Yep, the faster you fly the more G they can pull. There are some exceptions tho, such as MiG-3...
However, notice that cornering speed, this time, doesnt seem to mean best speed for sustained rate of turn: "Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed,
implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The limit used was 6G, but the wartime standard was actually 7G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get this stuff?
Let me see your source because none of the wartime documentation for operating the aircraft reflects this...
The "structural limit" the test pilots refer to likely means anything above the WWII P-51D standard of 7 G.
The "structural limit" could hardly be reached in turns, as Oleg pointed out, since it is around 13-15 Gs...
In dive pull-outs however, wing flutter or an abrupt unintentional pitch-up could do it, but it is a stability issue, not something achieved by pilot strenght.
In a fabric-elevator P-51D, like most of those from WWWII(from spring 1945 only), I doubt pilot strenght was enough to even reach 7 Gs above 750 km/h (both the P-38 and tail-heavy trim Me-109G did better above 700 than the fabric elevator P-51), so the faster you go does not always mean the more Gs you can pull.
It would be nice to know what is the best SUSTAINED turn speed of the P-51D in Il-2. I would assume it is reached at full power...
P.S. JTD, everybody knows the stall speed of the Me-109G is around 100-105 MPH, and that of the FW-190A's is at around 120 MPH (E. Brown's, "Duels in the sky"). What is your point? If you have something to say, say it.
Report is a copy of a prior post at a forum or appears to be, it's already 2nd hand at best with unknown interpretations.
Gee, I wonder who would be posting such a thing on a game forum?
Power limited to max continuous, and it says "very close" to maximum level flight speed. Nothing about actual speed or
the meaning of "very close", ie good old unqualified subjective wording.
I didn't see a single word about Va or maneuver speed in there. A check of the POH would tell it right enough.
It's kind of telling right there since what pilot goes up to pull hard turns without knowing Va? In fact, what
pilot goes up without knowing Va, Vs, Vne, etc, especially in a very rare and expensive historic warbird?
OTOH if the report was made for non-pilots or by a non-pilot then we should expect History Channel accuracy and lack of
Last of all this could be another one of those re-wordings of a report of a translation of say, part of an interview
with a Finnish Ace who actually said nothing like he is quoted as saying without reference to the actual source, ie
TROLLBAIT AS USUAL.
Someone got a P-51 POH? Can we get the Va and have a real answer please?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Report is a copy of a prior post at a forum or appears to be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it's worse than that:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That's a repost of a repost of a repost, lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From Gaston's 'source', a couple of postings down: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html
From some of the comments there, they also have problems with people who 'quote' things without giving a verifiable primary source.
A repost of a repost of a repost that you still don't know the posters and don't have the source.
And here we have a certified troll who's told us he's been arguing on the hitech forums for years.
What are the chances he's backing himself up as a source?
Some dogs will eat turds right off the ground. When that dog passes that turd, will another one eat it?
I could shoot that dog and save some lives, for sure.