Author Topic: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled  (Read 2578 times)

Offline Captfish

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
      • VF-6 Fighter Sqdn
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2008, 12:36:08 PM »
where do you get 479mph??   the source you gave proves your wrong :lol.....admit your wrong so we can move on from this :pray



....Im not sure but does anything with a prop(and a stock engine) go over 460?.....I know the air race planes are fast but they are highly modified....
....September Fury won the 2006 Reno race at 481.619 mph, an F8F Bearcat 'Rare Bear' was fastest in 2007 at 478mph.....

'CO' VF-6 Fighter Sqdn

Hitting trees since tour 78

Offline Cmustard

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2008, 01:01:48 PM »
where do you get 479mph??   the source you gave proves your wrong :lol.....admit your wrong so we can move on from this :pray



....Im not sure but does anything with a prop(and a stock engine) go over 460?.....I know the air race planes are fast but they are highly modified....
....September Fury won the 2006 Reno race at 481.619 mph, an F8F Bearcat 'Rare Bear' was fastest in 2007 at 478mph.....


379MPH , made a mistake on typing , edited it, but you saw it when it was incorrect.
<Cmustard Was Here <With 20mm's>  
                 

 <Screwing With The Text Nazis Since Tour 80>

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2008, 01:02:18 PM »
OK , the moss MK 6 was capable of 479mph and could carry 3K of ord. I fly mossies in AH almost every flight. Never , inless in a dive , have i been able to carry 3 k of ord , :+) , nor go 379 , tops out around 365MPH , spits out run me :(
Actualy, according to the chart that Karnak posted, 365 is overpowered.

Offline Captfish

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
      • VF-6 Fighter Sqdn
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2008, 01:04:04 PM »
Faster airplanes, however, need propellers with adjustable blades, able to increase the angle ("pitch") at which they "bite" into the air as the flight speed increases, so that they always face into the combined velocity v due to their own motion and that of the airplane. One can not compensate by increasing the speed v1 of the blade, because as the propeller tips reach the speed of sound, their efficiency drops markedly (and the noise they produce rises!)

  Adjustable blades ("variable pitch propellers"), more expensive and complicated than one-piece propellers, have long been standard equipment on the faster propeller airplanes. But even they hit a limit. Suppose the airplane moves at the same speed as the propeller tip, that is, v2 = v1. The tip of the blade then needs to be rotated into the direction of motion by 45 degrees into the direction of motion (bottom drawing). Two disturbing trends now become evident.

  First of all, as seen from the "vector addition triangle" and the theorem of Pythagoras, the total velocity v sensed by the blade is considerably faster (by about 41%) than either of its two component velocities, pushing it closer to the speed of sound and its associated problems. And secondly, the lifting force L on the blade is also rotated by 45 degrees! Only the component L1 pulls the airplane forward--the other component, L2, actually opposes the rotation of the propeller and demands extra power from the motor, power that serves no useful purpose.

  Because of such problems, propeller-driven airplanes have never even approached the speed of the jets. The faster propeller-driven fighter airplanes of World War II flew at about 370-400 mph. The speed record for a purely propeller-driven airplane, 463 mph, was attained in Germany before the war (in 1939) and stood for decades. The current record is 528.33 mph, attained in 1989 by the "Rare Bear", a WW-II US Navy 8F8 "Bearcat" fighter, modified for high-speed racing. The airplane had crashed in 1962 and was lying in an Indiana cornfield, next to a runway, before Lyle Shelton in 1969 found it and restored it. He later replaced its 2400 HP engine with one of 4000 HP (getting less than 1 mile per gallon gas at top speed), replaced its propeller, and trimmed its weight. It is still flying. (Thanks to Dr. Eddie Irani for this information).

'CO' VF-6 Fighter Sqdn

Hitting trees since tour 78

Offline Cmustard

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2008, 01:09:38 PM »
Faster airplanes, however, need propellers with adjustable blades, able to increase the angle ("pitch") at which they "bite" into the air as the flight speed increases, so that they always face into the combined velocity v due to their own motion and that of the airplane. One can not compensate by increasing the speed v1 of the blade, because as the propeller tips reach the speed of sound, their efficiency drops markedly (and the noise they produce rises!)

  Adjustable blades ("variable pitch propellers"), more expensive and complicated than one-piece propellers, have long been standard equipment on the faster propeller airplanes. But even they hit a limit. Suppose the airplane moves at the same speed as the propeller tip, that is, v2 = v1. The tip of the blade then needs to be rotated into the direction of motion by 45 degrees into the direction of motion (bottom drawing). Two disturbing trends now become evident.

  First of all, as seen from the "vector addition triangle" and the theorem of Pythagoras, the total velocity v sensed by the blade is considerably faster (by about 41%) than either of its two component velocities, pushing it closer to the speed of sound and its associated problems. And secondly, the lifting force L on the blade is also rotated by 45 degrees! Only the component L1 pulls the airplane forward--the other component, L2, actually opposes the rotation of the propeller and demands extra power from the motor, power that serves no useful purpose.

  Because of such problems, propeller-driven airplanes have never even approached the speed of the jets. The faster propeller-driven fighter airplanes of World War II flew at about 370-400 mph. The speed record for a purely propeller-driven airplane, 463 mph, was attained in Germany before the war (in 1939) and stood for decades. The current record is 528.33 mph, attained in 1989 by the "Rare Bear", a WW-II US Navy 8F8 "Bearcat" fighter, modified for high-speed racing. The airplane had crashed in 1962 and was lying in an Indiana cornfield, next to a runway, before Lyle Shelton in 1969 found it and restored it. He later replaced its 2400 HP engine with one of 4000 HP (getting less than 1 mile per gallon gas at top speed), replaced its propeller, and trimmed its weight. It is still flying. (Thanks to Dr. Eddie Irani for this information).


Odd , I though fastest prop plane would be a p51H , 550MPH which is prop plane. I think they used some p51s in vietnam , woulda probally used something like that
<Cmustard Was Here <With 20mm's>  
                 

 <Screwing With The Text Nazis Since Tour 80>

Offline Solar10

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2008, 01:12:40 PM »
Yawn.... time to move on I think.
~Hells Angels~
Solar10

Offline Captfish

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
      • VF-6 Fighter Sqdn
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2008, 01:43:14 PM »
Odd , I though fastest prop plane would be a p51H , 550MPH which is prop plane. I think they used some p51s in vietnam , woulda probally used something like that

Again, no if the world record is 528.33mph, then the P51 didnt go 550mph.

'CO' VF-6 Fighter Sqdn

Hitting trees since tour 78

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2008, 05:04:11 PM »
Odd , I though fastest prop plane would be a p51H , 550MPH which is prop plane. I think they used some p51s in vietnam , woulda probally used something like that

Where do you get your information?  If it's from a book, burn it.

P-51H speed listed in the specs show a top speed of 487 mph (784 km/h) at 25,000 ft.  However, flight tests done in October of '46, serial number 44-64182, recorded a top speed of 451 mph with 90 inches Hg at 25,000ft.  Another test dated May of '45 related to serial number 44-64161, which gives a top speed of 450 mph with just 67 in. Hg.  Though, it should be noted that the top speed listed in the official specs of 487mph was done on with a clean wing (no bomb or rocket racks) while the flight tests in '45 and '46 were done in P-51Hs with racks mounted.

But in any case, the P-51H did not go the speed you stated nor did any see action during the Vietnam war.  The United States retired the last Mustang, P-51D-30-NA Serial No. 44-74936, from the West Virginia ANG in 1957. 


ack-ack
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 06:08:05 PM by Ack-Ack »
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline RATTFINK

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2008, 05:37:06 PM »
Oi!

Me thinks he has been hit in the head with to many arrows.  Surrender C.Mustard, we have you surrounded!!
Hitting trees since tour 78

Offline SD67

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2008, 06:13:22 PM »
I thought it was with the candlestick in the library?
9GIAP VVS RKKA
You're under arrest for violation of the Government knows best act!
Fabricati diem, punc
Absinthe makes the Tart grow fonder

Offline RATTFINK

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2008, 07:29:13 PM »
hmmm... you may have a point
Hitting trees since tour 78

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2008, 09:18:19 AM »
I agree completely.  Even though I have no real knowledge on the subject.
:rofl
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Cmustard

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2008, 01:43:07 PM »
:rofl
heheheh yalls is harsh ..... im done posting .... IM QUITING ACES HIGH !!!




see you all on 200 :D
<Cmustard Was Here <With 20mm's>  
                 

 <Screwing With The Text Nazis Since Tour 80>

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2008, 11:35:35 AM »
 :rock

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
Re: Mossi MK 6 = Bogusly undermodeled
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2008, 12:11:04 PM »
:pray
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------