|
|
#71
10-11-2011, 10:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When we practicing on own server, the Hurricane does not seem a bad aircraft. It would be nice, if these "proofs" repeated under controlled conditions, for example on a 1v1 map...? It is possible...? 
__________________
 | AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940 Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here 
|
|
#72
10-11-2011, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That is an interesting chart, IvanK, but a bit difficult to read as the time scale is logarithmic.
The tendency is that in terms of turn rates full circle both planes were quite close with perhaps a very small advantage for the spit (perhaps 2s as absolut max generously estimated optically. Would have to print it out and measure it to be more precise) at medium velocities. The spit will rule at slow speeds. For high velocities theres a minor advantage for the 109 in terms of turn rate.
|
|
#73
10-12-2011, 12:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So what is it at 1.35, or even better the MAX speed using the 1.42 emergency setting...Ill bet its closer to 490, unless you believe that the max speed wouldn't change with more power. We are talking about MAX speed, right? But I find your attitude even stranger. See, this is the part of this site that I thought we were going to avoid in this thread. You act like you've got a dog in this fight, when were doing nothing more than comparing notes. IvanK got on here and posted the same info, and more of it, but wasn't a snide little troll when he did it. In that way he came off as a professional and someone worth listening to. You, not so much. I'm sorry to see that civil discussion is something you have not mastered. And hypocritical to boot, you would chide me for ignoring information that you (erroneously) believe supports your point, while dismissing what I bring to the fore. Now, perhaps we can continue this discussion in less derisive manner? Id also like to add that I am amazed that with this exception the discussion here has been as informative and civil as it has been, lets hope it catches on around here! 
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#74
10-12-2011, 12:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Have you got a good IAS to TAS converter link? On the phone now, cant search... Kudos to you on flying both sides, I'm simply not interested in any British aircraft prior to the tempest.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#75
10-12-2011, 07:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#76
10-12-2011, 07:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
regarding the turn rate of the bf...i know that is no evidence and im not an expert on these matters, but i recently watched an interesting docu on history channel where a former german fighter pilot states that the early bfs were really agile planes which could follow a turn of the spits in certain conditions for a certain time.he also stated that the spits were overall better turners, but that expierenced pilots knew how and when they were able to follow a turn and shoot the enemy.i found it interesting that he also said that he was dissapointed by the late g models cause they became too heavy to be used as turn fighters.
__________________
|
|
#77
10-12-2011, 10:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 source: www.enginehistory.com
__________________
| AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hui7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940 Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
|
|
#78
10-12-2011, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
- first: on the ground of the knowledge of both nation at the time of the test/calculation (1940) - Secondly : on the base of the contradictions that a modern analysis would tell us First pt : If British engineer in 1940 had let an elliptical winged (EW) fighter be the most advanced defense they had allowed to be put on the frontline, for sure they were not aware of the advance Germans had made in that grounds. Remind that EW are the panacea only when dealing with inviscid flows etc... etc... Look at max Cl of both plane, max Pow and wing loading. I know that I can be annoying but those value and the fact that the wing thickness of the spit is lower tell us that there SHLD be an inversion in turn radius as the speed decrease. in other terms the spit shld turn tighter at high speed but hve a greater radius of turn when the speed is low. In other words they couldn't hve found any other value as their assumptions were made on false grounds. Last edited by TomcatViP; 10-12-2011 at 01:02 PM.
|
|
#79
10-12-2011, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sounds counter intuitive to me.
|
|
#80
10-12-2011, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's a rather long reply needed here indeed.
I think I did alrdy give an answer. To make it short here : 1st we are talking of turn radius as we are dealing with cte speed turn 2nd it's almost certain that at much of the speed range the SPit had an instant turn speed greater than the 109 as here Wing area rules (at comparable wingspan, nose authority etc.. etc... ) 3rd at cte speed, the drag generated by the wing in a turn attitude (AoA) and power to weight ratio are the keys. Simple calculation give you a result dependent only of Wing surface and Power to weight ratio as they are based on simpler theory that does not apply to high speed fighter and high G ( high AoA) turns. In their calculation they are in effect minoring the drag of the Spit wing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
