PDA

View Full Version : Wingloading, Powerloading, Aspect Ratio, that stuff...



VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 10:28 PM
Could someone try and sort of explain a bit about WWII fighters in relation to some of these concepts. I've looked them up a bit and I'm a tad bit confused...

They all have to do with how well the plane flies...so if I were to try and get an idea on how a plane turned or flew for instance based on some of these numbers alone then how would someone interpret the data? What would you need, what would you use...

Purely for my own (and everyone elses) education and interest in the area.

For anyone who knows http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Much appreciated!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VW-IceFire
05-16-2004, 10:28 PM
Could someone try and sort of explain a bit about WWII fighters in relation to some of these concepts. I've looked them up a bit and I'm a tad bit confused...

They all have to do with how well the plane flies...so if I were to try and get an idea on how a plane turned or flew for instance based on some of these numbers alone then how would someone interpret the data? What would you need, what would you use...

Purely for my own (and everyone elses) education and interest in the area.

For anyone who knows http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Much appreciated!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
05-17-2004, 12:35 AM
wing & power loading are the amount of LIFT and POWER generated compared against the WEIGHT of the aircraft

a high power loading is better than a low power loading

a low wingloading is better than a high wingload

thats a VERY simplistic way to explain it tho

Stalker58
05-17-2004, 01:34 AM
__________________________________________
a low wingloading is better than a high wingload
__________________________________________

NOT for high speed energy fighting.Low wingload=more drag in high speed turn IMO

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

ELEM
05-17-2004, 02:33 AM
Aspect ratio is the ratio between the wing span and it's mean chord (width).
High Aspect ratio (long narrow wing) better for high altitude use.

Low Aspect ratio (short wide wing) better at low altitudes.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

PikeBishop
05-17-2004, 06:31 AM
Okay we will start by having a wing of a known area.....say 242 sq feet (I think this is the spitfire).
Now this area can be spread out in different ways. The wing can be long and thin like a gliders. This is a high aspect ratio wing providing high lift with low drag, pecisely because the wing is thin. These sorts of wings are for long range but they do not cater for high roll rates....take the albatros (bird) that spends most of its time gliding on thermals........possible because of the low drag and so power efficiency.
If we now squash the wing and make it stubby.
Roll rate and manoeuvre now improve but the drag over the wing surface now increases so when the wing manoeuvres there is more loss of energy due to drag because of the wider wing. Remember the area has not changed!
Now, wing loading really gives you a measure of manoeuverability. Low wing loadings DO NOT mean higher drag unless you have increased wing area instead of saving weight. (More area more drag). The lower the wing loading the more G you can pull at a given speed (without blacking out). This in turn means that you get better lift at this given speed and so you can climb at a slower equilibrium speed and so your climb angle will be steeper (up to about 15 degrees). But that 15 degrees could be at 120 mph for the Zero but 180 mph for the P40E....so the Zero's rate/angle of climb is steeper.
Moving on to Power Loading.
This is just a measure of the amount of reseve power available for accelleration and climb. As an aircraft turns and the angle of attack increases the drag increases. At the same time as the turn tightens and the G increases the load on the wing increases such that if you are pulling 2G the wings are supporting twice the weight of the aircraft with its available wing area. So with the Zero at 2G it weighs 5,200lbs X 2 = 10,400lbs.
As you can appreciate all these forces drain away any reserve power a fighter has available. So a designer tries to get minimal drag and minimal weight with lots of power but still with stubby low aspect ratio wings to get better maneouvrability.......not an easy task. We have not touched on profile or parasite drag here but these are other factors to consider in the design.
Of course if you want to be able to take lots of damage and dive at high speed you need armour and mass...which is counter to manoeuvre. Problems.......always problems!!

Dem4n
05-17-2004, 06:45 AM
oi!
Thx for that, have to read it at least twice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.photodump.com/direct/MjrKoenig/lrg1543.jpg

"I don't know what weapons well be fighting with in WWIII, but in WWIV it will be sticks and stones." -Einstein

VW-IceFire
05-17-2004, 07:08 AM
Thanks guys. I'm still going to be somewhat confused I think but that certainly puts things into more clarity.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

RocketDog
05-17-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ELEM:

High Aspect ratio (long narrow wing) better for high altitude use.

Low Aspect ratio (short wide wing) better at low altitudes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't really depend directly on altitude.

High aspect wings are more efficient than low aspect ratio wings at all altitudes, i.e., for a given total wing area they generate less drag for a given amount of lift. Gliders only come down because of drag, so minimising drag for a given amount of lift is critical in glider design. Consequently, gliders use very high aspect ratio wings (aspect ratios of more than 20:1 are common). High aspect ratio wings are more efficient because they have small chord at the tips, and this is where most of the drag is generated as high pressure air from underneath the wing slides out from under the tip into the lower pressure air above (simplifying somewhat). The high aspect ratio wing scores simply because it reduces the size of the wing tip. A good compromise is to use a tapered wing which has the effect of reducing the size of the wing tip. The elliptical wing of the Spitfire is an extremely effective way of doing this, but difficulties in manufacture have confined elliptical wings to only a very few aircraft designs.

So why don't all aircraft use very high aspect ratio wings? For fighter aircraft there are a number of reasons. Firstly, it is very difficult to produce high aspect ratio wings of sufficient stiffness so that the wing will not bend or flutter under flight loads. A point is soon reached where the added weight required to stiffen the wing overwhelms the advantage gained in greater efficiency. This is the main reason why high aspect ratio wings are confined to low-speed applications such as gliders.

Secondly, for a military aircraft, an important consideration is the moment of inertia about the roll axis (a measure of how hard it is to get the aircraft rolling and how hard it is to stop it once it has started). High aspect ratio wings for a given area will have larger span than low aspect ratio wings. This has the effect of putting the mass further from the roll axis and so increases the moment of inertia. The result is that the aircraft accelerates around its roll axis more sluggishly. This is a clear problem in a fighter aircraft and (combined with the strenght/weight limitations mentioned above) strongly favours lower aspect ratio wings.

Finally, for a given wing area, a high aspect ratio wing will have narrower chord than a low aspect ratio wing and consequently may have shallow wing depth (thickness). This can be a problem if weaponry or a retractable undercarriages have to be housed within the wing.

To some extent, at high altitudes WWII aircraft were struggling to generate enough lift without generating too much drag, and so the weight penalty of having high aspct ratio wings became an acceptable loss simply to have a more efficient wing and less drag. This is part of the reason behind the Ta-152's very high-aspect ratio wing.

Regards,

RocketDog.

VW-IceFire
05-17-2004, 07:23 AM
So lets say you have a larger wing area than that of the Spitfire but with lower wing loading more like the Mustang. What advantages and disadvantages does that bestow on the plane?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

RocketDog
05-17-2004, 09:57 AM
In general, a low wingloading will produce an agile aircraft able to pull tight turns. Aircraft with high wing loadings are less agile, but because they have less drag-inducing wing area can reach and maintain higher speeds for a given engine power. Note that modern ground-attack aircraft often have quite high wing loadings because buffetting by turbulence is increased for lightly loaded aircraft.

Regards,

RocketDog.

HomeboyWu
05-17-2004, 10:33 AM
Suppose, IceFire, you simply give the Spitfire a slightly larger wing with the same aspect ratio without increasing weight. Now the wingloading is reduced for sure.

The top speed (for a given alt) will be a little reduced by the more drag from more surface area at very low AoA. So more surface = more parasitic drag.

At lower speeds, or rather, higer AoA's, a larger wing needs less AoA to produce the same lift than a smaller wing (same airspeed here). Less AoA on a slightly larger wing (sometimes) produces a bit less drag. So less AoA = less induced drag.

So you see there are (at least) two kinds of drag the wing produces: parasitic and induced. A larger wing (or lower wingloading for the same weight) usually gives more parasitic and less induced drag. The compromise between the two kinds of drag determine the design of wingloading (to a certain extent).

Any correction is welcome. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KarayaEine
05-17-2004, 10:39 AM
Higher wing loading means a higher stall speed. It means you need to be going faster through your manuevers to maintain the lift needed to keep the airframe aloft or you'll stall and end up in a spin.

You always want as much power loading as the airframe can handle. You can never have too much power. That's why we have throttles. The excess power will help when you have a high wing loading to keep you in the air.

As far as aspect ratio that will be a function of what you want the airplane to do and where it's going to be most of the time (high altitude vs low) and how fast it's going to be going. Ever seen a really fast airplane with high aspect ratio wings? Nope, caused the'd get ripped off. The Ta-152 had high aspect wings because it flew and fought at high altitude where the air is thinner so it's IAS was faster but if you tried to acheive the same IAS at a lower altitude there would be too much induced drag. Ever wonder why the F-104 and X-15 (plus other high speed A/C) had short, stubby wings?

Aircraft design is always an exercise in tradeoffs. If you want speed then you sacrifice manueverability, if you want to manuever then top speed is limited, if you want to carry extra weight for air to mud then you gain weight which limits manueverability and top speed. You can't have it all. designers try to make the best compromises to fit the intended purpose. Unfortunately the end user is never really sure what they want in the first place and always uses the airframe for tasks it was never intended to do and then people criticize the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid106/p5f881fba318d7f0779ac1d9df0ace079/f96e6284.jpg

"Achtung Kommandant, sind Sie Fl├┬Ąche auf Feuer"

Zen--
05-17-2004, 01:51 PM
Excellent responses here gentlemen, I really enjoyed reading them thanks.


Ice, you are probably already aware, but Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat-Air Tactics and Manuevering goes into great detail about the advantages and disadvantages of high wing loading, low wing loading and all that... as it relates to dogfighting etc. After reading it a few times it makes a lot of sense and even the casual reader begins to understand the significance of what he talks about.

When combined with things like what members of the community have posted here you get a pretty down to earth explanation of it all in a way that makes sense, which is very cool.

-Zen-

VW-IceFire
05-17-2004, 02:44 PM
Thanks to all of you for this information! I'm certainly getting a pretty good picture of what you do when building a plane.

Quite obviously its a game of tradeoffs...seems like numerous WWII designs were an attempt to try and get the best of both worlds with a slight skew one way or another.

So let me try and understand something then.

I saw a comparison chart of the FW190D, the P-51D, and the Spitfire XIV and I was most interested in what these figures tell me about each of those fighters. Since we have two of the three in the game and seeing as the XIV probably is a bit similar to the V and IX that we're going to have I can make some guesses...about those and also about the Tempest V.

According to this chart, the FW190-D9 has wingloading of 225 kg/m2 and a wing area of 18.30 m2. The P-51D has wing loading at 211 kg/m2 with a wing area of 21.66 m2 and the Spitfire XIV is listed as having wing loading of 310 kg/m2 wth a wing area of 22.48 m2. Add to these my favorite plane of the bunch the Tempest V which (I had to really dig to find these and this number is actually for the Tempest II although I figure the wing wasn't changed so this shouldn't either) apparently has a wing loading of 213 kg/m2 (which is lower than the Typhoon at 232 kg/m2) and a wing area of 28.1 m2.

So this means the Tempest V has a larger wing area than any of the others in this comparison (assuming all numbers are correct) and that its wing loading number is lower than all except the P-51D by which its different by no more than 2 kg/m2. What confuses me is that the Tempest V is supposed to be less of a turner than the P-51D and better than the FW190A (to which I don't have a chart for). I suppose there are other factors to take into account (powerloading of which it probably has more of and weight?).

I guess my question is once again how would I interpret that. Larger wing, lower wing loading, on a laminar flow wing similar to the P-51's.

Very intruging and thanks for sticking with me to explain this stuff. Its fantastic information to have!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

KarayaEine
05-17-2004, 04:14 PM
You also have to take into account the airfoil section and the frontal area. The Mustang's wing is very critical. It provides much more lift and lower drag than the Tempest's. The Mustang also has a smaller frontal cross sectional area and is more streamlined . That tempest has a huge chin radiator which adds lots of drag. Sure it has a higher power motor but it's wasting a good portion of it's power overcoming the inherent drag. The P-51 can turn tighter because it's still producing lift with it's wing in a tight turn and retaining it's speed to keep that wind over the wings while the Tempest slows down due to induced drag. One of the key successes to any aircraft is the airfoil section used. If you look at a wide variety of aircraft both from then and now you'll see what I mean. Airfoil design is one of the most critical areas in aircraft design. So critical in fact that while we mak give away the technology to build the airframe and engines rarely is the airfoil technology given out.

Wing loading and power loading alone aren't the determining factors. When trying to compare different aircraft you just can't isolate one or two variables and make a broad statement based on how that data correlates. it would be nice but there are many factors that come into play.

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid106/p5f881fba318d7f0779ac1d9df0ace079/f96e6284.jpg

"Achtung Kommandant, sind Sie Fl├┬Ąche auf Feuer"

ucanfly
05-17-2004, 04:25 PM
Wing loading and power loading does not take into account the 2D aspects of the airfoil or the induced drag and parasite drag of the aircraft AT ALL so does not give you the entire picture, but is a good way to make very general specs or references.

JZG_Yunus
05-17-2004, 05:19 PM
ok your first couple of questions have been answered already pretty good by others but I'm just gonna give u a quik sumup.

if your flying a plane with lower wingloading then your adversary and equal or less Power/weight ratio u should engage him in angles fighting

opposite u have a plane with higher wingloading but higher power/weight ratio u should energy fight him ( Energy fight is not the useless BnZ u see some poor guyss doing in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif , a good energy fight is hard to explain but there are tons of books that can explain it )


coming to your latest question why does a Tempest with a lower wingloading turn worse then a mustang with a higher wingloading?
now we come to the point of wingprofile design and frontal area drag. As some one mentioned before that tempest has a huge airintake wich takes away a lot of power from the engine, power that is needed to overcome drag in tight turns and maintain kinetic energy to be able to keep turning tightly. the mustang has much more sleeker lines and it's frontal area produces less drag so it has more power in reserve to overcome drag and can stay in the turn for a longer period.
wingprofile shape:
there are farious profiles that u can choose for different situations, a thick positive profile is ideal for slow speeds low altitude flying but horrible for fast high altitude action for instance, do a google serach for wing profiles and u will get some intresting sites that explain it in detail.
anyway, the mustang has a thin symetrical profile, this profile is excellent for high altitude highspeed flying and gives it's best lift at high speeds but if u would equip a mustang with the before mention thick pos profile with the same wing chord and span resulting in same surface area, u would have 2 mustangs with identical wingloading but different wingprofiles. the mustang with the thick profile would probably outmanouvre the mustang with the thin profile at slow speeds because it's wing generates more lift at slower speeds. and vice versa the stang with a thin profile would outmanouvre the stang with the thick profile at high speeds because it generates more lift and less drag at those speeds.
so designers have to think about what circumstances is the fighter going to be in most of the time and give it a wing profile accordingly. for the mustang the allied needed a plane that could escort the fast high flying bombers so they equiped it with thin symetrical wing because these give less drag and more lift at those situations.

regards,

Blottogg
05-17-2004, 09:30 PM
Most of you guys have pretty good idea of what's going on with the tradeoffs. Let me take a whack at summing up to answer Icefire's questions:

Things to ask when comparing turn performance are: what speed are we talking about? At what weights are the aircraft turning? At what altitude is the comparison made? Are the turns instantaneous (on the stall/g limit) or sustained (constant airspeed/altitude)?

Wing loading: Weight/wing area (BTW, for these table-top discussions, I like using empty weight. The problem with "loaded weight" or "combat weight" is that it's often defined differently by different sources, and even when using the same definition, can give unrepresentative numbers for different aircraft. Full fuel for a Mustang will give an unrealistically high wing loading compared to a Spitfire for example, because the Mustang has a much higher fuel fraction. Airplanes don't fly empty of course, but at least this way we're comparing apples to apples.) Low wing loading improves instantaneous turn rate. All airplanes will turn at the same rate if pulling the same number of g's at the same airspeed. Low wing loading allows an aircraft to pull more g's at the same speed, or the same g load at a lower airspeed, than a higher wing loaded aircraft (everything else being equal), at least until the speed bleeds off.

Power loading: Aircraft weight/horsepower. This parameter is directly proportional to top speed and sustained turn rate. While low wing loading will allow an aircraft to start turning tightly, high power loading is required to keep turning quickly.

(Warning: I get even more long-winded after here. Proceed at your own risk.)

Other things to keep in mind when comparing aircraft parameters and turn performance are turn rate and turn radius. Turn rate is primarily affected by power loading, though wing loading is important too, at least initially. Power loading is the primary parameter driving sustained turn rate. Note that a high power and wing loading may combine to give a high turn rate, but also a high turn radius, while a low wing and power loading will yield a smaller turn radius, but a lower sustained turn rate as well. Think of the Wright Flyer turning inside an F-104 as an extreme example.

As a more relevant example, compare the Mustang versus the Spitfire (I'm lazy and don't want to look up numbers, so I'll keep it general. Icefire, I don't know what configurations your numbers were for, but the Spitfire's wing loading looks a little high, even for a Mk XIV. I would have expected it to be lower than the Mustang, so I'm continuing my discussion based on that assumption.) The Mustang is at a disadvantage in wing loading at just about any fuel load combination, so instantaneous turn fights, or sustained low speed turning, aren't to its advantage. The Mustang is also at a disadvantage in power loading, and so would appear to be out turned in a sustained turn fight too.

But the Mustang does have the advantage of a lower drag cooling system than the Spitfire, which tends to offer the equivalent of a power advantage (more useful at high speeds than low, since drag increases with velocity squared). Thus, if the Mustang is going to out-turn the Spitfire at all, it's going to be at high speed, where the Mustang may have to use less power to maintain airspeed (due to lower drag) and thus have more power left over (referred to as Ps or specific excess power) to overcome the induced drag of turning.

These high speed turn fights don't tend to be the neck-snapping affairs of corner velocity, high g fights though. Sustained turn fights, especially at high altitude, are rather slow turning affairs, at least until on opponent sees an advantage and decides to "cash in" his speed (energy) for turn performance (angles) by switching from sustained turning to instantaneous turning (pulling harder on the stick to bring his nose to bear on target, and thus slow down in the resulting turn.)

As already mentioned, aspect ratio is a tug-of-war between aerodynamicists and structural engineers. The aero guys want high aspect ratios (they'd be REALLY happy if they could have a wing that went all the way around the globe, thereby eliminating tip vortices and their drag!) while the structures guys want wings stubby, thick, with broad chords. The compromise depends on how the plane will be flown. Higher altitudes need more efficiency, at the tradeoff of some g capability, or structural weight, as well as the roll penalty mentioned (think extended wingtip Spitfires.) Lower altitudes can get by with less efficient wings, since more power is generally available down low (think clipped wing Spitfires.)

As Zen mentioned, Robert Shaw does a better job of explaining this than I do, and he has illustrations to make it clearer. RocketDog KarayaEine, PikeBishop and HomeboyWu did especially good jobs explaining various aspects of your questions. Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

VW-IceFire
05-18-2004, 07:32 AM
Thanks to everyone...this is fantastic and fascinating information.

As always I'm trying to get a feel for different aircraft based on the theory as well as "practical" in-game application. Even more to the point, understanding one of my favorite fighters in relation to others is also an interesting and exciting experience. It makes much more sense now why the Tempest V will overall not be as good a turner as the Spit XIV.

I have no idea on how accurate the numbers are, just one set that I was able to find. So very interesting overall!

Thanks to all for your paitence and knowledge!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

k5054
05-18-2004, 08:25 AM
*******************ut the Mustang does have the advantage of a lower drag cooling system than the Spitfire, which tends to offer the equivalent of a power advantage (more useful at high speeds than low, since drag increases with velocity squared). Thus, if the Mustang is going to out-turn the Spitfire at all, it's going to be at high speed, where the Mustang may have to use less power to maintain airspeed (due to lower drag) and thus have more power left over (referred to as Ps or specific excess power) to overcome the induced drag of turning.

**************************

Better you should think the one with more profile drag will not do as well in a turn. Reason: The Mustang D and the Spit 14 have the same max speed. The spit has more drag, balanced by its greater power. When you are at 90% of that top speed, you can run on 70% of the max power. The mustang then has in hand 30% of 1600hp, the spit has 30% of 2000hp. So the spit, which is also lighter, has more power in hand than the Mustang. How ell that power does in a sustained turn depends on how hard the wing has to work to produce its lift. Noramlly at max speed the induced drag is 5-10% of the total drag. The induced part goes up inversely as the square of the speed, the profile bit goes up as the square of the speed. So you get slower (or pull g, or fly in thinner air) and the wing has to work harder, and the induced drag goes up. It goes up as the square of the g, too. So if you pull 4g at max speed the profile drag is still 95% (for a low loaded fighter)but the induced is 16 x 5% = 80% of max speed drag, total 175%. So at 4g at max speed you need 175% of your engine power to keep the speed up.What if your aircraft was one of the 90% + 10% kind? Profile still 90%, induced now 160%, total 250% required. High speed high g turns just suck away energy, and the profile drag is not really an issue.

That's also why ugly planes outclimb pretty ones.

LilHorse
05-18-2004, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JZG_Yunus:
Energy fight is not the useless BnZ u see some poor guyss doing in FB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh* There's one in every crowd I suppose. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Blottogg
05-18-2004, 02:55 PM
k5054, good point. That's what I get for being lazy and not looking up the numbers. Still, it's interesting to see how the Mustang and the Spitfire achieve the same speeds. The Mustang emphasizes drag performance, while the Spitfire goes the Tim Allen route of "more power" (though its aerodynamics aren't too bad, either.) This helps the Spitfire in other areas where P/W rules, like the climb performance you mentioned. No aerodynamic tricks will get around the fact that lifting mass a fixed height requires work proportional to that mass. Since climbing is done at speeds well below Vmax, the Mustang's aero efficiency doesn't help it save much power. Climb performance is pretty much a brute force (or power, or work) affair.

Perhaps a better example would be the I-153 sustained performance versus the P-51. While the I-153 is generally accepted as a turn fighter, if the comparison between the two is stacked in the Mustang's favor, the tables can be turned. In a sustained turn contest at 366 kph at sea level (the I-153's maximum level speed at sea level from the Object Viewer... I'm still being lazy), the Mustang will have a large Ps advantage over the I-153. The Russian aircraft, at its maximum speed (Ps = 0), can't turn without loosing some speed, and thus by definition has a sustained turn rate for these conditions of 0 deg. per sec. Of course the I-153 can still use instantaneous turn (Ps &lt; 0), and at this speed, the two aircraft's g capabilities will determine which aircraft has the higher instantaneous turn rate. In a maximum instantaneous rate turn at this speed, the I-153 will probably decelerate faster than the 'Stang though. The I-153 gains turn exclusivity (sustained and instantaneous) on the slow side of the speed range, flying and turning happily at speeds where the Mustang would struggle to avoid stalling in level flight.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Taylortony
05-18-2004, 04:09 PM
better not get into lead lag dampners then as that'll freak u out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
05-18-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taylortony:
better not get into lead lag dampners then as that'll freak u out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm already freaked out but its fun anyways http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

IAFS_Painter
05-19-2004, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>{snip}Perhaps a better example would be the I-153 sustained performance versus the P-51. ... In a sustained turn contest at 366 kph at sea level (the I-153's maximum level speed at sea level from the Object Viewer... I'm still being lazy), {snip}

Blotto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


But ... a lot of turn fighting is at around 280 (+- 20 ) kps.

(btw - I can not get an I-153 much above 300 IAS)

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg
il2airracing.com (http://www.il2airracing.com) Painter's Pages (http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2)
I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here

Ankanor
05-19-2004, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IAFS_Painter:
But ... a lot of turn fighting is at around 280 (+- 20 ) kps.

(btw - I can not get an I-153 much above 300 IAS)

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg
http://www.il2airracing.com http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2
I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the aircraft, but I dont think that any Me109, FW190 flier will agree with you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Zero fighters are another matter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. I think US pilots in the PTO said that if you go below 300 kph, you have a Zero on your tail before you blink.

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53