PDA

View Full Version : Turning at high alt: big is better?



249th_Harrier
12-27-2005, 04:57 PM
Is it true that having a larger airplane (e.g. p-47) is a benefit for maneuver at very high altitudes? I have heard this was a disadvantage for the bf-109, but I don't quite understand. There is less air up high, so it should be harder to maneuver, but I don't see what size has to do with it.

Badsight.
12-27-2005, 05:22 PM
weight is the enemy of turning performance


up high (like 8K+) power is reduced drastically , combined with thinner air you have less turning ability

carguy_
12-27-2005, 05:27 PM
If we had a real G6/AS which is meant to be a high altitude fighter,you wouldn`t have so much speed advantage over it.

It`s mainly the engine.USAAF planes have superchargers which let them use the atitude more effectively and thus gain more power than their LW counterparts.

Laminar flow wing design also helps.Tell the difference in wing desing between La5/I16/Spitfire and P51/Ta152.

chris455
12-27-2005, 07:02 PM
It`s mainly the engine.USAAF planes have superchargers which let them use the atitude more effectively and thus gain more power than their LW counterparts.

German A/C had S/Cs also, no?

The P-47 had a mechanical supercharger and a very efficient turbocharger to boot, making it one of the best performing aircraft at high altitude.

Almost all major fighter planes in WWII had at least a single stage supercharger, which could have one or more speeds.

249th_Harrier
12-27-2005, 08:47 PM
Is the high altitude power the only advantage the P-47 held over the LW in Jan '44? I found this quote here:

http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html

QUOTE
The story of the P-47 began in the summer of 1940. At that time Republic was building the P-43 Lancer and had plans to produce a lightweight fighter, designated the P-44 Rocket. In view of combat experience in Europe, however, the Air Corps decided that if the United States became involved in the war something larger and better than the P-44 would be required.
UNQUOTE

I had assumed that something about the P-47 being big and heavy would be an advantage flying at high altitude. I have also heard that the ultra-low-drag airframe of the bf-109 had "stability problems" at high altitude, so I thought hmm maybe big airframe (p-47) has some advantage over small airframe (bf-109). I guess I should buy more real books rather than read all the disinformation out there on the net.

mandrill7
12-27-2005, 09:55 PM
I've never read about the big airframe being an advantage in and of itself. The big mass of the jug was less of a DISadvantage up high because the air is thinner and thus there is less drag caused by the P-47's size. The large bulk of the Jug allowed it to carry a massive engine with very high horsepower and this allowed it to function very efficiently at high altitude. As the air up high is thinner, you need higher horsepower to generate the same amount of speed and to maneuvre efficiently.