









|
| Other WWI Aviation Airfields, equipment, squadrons, tactics, training, uniforms and all other WWI aviation topics |
15 March 2005, 02:08 AM
|
#1
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Roma
Posts: 890
|
Sturdier balloons?
Gentlemen and gentlewomen,
does anybody know if later balloons were more sturdy than previous ones to machinegun shots and/or fire? Given a certain weapon, was it more difficult to shot down a Claquot M - Ae800 than a Drachen-Parseval?
Thanks a lot,
Andrea
|
|
|
15 March 2005, 11:02 PM
|
#2
|
|
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ceres, California
Posts: 9,118
|
Sturdier balloons?
Angiolillo:
The Allied Caquot types, the German AE and the German Drachen type also used by the Allies were constructed much the same. Rubberized cotton fabric, very light weight with a fine weave. What was different was the aerodynamic form of the Caquot types and the German copy the AE. By the way, AE translates to eight-hundred English. The Germanms captured an English balloon, a 800 cubic meter Caquot, hence the name.
Blue skies,
Dan-San
|
|
|
15 March 2005, 11:15 PM
|
#3
|
|
Forum Ace of Aces
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Dresden
Posts: 4,595
|
Andrea,
if I recall correct in 1917 the German fighter pilots claimed it was a lot more difficult to cause an Entente balloon to burn but I think that was rather a result of a new proof on the balloons (which should prevent an easy ignition) than the result of the different construction of the newer Caquot.
VBR
Rammjaeger
|
|
|
15 March 2005, 11:21 PM
|
#4
|
|
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ceres, California
Posts: 9,118
|
Burning balloons?
Rammjeager:
You will find allied pilots making the same claim of German balloons. it the envelope is wet, it is more difficult to get ignition. A situation not uncommon in northern France and Belgium.
Blue skies,
Dan-San
|
|
|
16 March 2005, 01:22 AM
|
#5
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Roma
Posts: 890
|
Great help!
Thanks a lot! Actually all the info I found on better characteristics of later balloon were about more stability and weight allowance of the Claquot since it was more horizontal and it had fins on the tail that worked better than the three cones hung to the Parseval, and it had a better rope system. This even when gas capacity and volume were the same. Nothing about sturdiness and easyness to ingite.
Sorry if my English is not technical at all...
Claims on Italian books were that the Avorio-Prassone type AP, developed in Italy as an enhancement of the Caquot, was even better that it from those points of view. The tail was almost the same, but rope system and shape were different. Here ou have a drawing by our friend Vincenzo Auletta. Since Italians used and studied Caquots, and since AP is a late war model, I would not be surprised if the claims are true.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 PM.
|