10% is a huge diff IMHO.
Wing loading does not makes all. Section profile plays it's part here : at same weight, the more lift at equal wing area, the less the turn radius will be.
If you like RoF and WWI planes, look at the wing profile of a Focker and compare it to an Se5 or a Camel : Both the latter had barn door for wings (flat profiles), when the Focker used a thicher and aero refined wing profile. That's where the Focker gets it's fame.
There is now a similarity with the case discussed here btw the Hurri and the Spit. Even if the Spit balanced designed (12% thickness ratio) was good enough to match closely the old and thicker airfoil (ClarckY 19% - clarckY design were "draggier" but easier to built thx to their flat underside ) it was still much thinner requiring a higher speed in the turn (to get a low drag configuration (AoA)) hence a greater turn radius.
That is simple and a well known fact since WWII and I hardly see why it has to be discussed so much.
The Spit was a great design for its time but it has not the upper hand in every corner of flight perf .... Well IMHO none had
09-03-2011, 04:17 PM
Threaded Mode