Originally posted by Kurfürst
HoHun is right. Who the f. cares what gripen mumbles. He can post his sillyness for himself and be always right in that.
You don`t worth an answer.
So why don't you stop your never ending personal attacks and ignore me?
Originally posted by Knegel
the 109 roll very bad at highspeeds over 350mph, but up to 280mph the rollratio was ok for its time and even up to 340mph it was good, although the stickforces was pretty high.
Well, I don't see much difference to my opinion; "
The data actually confirms what is allready known about the aileron characters of the Bf 109 ie the forces and effectiveness are normal at low speeds but at high speeds the forces are very high."
Originally posted by Knegel
Next to this there must be a reason why the Brits tested the SpitfireVa and HurriII only up to 300mph.
Actually that is NACA data, they tested a Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito which RAF had given to USAAF for eveluation. Infact RAE send critics to NACA because NACA did not test planes at higher speeds.
Originally posted by Knegel
Btw, i would like to know where the very high 'Spitfire (normal wing)' datas in the NACA document comes from.
These values come from a large fighter aileron comparison by RAE. The tested planes were Fw 190, Mustang I, Typhoon and Spitfire V with standard and clipped wings. These tests were fully instrumented and the planes were tested up to and over 400 mph IAS. For details get DSIR 23/12865 and 23/12506 from the PRO (there are also other docs with data from these tests).
Originally posted by Knegel
Did they made more changings to the metal covered alerons to obtain such a rollperformence?
Tested planes were standard Spitfire Vs. The most probable reason for the difference between NACA and RAE data is that there appear to be plenty of loosenes in the aileron linkage of the NACA tested Spitfire and Hurricane; the roll rate curves does not show typical sharp edges when the stick force limit is reached. The RAAF data on Spitfire V shows quite good agreement with RAE data given the different stick force and the both data sets show typical sharp edges.
Originally posted by Knegel
And it also would be interesting to see the original tests of the other planes next to 109G and K roll tests.
There is some data around on the Bf 109G but not as well instrumented as this DVL test. The ailerons are basicly same in the Bf 109F, G and K and stick forces are also about the same, the differences come from somewhat stiffer wing in the later models.
Originally posted by OttoJ
EAS? Estimated Air Speed?
470 mph IAS at 10k is ~564 mph TAS. Did they put rockets on this Mustang?
Are you sure about these numbers?
EAS = Equivalent air speed, IAS corrected with type specific corrections (not TAS!).
The Mustang III was red lined 505 mph IAS, so 470 mph IAS is well within normal flight envelope and easily reachable in dive. You can see the test points from the dataset.
Regarding Butch2K's comment; AFAIK about half of the internet has got this DVL data during past (from me or they have dug out it from the DM like me, or NASM), I have given the doc about every reasonable person who has shown interest (tens of people including several writers and game developers). The only restriction I have asked from them was to keep silence until Raunio's article comes out and generally that has been worked out well except one case when a person started to distribute it in AAWII board (Butch's board).
And the mentioned calculation showing the 95 deg/s roll rate is exactly that ie a calculation.
gripen
