« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Turn stuff  (Read 1024 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Re: Turn stuff
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2005, 07:37:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Agent,

>P-47M at 11

>P-47D-23 at 10.5.

Hm, I'd have expected the difference to be greater.



I would have though so too.

Since I'm involved in dynamic testing almost on a daily basis (not of aircraft), my experience is that a sample of one is meaningless.

If the USAAF takes out one of every type (as they usually did), and several pilots fly different aircraft, the results will be skewed towards the skill of the individual pilots, which even among test pilots can vary widely. Even speed runs can vary quite a bit depending upon state-of-tune and fit and finish of the aircraft.

We see this in the game. One guy can turn a fighter tighter than another guy (flying the same model with a similar loadout).

To get truly accurate measurements of performance, a significant population would have to be tested. This is something that AFDU, TAIC and the USAAF did not do. They usually tested one or two aircraft.

Everything is relative and comparison testing has far too many uncontrolled variables to be considered gospel.

My regards,

Widewing
Logged
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Turn stuff
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2005, 08:13:01 PM »
If an aircraft which goes the circle in a given time will get more thrust without a weight penalty, it will definately be able to turn tighter.
This is basic.
The Spit XIV, being heavier than the IX for instance, could practically keep up with it's older-of-kin, while being heavier, the remedy was more power.

The 109F may have been a tad heavier than the 109E, yet it turned better if anything!
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline GREENTENERAL

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Re: Re: Re: Turn stuff
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2005, 08:13:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
I would have though so too.

Since I'm involved in dynamic testing almost on a daily basis (not of aircraft), my experience is that a sample of one is meaningless.

If the USAAF takes out one of every type (as they usually did), and several pilots fly different aircraft, the results will be skewed towards the skill of the individual pilots, which even among test pilots can vary widely. Even speed runs can vary quite a bit depending upon state-of-tune and fit and finish of the aircraft.

We see this in the game. One guy can turn a fighter tighter than another guy (flying the same model with a similar loadout).

To get truly accurate measurements of performance, a significant population would have to be tested. This is something that AFDU, TAIC and the USAAF did not do. They usually tested one or two aircraft.

Everything is relative and comparison testing has far too many uncontrolled variables to be considered gospel.

My regards,

Widewing


I think you're absolutely right about that.  Those spreads would have been even bigger in those days, without the better tolerance systems that we have today.   Sometimes I wonder what they would be like if those designs were manufactured with todays systems, being truer to the design than was possible then.  I have few engineers, machinists, and a tool&die wizard in the family, and they make it sound alot more like gambling when it came to fitting those machines in those days.
Logged

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Turn stuff
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2005, 01:01:58 AM »
Agree results vary. Atmoshperic conditions are different in UK, Germany & US. Plus if a country flys a captured aircraft, it can be an old flown out one. German pilots got more out of D-9  than US pilots did after war when asked to fly it. So familiarity plays a pivotal role. How to use tail trim device etc.

Also, I don't know what altitude the graph above was calculated at.

Leykauf said it mattered how one "went in" to a turn, so pilot skill is all important to how well a plane turns.

& yah Crump, anything you wanna trade feel free.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2005, 01:04:07 AM by agent 009 »
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Turn stuff
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2005, 04:49:31 AM »
What is your email addy?


All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Turn stuff
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2005, 05:52:33 AM »
Logged

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Turn stuff
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2005, 09:05:00 AM »
Agent,

I am always curious about different peoples turn estimate calculations mostly because we assume they start out with good data.

I think I emailed you a turn performance calculator from an engineering student that used to be on these boards. You can plug many variables into it and come to your own conclutions.

The most mistated performance characteristic of WW2 A/C I have seen is clmax. If that is wrong you are done before you start. After that make sure the weight is correct followed by HP, Wing area and span.

The best indication of trun performance is stall speed in level 1G flight. If you have that information from the A/C pilots manual you can quickly calculate Clmax and get your answers from there.
Logged

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Turn stuff
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2005, 01:41:54 PM »
Well, I suck at math, but will give it a go.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »