Originally posted by Squire
Also, wing loading is wing loading, and the F4U had a higher wing loading than many lighter WW2 fighters. Higher wing loading means at a given G, you lose speed faster than a fighter with a lower wing loading. So a Spit IX pulling 5 Gs will say, drop 50mph after one 360 turn, where an F4U would drop 75mph, pulling 5 Gs (assuming same E state and alt). < Just an example, I dont have the data in front of me. The F4U would need to drop to a 4 G turn to remain the same speed, thus the 5 G Spit eventually "out turns" him, thats the mechanics of it.
...and Im not just picking on the F4U, like I say I think the flaps code in AH needs looking at with all of them.
Hi,
actually its the other way around at same G´s!!
If lets say a 109F4 and a SpitVb turn both with 5G´s, it depends to the inertia(spanload), propeller thrust and other wing design factors(wing aspect ratio, airfoil ), which of both decelerate faster.
The reason why many people get confused is the fact that the more heavy wingloaded plane tend ot need a more big AoA to gain the same G load or tunrradius than the more light wingloaded plane. What most people dont see is the fact that the more heavy wingloaded plane have a smaler relative wingarea. As result, while turning, planes with similar weight(109F4/SpitVb) show a very similar wingarea into flightdirention. The big wing of the Spit need a smaler AoA, while the smal wing of the 109F4 need a more big AoA.
In general planes with heavy wingload tent to keep more energy as faster the planes fly and and/or a smaler the AoA is, while planes with a low wingload tend to be able to turn more tight.
But this depends much to the wingdesign. A wing with a high aspect ratio tend to produce more lift and smaler drag at high AOA than a wing with smal aspectratio. As result the wingarea of a high aspectratio wing can be smaler to arcive the same lift like a more big wing with smal aspectratio.
In your example the F4U for sure will get faster out of the 5G 360° turn than the Spit(only a Spit14 probably could keep up).
Why?? Cause the F4U had MUCH more inertia and MUCH more power.
Same count for the FW190A vs a SpitV and P38 vs A6M2.
The more light wingloaded planes(lets assume they are also more light liftloaded) can turn more tight where the heavy liftloaded planes already stall, and they also have advantages while a sustained turn(but this depends much to the powerload), as faster the planes fly, as less advantage the relative big wings bring and as more disadvantage they offer. The faster deceleration of the more light wingloaded plane is the reason for a more tight turn while a turn with a constant G load.
Imho in Ah the inertia isnt modeled always right, but it got better with the last patches! Heavy planes mainly suffer by their weight, while the advantage of the inertia dont count much.
For example the A6M´s keep energy at highspeed(+300mph IAS) like mad, while this relative big but light and powerless planes should bleed speed like mad, same count for the Hurri II. At highspeed planes like the P47 and FW190 should very easy get rid of this lightweights by flying a highspeed smooth turn, where the high inertia and power keep should keep the speed much better up. Unfortunately its the other way around. Even the smalest turn slow the FW190 down, like dont have any weight, as result it only can run strait to gain distance, a upzoom at 350mph in low level with 2k distance is suecide(and that vs so outdated planes like the Zero and HurriII). While a upzoom with initially 400mph a Spit16 close in to the FW190A8 from 3k distance, althought the the Spit was intially more slow. Looks like the inertia of 850kg at 400mph dont count much, while the P51D and even the FW190A5 zoom pretty good or at least better at 400mph.
Greetings,
