PDA

View Full Version : A passing thought on the P-51....



Holtzauge
01-30-2008, 01:10 PM
It is well documented that the P-51 incorporated a new and for it's time revolutionary laminar wing profile which reduced the wing portion of the drag significantly as compared to the more conventional wing profiles of the time.

Historically, the usually stated reason for it's inclusion was to cut drag. However, it also turned out that the new wing had good high speed properties in that detrimental compressibility effects were delayed to a higher Mach number and the nose down pitching moment usually associated with speeds in this range was not as pronounced as in many other designs.

Now for the big question: was this due to foresight on the part of the designers at NA or was it purely "fortituos" or as some would put it just plain "dumb luck"?

HuninMunin
01-30-2008, 01:20 PM
Gotta love german-designed planes. http://www.bmlv.gv.at/archiv/a2003/airpower/galerie/vollbild/bild14_mustang.jpg

This one's pretty cool aswell.

http://www.bw-flyer.de/neu/flugzeuge/sabre/sabre3_jg71.jpg

luftluuver
01-30-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Gotta love german-designed planes.
To bad they weren't designed, and built, in Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HuninMunin
01-30-2008, 01:26 PM
That's not the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Lt_Letum
01-30-2008, 01:32 PM
It was a design decision made on the P51, Tempest and La9 (not ingame) as well as other planes of the era.
However, prop wash, rivets and uneven aluminum meant that in reality there was almost no true laminar flow. This was not known at the time.

Despite the designer's best efforts, they where just low drag wings and not laminar flow wings.

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 01:48 PM
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.

Laminar flow is present on most wings, but usually only for a few % of the chord aft of the leading edge.

The idea behind the "laminar flow wing" was to extend the region of laminar flow somewhat further aft, thereby reducing skin friction and thereby reducing drag.

This worked reasonably well in the wind-tunnel, but less well in operational service. That the theoretical performance of the early laminar flow aerofoil sections was strongly dependent upon the standard of manufacturing and the standard of surface finish was actually known, and it is for this reason that contemporary NACA reports often quote aerofoil performance figures at "Standard Roughness".

Unfortunately, this knowledge was not effectively passed on down the chain to factory workers and maintenance engineers, and so the potential benefits realised at the design stage were often lost in service.

Having said that, it is unfair to suggest that there was never a useful quantity of laminar flow.

When efforts were made to clean up Service aircraft, considerable performance improvements were realised, especially in the case of the Mustang III:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/rae1501.html

But, it is also true to say that the majority of the P-51's performance advantage probably came from its radiator design, which offered almost zero cooling drag, if not some nett thrust under favourable conditions (i.e. in the top right hand corner of the flight envelope).

stalkervision
01-30-2008, 02:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

In Smithsonian air and space magazine an aeronautics expert revisited the Mustangs laminar flow properties and came to the conclusion they were of little benefit. On the other hand the radiator position and ducting added a whole lot of practical thrust to the aircraft..

Aaron_GT
01-30-2008, 02:28 PM
However, it also turned out that the new wing had good high speed properties in that detrimental compressibility effects were delayed to a higher Mach number and the nose down pitching moment usually associated with speeds in this range was not as pronounced as in many other designs.

NACA extensively tested laminar flow, and given that it was part of the design from the outset (AFAIK) then presumably they were building in all the known properties of laminar flow in. If the NACA documentation shows that the lesser nose down force at high speed was known about then the chances are that the NA engineers knew this. You can't prove absolutely without some note in the design process noting it, but if they were choosing to use such a new aerodynamic device then the chances are that all the NACA knew on it was being built deliberately into the design. It would be remiss of them not to. The only reason why they might not have noticed was the relative speed at which it was designed and built, but then they were unlikely to design and build something with such a novel feature unless they had already been researching it, though, so perhaps the official design period is misleading - they might have been 'designing' things while relaxing in the bath for months beforehand.

The Typhoon/Tempest issue is interesting. The Tempest was planned as the Typhoon was entering service (maybe even before) so it would be interesting to see when the NACA results might have been available to Camm, and at what point laminar flow explicitly became part of the Tempest design.

The final note is that the thicker wing on the D versions of the P51 arguably meant that it was no longer laminar flow as it was on the B and C.

Aaron_GT
01-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Unfortunately, this knowledge was not effectively passed on down the chain to factory workers and maintenance engineers, and so the potential benefits realised at the design stage were often lost in service.

One of the novel features of the Whirlwind was the use of magnesium alloys which allowed the skin to be thicker. This made getting a properly conforming finish easier. In a mass production situation, though, getting suitable skin fineness without using thick skins was apparently very difficult and, as you note, the theoretical laminar flow wasn't always achieved. But, better lots of mass produced planes, even if they are 10mph slower than in theory!

The Spitfire sometimes suffered with skin fineness issues, especially given its thinner and eliptical wing meant more complex shaping and less structure to hold it all steady, post production warping also being an issue.

Waldo.Pepper
01-30-2008, 02:58 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/laminar/laminar.jpg

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 03:13 PM
The Typhoon was philosophically a "Super Hurricane", in much the same way as the Hurricane started life as the "Fury Monoplane", and grew out of a series of semi-successful prototype aircraft fitted with a variety of engines in the "bigger than a PV12" class.

It therefore had a thick wing, which made good sense at subsonic Mach numbers, lots of power (which was obviously going to be useful) and big guns.

It was specified pre-war as an interceptor, which is why heavy firepower was emphasised. Because it was intended to be used in a GCI environment against bombers, all-round view wasn't part of the initial specification, and this resulted in the rather strange original cockpit design with a "car door" for entry and almost zero rear view.

It was generally disappointing in its intended role, but very useful at lower altitudes (and thus lower Mach numbers) against the Fw-190, though its straight taper produced a series of unfortunate cases of mistaken identity. In plan, the Typhoon looks rather like a 190...

***

The Tempest essentially aimed to learn from the rather bitter-sweet experience gained from the Typhoon, and as a result it gained a much thinner wing (to improve tactical Mach number), with a semi-elliptical planform (to aid identification*, especially by the Americans).

The idea of Laminar Flow probably turned up as a result of the P-51A, which was making waves in the key parts of the British Aviation Industry as early as 1942.

However, it would have been very much secondary to the need to reduce t/c for tactical Mach number improvements.

Meanwhile, the situation at Supermarine would have been quite the reverse, since the Spitfire had the highest tactical Mach number of any aircraft used in WWII (only finally beaten in 1947 by the XP-86 and** XS-1), but had rather a low cruise speed. As such the various studies which lead to the Victor (re-named to become the Spitfire 20 series) and the Spiteful started to push towards a wing with lower cruise drag.

AFAIK the Spiteful actually ended up with a lower tactical Mach number than the Spitfire, and generally inferior handling qualities.

Nevertheless, when fitted with a Nene and re-named "Attacker" it helped keep Supermarine in the fighter business into the 1950s.

*It was suggested in some quarters that the Air Staff so loved the Spitfire that they felt all fighters should emulate its' appearance as far as possible!

Ironically, the P-51's straight taper caused it to suffer similar identification problems to those endured by the Tempest, and in aircraft recognition cards of the period much emphasis was placed upon the need to differentiate between the P-51 and the Bf-109. As an aid memoir, it was suggested that the P-51 had been designed by ex-patriot Germans previously employed at Messerschmitt's works, and this thereby explained the similarity. Whilst Edgar Schmued was of German extraction, he never worked at BF, and so entertaining though this story was, it was and is no more than that. And of course, by the time that Schmued produced the conceptual design for NA-73X he was a naturalised American citizen. Ditto Kindelberger.

** Which was first to beat it is perhaps debatable...

VW-IceFire
01-30-2008, 03:51 PM
The thing I always like to remember is that although the P-51 has virtually the same engine as the Spitfire IX (with a few differences) its performance is similar to that of the much more powerful Spitfire XIV. So the overall streamlining for the Mustang is a huge benefit performance wise and for the Spitfire to do that it needed a much more powerful engine to compete.

R_Target
01-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Kindelberger did not need to be naturalized as he was born in West Virginia.

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 04:13 PM
True, but he was of German extraction. My language was sloppy.

R_Target
01-30-2008, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
True, but he was of German extraction. My language was sloppy.

Understood. NP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aaron_GT
01-30-2008, 04:18 PM
The idea of Laminar Flow probably turned up as a result of the P-51A, which was making waves in the key parts of the British Aviation Industry as early as 1942.

The redesign of the Typhoon started in 1940, all finalised in 1941, just as the first Mustangs were arriving for trials in the UK, so the information on the advantages of laminar flow must have arrived sooner to Camm.

BoCfuss
01-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Everyone North of the Rio Grande was from somewhere else 100 years ago.

Aaron_GT
01-30-2008, 04:20 PM
The Spitfire gained laminar flow with the Spiteful. Admittedly it was with the Griffon that it managed a quite healthy 494 mph! The Spiteful wings lived on in the age of jets on both the Seafang and the Attacker jet (hence the latter being a taildragger/trough digger).

Copperhead311th
01-30-2008, 04:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif P-51 a German Designed Plane?!!?

Jesus freaking christ you ppl have really got get over youselvs with the whole German designed thing. The P-51 was an AMERICAN DESIGNED aircraft. No matter the designers country of origin once he imagreated here & took the Oath, he is no longer a German, but an American damn it. And there were more ppl working on prodject than just one man. I swear to God if some of you ppl could get your hands on a damn time machine i'm almost willing to bet the farm & the barn that ya'll would go back and try and help the Germans win WWII. i mean OMFG. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Are you LW ppl stuck on stupid? Good God almighty!

As for the P-51 in the sim, wings break off, Fixed by the time we got to the D Models. Not in the sim.

thers just to damn many thingss wroing with this plane in the sime to even list. I'll leave that to the chart monkey's to explain to you dim whits.

Oh Tagert!!!!!!

Bremspropeller
01-30-2008, 04:39 PM
Copper has taken the bait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Missing Taggart and Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


thers just to damn many thingss wroing with this plane in the sime to even list.

ORLY? Thats just your lack of ability.
Anytime I drive a Pony, I pwn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Bewolf
01-30-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif P-51 a German Designed Plane?!!?

Jesus freaking christ you ppl have really got get over youselvs with the whole German designed thing. The P-51 was an AMERICAN DESIGNED aircraft. No matter the designers country of origin once he imagreated here & took the Oath, he is no longer a German, but an American damn it. And there were more ppl working on prodject than just one man. I swear to God if some of you ppl could get your hands on a damn time machine i'm almost willing to bet the farm & the barn that ya'll would go back and try and help the Germans win WWII. i mean OMFG. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Are you LW ppl stuck on stupid? Good God almighty!

As for the P-51 in the sim, wings break off, Fixed by the time we got to the D Models. Not in the sim.

thers just to damn many thingss wroing with this plane in the sime to even list. I'll leave that to the chart monkey's to explain to you dim whits.

Oh Tagert!!!!!!


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

there you got a big one, HuninMunin.

http://amix.dk/uploads/big_fish.jpg

Wurkeri
01-30-2008, 05:00 PM
NACA did quite extensive in flight profile drag testing on the P-51 and found out that profile drag Cd (Cdp) in service condition was near 50% more (Cdp 0,0063 at Cl 0,15) than in wind tunnel testing of the profile (Cdp 0,0045), without finish (bare metal) the Cdp was 0,0070. Even after special smoothing and sanding the Cdp was some 20% higher (Cdp 0,0053). Source NASA-TM-79885.

The Germans were also interested about the drag characters of the Mustang. So they took a wing from a shot down plane and put it in the wind tunnel and measured the profile drag. That particular wing was damaged so they had to remove normal finish (spattle layer). The interesting part is that even in that bare metal condition the wing had better drag characters (Cdp 0,0070 at Cl 0,2) than the Fw 190 A-5 wing at normal service condition (Cdp 0,0089). In ideal conditions perfectly smooth Mustang Cdp would had been 0,0044 while the ideal value for the Fw 190 would had been 0,0067. The German testers credited mainly the excellent construction quality for these results and were rather sceptical about laminar flow. Source MAP Völkenrode: MAP-VG117T.

There is very good agreement between these tests and it seems that in normal service condition large benefits from the laminar flow were quite unlikely. However, it was the overall cleanness of the P-51 airframe and high construction quality which resulted the good drag characters of the P-51.

Von_Rat
01-30-2008, 06:41 PM
from now on im never again entering a thread that has "a passing thought" in the title.



this will be a 20 pager,,,be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Sergio_101
01-30-2008, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.


Bull$hit.
Statement based on suicidal high speed dives
to explore flight near the speed of sound.

Spit wings basicly sucked over 450 mph.

That is the primary reason there have never been
any succesful Spitfire based race planes.

Sergio

luftluuver
01-30-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The final note is that the thicker wing on the D versions of the P51 arguably meant that it was no longer laminar flow as it was on the B and C.
Geez, I wish this myth would die. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The D model did not have a thicker wing! It did get a slight extension to the inner wing at the root to make allowance for the retraction of the bigger wheels. All models of the Mustang used the same airfoil section.

Take any airfoil Aaron and increase the thickness by 5% (just a number). What does that do to the chord of the airfoil?

Now overlay the wing plan of the B/C model on the wing plan of the D model. Notice the wing shape is the same from the where the crank meets the leading edge outward.

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.


Bull$hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The lady doth protest too much, methinks


Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Statement based on suicidal high speed dives
to explore flight near the speed of sound.

Spit wings basicly sucked over 450 mph.

That is the primary reason there have never been
any succesful Spitfire based race planes.

Sergio

1) Every Spitfire was production tested to at least 470 mph IAS. (see "Sigh for a Merlin" by the late great Alex Henshaw)

2) Reno races are conducted at low level in a hot environment, and therefore despite the fact that the racers sometimes reach speeds of 500 mph TAS, the Mach numbers involved are low.

3) Your "suicidal high speed dives" demonstrated Mach numbers >0.9, but the placarded Mach number was 0.85 in the pilots' notes. I suggest that you compare and contrast these limits with those of the P-51, via reference to standard atmosphere tables.

The Spitfire isn't a success at Reno because it is relatively draggy. In particular its wing mounted radiators suffer from considerable boundary layer separation ahead of the matrix which leads to excessive cooling drag. This was well known during the war but it the "fix" would have interrupted production to an excessive degree. The "fix" in question was to fit a Mustang style central cooling system.

The Spitfire wasn't magic. But nor was the Mustang, and nor was, is, nor shall be any other aircraft.

I suggest that you read the various test reports detailing the transonic handling characteristics of WWII fighters in order to gain an appreciation of reality so that next time you can base your posts upon knowledge.

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
All models of the Mustang used the same airfoil section.


Not according to this:
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

However, the P-51H and the P-82 didn't serve in WWII, so it's something of a moot point...

Kongo Otto
01-30-2008, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Copper has taken the bait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Ist der eigentlich so dämlich oder tut der bloß so?

for our loved english users:
Is this guy so stupid or is he just simulating?

luftluuver
01-30-2008, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
All models of the Mustang used the same airfoil section.


Not according to this:
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

However, the P-51H and the P-82 didn't serve in WWII, so it's something of a moot point... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry should have been more specific in the model but since we were discussing the B/C and D, thought it would be understood.

Sergio_101
01-30-2008, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.


Bull$hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have, but seeing as your arrogance vastly exceeds your IQ
I will not bother responding to your posts.
Your a British version of Kurfurst.
And I chose not to suffer him either.

Sergio

The lady doth protest too much, methinks


Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Statement based on suicidal high speed dives
to explore flight near the speed of sound.

Spit wings basicly sucked over 450 mph.

That is the primary reason there have never been
any succesful Spitfire based race planes.

Sergio

1) Every Spitfire was production tested to at least 470 mph IAS. (see "Sigh for a Merlin" by the late great Alex Henshaw)

2) Reno races are conducted at low level in a hot environment, and therefore despite the fact that the racers sometimes reach speeds of 500 mph TAS, the Mach numbers involved are low.

3) Your "suicidal high speed dives" demonstrated Mach numbers >0.9, but the placarded Mach number was 0.85 in the pilots' notes. I suggest that you compare and contrast these limits with those of the P-51, via reference to standard atmosphere tables.

The Spitfire isn't a success at Reno because it is relatively draggy. In particular its wing mounted radiators suffer from considerable boundary layer separation ahead of the matrix which leads to excessive cooling drag. This was well known during the war but it the "fix" would have interrupted production to an excessive degree. The "fix" in question was to fit a Mustang style central cooling system.

The Spitfire wasn't magic. But nor was the Mustang, and nor was, is, nor shall be any other aircraft.

I suggest that you read the various test reports detailing the transonic handling characteristics of WWII fighters in order to gain an appreciation of reality so that next time you can base your posts upon knowledge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tools4foolsA
01-30-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
from now on im never again entering a thread that has "a passing thought" in the title.



this will be a 20 pager,,,be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


I bet he had a good laugh when he posted the topic!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

+++++

Copperhead311th
01-30-2008, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Kongo Otto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Copper has taken the bait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Ist der eigentlich so dämlich oder tut der bloß so?

for our loved english users:
Is this guy so stupid or is he just simulating? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I got somthing you can "simulate" right here pal.

HuninMunin
01-30-2008, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Copper has taken the bait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Missing Taggart and Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif




Veryhappy Veryhappy Veryhappy

there you got a big one, HuninMunin.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Shut the feck up ya lot.... the bait is still fresh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

@Kupferkopf
It's so predictable you could set the watch after it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
01-31-2008, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Copper has taken the bait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Missing Taggart and Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


I dont care much about the pony. It was an average fighter. Only thing that made it exceptional was its range. It had some very nice aspects engineering wise, like the low drag rad, and long range in an aircraft that can maneuver with something 1/2 its weight, but I fight for the under-dogs.

Aaron_GT
01-31-2008, 03:21 AM
Geez, I wish this myth would die. Roll Eyes

I stand corrected.

Xiolablu3
01-31-2008, 08:26 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mach

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
It is well documented that the P-51 incorporated a new and for it's time revolutionary laminar wing profile which reduced the wing portion of the drag significantly as compared to the more conventional wing profiles of the time.

Historically, the usually stated reason for it's inclusion was to cut drag. However, it also turned out that the new wing had good high speed properties in that detrimental compressibility effects were delayed to a higher Mach number and the nose down pitching moment usually associated with speeds in this range was not as pronounced as in many other designs.

Now for the big question: was this due to foresight on the part of the designers at NA or was it purely "fortituos" or as some would put it just plain "dumb luck"?

If my name rhymed with ***gert then I'd have to point out that the laminar wing wasn't so...
yup, just dumb luck BY THAT STANDARD OF IGNORANCE.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Gotta love german-designed planes.
To bad they weren't designed, and built, in Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No bad to that! By MY standards it was an excellent plane that had Germany had those and
long range bombers they might have won the war! It's a GOOD thing that Germany did not have
them!

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
since the Spitfire had the highest tactical Mach number of any aircraft used in WWII

That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph?

Xiolablu3
01-31-2008, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
since the Spitfire had the highest tactical Mach number of any aircraft used in WWII

That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he meant prop aircraft.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Everyone North of the Rio Grande was from somewhere else 100 years ago.

I had a school friend in Pennsylvania who was 100% Cherokee. And an Army buddy who was Sioux.
They and a few others might disagree.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[Only thing that made it exceptional was its range.

You forgot speed, esp at high alts. It had that going for it too. Not the best but right up there.

Oh yeah, and it did get a very good gunsight but even from the start, something IL2 series has
taught me is the very good value of the slip ball in the gunsight. It does make accurate fire
during maneuver easier. How much I wished for that in many other planes esp since 4.01!

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think he meant prop aircraft.

I'm pretty sure it has to be something, but maybe not. I dunno the alt of that 1000 kph run
or the temperature that day so I dunno the mach it was. IIRC at Std SL sound is like 1200 kph
and 1000 kph is less than 90% of that so he may have the right of it as posted.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
http://amix.dk/uploads/big_fish.jpg

Yeah he sure caught a Whopper! Looks like he needs the extra-big fry pan!

PS -- it needs salt!

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.


Bull$hit.
Statement based on suicidal high speed dives
to explore flight near the speed of sound.

Spit wings basicly sucked over 450 mph.

That is the primary reason there have never been
any succesful Spitfire based race planes.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 was dived over Wright Field for the record. It landed in bent condition.
The mach speed in that dive was less than Spitfires had made without damage.
This in spite of the P-51 being much heavier which aids in dive speed.

Please, DRAG below critical mach is not Critical Mach. Totally different fish.

horseback
01-31-2008, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Everyone North of the Rio Grande was from somewhere else 100 years ago.

I had a school friend in Pennsylvania who was 100% Cherokee. And an Army buddy who was Sioux.
They and a few others might disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Confirmed.

All MY ancestors were in the continental US by 1883...or approximately 125 years ago. Great Grandpa Schultz was the latecomer; everyone else was in place before 1855, including the Cheyenne parents of the woman he eventually married.

While German ancestry is quite common in the US, it should be recognized that certain aspects of German 'kultur' were quickly discarded by our ancestors, foremost being the attitude that the 'German way' is always best. It was a source of serious annoyance for Americans dealing with the waves of immigration from central Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and not always dealt with politely.

In fact, had it not been for the hamburger and German Chocolate Cake, we might have sent them all back...

While Schmued was the lead dog on the Mustang's design team, he was far from being the only contributer to its design; when every drawing & study was done by hand, it was near impossible for one man to control every detail of design and construction. It was perforce, a team effort.

cheers

horseback

R_Target
01-31-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
While Schmued was the lead dog on the Mustang's design team, he was far from being the only contributer to its design; when every drawing & study was done by hand, it was near impossible for one man to control every detail of design and construction. It was perforce, a team effort.

Horseback, if you don't already have it, Ray Wagner's Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the Development of the P-51 is an excellent read.

MEGILE
01-31-2008, 12:31 PM
The self-ownage in this thread brings a tear to mine eye.


Coppertop cried:

Oh Tagert!!!!!!


Sergio whined:

I have, but seeing as your arrogance vastly exceeds your IQ
I will not bother responding to your posts.
Your a British version of Kurfurst.
And I chose not to suffer him either.





owned, b1tches.

Aaron_GT
01-31-2008, 01:15 PM
That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph?

That's about 0.85, so a tie?

Aaron_GT
01-31-2008, 01:17 PM
You forgot speed, esp at high alts. It had that going for it too.

One of the excellent qualities it shared with the Mosquito wasn't just raw speed, it was high cruise speed. This meant that it was possible to get to the combat zone economically and quickly, and be able to remain in it economically and yet retain a good head of speed (when moving up to max cruise, as opposed to most economical cruise). In some ways it made close escort problematic as going slow enough to escort B-17s was a little below the most economic cruise.

Aaron_GT
01-31-2008, 01:23 PM
it was near impossible for one man to control every detail of design and construction.

Yes, the teams could run into dozens for the design. In one of my books it mentions Westland not being able to tender for a design (twin engines, from memory) as they'd need an extra 50 to 100 staff to do it (I presume some would be extra ancilliary staff like typists and accounts managers beyond the designers, draughtsmen, etc.)

Gibbage1
01-31-2008, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

You forgot speed, esp at high alts. It had that going for it too. Not the best but right up there.


Its speed was very good, but it was matched later on over Europe. Exceptional speed would be that of the Me-262. It had a significant advantage in speed, and the P-51 only had a marginal to light, if any.

Aaron_GT
01-31-2008, 03:43 PM
Yes, amazing what that German dumb luck managed!

Sorry... just too hard to resist.

In a way the P-51 was better than the P-80 in mass production in early 1944 as the P-80 was less economical with fuel and its speed disparity with the B17s and B24s even greater, so it would have been a poor escort unless it was explicitly allowed free range. So that P-51 thriftiness (part plane, part Merlin) was very useful in terms of fuel logistics (the thing that killed the Luftwaffe).

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
In fact, had it not been for the hamburger and German Chocolate Cake, we might have sent them all back...

German craftsmen brought the skills and tools to make fine rifles, don't forget.

But beyond burgers and cake and superb to say the least firearms you really have to remember
who brought Lager Beer and forget totally about this sent them all back nonsense! LOL!

I like Ales better but I know what is and has been produced by far more!

They also brought German Women, enriching the variety of available tail in this mixed land.

DrHerb
01-31-2008, 08:22 PM
Mating the Merlin to the P-51 airframe is what made the legend.

If that didnt happen, the P-51 would have been a 2nd tier airplane.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph?

That's about 0.85, so a tie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At sea level. Like I posted, I dunno the alt of that historic run but it was a good ways up.
I've seen film of it. I'm trying to remember if the pilot was Rudy Opitz... no, it was
Heini Dittmar! And he set two records, the one in 1944 at 1130 kph looks to be a DIFFERENT
VERSION than in Barnaby Wainfan's notes as well... good old Internet Sources!

Wikipedia on the 163 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163)

The Me 163 B1a didn't have wing twist and as a result had a much higher critical Mach number than the Me 163 B1.

On 6 July 1944, the Me 163 B V18 (VA+SP) set a new world speed record of 1,130 km/h (702 mph), piloted by Heini Dittmar.

I think there is Doubt that the specs with mach at .83-.84 are the critical mach merely because
the 1130 kph record is a damn sight faster than the 960 kph listed below. Perhaps the one with
the .83 mach is a model with the wing twist that would be easier to fly and indicative of the
ones used in combat, but I only say perhaps as I'm not going to cherry pick and insist.
IF SO then critical mach varied, I'll leave it someone else to find out if the EDIT: wing
without twist (END) version was a one-off or ever reached operational status.


Performance

* Maximum speed: 960 km/h (Mach 0.83) (596 mph)

* Duration of flight: 8 minutes)

* Range: 40 km (25 miles)
* Service ceiling 12,100 m (39,700 ft)
* Rate of climb: 3,666 m/min (11,730 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 213 kg/m² (43 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.42


Rudy Opitz and the 163:

Linky to Rudy Opitz and the 163. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)

The technical section... FWIW not the last word. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight6.htm)

Some relevant parts -- author Barnaby Wainfan, in places quoting Rudy Opitz.


The airplane had a swept-back wing and no horizontal tail. A pair of fabric-covered elevons on the outer portions of the wings controlled both pitch and roll. The primary reason for the wing sweep was to improve the pitch moment arm of the elevons rather than to increase the critical Mach number of the airplane. In fact, the 23.3-degree quarter-chord sweep was probably enough to improve the high-speed characteristics of the airplane a little.


When flying above the critical Mach number but below the speed of sound, the airplane is in the "transonic" flight regime. The airspeed is less than Mach 1, but there are local bubbles of supersonic flow embedded in the overall airflow. The critical Mach number depends on the configuration of the airplane. The thicker the wing, the more the air accelerates when passing over it. Some of the early WW II fighters, notably the P-38 Lightning, began to run into some transonic aerodynamic effects at Mach numbers as low as 0.68 or 68 percent of the speed of sound. The Komet had a critical Mach number of about 0.84.


On the Me 163, the combination of the aft shift in aerodynamic center and shock stall led to a dangerous condition known as "Mach tuck." If the Mach number exceeded approximately 0.85, the airplane would begin to nose down on its own. The pilot would naturally react by pulling on the stick and deflecting the elevons upward. This would cause a shock wave to form on the underside of the wing at the elevon hinge line. The elevons would shock stall and be unable to bring the nose up, causing the airplane to pitch over into an ever-steepening dive. The only hope for recovery was to wait until the airplane had dived to a lower altitude where the speed of sound is higher, thus reducing Mach number, and the elevons would regain effectiveness.

================================================== ===============

Compare the 262 which the Germans were supposed to have given a critical mach of .84 and the
British RAE verified at .83 post-war.

Just for laffs:

The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[19]
Source - #19# ^ Ethell and Price 1994, p. 180.

And of course the REST of the 262 story, considering that DEVELOPMENT on it was INTERRUPTED.


High speed research
Willy Messerschmitt regarded the Me 262 as it went into production only as an interim type.

Swept wings had been proposed as early as 1935 by Adolf Busemann, and Willy Messerschmitt had researched the topic from 1940. In April 1941, he actually proposed to fit a 35? swept wing (Pfeilflügel II, lit. Arrow wing) to the Me 262.[15] Though this suggestion was not implemented, he continued with the projected HG II and HG III high-speed derivatives of the Me 262 in 1944, which were designed with a 35? and 45? wing sweep respectively.[16]

His interest in high-speed flight that had led him to initiate work on swept wings starting in 1940 is evident from the advanced developments he had on his drawing board in 1944. While the Me 262 HG I (Hochgeschwindigkeit, high speed) that was actually flight tested in 1944 had only small changes compared to combat aircraft, most notably a low-profiled canopy (as tried as the Rennkabine on the Me 262 V9 prototype for a short time) to reduce drag, the HG II and HG III designs were far more radical. The projected HG II variant combined the low-drag canopy with a 35? wing sweep and a butterfly tail. The HG III aircraft had a conventional tail, but a 45? wing sweep and the jet turbines embedded in the wing root. [17]

Messerschmitt also conducted a series of flight tests with the series production Me 262. In these dive tests, it was established that the Me 262 was out of control in a dive at Mach 0.86, and that higher Mach numbers would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steepening of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads.

Holy Cow, the late war Spits made that speed!

Had the first model 262's been out a year earlier they may not have changed who won the war
yet the HG II and/or HG III may have flown.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:34 PM
Some finds on P-51 and The Meredith Effect which hey I did not see in this thread yet:

From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) (http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html)


With the flow into the scoop now smooth and relatively nonturbulent,
the duct leading to the radiator/oil cooler/intercooler was carefully
shaped to slow the air down (the duct shape moves from narrow to wide,
in other words a plenum chamber) enough from the high external speeds
to speeds through the heat exchangers that allowed the flow to extract
maximum heat from the coolant. As the air passed through the radiators
and became heated, it expanded. The duct shape aft of the radiator
forced this heated and expanded air into a narrow passage which gave it
considerable thrust as it exited the exhaust port. The exhaust port
incorporated a movable hinged door that opened automatically depending
on engine temperature to augment the airflow. The thrust realised from
this "jet" of heated air was first postulated by a British
aerodynamicist in 1935. The realization of thrust from suitably
shaped air coolant passages is named after him and called the "Meredith
Effect". Some have said that at certain altitudes and at a particular
power setting the Meredith effect was strong enough to actually
overcome all cooling drag; this is not regarded as being accurate by
most aerodynamicists. It greatly contributed to overall efficiency of
the cooling system but never equaled or overcame cooling drag.

Charles Atwood - on Boeing site (http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/atwood/atwood3.html)


Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935 report known as the Meredith Effect greatly influenced his work on the P-51 cooling radiator.

If anything, this shows that NAA were keen to realise the benefits of the Meredith Effect (http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=5)


The ventral radiator scoop for oil and glycol cooling needed aerodynamic refinement. The problems it caused weren't solved until the scoop was redesigned and lowered away from the boundary layer disturbances on the underside of the fuselage. The initial Mustangs, as a result, did not fully realize the benefit of the "Meredith effect" that created thrust with the exit air, offsetting the drag caused by the scoop.

M_Gunz
01-31-2008, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You forgot speed, esp at high alts. It had that going for it too.

One of the excellent qualities it shared with the Mosquito wasn't just raw speed, it was high cruise speed. This meant that it was possible to get to the combat zone economically and quickly, and be able to remain in it economically and yet retain a good head of speed (when moving up to max cruise, as opposed to most economical cruise). In some ways it made close escort problematic as going slow enough to escort B-17s was a little below the most economic cruise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That also puts it closer to full speed when combat is initiated. There are WWII pilots who
have written that the one who gets to full speed first has an advantage in combat.

horseback
02-01-2008, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
In fact, had it not been for the hamburger and German Chocolate Cake, we might have sent them all back...

German craftsmen brought the skills and tools to make fine rifles, don't forget.

But beyond burgers and cake and superb to say the least firearms you really have to remember
who brought Lager Beer and forget totally about this sent them all back nonsense! LOL!

I like Ales better but I know what is and has been produced by far more!

They also brought German Women, enriching the variety of available tail in this mixed land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I had no idea that Colt, Winchester, or Smith & Wesson were German emigrants. Actually, I'm afraid that your craftsmen may have made fine rifles for wealthy easterners, but the West was won mainly with the products of Anglo Saxon minds and talents.

Lagers were not too popular until they could be served cold (when did the Budweiser company start shipping their product in ice cars?), and if there was such an influx of hot German women, why did great grandpa marry his Indian princess and his son seek out the hillbilly girl from Kentucky?

Nothing personal, but I'm sticking with the hamburger and chocolate cake theory I learned at grandpa's knee. After all, he was there.

cheers

horseback

Ratsack
02-01-2008, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High speed research
Willy Messerschmitt regarded the Me 262 as it went into production only as an interim type.

Swept wings had been proposed as early as 1935 by Adolf Busemann, and Willy Messerschmitt had researched the topic from 1940. In April 1941, he actually proposed to fit a 35? swept wing (Pfeilflügel II, lit. Arrow wing) to the Me 262.[15] Though this suggestion was not implemented, he continued with the projected HG II and HG III high-speed derivatives of the Me 262 in 1944, which were designed with a 35? and 45? wing sweep respectively.[16]

His interest in high-speed flight that had led him to initiate work on swept wings starting in 1940 is evident from the advanced developments he had on his drawing board in 1944. While the Me 262 HG I (Hochgeschwindigkeit, high speed) that was actually flight tested in 1944 had only small changes compared to combat aircraft, most notably a low-profiled canopy (as tried as the Rennkabine on the Me 262 V9 prototype for a short time) to reduce drag, the HG II and HG III designs were far more radical. The projected HG II variant combined the low-drag canopy with a 35? wing sweep and a butterfly tail. The HG III aircraft had a conventional tail, but a 45? wing sweep and the jet turbines embedded in the wing root. [17]

Messerschmitt also conducted a series of flight tests with the series production Me 262. In these dive tests, it was established that the Me 262 was out of control in a dive at Mach 0.86, and that higher Mach numbers would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steepening of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads.

Holy Cow, the late war Spits made that speed!

Had the first model 262's been out a year earlier they may not have changed who won the war
yet the HG II and/or HG III may have flown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem was going to be the slab stabilizer or flying stabilizer: the 262 didn't have it. No plane of that era did have it.

I don't know what evidence - if any - exists that anybody was aware of the slab tail solution before the end of WWII.

cheers,
Ratsack

Bewolf
02-01-2008, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Everyone North of the Rio Grande was from somewhere else 100 years ago.

I had a school friend in Pennsylvania who was 100% Cherokee. And an Army buddy who was Sioux.
They and a few others might disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Confirmed.

All MY ancestors were in the continental US by 1883...or approximately 125 years ago. Great Grandpa Schultz was the latecomer; everyone else was in place before 1855, including the Cheyenne parents of the woman he eventually married.

While German ancestry is quite common in the US, it should be recognized that certain aspects of German 'kultur' were quickly discarded by our ancestors, foremost being the attitude that the 'German way' is always best. It was a source of serious annoyance for Americans dealing with the waves of immigration from central Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and not always dealt with politely.

In fact, had it not been for the hamburger and German Chocolate Cake, we might have sent them all back...

While Schmued was the lead dog on the Mustang's design team, he was far from being the only contributer to its design; when every drawing & study was done by hand, it was near impossible for one man to control every detail of design and construction. It was perforce, a team effort.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british, I'd be interested to see what would have happend if you "sent" them all back.

Particualry in light of what you describe as the "german way", which basicly didnt even exist until the late 19th century http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WOLFMondo
02-01-2008, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:


Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british, I'd be interested to see what would have happend if you "sent" them all back.


Really? I would have thought the number of Brits (English, Scots, Welsh and Irish - remember at that time Ireland was 'in' Britain) would have been the largest collection of immigrants. I know a few German Americans but I know more who are English or Scottish in ancestry.

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 03:09 AM
Then check the numbers again.

WOLFMondo
02-01-2008, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Then check the numbers again.

Provide some numbers to check maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bewolf
02-01-2008, 03:56 AM
From Wikipedia, taken with the usual suspicion, though I do not see where there should be problems in such a harmless topic.

Major components of the European segment of the United States population are descended from immigrants from Germany (19.2%), Ireland (10.8%), England (7.7%), Italy (5.6%), Scandinavia (3.7%) and Poland (3.2%) with many immigrants also coming from other Slavic countries. Other significant European immigrant populations came from eastern and southern Europe and French Canada; few immigrants came directly from France. Since French, French-Canadian and Acadian ancestries are overlapping, the number of counties with "French" as the main ancestry would also be larger if these three labels are lumped together.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg/800px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg

So, considering that germans were a larger part then british and irish "combined", I'd say its a bit far fetched to say "would have thrown them out" =)

WOLFMondo
02-01-2008, 04:24 AM
Larger by 0.7% so not too much. I wonder why the US first language isn't German and half the towns, cities and states aren't names after parts of England or English people? Must have all gone over there after the war of independence I guess.

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 04:36 AM
I don't know what evidence - if any - exists that anybody was aware of the slab tail solution before the end of WWII.

It was developed by Miles during WW2, and was one of the features of the M.52 (developed from 1942).

Bewolf
02-01-2008, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Larger by 0.7% so not too much. I wonder why the US first language isn't German and half the towns, cities and states aren't names after parts of England or English people? Must have all gone over there after the war of independence I guess.

Well, the british made the start. And the germans, unlike what horseback suggested, were actually very willing to adapt and intigrate.

What he forgets (or more probably, didn't even know) was that after the dessolution of the holy roman empire of german nation in 1806 by pressure of Napoleon, there was no german state anymore. Besides the holy roman empire just beeing an empty corpse anyways for its last couple centuries, there were hundrets of smaller states, kingdoms, dutchies and the likes united by several unions and federations and dominated by prussia in the north and austria in the south. Up until 1871 with the foundation of the second german empire, there was no "german" way. And actually, to this very day, despite the foreign clichés bout Germany (which basicly only refer to the bavarians in their lederhosen and the prussians for their militaristic order love)there is nothing like a common german trait or a german attitude of a " speical way". These are purely political constructs brought in after the dismission of Bismarck and the nationalisation of the german empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II.

JG53Frankyboy
02-01-2008, 04:51 AM
a lot of german tradition in the USA was "burried" in 1917 in guess.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2008, 06:23 AM
That Graph shows only England and Ireland, add Scots and Welsh and it may be higher?

BSS_Sniper
02-01-2008, 07:22 AM
I'm not sure that anything other than wing shape (swept wing) has to do with raising the critical mach number. If anything, the laminar flow design made air faster over the wing. It was still a straight wing design, for the most part. Well, maybe it delayed the airflow seperation until a higher speed that occurs when approaching transonic flight? Just thinking outloud.

BSS_Sniper
02-01-2008, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51's tactical Mach number is/was lower than that of the Spitfire.

You mean "critical" mach number?

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british,

Are you talking about over the total US history?

BSS_Sniper
02-01-2008, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph?

That's about 0.85, so a tie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the alt and temp if you are talking mach numbers.

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 07:39 AM
Oh geez, games with statistics!

Who was first, etc... ever heard of Nieuw Amsterdam?
know how many Swedes settled in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania?

Or about the great surges of the later 1800's, early 1900's and since 1960 makes those look
average?

I look at that map and it's clearly set up like some kind of joke-politics, same as our
electoral college system. Somebody has gotten so deep in their numbers system that they
have lost track of the people.

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I had no idea that Colt, Winchester, or Smith & Wesson were German emigrants. Actually, I'm afraid that your craftsmen may have made fine rifles for wealthy easterners, but the West was won mainly with the products of Anglo Saxon minds and talents.

German made Pennsylvania and Kentucky Rifles were here LONG BEFORE this nation was born!
Wealthy Easterners my arse! Except for the Mountain Men, EVERYONE was Eastern! The deep
west was the Appalachian Mountains and the Ohio Valley!

You look at the tradition of the best sharpshooting in the country and what were the meets
called, many still hold unbroken traditional name of Scheutzenfest. That's not to say that
everyone who made rifled arms or used them is German but to give an idea how old the ways
are here.

I had a teacher who had come from Germany. He had a family heirloom pistol from early 1600's
with 16 lands and grooves, hand crafted very fine and accurate beyond musket. Other countries
did also make rifled barrel weapons but early on it was the Germans that came here and MADE
them. When powder and shot are dear, you want the best you can get and that was German style
rifles back in the early 100+ years.

I write STYLE because that's what it was in the majority, the Germans had no lock on rifles
as even a short look on firearm history tells. I don't claim "it was all German" cause that
would be crass BS. I do tell that the majority of rifle makers and those most sought out
WERE German for good reason, not only the work but the number of makers and rifles by far.

Yeah Colt, Winchester, Henry, S&W are also old names here, Browning a bit less so. Those
men industrialized and standardized what were before hand crafted one-offs and managed
to keep the quality for the most part while introducing then-revolutionary changes.
The wood mills and techniques let them crank out stocks fast enough to keep up with the
new power-tools (belt driven mainly from water mills) to cut metal, all using industrial
jigs and the beginnings of mass-production technology -- a huge advance that did require
a population base beyond anything before when, 1820 perhaps, and all that came with it.

It all but killed the handcraft tradition though there are still those who do it the old way.

Just cause the page turned don't mean the others ceased to exist. If I went through a
list of men that did design work for those famous gun manufacturers, how many German names
do you think I might find? Perhaps not a majority....

Consider that the Civil War was fought mainly with muzzle-loaders, you know what a mini-ball
is I expect, we have as much or more history before that war as since regardless of the pace
of developments.

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That includes Me-163 that did run up over 1000kph?

That's about 0.85, so a tie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the alt and temp if you are talking mach numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it don't. Mach includes those. It's SPEED that doesn't.

From what I read the big difference is how close to your limit you can fly, how quickly you
can get there and how long you can stay in your high speed range -tactically-, meaning going
into and during the fight.

The 163 was scary in the how fast how quick end of it as Opitz shows. He glanced out the
window to check on where he was and in those few seconds had already run into trouble and
had to throttle back while losing ability to keep his path. But about 8 minutes of useful
power total is not going to allow for dogfighting!

Note that the 163 hit critical mach flying level and could even in climb, the pilots had
to be careful always. Later Spitfires could match the mach only in high alt near vertical
dives and the P-51's doing the same stood greater chances of coming out warped and extreme
to extreme had a bit less max dive speed -- what do the POH's say for Service machines?

Critical mach that you can reach without being above 7km alt in a vertical power dive
compared to those who had to do all that is like grapefruit to cherries comparison.

Bewolf
02-01-2008, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british,

Are you talking about over the total US history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose more of the era until the 1940ies. But I did not post this to make any number games or prove how the US is basicly german or anything else. That's bullocks and not my point anyways. I just had to reply to the nonsense horseback posted.

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 08:44 AM
Wiki says that today about 16 % of all citizens claim to be of german origin.
That would still be the largest group in the USA.

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british,

Are you talking about over the total US history? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose more of the era until the 1940ies. But I did not post this to make any number games or prove how the US is basicly german or anything else. That's bullocks and not my point anyways. I just had to reply to the nonsense horseback posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't mean you with the games but rather the people that made that map. Pure-anything does
not begin to dominate in the US so I consider that map a poor joke.

I am English blood but what does that mean? Consider how many people of everywhere else have
gone to Britain over even just the last 1000 years. My blood is much a mix, my family name
went from Germany to Britain about 1000 years ago very probably fleeing the Mongols. The
name is in Germany, Britain, US and Israel as well that I know of, probably more countries.

It is very interesting indeed how many Germans have come here. Also Dutch, Swedes, Swiss,
French, Austrians, Hungarians, Russians, Poles, Czechs, Norse, etc just to name less than
half the places. Some were brought here, even English, that did not want to come (Georgia
was originally a penal colony) but their descendants are here and part of the land since.

After the millions that came in the late 1800's and since I sort of boggle at the numbers.

Did you know that the first electric computer was invented just to solve the problem of
sorting and collating the 1890 US Census? No lie! The cards of the Jacquard Loom were
adapted into new use. The census was done so fast they ran it through an extra time just
to check what they had trouble believing, the speed. The 1880 census took 10 years to
complete! I'm pretty sure of those dates and very sure of the history of it which I did
learn through Burke.

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 01:24 PM
Firstly we are humans, and we have only one planet.

BaronUnderpants
02-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Well, it was dumb luck that created it...so, pfffff to u.


Unless u are religious, then it was intentional.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Well, it was dumb luck that created it...so, pfffff to u.


Unless u are religious, then it was intentional. You know your doing a good job..

And getting under the dreamers skin..

When they start using your lines! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I stand corrected. Must be one of those weeks aye? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If my name rhymed with ***gert then I'd have to point out that the laminar wing wasn't so...
yup, just dumb luck BY THAT STANDARD OF IGNORANCE. GOLD!

I'm really getting under this guys skin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 08:52 PM
I just want to thank you Nancy boys..

This thread made my day!!

I had no idea I was hitting on such a raw nerve!

Until now!

Thanks for the feedback! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

horseback
02-02-2008, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Everyone North of the Rio Grande was from somewhere else 100 years ago.

I had a school friend in Pennsylvania who was 100% Cherokee. And an Army buddy who was Sioux.
They and a few others might disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Confirmed.

All MY ancestors were in the continental US by 1883...or approximately 125 years ago. Great Grandpa Schultz was the latecomer; everyone else was in place before 1855, including the Cheyenne parents of the woman he eventually married.

While German ancestry is quite common in the US, it should be recognized that certain aspects of German 'kultur' were quickly discarded by our ancestors, foremost being the attitude that the 'German way' is always best. It was a source of serious annoyance for Americans dealing with the waves of immigration from central Europe <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the late 1800s and early 1900s,</span> and not always dealt with politely.

In fact, had it not been for the hamburger and German Chocolate Cake, we might have sent them all back...

While Schmued was the lead dog on the Mustang's design team, he was far from being the only contributer to its design; when every drawing & study was done by hand, it was near impossible for one man to control every detail of design and construction. It was perforce, a team effort.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, considering that germans were by far the largest immigrant group to the US, way more then irish or british, I'd be interested to see what would have happend if you "sent" them all back.

Particualry in light of what you describe as the "german way", which basicly didnt even exist until the late 19th century http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Please refer to the highlighted phrase; the resurgence of German nationalism in the late 1800s led to much of the Americans' taking issue with the 'second wave' of immigrant Germans in the late 1800s and early 1900s, right up to the Second World War.

There was a sizable German(ic) element to the the population of the original 13 colonies, which accounts for a large part of the 'German' ancestry in the US today. The waves of Germans who came in the mid-1800s and onward were the group I was specifically referring to.

By the way, the map, while interesting, fails to indicate just how sparsely populated most of the US is west of the Mississippi River; all those light blue 'German' ancestry areas in the western states mean far fewer actual people than the relatively small area just above the Ohio River.

One other thing: my original comment was meant to be a joke.

cheers

horseback