Witches info, but wiki is a good starting point for him (he's new).......that's why I also listed yahoo and google.

One question I would like to ask TK3997:

according to your professional knowledge about planes, what are the advantages of using V-engines and radial engines besides drag? I mean which one has a more mature technological knowhow? Also, is there any limits to these piston propeller planes? in terms of speed, maneuverability or stability in high/low altitude? I'd love to know if piston propeller planes can ever reach mach 1.....without breaking up of course (shirley doesn't count. she used a magical barrier which may reduce drag.)

[selkirk]

Originally Posted by MitsubishiZero

Of course, there are lots of sites with Strike Witches info, but wiki is a good starting point for him (he's new).......that's why I also listed yahoo and google.

All in all, wikipedia is a pretty bad source for Strike Witches info. There's a lot of fan fluff in there with little basis from the source material. Just being frank here, but within the English fanbase I'm probably one of the people most familiar with the established canon, and have actual copies of just about all the canon sources... and yet there's junk in there that I haven't seen anywhere before. I mostly just froth at the mouth each time I go there.

[wavehawk]

From Humikane's blog. Looks like we MAY have some unit-specific Witchie patches other than the 501st coming soon...

[Tk3997]

First off I'm no professional just a hobbist that's read just enough to think he knows something. Take my words with a grain of salt and conduct your own research before quoting anything I say.

Spoiler for Seriously you asked for it!:

Originally Posted by MitsubishiZero

One question I would like to ask TK3997:
according to your professional knowledge about planes, what are the advantages of using V-engines and radial engines besides drag? I mean which one has a more mature technological knowhow?

Wow and here I thought I was going to have to let that extra thousand words I typed that I decided weren't actually related to the first go to waste! Well you asked for it!

Besides the drag? Actually not that much, but in a fighter plane less drag is a pretty big deal.

The radial engine was arguably "lower tech" it came about first and remained by and large easier to produce and service. This is why for instance Japan only ever dabbled in liquid cooled engines and Italy just chose to produce German engines. Producing a high perfornece liquid cooled engine was a complex and industrially difficult task, never mind making one that was reliable.

Liquid cooled V engines only really began to become viable among industrialized nations in the mid 30s. Many Air Forces quickly jumped on these as the more streamlined shape was a big advantage in low horsepower situations. Navies were cooler on inline as they were complex, harder to repair at sea, and always less reliable (they invariably had higher part counts and so more points of failure). In fact the only carrier fighter I can think of to ever really make use of an inline was the Seafire with its Merlin, and that was adopted mostly as a stopgap measure and never ideally suited to that role.

The F4U, Hellcat, Zero, and Wildcat all made use of radial engines for the reliability and ruggedness they provided. The last thing one wanted while flying hundreds of miles out at sea was an engine failure after all. Radials were easier to maintain and service on the ground as well though. For instance when operating in cold winter weather liquid cooled engines had to be drained and equipped with proper coolant so it wouldn’t freeze over. They need anti-freeze and such as well while the air cooled radials needed no such special care and didn’t have a cooling system to freeze over.

They also didn’t have a cooling system for a single “lucky hit” to strike and damage thus dooming the aircraft.

Liquid cooled engines had greatly reduced damage tolerance as a single nick to the coolant lines of an inline engine was a death sentence. Once the coolant bleed out the engine would overheat, seize, and the plane is now a glider. Air cooled engines on the other hand had no coolant to bleed away and so could not be knocked out by disabling there cooling system. So long as air flowed over the engine it was being cooled thus the engine had to be physically damaged in someway to render it inoperable.

In a well made and protected engine that could be surprisingly hard to do as various stories of F6Fs, P-47s, and F4U flying around with insanity like entire cylinder heads being shot away shows. In ground attack in particular this was a large advantage as rather by necessity the area you were exposing to the enemy was the front of the plane where the engine was. A radial engine vastly cut down the likelihood of “golden BBs” from the ground and so was by and large the prefered solution in most bombers and strike aircraft.

(I can’t find it at the moment, but I vaguely recall a post war study showing that P-47 took something like five times less losses to ground fire then P-51s. The P-38 sort of cheated it had two engines and could fly with one, which somewhat mitigated the more fragile engines)

Another issue somewhat related to the above was that liquids are rather heavy and so are the pipes, pumps, and radiators needed to keep them contained and cooled when they’ve been heated up to hundreds of degrees by being pumped through the cylinder heads. This meant that air cooled radials normally offered a higher power to weight ratio then liquid cooled engines. It also as noted meant a lower part count and fewer points of failure which reduced maintenance and improved reality.

Basically if you put a thousand pound of engine in both planes the radial would have more horsepower for those thousand pounds. The R-2800 used in P-47s and F4U for instance were pushing over 2,500 at emergency power by the end of the war while the V-1650 (Aka the Merlin) of the same vintage was at something like 1,700. That’s a pretty noticeable difference in total power and the end result was that extra stream lining of the liquid cooled engine basically often only allowed it to break even with the beefier radials.

Also, is there any limits to these piston propeller planes? in terms of speed, maneuverability or stability in high/low altitude?

As for maneuvers there are a few things to consider here. First off most piston engine fighter could not maintain inverted flight very long as a number of aircraft at first lacked fuel injection (as complex a machine as the Merlin engine was it initially used a carburetor not that much different from what you might find in a vintage car…) and so the engine would quickly begin starving for fuel if inverted or exposed to much negative G. This was quickly realized and mostly done away with by 1942 though with either fuel injection or pressurized carburetor that could force fuel in even without gravity.

Another issue though was oil which also had be feed to all parts of the engine at all times. I’m not sure what other aircraft had, but the P-51 pilot hand book said 10 seconds inverted maximum due to the fact that oil pump wouldn’t feed while the aircraft was inverted. This was probably an issue with most planes to a greater or lesser extent.

Still this is not a big issue as the fact is that you don’t just fly around upside for shits and giggles. Normally you only go really completely inverted when setting up for maneuvers which last only a few seconds at most. So a piston engine fighter can perform most of the same maneuvers you’d see a jet, but you must bear in mind the much lower power to weight ratio.

No piston engine machine ever had a one to one or greater ratio which meant any aircraft attempting to climb straight up would stall sooner or later. This also comes through when turning WWII piston engine fighters did not have the outrageous thrust a modern fighter has to power it through endless high G turns. If you yank into a hard bank you’ll lose speed quite rapidly and be riding a stall shortly.

The prop itself also effects handling it’s basically a giant fly wheel out on the front of the plane and will bias handling in which ever direction its turning. If you try to turn with the rotation the plane will respond more briskly then trying to go against it. This is why people will say “X turns/rolls better in Y direction” in many cases. It can also affect stall characteristics and recovery as when you lose forward motion planes will often have a tendency to whip around there prop. On the other hand that can also be exploited by an experienced pilot to cause an aircraft to move in an unexpected way.

As for altitude factors piston engines are not as efficient as Jet engines in thin air and so have lower ceilings. That’s about all there is to say about that.

I'd love to know if piston propeller planes can ever reach mach 1.....without breaking up of course

This question about the limits of propeller driven aircraft is actually relevant to the radial vs inline debate as well. The liquid cooled engines primary advantage as noted was streamlining, but it still had a 10+ foot prop bolted onto the front of it. As fighters began to push past 400 and even toward 500 mph this more then anything became the primary limiter. The radial engine might have had a fatter frontal area, but carefully designed cowlings and fuselages could minimize that quite a bit and ultimately it began to become the prop more then anything that was limiting speed.

The very fastest US piston engine aircraft for instance both production and experimental models with very high power radial engines produced toward the end of the war. IIRC the current piston engine record holder is also a radial in the form of a massively modified F8F Bearcat racer. Even these massively powerful engines though were unable to push propeller driven aircraft much past about 500 miles per hour.

The reasons for this are… pretty complex and I only understand them in a very general way. If I’m recalling correctly the biggest issue is that propellers simply don’t work very well once they begin to become supersonic as the shockwaves they form at those speeds totally disrupt the airflow and there efficiency plummets. This began to become a serious problem late in World War II as the most powerful engines began to be able to get the tips of propellers up to supersonic speeds. There are a few methods of trying to get around that, but all of them come with heaps of caveats and open up new problems.

Basically though it seems to be more or less impossible for a propeller driven aircraft to propel itself through the sound barrier. The propeller just causes too much drag and is too inefficient to manage it. The only way this can be done seems to be either A. Get a very streamlined aircraft very high and then lock the prop and dive it toward the ground like a missile (though that’s less “flying” and more “falling really fast”) or B. Lock the prop and use a jet engine to force your through the barrier and to fly above it. The military actually conducted allot of experiments with this in the late 40s and early 50s.

Early jet engines were VERY inefficient fuel wise and so could not be used effectively for long range escort or strike missions. There were numerous attempts to produce planes that would use an efficient prop system for cruise and then dash at supersonic speeds. Most of these were various sorts of hybrids involving turboprops not actual piston engines though.

(shirley doesn't count. she used a magical barrier which may reduce drag.)

Well actually pulling a Shirley is perfectly possible you just need a pressure suit, a giant helium balloon, and balls of titanium. (Well okay he only got up to 614 mph our about Mach 0.9 at his altitude, he probably need something like 5,000 more feet to actually break it)