Tiffy Roll Rate

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ has it.

And this is from a RAF fan.  On this I will backup the Luftwaffe fans.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Jigster]

The Typhoon, N1K2, and A6M5 all have alot more in common than you might think Vulcan.

[funked]

BS

The Typhoon was not rejected.

Show me one reference by RAF to poor roll rate in the Typhoon.

The fundamental problem was the reliability of the sleeve-valve engine.

[GRUNHERZ]

From what I read on the Typhoon it was meant to be THE all around British fighter. The design team had high hopes for the plane and put in many innovative features and was basically a very advanced design. Again from what I understand It was supposed/hoped to become the RAFs primary fighter, even over the Spitfire. In service it proved a dissapointment in this role as it had poor high alt perfomance and poor agility. Thus it was rejected for the main fighter role, and used as a ground attack plane and low alt fighter due to its good low level speed.

[Kingonads]

I guess I forgot the cliped wings on the M3 model huh?   But in other aspects the M3 and the M5 were for the most part the same plane with minor changes to make a "mo' betta" fighter   I am still waiting for the Kate and the Val to see if they will put them in but that is for a different post.  I am looking for more websites on historical data that is more fact than fiction on planes tanks and guns of WWII anyone know of any. (and I like pictures because I dont like to read much )


                      Hodo

[This message has been edited by Kingonads (edited 06-01-2001).]

[Vermillion]

Another problem with the Tiffie design is that it was based around a wing similar to the earlier Hurricane. Nice and thick, which has many design advantages and disadvantages.

Of course you see what happened when they put a nice laminar flow wing on that beast. The Tempest was born.  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Pyro]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
The 190 rolls too slowly! Fix it!  

Hehe, how fast does it roll for you at 250-260 IAS?

I'll do some flying in the Tiffie and see what you guys are talking about.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[SeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
From what I read on the Typhoon it was meant to be THE all around British fighter. The design team had high hopes for the plane and put in many innovative features and was basically a very advanced design. Again from what I understand It was supposed/hoped to become the RAFs primary fighter, even over the Spitfire. In service it proved a dissapointment in this role as it had poor high alt perfomance and poor agility. Thus it was rejected for the main fighter role, and used as a ground attack plane and low alt fighter due to its good low level speed.

You read wrong, it was because of engine reliability problems, and the tail assembly failures. The Typhoon was quickly withdrawn from active duty after WWII for the sole reason of it's poor engine reliability.
-SW

[Dowding]

The engine of the typhoon was its main weakness. The tail-plane problems were pretty minor compared to the problems with the Sabre.

Of the 3100 Typhoons built, only 26 were destroyed due to tail-plane structural failure.

It really surprises me that the AH typhoon roles like it does - I can find no mention of its *very* poor role rate in either the pilot's notes or a book on its history.

I used to fly it exclusively for jabo - generally trying to fly it like they did in WW2. I'd wing over at 8000 ft and dive at about a 60 degree angle before releasing on a pull through at about 2000 ft. There are accounts of bomb releases at 1500 ft at speeds in excess of 500 mph. From what I've read, the typhoon doesn't pull out of dives like it did before - anyone reckon that the above technique still works?

As for the NACA data, does anyone know the test conditions under which the experiment was performed? Which model was used and can anyone find data produced by the RAF? Posting data is excellent - but it is meaningless without the conditions under which it was recorded.

[Vulcan]

Grun all the reports I have seen state "awesome high speed agility", and "terrible low speed handling".

Three reasons it was withdrawn: low speed vator flutter; high speed tail departure; engine issues

The tiffie went on to become the "scourge of the panzer". Tell me you think they'd fly an aicraft with a 'lack of agility' at low alt?


 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
THe Typhoon was rejected as an air to air fighter due to its lack of agility and high alt perfomance. A great big part of that agility problem was its horribly unacceptable roll rate and poor overall flying characteristics. It was a very immature/compromised design that wasnt all fixed and made right until the Tempest which was a kick-ass plane.
 
To all the tiffie guys you basically had an incorrectly modeled plane that left out one of its greatest faults, now u guys gotta bite the bullet and learn to fly with a more correct FM. IMHO this is no different than the changes to the Fw190 A5 FM that corrected some of its poorly modeled features several months ago.

[Manedew]

I don't mean just airleion roll only,  i'm also and mostly talking about stall/rudder/torque/getting the wind under your wing rolls too.. I feel like tiffy has been dampened to this effect.
posted flim of p-38 useing this idea in an extream manner. The way some planes fly you can control this when tuned down. Tiffy seems to lack this now.
 http://members.fortunecity.com/thief5/ahflim/

also main reason typhoon had a bad reputaion was it's tail malfunction. as to not being a fighter it was... just knowen for ground war.
one AAR i read from an early typhoon mission (by the 609th i think) reads something like this:
2 190 kills 1 ju-88 kill
2 typhoon losses due to tail malfunction never pulled out of dive.  

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Jekyll, great work, but your graph is a total mess due colors. Perhaps a better way is to draw NACA as solid and AH as doted lines, same color in both lines per plane, and very different colors per each plane.
...

Good idea Mandoble.  It's been adjusted accordingly  

If anyone wants to add to this info, or do some further testing on the new Tiffie rollrate, here is the spreadsheet in Excel format.

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 06-02-2001).]

[GRUNHERZ]

Vulcan, because they were the only RAF planes that could catch and intercept FW190s at lower alts, basically because they were fast.

[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 06-03-2001).]

[gripen]

Hi!

There was a discussion about that NACA report in the rec.aviation.military

Should be easily found with the google. Here is couple parts:

data come from: Fw 190, Spitfires, Typhoon, Mustang: RAE TN No. Aero 1231

"It should be pointed out, however that where Frise ailerons are used, there is liable to be a variation in the feel of the aircraft. Our pilots, who have now flown three F.W.190s, have, infact noticed this variation; they report that the machine on which measurements were made had rather heavier ailerons than the other two."

A snip from the RAE TN No. Aero 1231:
"Synchronized, automatically recorded readings of aileron angle and angle of bank were taken at speeds between 200 m.p.h. A.S.I. and 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., using a "rat" to record angles, and a free gyro for measuring angle of bank, the instruments being synchronized by a common electrical timer. Measurements were made both to port and starboard using roughly quarter, half and three quarters full aileron movement, and in most cases the stick force to apply aileron was noted on a Henschel type stick force indicator. All the observations of the time to bank have been corrected to 10000 ft."

Hejdå

Gripen

[funkedup]

Very nice Gripen!