quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.

quote:

Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.

Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise.

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins
"Never have I seen so beautiful an airplane. A rich, dappled blue, from a dark, threatening thunderstorm to a light sky blue. The cowling is a brilliant, gleaming yellow. Beautiful, and Death on the wing. A Focke-Wulf 190." -Robert Johnson-

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

quote:

Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.

Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise.

I'm talking about acceleration not momentum.
I understand what you mean, but when we talk about the diference in acceleration between D9 and A8 for example, this is irelevant. They are very close in weight, power and virtually the same airframe and wings.
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9?

Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

quote:

Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.

Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise.

I'm talking about acceleration not momentum.
I understand what you mean, but when we talk about the diference in acceleration between D9 and A8 for example, this is irelevant. They are very close in weight, power and virtually the same airframe and wings.
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9?

quote:

How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9?

_{Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects.}
"Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill