|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: do you know flugwerk company a her real one fockewulf a8? | |||
| yes |
   
|
2 | 33.33% |
| no |
  
|
4 | 66.67% |
| Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2012, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#2
10-15-2012, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
...at low speed, just above the stall. This is where Gaston is making his point.
Everyone is going 'No ways, it can out turn them as all the flight comparison tests have been done' - I'm also yet to see an official WW2 low speed turning comparison. That Russian report might be the closest that we'll ever get..  BTW .. online the one time I had a Spit, probably a IX, on my tail when I slowed down to full flaps and 50-100ft above the ground. I went into a gentle right bank and he followed, I then threw it into a full hard RH turn at full throttle and right rudder. The Spit couldn't follow - maybe the pilot or maybe the FMs might be correct.
__________________
Last edited by K_Freddie; 10-15-2012 at 04:02 PM. |
|
#4
10-18-2012, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
my 2 cents
About maneuverability and turn rate .. PLEASE Do not think about "HISTORICAL DATA" and turn rate and dont think about the mathematics and measures.. Think about the pilot! and think about what you do not know In the stick P-51D, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at 5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's. The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander". The turn rate is less important for a dogfight.. Look at other things .. |
|
#5
10-18-2012, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You have a good point.. it probably made the difference which is not mentioned in combat reports
Radial-vs-Inline which can have a marked effect on turning ability.. ignored also (and mentioned in some report which I forget) is the FW190 ability to hang by it's prop... which looks like a Radial characteristic.
__________________
|
|
#6
10-18-2012, 09:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Another example I can come up with on the radial vs. inline comparo is the P36 vs. P40.
The Army Air Corps P36 C had 1200bhp with 100 act fuel, whereas the P40s that replaced it only had 1000bhp. The P 40 was faster in level flight, but, the P 36 could out turn it (from pilot accounts), and the P 36 was significantly faster in the climb. (3 to 4 minutes faster to 20,000ft. depending on model of P 40).
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#7
10-19-2012, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry for my off topic
Turn Rate... "the golden rule of IL2" ?? close to misconception Many things are not pure mathematics One plane turns better ... but if the pilot must do a huge force in the stick at 5 g´s. The pilot will be with broken arms and breathless in two minutes. Will be very difficult aim and shoot to other plane, or do a good dogfight. A plane maybe can turn worse, but if it's light on the stick in two minutes that pilot easy win the combat. Another misconception The "power" of the engine , "other golden rule of IL2" ??... 1+1=2 ?? Many times we say this engine has 1000 HP 2000 HP 2500 HP or 1.000.000 Horse power Another thing is not purely 1+1=2 About..... The design of the propeller?? How many horsepower the prop will give to you gripping the air? How many power is output to the air by the prop, for each horse power increment ?? Put in the same plane a new engine with 500 HP more and the prop maybe give you only 100 Hp more.. is no direct mathematical Only a small part of that 500hp will be going to thrust of the plane. Maybe a plane with engine with 1600 HP, performs better than other plane with 1900 hp engine ..the aerodynamics, the propeller .. many many Things.. Is 1950 hp engine in Turkish plane better than 1600 HP engine in indian plane?.. mmm.. depends on each plane How many HP are exploited by each plane and prop? Not everything goes directly to the thrust of the plane. If you use a prop .. not is the same as using a jet. . Last edited by Mustang; 10-19-2012 at 03:52 AM. |
|
#8
10-20-2012, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It seems stalling speed is unrelated to low-speed sustained turns (which is why the Ki-100 performs so dramatically better than the Ki-84 in sustained turns), just like high speed dive pull-outs are unrelated to low-speed turning, but on the other hand high speed dive pull-out performance does correlate with stall speed quite well. It should; the prop disc load is reduced in the dive by faster incoming air, reducing its influence, and, like the straight-line stall, there is is no slower incoming air in the top prop disc portion to create an assymetrical load... The FW-190A has exactly the pathetic dive pull-out performance that one would expect for its stall speed, which also correlates well with its high wingloading. The FW-190A is the only fighter for which Eric Brown states "Killing speed by sinking imposes a Tactical restriction when pulling out from low-level dives". It is also the only fighter for which I have ever read: "Will fall another 220 m after leveling out from a 40° dive of 1200 m"... In other words, falling hundreds of feet nose level or nose up, causing a huge vertical deceleration and thus "a tendency to black-out the pilot" (P-47 front-line test)... It also happens to have one of the highest stall speeds of all WWII single engine day fighters...: 120 MPH... High speed horizontal unsustained 6G turns are slightly less correlated with stall speed, but still correlates very well because higher Gs "drown out" the effects of the prop's assymetrical load in turns, in the case of the FW-190A emphasizing its heavier airframe weight proportionately to an unchanging or reducing prop load effect (faster speeds mean more air hitting the front of the blades, thus reducing the blade load)... To the left, the FW-190A's high speed turn is acceptable, but still poor in high speed/High G left turns, but its turn performance is truly abyssmal in high speed/high G right turns. The assymetrical wing drop and prop rotation high speed spiral has a bigger effect at high speeds. At high speed the FW-190A is thus barely acceptable in hard left turns, but often snaps out entirely in hard right turns. That this high speed's poor turn/dive pull-out performance is so clearly consistent with the FW-190A's high wingloading does not explain why at low speeds its sustained turn performance is so much better, at least if you ignore my theory. Also, if you ignore my theory, there is no explanation why the the FW-190D has a much poorer sustained turn performance, or why laying off the throttle will improve wingloading, in a curve, but not in a straight line stall. (In a dive pull-out, the faster incoming air has the effect of reducing the prop load, and thus the comparative effect of the pull-out's curve compared to a "real" curve from a horizontal turn) Gaston P.S. The FW-190A's flaps, when down, reverse the effect of the prop spiral airflow at low speeds, probably because being closer to the prop they have more effect than the impact on the more distant tailplanes, and their location has a different leverage on the airframe. Also at low speeds, in the effort of maintaining speed in a turn, the engine torque has more effect compared to the airflow, and acts opposite the prop's airflow spiral rotation, not with it. Unlike at high speeds, at low speeds the FW-190A's turn stall assymetry is thus less, given the lesser prop spiral airflow influence at low speeds. G. Last edited by Gaston; 10-20-2012 at 06:37 PM. |
|
#9
10-20-2012, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The P51, Spitfire and P47 all had restrictions on pulling out when attacking ground forces. The only exception seems to be the Hurricane which in the Far East were allowed to pull out at tree top height as they for practical purposes didn't mush (the normal word for it) |
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
