1. #1

    What makes the P51 Mustang ore Hawker Tempest so energy efficient? Is the Bf-109-wing-profile and airframe aerodynamic so much different? Are the Fw190s equal in this regard. Why are early war planes so different from late war planes?

    Who has good information about this?

    ~S~
    Share this post

  2. #2

    What makes the P51 Mustang ore Hawker Tempest so energy efficient? Is the Bf-109-wing-profile and airframe aerodynamic so much different? Are the Fw190s equal in this regard. Why are early war planes so different from late war planes?

    Who has good information about this?

    ~S~
    Share this post

  3. #3
    I'm no expert but i notice that many early war planes tend to have a steeper dihedral. This would allow for more stability in turns, but would also eat energy in other maneuvers.
    So possibly having a flatter wing was more efficient for maintaining high speeds.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._and_Dihedral_Effect
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Google "laminar flow wing" and read up on it for part of the answer.

    Also may want to look up "Meredith effect" (Ignore all returns speaking about Burges Meredith though.)
    Share this post

  5. #5
    oh thank you! very good tips!
    Share this post

  6. #6
    R_Target's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,687
    In the case of the P-51, it's a pretty slippery plane for it's time.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,650
    Another "slippery" plane is the P-39. It has a very low drag coefficient...I forget the number but its up there with the Mustang. It just doesn't have the power to make full use of it...
    Share this post

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> many early war planes tend to have a steeper dihedral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Designers attempt to achieve neutral lateral stability. The amount of dihedral required to achieve that varies based on the aircraft's design particulars. The result is the same however, neutral stability in the lateral axis.

    This thread goes down the same road as "energy retention" in aircraft.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What makes the P51 Mustang ore Hawker Tempest so energy efficient? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What is energy efficient? Your question does not make much sense. We are talking about airplanes not household appliances.

    If your goal is to control your speed and be able to land in the shortest distance possible, which is more energy efficient in your opinion?

    A Zenith CH-701 or an F-22 Raptor……

    See the point, if you ask more specific questions it would be easier to provide specific answers that make sense to you.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Is the Bf-109-wing-profile and airframe aerodynamic so much different? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is a different airplane. The designer chose the airfoil, wing design, and airframe design to accomplish his design goals of producing an air superiority fighter.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are the Fw190s equal in this regard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In regard to what? All of these aircraft maximize the appropriate amount of energy input into the design in accordance with their design performance parameters.

    They all have sustained and instantaneous performance design goals set by the designer which the aircraft meet.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Why are early war planes so different from late war planes?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Technology tends to advance faster in times of conflict. Enclosed cockpits, airframe construction, monoplane design, retractable landing gear, materials technology, engine technology, avionics, and weapons all progressed or came into fashion as a result of the war.

    The war moved theory into the realm of practical experience.

    All the best,

    Crumpp
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Control authority can have a big effect on how draggy a plane feels (not how draggy it actually is).

    If it is easy to make energy inefficient maneuvers then most pilots will make more of them and find their energy gone much sooner than they would in a plane that can't easily make energy inefficient maneuvers (i.e. highspeed turns/vertical maneuvers).
    Share this post

  10. #10
    JtD's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,898
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
    Another "slippery" plane is the P-39. It has a very low drag coefficient...I forget the number but its up there with the Mustang. It just doesn't have the power to make full use of it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Then why does the heavier and larger P-51 go faster with the same power installed?
    Share this post

Page 1 of 8 123 ... Last ►►