Wings that "out turn" other wings are the ones that bleed energy less, not more.
Do not take this as discounting you post Squire. It is not and you are correct. This just adds too and helps with perspective.
True, but the difference in "wing efficiency" is almost negliable given two similar designs from the same design period.
Badboy says:
Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for wondering why the value of e should be so important. Why argue about the difference between something as small as 0.8 and 0.85 for example, when it only has a small influence on the overall drag coefficient. But before we get into this, let�s just apply a crude reality check to see if we have a realistic range for the fighters we are interested in? This diagram:
(Image removed from quote.)
taken from NACA 408 shows that Oswalds estimate agrees with the values that arise from approximate equations solely based on aspect ratio, for example, values between 0.85 and 1 for a cantilever monoplane. It is worth noting that he also quotes values between 0.95 and 1 just for a wing on its own, which is similar to approximate values produced earlier in this thread for a wing also.
Well, let�s put that in terms of air combat, and look at the difference that would make to an aircraft at the very bottom of Oswalds range 0.85, and one even lower, say 0.8 corresponding to a value at the high end of the range of average values Gripen posted from drag polars for various WWII fighters earlier in this thread.
Well, here is a diagram that shows the difference that these two values would have on the sustained turn rate of the same aircraft. Firstly, it would make very little difference at all to any other performance characteristics, the top speed for example being only 0.4mph different (and hardly distinguishable on the chart). You can see from the diagram that there is only 0.6 degrees per second difference (less than 3%) in the sustained turn rate, and no difference in the sustained turn radius, or any of the instantaneous values.
(Image removed from quote.)
Alternatively, the pilot in the aircraft with an e = 0.8 could choose to match the turn rate of the less draggy counterpart, but to do so he would have to lose altitude in the turn at the rate of 260ft/min.
That;s a bout the size of it, not a decisive advantage by any means and because in a real engagement, that difference is small enough to be overwhelmed by other factors, such as pilot ability, fuel or other ordnance loads, or the significant differences between the dissimilar aircraft more likely to have been involved in real combat.
Most aeronautical engineers, even in the late 1930's were very aware of induced drag and ways to reduce it.
First you have to define your turn which is why Squire put the quotations on "out turn". In this case I believe we are discussing steady state turns. We also have turn rate and turn radius.
The most important to a fighter being minimum radius of turn.Thrust is extremely important for turn performance:
The aircraft that can pull a tighter angle of bank at a given speed will have the smaller turn radius.
This is why a heavier fighter with more power can equal or outturn a lighter fighter with less power
to a point.For example, the Spitfire Mk IVX gained considerable weight over the Mk IX yet matches the turn performance of the lighter Mk IX:
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.htmlIMHO, this characteristic is not reflected very well in the modeling of the Focke Wulf series. The biggest example being the Dora which gained no weight over the FW-190A8. The FW-190A8 and the FW-190A5 are also effected by this.
All the best,
Crumpp
