PDA

View Full Version : Great read on Bf-109G aerodynamics



XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:15 AM
Sort of technical.

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=2853.topi c

Even I thought the Bf-109G was cleaner than that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0307:16AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:15 AM
Sort of technical.

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=2853.topi c

Even I thought the Bf-109G was cleaner than that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0307:16AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:53 AM
Excellent find, Chimp. Thanks.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:38 AM
BTW, if you need me, I'll be in my bunker waiting for the incoming barrage from the Luftwhiners to subside. Brace for impact.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:11 AM
Another nice site for 109 material is
http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:23 AM
Calcualtions are based on a 109G-6 as in according to the drawings. The data used was the following:

Max. Speed: 610km/h (real data: 650 km/h)
Max. power: 1200 HP at 22k ft. (again wrong... it was more like 1350HP, some sources state 1550HP)
Weight: 6700 lbs = 3040 kg. Real data: 3150-3196kg...


So in brief all the basic data for the plane is incorrect, and are against the plane in all cases. The author based his calculations on these figures. Thus in my opinion the endresults and conclusions are quite useless, though his methods of calculations are fairly interesting for those who are interested in aerodynamics.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:12 PM
German word for 'poison' is 'gift' !

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:21 PM
And 'gift' is a Swedish word for 'marriage' ... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Cheers,
IO


http://www.russianaviationarchive.com



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com/images/raa_header.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:27 PM
In Norwegian, "gift" means BOTH poison and married

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:43 PM
In Hungarian, 'gift' means absolutely nothing. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:31 PM
That would explain why with a 2000hp inline engine, that it could only reach around 450mph, when other late model aircraft of similare and larger dimensions could manage 470-480 mph with 2000hp engines.

Harry Voyager

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:43 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- That would explain why with a 2000hp inline engine,
- that it could only reach around 450mph, when other
- late model aircraft of similare and larger
- dimensions could manage 470-480 mph with 2000hp
- engines.
-
- Harry Voyager


Which aircraft could do 480 mph with 2000HP, Harry?

The 109K reached 441 mph with only 1565 HP (at altitude). Remember power is not constant at altitude (save turbochargers).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:13 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Which aircraft could do 480 mph with 2000HP, Harry?
-
- The 109K reached 441 mph with only 1565 HP (at
- altitude). Remember power is not constant at
- altitude (save turbochargers).


Isegrim's right, Harry. At altitidue, the P-51H needed less than 2,000hp to hit 487 mph.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:14 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

The author based his calculations on these figures.
- Thus in my opinion the endresults and conclusions
- are quite useless...


Of course they are....




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:36 PM
Hey, Chimp, did you knew the P-80 has excessively heavy elevators at high speed? I bet Oleg can make great use of that information! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:42 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Hey, Chimp, did you knew the P-80 has excessively
- heavy elevators at high speed? I bet Oleg can make
- great use of that information!


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Trying to change the subject away from the fact that your Bf-109 looks less and less uber every day?

First you mention that the "horse power is wrong" so the whole report must be wrong. What does that have to do with the fact that the body of your beloved Bf-109 had skin like an old lady that's laid in the sun her whole life?

Guess we can lay to rest those silly notions you have that the Bf-109 was king of aerodynamics. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif







Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:02 PM
The very basic flaws in the report has been already pointed out, both here, and at AAW by Butch. Since the study is based on those false figures, the whole report is flawed.

You can`t make good apple pie from rotten apples.

And of course we all know that the Bf 109s had one of the, if not THE least drag for any WW2 figther airframe, only ther P-51 and the Yak-3 can match it`s efficiency.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:23 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- The very basic flaws in the report has been already
- pointed out, both here, and at AAW by Butch. Since
- the study is based on those false figures, the whole
- report is flawed.
-
- You can`t make good apple pie from rotten apples.
-
- And of course we all know that the Bf 109s had one
- of the, if not THE least drag for any WW2 figther
- airframe, only ther P-51 and the Yak-3 can match
- it`s efficiency.



HA! Good one Isegrim.

Even many American radial engine planes were more aerodynamic.

And BTW, if the author mixed in figures for the F, then his data would be skewed making the Bf-109G-6 look better than it was!



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0308:27PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:25 PM
Report by the TO of JG6

"Newly delivered a/c are very prone to problems in the first 5-10 flying hours. It is almost the same complaints, which are a burden to the unit technically and reduce operational readiness. Complaints of of the following nature appear almost regularly: elevator play in the mounting lever; loose spacers on the elevator control rods, too-long mounting bolts on the u/c suspension fittings, absence of slip markings on the main wheels, leaky or plugged lines in the MW50 system; shorts in the electrical system...loose and improperly fitted sparkplugs, loose mounting clamps on the hoses, etc"




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:28 PM
That`s interesting, too:

" The puzzling thing about Mustang airframe failure was that it could not be pinpointed to any one area and was sometimes encountered in brand-new aircraft that had not undergone any known flight strain. Engines tore loose from fuselages, wings were shed, and empennages crumpled "

-Roger Freeman, Mustang at war

"Most serious of all was structural failure. Occasionally the wings came off Mustangs in a high-speed dive. There were two main causes for this. At very high speeds, the large doors of the ammunition bays began to bulge outwards. This distorted the wing to the stage where stresses imposed were too great, and it parted company with the fuselage. The second cause was a tendency for the undercarriage to extend in flight, causing abnormal loads on the wing"

-Mike Spick, Great Aircraft of WW2

"One wing was lost directly over the airfield at Madna, Italy in the fall of 1944. The airplane and pilot went straight into the ground not far from the control tower. One other loss occurred there during an afternoon 'rat race.' Coincidentally we were discussing this wing loss with Johnny Typer, the civilian representative from NAA at the time. He was adamant that no-one could pull the wings off a P-51. No sooner had he made that remark than I heard behind me the dull thumps of two wings separating. He asked 'What's that?' and I answered that it had happened again. He asked how I knew, to which I replied, 'Once you've heard that sound, you'll never forget it." We watched as the litter and tumbling wings fell slowly to the ground, long after the fuselage and pilot had crashed - an unforgettable sight and feeling"

-Lt Col William Coloney 52 FG


'The mustang (p51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range,climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability.It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire.It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'

-The Luftwaffe fighter force.The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al, edited by David C. Isby
under chapter 30 'GAF opinions of allied aircraft'


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:30 PM
Another flaming , fishing thread. Who gives a rip how aerodynamic the 109 is? It still outclimbs every other plane. Bottom line!


Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:30 PM
And this, too:



Wings of the Weird and Wonderful Vol 2 by Eric Brown.

"A Mustang III Ser No KH 505 was allocated to the RAE for high speed research, and this showed up some unpleasant compressibility effects, and indeed the aircraft was eventually lost in failing to recover fro a high mach number dive, killing the Canadian pilot, S/Ldr. E.B.Gale.
In such dives compressibility effects set in at M=0.71 with a slight vibration of the aircraft and buffeting of the controls, accompanied by a slight nose down pitching moment. These symptoms increased in intensity up to M=0.75 which was the limit imposed for service use. Above M=0.75 a porposing motion started and increased in intensity together with the other effects up to M=0.8, when nose down pitch became so strong that it required a two handed pull force for recovery."


Testing for Combat by Eric Brown.

This relates to a P47D seconded to the RAE Boscombe Down, from the 8th Air Force.

"Before the next flight a Machmeter was fitted to the aircraft, and as instructed I climbed to 35000 ft, carried out a 2min level run at full power and trimed the aircraft before pushing over into a 30 degree dive. At Mach=0.72 the aircraft began to buffet slightly and pitch nose down, requiring a strong pull force to maintain the dive angle. At Mach=0.73 the buffeting increased severly and the nose down pitch was so strong that it needed a full-blooded two-handed pull to keep the dive angle constant. I had to hang on grimly in this situation, unable to throttle back until Mach number decreased as altitude was lost. The pull out was not effected until 8000ft. Analysis showed that a dive to Mach=0.74 would almost certainly be a graveyard dive".



Looks like US designers/manufacturers had problems with quality at their hands.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:30 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- That would explain why with a 2000hp inline engine,
- that it could only reach around 450mph, when other
- late model aircraft of similare and larger
- dimensions could manage 470-480 mph with 2000hp
- engines.

With the P47M you are talking about 2800hp for
470mph, and for the Tempest II, 460mph for about
2400hp, so the planes that could manage that
speed did so with larger engines, but also,
as you correctly state, higher all-up weight.

It suggests that the drag coefficient for the
109 was poorer than either of those (although
you can't do a direct comparasion due to differences
in weight and engine power) but that the overall
drag (due to smaller area) was probably fairly
similar.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:36 PM
I'm getting pretty tired of Skychimp bashing
German achievements in the area of aerodynamics
(and even refusing, against documentation, the
influence of the P.1101 on the F-86 wing design)
as much as I am people denigrating American designs,
of which there are very many.

Let's face it, most major powers in WW2 managed
to provide aircraft that were competitive in
performance terms throughout WW2, irrespective
of differences in minutiae of drag. All participants
also managed technical innovations throughout the
period. Denigration of one side over another
increasingly looks like petty nationalism in many
instances, with some less than rigourous conflation
on arguments taking place, mixing in real and
alledged war crimes of participants into the bargain,
which serve to increase the animosity on this forum,
but do nothing to advance anyone's knowledge of
the performance and relative merits of the aircraft
used in WW2.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:37 PM
There he goes again trying to change the subject /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Short of the matter is, isegrim, is that the Bf-109 needed a lot of horsepower to make up for its dirty body.


@Milo:
That just illustrates the poorness fo the decision to have slaves build fighters.

@Buzz:
Everyplane? Not the f4U-4 Corsair. Not only odes the F4U-4 outclass the Bf-109K-4 in climb, it outclasses it in every other respect, too (except maybe acceleration).





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:42 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- ...

#1, I didn't write the report on the Bf-109G-6. I also haven't written than the Bf-109 was among the most earodynamic planes of WII, Isegrim did that. Don't you ever get tired of people OVERSTATING the aerodynbamic efficieny of the Bf-109?

#2 You haven't offered ANY "documentation" that the wing was based on the P1101, and that's because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it didn't happen.

Showing a picture of two different planes with the same sweep back angle is not "proof".

The wing slat was based on that the of Me-262, plenty of documentation exists to that extent.

Again, Aaron, please PROVE your theory with some crediible documentation, not just a couple of pictures.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0308:45PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:46 PM
"The Mustang, now the F-51, played a key role in ground attack. F-51's flew over 60,000 missions in the Korean War"

Fighter bomber losses were: F-51D > 122


Then there is the A-36 version which flew 23,373 combat sorties for the loss of 177 a/c to all causes, with 84 enemy a/c claims.


Yes a very weak a/c the Pony is./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- @Buzz:
- Everyplane? Not the f4U-4 Corsair. Not only odes
- the F4U-4 outclass the Bf-109K-4 in climb, it
- outclasses it in every other respect, too (except
- maybe acceleration).
-

Hmm, maybe you should redo your maths. The F-4U4 climbed at 4000 fpm at War Emergency power at SL, and 3270 fpm at 20 000 ft.

Similiar figures for Bf 109K-4 were 4825 fpm at SL, and 3545 fpm at 20 000 ft.

Frankly, the F-4U4 was nothing special as for it`s climb rate by 1945, still it was rather fast, amnaouverable and a good high alt performer.

But not a great climber.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/F4U4datasheet.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:50 PM
Chimp,

You may be right about the Corsair, but it has as much right on the EF as an F-15. I only play realistic missions, and in those. The K4 is a tough plane to beat.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:11 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Hmm, maybe you should redo your maths. The F-4U4
- climbed at 4000 fpm at War Emergency power at SL,
- and 3270 fpm at 20 000 ft.
-
- Similiar figures for Bf 109K-4 were 4825 fpm at SL,
- and 3545 fpm at 20 000 ft.
-
- Frankly, the F-4U4 was nothing special as for it`s
- climb rate by 1945, still it was rather fast,
- amnaouverable and a good high alt performer.
-
- But not a great climber.


That's only correct on 100/130 grade fuel.

On late war 115/145 grade fuel the F4U-4 was superior in climb except to 1000m.

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4climb.jpg


Here are the specs on the Dash 4.

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4_1.jpg

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4_2.jpg

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/dash4_3.jpg


The Dash 4 Corsair had a WEP climb rate of 4,770fpm at SL, 4,850fpm at 10,000 feet, and 3,800fpm at 20,000 feet.

As for rather fast, was the K-4 "rather fast?" The F4U-4 top speed was 452mph at just over 20,000 feet.

In terms of manueverability, the Dash 4 had superior roll, and better turn. Certainly it was far more rugged and infinitely more versatile.

The F4U-4C carried 4 20mm cannons. The plane was in regular service well before and utilized during the Battle of Okinawa.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/22/0309:15PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:13 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Again, Aaron, please PROVE your theory with some
- crediible documentation, not just a couple of
- pictures.

Over the past couple of weeks quite a lot of
credible references were posted.

I notice you still seem to believe, though, despite
Bell and Chuck Yeager agreeing with me, that the
all-flying tail of the Miles M.52 wasn't influential
on the X-1's design.

Sometimes it seems documentation isn't enough...

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:25 PM
Chimp,

Help me understand this. The Corsair looks like it weighs 5000 lbs more than the K4. It has 100 more hp, but that doesn't make up for the weight difference. How can it out climb the K4? We're not talking zoom climb here, but sustained climb right? Power to weight has to play a large part in this.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:25 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- Over the past couple of weeks quite a lot of
- credible references were posted.
-
- I notice you still seem to believe, though, despite
- Bell and Chuck Yeager agreeing with me, that the
- all-flying tail of the Miles M.52 wasn't influential
- on the X-1's design.
-
- Sometimes it seems documentation isn't enough...


You didn't post a SINGLE source that states the wing of the F-86 was based on the P-1101. What was doen was that someone, Huk i believe, posted a picture of the P-1101 and the F-86 and said "whooy, look at at the similarities, Americans musta stole the design."

Again, proof and supposition are two different things. Please post a credible source that states the F-86's wing was based on a plane that wasn't in the US until after the wing had been designed.

In the meantime, here's a website that says you are wrong:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_1.html

Note the swept wing design was decided upon in August 1945. The P1101 didn;t even make it to the US until 1948.

"One of the men in the American research team was Robert J. Woods, of the Bell Aircraft Works. He and Messerschmitt chief designer Woldemar Voight lobbied for the completion of the Me P.1101 V1 prototype in June 1945. This proved to be impossible, due to the fact that most of the design documents were now in France (which they refused to share at this point in time), and other key information had been destroyed. The prototype was by now showing damage due to the rough treatment it had been receiving, such as sitting outside in the elements and even as a photographical curiosity for American GIs.
The Me P.1101 V1 was shipped to the Bell Aircraft Works in Buffalo, New York in August 1948. More damage was sustained when the aircraft fell off a freight car, which in effect ruled out any possibility for repair and flight testing. The P.1101 was fitted with an Allison J-35 jet engine, and mock-up weapons (6 x Mg 151 and 4 x MK 108 cannon) were pasted on the fuselage sides. Bell used the Me P.1101 as the basis for the X-5, during which individual parts of the P.1101 were used for static testing. Sometime in the early 1950s, the remainder of the Messerschmitt Me P.1101 V1 was sent to the scrap yard, thus ending this unique and distinctive aircraft's history"



Funny how the F-86's 1945 swept wing could be based on the P1101's wing when the plane didn't even make it to the US until 1948, and the French had what remained of the design plans.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:31 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Chimp,
-
- Help me understand this. The Corsair looks like it
- weighs 5000 lbs more than the K4. It has 100 more
- hp, but that doesn't make up for the weight
- difference. How can it out climb the K4? We're not
- talking zoom climb here, but sustained climb right?
- Power to weight has to play a large part in this.
-
-
- Da Buzz


The Dash maintained engine power very well, and addition of a broad four blade prop, it was also very clean aerodynamically. 115/145 fuel also helped very much as lower altitudes.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:33 PM
Chimp,

that would come into play at higher altitudes, but your chart has the Corsair outclimbing the K4 at 1500m.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:35 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Chimp,
-
- that would come into play at higher altitudes, but
- your chart has the Corsair outclimbing the K4 at
- 1500m.
-
-
- Da Buzz


It's not my chart, it correlates PRECISELY to the US Navy chart I posted.

The purpose of the 115 fuel was to increase performance. In 1945, the US Navy needed to poost its planes climb performance because of the Kamikaze menace.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:37 PM
Did the 115 fuel give it more than the listed 2100hp?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:42 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Did the 115 fuel give it more than the listed
- 2100hp?
-
- Da Buzz


Buzz, you're missing the obvious. 2,100hp is a MILITARY power rating. Combat power HP was higher.

I'm moving and packed my books, but the IIRC the -18W developed around 2,300hp at CP on 100/130 fuel.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:48 PM
Ok, i'm just trying to understand. When I see a plane outclimb another plane. I want to see why it does it, for me to believe it.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/hartm1-2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:50 PM
Another difference may lie in the climb speeds.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 07:47 PM
Really great,

the guy uses 172 sq.ft wing area ~15.5 sq.m instead of 17.3. The real CD0 is about 0.022 or so, giving this flat plate area of 0.38 m^2 or 4.1 sq ft.

Good troll though.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 08:08 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Really great,
-
- the guy uses 172 sq.ft wing area ~15.5 sq.m instead
- of 17.3. The real CD0 is about 0.022 or so, giving
- this flat plate area of 0.38 m^2 or 4.1 sq ft.
-
- Good troll though

Why should he use 17.3 sq meters (186 sq ft)? 186 sq feet is wrong, 172 is correct.

The "real" CdO of the G-2 (more aerodynamic) appears to have been higher than .022.

Nice attempt at a save, though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

Message Edited on 06/22/0311:25PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 08:54 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Why should he use 17.3 sq meters (186 sq ft)? 186
- sq feet is wrong, 172 is correct.
-
- The "real" CdO of the G-2 (more aerodynamic) appears
- to have been higher than .022.
-
- Nice attempt at a save, though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

Object Viewer says 17.3 m^2, depends propably how you calculate it.

Generally internet seems to give 174 sq ft. The top speed was also only 608 km/h and I am not sure whether the engine power used by him matched the one at that particular altitude. It is better to compare SL values. He also used interesting value for exhaust adding for the thrust - I am not sure whether it would be as much as he gave, this also adds to the drag coefficient. I think you should take that one with grain of salt, although generally Hoerner is serious stuff. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:49 PM
So this explains why my G-6 takes off like a rocket once I shed both wings.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:17 PM
Another pi$$ing contest.

How cute.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>


Message Edited on 06/22/0310:17PM by Cappadocian_317

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:58 PM
Using my vast technical knowledge and after collecting exhaustive amounts of resources and data I have come to an important conclusion.


-The 109 was always a good, competitive aircraft.


Finally I can get some well deserved rest.

http://www.brewsterbuffalos.org/yoj/pictures/006.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:29 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- With the P47M you are talking about 2800hp for
- 470mph, and for the Tempest II, 460mph for about
- 2400hp, so the planes that could manage that
- speed did so with larger engines, but also,
- as you correctly state, higher all-up weight.
-

I was refering primarily to the P-51H and late model Spitfires. Even the P-51D could manage in excess of 703km/h on its 1720hp WEP engine, which was quite compeditive with the Bf-109K-4's 710kmh on 1850hp wMW50.

7 km/h is not a good showing for 130 extra horsepower.

Just from looking at the ingame stats, the Bf-109K-4 is going to see some serious competition from the P-51 when it come out.

Their speeds are within 10km'h of eachother at sea level and their peak altitudes, though the 109 peaks at a lower altitude. Edge to the 109 there.

However the P-51 should retain energy much better than the 109. Edge to the P-51.

While the 109's cannon are powerful, and allong the centerline, the gun is a low velocity weapon and has a tendancy to cause excessive vibration, and carries little ammo. By contrast, the P-51's six machineguns do not have nearly the same stoping power, but they do have a severe impact on engines when they hit, do not shake the plane nearly as much, and have around six times the firing time. While the 109's guns will kill anything in one hit, the P-51's guns will still kill 109's without straining, and it has greater firing time. Edge P-51.

The 109K has a 1850 hp engine pulling a 3000kg aircraft. The P-51 has 1720hp pulling a 4,000kg aircraft. However of that 4000 kg, 900kg of that was fuel, which would bring the dogfighting weight down to around 3250kg. The 109, with a mere one hour endurance on full fuel must take its entire tank up with it, lest it run out of fuel at an inopertune time. (I've done that many times when I've flown the 109. I won't even dogfight against an AI that has less than 50% fuel, because they run dry so quickly) The edge still goes to the 109, but it is not as decisive as it seems on the surface.

Both aircraft have similare wingloading, with the 109K-4 loading its 3000kg onto 16.05m^2 for a loading of around 187kg/m^2, and the P-51D loading its 4000kg onto 21.67m^2 for a wing loading of 185kg/m^2. Draw here.

It strikes me that both of these aircraft are extremely evenly matched, across the board. Each has some edge of the other, but neither of them have a decisive edge in any area. While the 109 can climb faster, the P-51 has better high altitude performance. While the 109 is lighter, the P-51 has greater endurance. While the 109K is slightly faster, it is not decisive, and it can't use its speed for nearly as long as the P-51 before running out of fuel. While the 109 has heavier firepower, the P-51 has firepower better suited to dogfighting than the 109, and has the better gunsight.

I think it will be very facinating to see a P-51/109 duel between experienced pilots. If they aren't able to fix the damage model bugs in the P-47, I may end up switching over to the P-51 until the next game. This is going to get very interesting. The fun thing is, the P-51 is also just as fast as the VVS aircraft on the deck. (Check the object viewer. 578 for the P-51, late war VVS listed as "575-600" for Yak-9U, 610 after 10 minute boost for La-7, 583 after 10 minute boost of La-5FN.)

Harry Voyager

Edit: Why is it I always spell "Spitfire" with an extra 'e' (i.e. Spitefire)?

Message Edited on 06/22/0306:35PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 02:00 PM
The Me-109 has pretty good for 1935. I remember
reading
an artical years ago that compaired drag to weight
coefficents for various WWII piston fighters. The Me-109
was about in the middle of the pack. The Spit was better
and the Hurricane was amongst the worst.
#1 was the P-51B with the P-51D in second and the spit
was a couple of planes back, the P-51H and spiteful
were not included on the list.
I could be wrong as I am working from memory but the Spit
trailed behind the P-47N!

Drag to weight is NOT power to drag! The list would change
a lot.

As far as power to speed ratio, nothing touches the P-51B
and later the P-51H.

Drag to weight gives you a pretty clear picture of the
dive and zoom capabilities of an aircraft.

If you want to argue the Me-109 was a clean areodynamic
design you are barking up the wrong tree. even the K model
was like towing a parachute.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 04:32 PM
yak3 with 1240ps 567km/h sealevel

yak3 with 1500ps 611km/h sealevel

yak3 has much best power/speed ratio

nothing beat yak3 in this domain



Message Edited on 06/24/0306:41PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:46 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- I was refering primarily to the P-51H and late model
- Spitfires.

Ah - I just assumed it was a reference to the P47M
given the speed that had been often quoted.

The speed is going to depend on horsepower, and
the engine power in the 109 dropped off very rapidly
at altitude compared to the P47. I don't know what
the stats for the Merlin at altitude were. It's probably
easier to compare stats at sea level as you know
what the engine power is without hunting through
power to altitude charts.

Then you are talking 382mph at SL for the P51B, and
about 377mph for the 109K4, which suggests a higher
drag for the 109 compared to the P51B. With the P47D,
about 355 on the deck with in excess of 2000hp. That
suggests that the P47 has a higher drag. Given the
sheer bulk of the P47 it still probably translates
to a smaller drag coefficient than the 109K series,
and the P51B is clearly superior in drag coefficient.

- While the 109's cannon are powerful, and allong the
- centerline, the gun is a low velocity weapon and has
- a tendancy to cause excessive vibration, and carries
- little ammo. By contrast, the P-51's six
- machineguns do not have nearly the same stoping
- power, but they do have a severe impact on engines
- when they hit, do not shake the plane nearly as
- much, and have around six times the firing time.

It may say something about my flying online, but I find
the hardest part getting into position. I rarely get
into a position for firing often enough to expend
all my ammunition in VVS planes, even!

- Edit: Why is it I always spell "Spitfire" with an
- extra 'e' (i.e. Spitefire)?

Thinking of the Spiteful?

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- AaronGT wrote:
-
-- Over the past couple of weeks quite a lot of
-- credible references were posted.
--
-- I notice you still seem to believe, though, despite
-- Bell and Chuck Yeager agreeing with me, that the
-- all-flying tail of the Miles M.52 wasn't influential
-- on the X-1's design.
--
-- Sometimes it seems documentation isn't enough...
-
-
- You didn't post a SINGLE source that states the wing
- of the F-86 was based on the P-1101. What was doen
- was that someone, Huk i believe, posted a picture of
- the P-1101 and the F-86 and said "whooy, look at at
- the similarities, Americans musta stole the design."

I was referencing the person who said here that they had
talked to engineers involved in the project when early
in their aeronautic career.

I admit, though, that I overreacted, and for that
I apologise.

I just find that sometimes there seems to be a
suggestion that US designs could not have been
influenced by others, and a denial of that influence
(for example the Miles M.52) and that gets on my
wick at times, but my behaviour in attacking you
was wrong, and I apologise.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:52 PM
Nice to see that much experts on drag, although that topic - calculation of it is very complex and needs lots of timem wind channle tests and other equipment nobdy has here. Also it's funny to see people mix up drag coeff.,abs.drag, face area drag and others./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Glad to see people can handle things which belongs to the higher level of physics./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viewed from the point as engineer as I am, hat off. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

We're not talking about simple or easy surfaces that are to calculate with ease, but of complex things like an a/c is.


I would suggest to those experts to buy an expensive stress/flow CAD-progi, modell some a/c after template and let the prg. calculate the values like they really are instead of talking about values nobody know if their accurate or not./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 11:08 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Nice to see that much experts on drag, although that
- topic - calculation of it is very complex and needs
- lots of timem wind channle tests and other equipment
- nobdy has here. Also it's funny to see people mix up
- drag coeff.,abs.drag, face area drag and others./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Glad to see people can handle
- things which belongs to the higher level of
- physics./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif -
- Viewed from the point as engineer as I am, hat off.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif -
- We're not talking about simple or easy surfaces that
- are to calculate with ease, but of complex things
- like an a/c is.

I have a physics degree. First level approximations
are what physicists delight in. So the first approximation
is thrustv drag and lift v weight. At max speed lift=weight,
thrust=drag. Gives you an idea of the drag on the plane.
Guesstimate size, and get an approximation of the
drag coefficient! I wouldn't imagine it to be anything
other than approximate and qualitative, though. It
certainly doesn't take into a account any eddies only
caused by the oil cooler at precisely 321mph or anything!

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:38 AM
Well, I once killed a gopher with a stick, and I say the Bf-109 was high drag!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:42 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Well, I once killed a gopher with a stick, and I say
- the Bf-109 was high drag!
-

A drag queenie???




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:08 AM
Wonderful Read ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:44 AM
Yak-3?????

Russian horsepower must be different than US horsepower.
Recently manufactured Yak-3Ua's with Allison engines are
quite a bit slower than stock P-51Ds at sea level despite
making as much or more HP that the original kimlovs.

I doubt Russian data and regard it as pure propaganda.
The recently manufactured Yak-3 and Yak-9's don't perform
anywhere near what the Soviet's claimed. And they
are not fitted for any millitary equipment.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:45 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
-
- You didn't post a SINGLE source that states the wing
- of the F-86 was based on the P-1101. What was doen
- was that someone, Huk i believe, posted a picture of
- the P-1101 and the F-86 and said "whooy, look at at
- the similarities, Americans musta stole the design."
-
- Again, proof and supposition are two different
- things. Please post a credible source that states
- the F-86's wing was based on a plane that wasn't in
- the US until after the wing had been designed.
-
- In the meantime, here's a website that says you are
- wrong:
-
-
- Note the swept wing design was decided upon in
- August 1945. The P1101 didn;t even make it to the
- US until 1948.
-
- "One of the men in the American research team was
- Robert J. Woods, of the Bell Aircraft Works. He and
- Messerschmitt chief designer Woldemar Voight lobbied
- for the completion of the Me P.1101 V1 prototype in
- June 1945. This proved to be impossible, due to the
- fact that most of the design documents were now in
- France (which they refused to share at this point in
- time), and other key information had been destroyed.
- The prototype was by now showing damage due to the
- rough treatment it had been receiving, such as
- sitting outside in the elements and even as a
- photographical curiosity for American GIs.
- The Me P.1101 V1 was shipped to the Bell
- Aircraft Works in Buffalo, New York in August 1948.
- More damage was sustained when the aircraft fell off
- a freight car, which in effect ruled out any
- possibility for repair and flight testing. The
- P.1101 was fitted with an Allison J-35 jet engine,
- and mock-up weapons (6 x Mg 151 and 4 x MK 108
- cannon) were pasted on the fuselage sides. Bell used
- the Me P.1101 as the basis for the X-5, during which
- individual parts of the P.1101 were used for static
- testing. Sometime in the early 1950s, the remainder
- of the Messerschmitt Me P.1101 V1 was sent to the
- scrap yard, thus ending this unique and distinctive
- aircraft's history"
-
-
- Funny how the F-86's 1945 swept wing could be based
- on the P1101's wing when the plane didn't even make
- it to the US until 1948, and the French had what
- remained of the design plans.


The usual lies wearing Skychimp's label. How I missed them this week as I was away.

First Me P.1101 uses Me-262 wings beginning with rib 7 at the engine to rib 21 at wing tip, and is very much correct to say that F-86 wings were based on P.1101 wings not Me-262. Also F-86 has the same swept angle as Me P.1101. Of course this is not a coincidence, german aerodynamicists found that a larger swept angle (even 45 degrees) makes the plane too unstable for a fighter role, and a smaller swept won't bring a significant speed advantage.

The documentation for completion of Me P.1101 may not have been available but americans had the plane (Me P.1101) with wings attached. I suppose they were experienced enough to study them. Also even if those Me P.1101 plans were taken by the french, americans still had an impressive collection of microfilms captured with countless wind tunnel experiments for swept wings, delta wings, slender bodies and so on.

Beginning with the summer of '45 portions of these impressive wealth of information became available to american aircraft manufacturers and defense agencies. Let's take NACA for example. In '46 they did have 4 reports on swept wings and 2 on delta wings, though they had none in '45 or '44. First NACA report on swept wing was available in April '46. The plans for building F-86 were considered finished in August '46. First F-86 prototype flew in October '47 (two months earlier than MiG-15). From summer of '45 till October '47 there was plenty of time for NA engineers to learn what they need from german sources (or indirectly from NACA) for their XP-86 project. In this time they tried some departures from the basic aerodynamic configuration of Me P.1101 - like a bigger aspect ratio (of 6), but in the end they returned to the original one (4.4 P.1101, 4.7 XP-86).

So in short, was F-86 aerodynamic configuration stolen? Yes of course. Was this critical for the success of F-86? Absolutely! no straight wing fighter could challenge a good swept wing fighter. Was this theft a bad thing to do? No, in fact it was one of the smartest post war decisions americans had made. One cannot judge industrial theft in the middle of a war (even if they called it "cold war").

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:58 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Report by the TO of JG6
-
- "Newly delivered a/c are very prone to problems in
- the first 5-10 flying hours. It is almost the same
- complaints, which are a burden to the unit
- technically and reduce operational readiness.
- Complaints of of the following nature appear almost
- regularly: elevator play in the mounting lever;
- loose spacers on the elevator control rods, too-long
- mounting bolts on the u/c suspension fittings,
- absence of slip markings on the main wheels, leaky
- or plugged lines in the MW50 system; shorts in the
- electrical system...loose and improperly fitted
- sparkplugs, loose mounting clamps on the hoses, etc"
-


hehe .. good to see things have not changed

a recent conversatiom with an aircraft mechanic working with the RAAF revealed that the brand new C130 Australai has bought over the last few years turn up in a similiar state, bolts loose parts missing or installed incorrectly, the RAAF according to this guy will not declare them operational until they have been inspected with a fine tooth comb and virtually rebuilt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 08:35 AM
^^^^I dotn even know why milo brought that lot up^^^^^

Everyone knows how bad german manufacturing got.

And we also all know the truth why the b24, p51 and 109 were all chosen above there peers.
CHEAP AND EASY /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

and for the record why are we argueing over the aerodynamics of the 109 series? (oxymoron>?)

<bgColor="green">

<center>http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/john001.jpg</p>


I complained that my radar hums so the mechanics taught it words.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:07 AM
yak3u has not the same drag as yak3

yak3u was equip with radial engine,so has she bigger nose



k4 was test by german 728km/h topspeed

russia has capture k4,they have arrive 720km/h

it seem not bad quality

ostprussia was not so many bomb falling




Message Edited on 06/25/0301:09PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:14 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- @Buzz:
- Everyplane? Not the f4U-4 Corsair. Not only odes
- the F4U-4 outclass the Bf-109K-4 in climb, it
- outclasses it in every other respect, too (except
- maybe acceleration).


Hmm, I don't think this includes firepower and size (the smaller the better).

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:25 AM
naca test

f4u-1d turn in same liga as p47

assume f4u-4 is not much better turner as f4u-1d


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zyjoy

FM-2..............100%...........1
P-63A-9..........124%...........2
P-61B-1..........133%...........3
F6F-5.............138%...........4
P-51D-15........179%...........5
P-38L.............205%...........6
P-47D-30........206%...........7
F4U-1D..........212%...........8

ratio how poorer they turn to fm-2

from American hundred thousand

accelerate from f4u-4 poor

p38l 4.13ft/sec/sec

p51d 3.85ft/sec/sec

p39q1 3.57ft/sec/sec

f4u-4 3.33ft/sec/sec


Message Edited on 06/25/0303:25PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 11:31 AM
AaronGT wrote:
- about 355 on the deck with in excess of 2000hp. That
- suggests that the P47 has a higher drag. Given the
- sheer bulk of the P47 it still probably translates
- to a smaller drag coefficient than the 109K series,
- and the P51B is clearly superior in drag
- coefficient.
-

From what I understand, there are two primary types of drag, parasitic drag, and induced drag. Parasitic drag is, ouf course very bad, and needs to be eliminated at all cost. However induced drag is what keep the plane in the air. The more induced drag, the greater the lift. So, a heavy plane must have higher drag than a lighter plane of a given stall speed, just due to the induced drag required to keep it airborn. From what I understand, the P-47 had a relatively low parasitic drag, even though its enduced drag was quite high.

This is incidentally, as I understand it, part of the reason heavier aircraft, tend to dive faster than lighter aircraft of similar top level speeds. The heavy aircraft will typically have a higher percentage of its overall drag being induced drag, relative to the lighter fighter, so when they both eliminate the induced drag, the yheavier aircraft has a higher thrust to drag ratio than the lighter aircraft.

-
- It may say something about my flying online, but I
- find
- the hardest part getting into position. I rarely get
- into a position for firing often enough to expend
- all my ammunition in VVS planes, even!
-

gack, was going to comment but ran out of time. With 40 sec fire time, you can fire from 1K away, or 90 degree deflection guessing shots (many of my kills) without worrying about ammo. With the TBolt, I have *never* run out of ammo online. Not once. I don't even carry Extra Ammo anymore.

-
-- Edit: Why is it I always spell "Spitfire" with an
-- extra 'e' (i.e. Spitefire)?
-
- Thinking of the Spiteful?

Could be.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: For those of you who don't remember what the FM-2 was, that's the Wildcat!

Message Edited on 06/25/0305:33AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:30 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- From what I understand, there are two primary types
- of drag, parasitic drag, and induced drag.

That's right, although for a simple analysis,
it's all drag. The total drag from all forms
must be equal to the thrust from all sources
at a steady speed.

- Parasitic drag is, ouf course very bad, and needs to
- be eliminated at all cost. However induced drag is
- what keep the plane in the air. The more induced
- drag, the greater the lift. So, a heavy plane must
- have higher drag than a lighter plane of a given
- stall speed, just due to the induced drag required
- to keep it airborn.

Yep.

- This is incidentally, as I understand it, part of
- the reason heavier aircraft, tend to dive faster
- than lighter aircraft of similar top level speeds.
- The heavy aircraft will typically have a higher
- percentage of its overall drag being induced drag,
- relative to the lighter fighter, so when they both
- eliminate the induced drag, the yheavier aircraft
- has a higher thrust to drag ratio than the lighter
- aircraft.

Another way to look at it would be that the
ratio of surface area:weight is smaller for
a large aircraft (it's true for a sphere, which
is, er, my first appoximation to a plane :-))
Thus the wetted area of a plane will tend to
increase more slowly than the weight as size
is increased, notwithstanding that the wing
area may need to decrease in reality less than
for a nominal spherical aircraft, since it has
to provide lift. But you get the idea. I don't
know exactly how the wing area would need to vary
with weight - I'd have to think about that one
and about how wing area and lift are related.

Pointing straight down we have thrust+weight=drag
at the steady state, with lift going off at right
angles to that, requiring a countering force on
the stick (which induces more drag). Drag is also
a function of speed. But all other things being
equal, if we solve for the velocity for which
the above is true, heavier planes will tend to
dive faster.

Mind you, thrust is a function of all sorts of things,
including the coupling of the prop at a particular
speed, etc, etc.

- gack, was going to comment but ran out of time.
- With 40 sec fire time, you can fire from 1K away, or
- 90 degree deflection guessing shots (many of my
- kills) without worrying about ammo.

Maybe my gunnery is just poor. When I used to play
Warbirds I could pull off shots like that, but I think
the gunnery model was much more forgiving. In IL2/FB
I don't tend to get good results doing that on the
whole. I've downed planes with those shots, but it
is very much harder. More practice needed, perhaps?

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:04 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- What does that
- have to do with the fact that the body of your
- beloved Bf-109 had skin like an old lady that's laid
- in the sun her whole life?



you seem to know bodies like that pretty well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:11 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Using my vast technical knowledge and after
- collecting exhaustive amounts of resources and data
- I have come to an important conclusion.
-
-
--The 109 was always a good, competitive aircraft.



completyly right. although some people seem to lose muuuch sleep over it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


some people have a life... and some manipulate data all the time... to each his own /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





---------------------------------------



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 03:30 PM
Many seem to have missed the point that the 109 does not seem to be an efficent a/c, aerodynamically. (even if some of the data used in the calculations is slightly incorrect - looks like data for a standard G-6)

See pg 14-7 were, if the efficency was 100% the a/c should be able to reach 800kph(497mph) from 610kph(379mph) using the same hp. A gain of ~31% in speed.

Anyone what to do some calculations for other a/c for comparison.



@ NuF. can you cut down on the number of blank lines in your posts?





http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
06-25-2003, 03:49 PM
Now yer gettin into my territory - I think the mustang is great - but the Corsair! ahhh..
The K4s many faults do not seem to be modeled in the simm - which is okay and to be expected. Personally I do not think the 109 is the best example of excellent German aircraft engineering - the 190s - the 262 - of course the ta152h. The 109s peaked - in my opinion - with the F - maybe the G2 - after that it seems to me they were more or less kluged to fit the times. Other designs are more interesting.

Just my opinion.

From Brems post above we can see what a great turner the P63 was.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 06/25/0310:50AM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 06:23 PM
milo:



are you olam mulambe?





---------------------------------------



under 30k?



Message Edited on 06/25/0306:38PM by NuFoerki

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 03:02 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- The usual lies wearing Skychimp's label. How I
- missed them this week as I was away.
-
- First Me P.1101 uses Me-262 wings beginning with rib
- 7 at the engine to rib 21 at wing tip, and is very
- much correct to say that F-86 wings were based on
- P.1101 wings not Me-262. Also F-86 has the same
- swept angle as Me P.1101. Of course this is not a
- coincidence, german aerodynamicists found that a
- larger swept angle (even 45 degrees) makes the plane
- too unstable for a fighter role, and a smaller swept
- won't bring a significant speed advantage.


You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?



- The documentation for completion of Me P.1101 may
- not have been available but americans had the plane
- (Me P.1101) with wings attached. I suppose they were
- experienced enough to study them. Also even if those
- Me P.1101 plans were taken by the french, americans
- still had an impressive collection of microfilms
- captured with countless wind tunnel experiments for
- swept wings, delta wings, slender bodies and so on.

No, I guess you don't.



- Beginning with the summer of '45 portions of these
- impressive wealth of information became available to
- american aircraft manufacturers and defense
- agencies. Let's take NACA for example. In '46 they
- did have 4 reports on swept wings and 2 on delta
- wings, though they had none in '45 or '44. First
- NACA report on swept wing was available in April
- '46. The plans for building F-86 were considered
- finished in August '46. First F-86 prototype flew in
- October '47 (two months earlier than MiG-15). From
- summer of '45 till October '47 there was plenty of
- time for NA engineers to learn what they need from
- german sources (or indirectly from NACA) for their
- XP-86 project. In this time they tried some
- departures from the basic aerodynamic configuration
- of Me P.1101 - like a bigger aspect ratio (of 6),
- but in the end they returned to the original one
- (4.4 P.1101, 4.7 XP-86).
-
- So in short, was F-86 aerodynamic configuration
- stolen? Yes of course. Was this critical for the
- success of F-86? Absolutely! no straight wing
- fighter could challenge a good swept wing fighter.
- Was this theft a bad thing to do? No, in fact it was
- one of the smartest post war decisions americans had
- made. One cannot judge industrial theft in the
- middle of a war (even if they called it "cold war").

Huck, it was so nice with you gone. The place was devoid of idiocy. I see it's back with a vengence.

Again, even a quick glance at some sources would reveal to you that there were no plans available AT ALL to the US, and that the plane itself was not trransported to the US for study until 1948. The F-86 had its swept wings long before that.

Did the US "study" the plane before that? The plane sat unattended for many months out in the elements. The plane was not the basis for anythingn pertaining to the F-86.


Huck, you go out of you way to propogates lies and distoritions. Please spreqad them somewhere else. You prove everytime you open your mouth that you haven't a clue as to what you are saying.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 03:09 AM
Bremspropeller wrote:

- Hmm, I don't think this includes firepower and size
- (the smaller the better).

Well, the F4U-4C was armed with 4 20mm cannons. How does this compare to the K-4?

And yes, the Corsair was bigger. But almost everything was.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 03:19 AM
Skalgrim wrote:
- naca test
-
- f4u-1d turn in same liga as p47
-
- assume f4u-4 is not much better turner as f4u-1d
-
- FM-2..............100%...........1
- P-63A-9..........124%...........2
- P-61B-1..........133%...........3
- F6F-5.............138%...........4
- P-51D-15........179%...........5
- P-38L.............205%...........6
- P-47D-30........206%...........7
- F4U-1D..........212%...........8
-
- ratio how poorer they turn to fm-2
-
- from American hundred thousand
-
- accelerate from f4u-4 poor
-
- p38l 4.13ft/sec/sec
-
- p51d 3.85ft/sec/sec
-
- p39q1 3.57ft/sec/sec
-
- f4u-4 3.33ft/sec/sec
-


That's a chart in AHT that is not clearly explained.

Direct comparison tests clearly shows the Corsair could EASILY outturn the Fw-190A, and EASILY out turn the P-51B. In fact, the report on the F4U vs P-51 goes so far as to state that the F4U was better in climb and all other performance areas except dive. Both P-51 and P-47 pilots stated that their planes were outclassed in turn. There is no question the F4U-4 was more manuverable than the P-51 or P-47.

The acceleration chart does not state the weight of the planes and AFAIK there were never direct comparisons between all of them (the author goes so far as to state that turn times and radi are not available). But given the power of the R-2800-18W engine, I have no doubt it could out accelerate both the P-47 and P-51.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2003, 03:51 AM
BTW, anyone that wants the real story on the F-86 instead of Huck's utterly useless and mostly inaccurate theory can get it here:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf861.html

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/corsairs.jpg