![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wow...interesting thread guys (but I did only read the actual page).
But I think you forgot something BckBr: the large bladed prop will fly easier in the airstream during the dive and will then have a tendency to raise the rpm much higher than a 4 bladed one. More rpm -> pilot will have to reduce throttle during the dive in order to keep eng safe More rpm -> more tip blade speed hence more drag Transonic drag being far higher than low subsonic drag, low rpm is better either for your eng (max pow dive) and for your total drag coef. But if you are comparing the Jug with the Fw, it 's far better to keep in mlind their difference in weight and the weight/power ratio. With the latter, you'll understand easily that gravity did play a huge part during WWII in term of improvement of aircraft perf. Hence, a nose down Jug had far better "propulsive" power than a FW190 in the same configuration. EDIT: oh... and let's not forget that the Jug had a metal prop when the 190 used ones made out of woods. The technology is quite different ( the latter being somewhat newer). Large blades might hve been something difficult to achieve with casted aluminium Last edited by TomcatViP; 05-18-2012 at 01:59 AM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|