Originally posted by Viking
No the P-47 could not be trimmed out of a compressibility dive. The controls and trim tabs were completely ineffective until the Mach number was reduced to less than 0.73. Trying to trim out of dives killed many pilots by overloading the airframe when the controls became responsive again.
It is completely different than the 109. The 109 had a “flying tail” trim before the term was even invented. The whole tail plane would move with trim and thus remained effective at any and all speeds (theoretically even supersonic speeds). Trimming too much would of course overload the airframe. The P-47 had trim tabs that were totally ineffective during compressibility dives. Losing control of the aircraft at Mach 0.73 and having no option than “riding it out” down to less than 10,000 feet where control was reestablished is totally unacceptable in a high-speed high-altitude fighter as Brown and the RAE found out. The problem was not as bad as with the P-38s that often lost their tail section in dives, but bad enough.
Hi,
what i meant is: Every experienced pilot could have trimmed the plane a bit upward before a dive!!!
As you can see in my question regarding the trim, i know about the 109/190 trim system.
The P47B never saw combat, therefor the statements are absolut not valid, otherwise we also could use the 109F prototypes, where the wings felt off a bit early to make statements about the 109G and K.
Actually the 109´s had problems to get trimmed, specialy in high alt, where the system froze, until they found that a special lubricant was needed to prevent the freezing.
Originally posted by Widewing
I think the 109's flaps are now TOO good. I can agree with some of the things the Luftwaffe fans are asking for, and disagree on some others.
Hi,
Not the 109 flaps are too good, almost ALL flaps are too good!!
The current flaps are so far outside of the physical law, they damage the realism of AH much and imho make it almost to an arcade game.
If i see a Spitfire using its flaps to turn like mad, i could get crazy. The Spitfire only had one step and it was made to slow the plane down and this flaps, same like ALL full extended flaps, dont help while turning!!
In AH the flaps work more like big ballons, even the vertical "hoovering" work better with extended flaps, thats a joke. And i can bank a plane almost 80% close to stall speed without to lose altitude, if i use full flaps. I also can roll the plane at this speed with rather smal alt lost. Do flaps novadays create sideward lift and -g lift, depending to the bank angle??
The turnradius of the FW190 seems to be ok to me!! Imho it have to much lift at slow speed, resulting in the very strange landing behaviour, where the plane tend to lift up again and again, even below 100mph.
Reduce the lift a bit, increase the drag a bit and specialy increase the power!!
Then we get the highspeed power plane, that live by its high cruise speed and high stage of energy/power.
The 190A5-8 couldnt turn sustained with the 109s, but it should be able to outzoom the 109F-109G6, Spit5-16 and HurriIIc out of highspeed. The inertia advantage of around 1000kg + the power advantage of up to 300hp should do the job!!
Curently the 190A´s, but also the D9, miss the outstanding initial acceleration, while the the acceleration above 400mph is too good.
More drag = less high speed accceleration
More power = better slow speed acceleration/climb, better upzoom behaviour.
Much less airfoil related lift= bringing the climb back to the realistic values and stopping the much to good slow speed handling.
A more big max AoA with flaps= Stopping the strange landing bahaviour.
Greetings,
Knegel
