Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, you need to take some drawings lessons

There is a reason why I am not a commercial artist, LOL.

Here is picture of my hanger, these are my planes....sole ownership....

Means you are alone on the bills too!



Both are fully aerobatic but the Thorp is not a good platform for it. It is too slick and you really have to pay attention to your speeds when you point the nose down.

The Thorp is a good cheap, fast, and fun to fly cross country machine. It has a Lycoming O-360 with a Hartzell CSP. It is IFR, four place, and a traveling machine.

The Extra 300 is my sky cutter. It has a Lycoming IO-540 with an MT propeller.

Back to the thread....

Looking at all the data and trying to pick averages staying away from either extreme using both Supermarines and Mtt data......

This is the relative turn performance of these two aircraft taking as much data from the Operating Notes and Flugzeug Handbuch.



Here is a Rate of Turn comparison. Rate of turn is the most important aspect of turn performance as it represents how fast the aircraft can swing its guns thru the compass to bear on a target.



Hope it helps!

[SlipBall]

Crumpp..Nice barn! but too small

[NZtyphoon]

There's some info on the 109 slats here http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm apparently the Fs still used the swing arm assembly of the E to actuate the slats, while the G series used a simplified roller track.

[Crumpp]

Just further weight to the fact handley page style slats open with force under load.

If you pull hard they will open with a loud bang but you don't even feel it on the stick.

You feel it most when you slowly change angle of attack.

[Crumpp]

Slipball says
Crumpp..Nice barn! but too small

LOL, Yes it is and now I need a bigger one!

NzTyphoon says:

they have everything to do with WW2 military aviation

I don't have everything to do with WWII Aviation Nztyphoon.

Never claimed too but I do sit on the Board of Directors for a warbird restoration company.

Try spending a month looking for a waffengeber for a month and see if you don't learn something.

JtD says:
both planes are turning too fast and I also think that the high speed relation is a bit off.

The airplanes are at sea level. Of course they are turning too fast....

Density effects will increase velocity, widen the radius, and increase the rate of turn. The engine power will also change with supercharger characteristics.

As for the high speed relation, anytime the aircraft has more excess thrust it will have a better turn rate as it can sustain more angle of bank at velocity.

The relationship is correct.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

LOL, Yes it is and now I need a bigger one!

Considering the shape of the building and the powers of Google earth, it's for the best that you removed it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The airplanes are at sea level. Of course they are turning too fast....

Planes at sea level still turn as physics determine, not "of course too fast". If you posted your input data as requested, I could easily check if there's anything I'd disagree with.

As for the high speed relation, anytime the aircraft has more excess thrust it will have a better turn rate as it can sustain more angle of bank at velocity.

The relationship is correct.

I could easily see that if you posted requested input data. The way it looks from here, you chose 285 mph for the Spitfire and 500 km/h for the 109 - which leaves me to wonder: Do you know of a lower sea level top speed for the Spitfire and do you know of a higher sea level top speed for the 109? Just asking, because I don't.

[Crumpp]

Planes at sea level still turn as physics determine

Yes they do and the formula's are all standard BGS for calculating aircraft performance.

They are same ones found in Perkins & Hage, Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, Flight Mechanics, and Flight Theory and Aerodynamics.

You can argue with the authors of these books....

http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Flig.../dp/0470539755

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Theory-...d+aerodynamics

http://www.amazon.com/Airplane-Perfo...ty+and+control

http://www.amazon.com/Aerodynamics-N...naval+aviators

The formulas are correct and the performance agrees with generic turn performance charts used in aircraft flight planning.

Input the correct parameters for wing area, power, aspect ratio, CLmax, and the formulas produce the results.

It is that simple.

[Crumpp]

"of course too fast"

They don't turn too fast. The performance aligns perfectly with a standard turn performance chart.

[JtD]

I'd like to know what data you used, a request couldn't be more straightforward and simple. I didn't ask for adverts, standard turn performance charts or other rubbish.