If we had the Meteor

[Cthulhu]

Sorry Cthulhu, but this is incorrect.

P-51D 75% (full wing tanks and a bit in the aux.)

9746lbs/wing area of 235 square feet.=41.5 lbs/square foot.

Dora, full internal, no drop.
9415lbs/wing area of 197 square feet=47.8 lbs/square foot.

(Note that the P-51D can fly farther on just the wing tanks than the Dora can on full internal.)

So there is in fact a very pronounced difference in wing-loading.

BTW, despite this, and the fact that the Dora is equipped with less efficient split flaps instead of maneuvering flaps, DokGonzo's shows the Dora actually maintaining a *smaller* sustained radius with full flaps, wtf?  Too bad the flaps won't deploy at a reasonably high airspeed, isn't? 

Here's the data I'm familiar with:

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

As you'd expect, the descrepancy is in the Pony data, the amount of fuel carried is seldom stated clearly, so one has to figure out what *Loaded* means.

Notice the difference in CLmax for both aircraft. Laminar flow airfoils are super slick (provided you keep then spotless), but they're certainly not heavy lifters. They also have attrocious behavior at the limit, something I've never noticed in AH. The conventional wing of the Dora however seems to "cop an attitude" if you even hint at pushing it to the limit.

Anyway, this is a Meteor thread, so we should both probably shut up.

[BnZs]

I did the figuring and that wingloading would correspond to a Pony with 100% internal fuel AND two drop tanks, so yeah, that is not really applicable. Considering it was standard practice to burn off most of the the aft BEFORE the drops, it would seem the 75% loading would correspond to the typical fighting weight of a P-51 after it went clean to engage. Hell, in my figures for the D9 I didn't even include the drop-tank rail.

And it is not the wing on the Fw, it is the wing-loading. Every plane in the game with big horsepower and thus big torque up front will drop a wing in an accelerated stall at high power settings.. The Dora just stalls at higher speed is all. No slats to delay the onset and keep a little airflow over the wingtips either.

Here's the data I'm familiar with:

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

As you'd expect, the descrepancy is in the Pony data, the amount of fuel carried is seldom stated clearly, so one has to figure out what *Loaded* means.

Notice the difference in CLmax for both aircraft. Laminar flow airfoils are super slick (provided you keep then spotless), but they're certainly not heavy lifters. They also have attrocious behavior at the limit, something I've never noticed in AH. The conventional wing of the Dora however seems to "cop an attitude" if you even hint at pushing it to the limit.

Anyway, this is a Meteor thread, so we should both probably shut up.

[Cthulhu]

My comment was mainly about the Pony's wing @ high alpha. Removing torque from the issue (idle), I'd expect the Dora to behave itself a little better at max alpha than the Pony, but I've never really noticed the laminar wing show it's flakey side in AH like I'd expect.

[BnZs]

Well, the guy who has flown a 'Stang says it gives plenty stall warning, so I'll go with that.

I can't detect much difference between what the Pony and Dora do in AHII when you stall them out at high power settings either. I think the 190 might have a touch more elevator authority in the 200-300mph range, which would make it easier to whip into a stall.

[BnZs]

Cthulhu:

It also turns out the CL-max for the P-51's airfoil is apparently higher than 1.2...

NACA 829 demonstrates that the P-51's wing was not inefficient at high AoA.

See the chart below.

(Image removed from quote.)

It sure looks like the P-51B wing is more efficient at high angles of attack than either the F4U-1 or the P-63A.

NACA 1044 shows that the P-51B's CLmax at Mach .25 was the same as the P-38.

[stroker71]

I thought this thread was about the Meteor...my bad

[Bruv119]

we need a British plane to own  dem 262's with !!!

+1

[Angus]

Yep. That would be a good idea.
Also good for scenarios, like Remagenand more.
Meteor and a V-1 please

[Charge]

"It also turns out the CL-max for the P-51's airfoil is apparently higher than 1.2..."

You may notice that that alpha figure is at "approximate" 60 or 80mph (fuzzy numbers), at higher realistic maneuvering speeds the supported AoA would be lower effecting the CL-max. Practically the profile used in P-51 cannot handle as high AoA's as that of FW190 series, but they do have lower drag.


I also thought about the much commented slow spooling times for 262s engines. Where and when do you need to adjust the throttle? In combat flying the fastest plane around -> Never.

The problem obviously is exaggerated due to bad survivability of 262 when taking off and landing where such behaviour would be fatal. Add the tendency of the aircraft to be reluctant to slow down so you have to come down with engines idling, plug in an immediate threat and you are pretty much screwed.

I don't know about the spool behaviour of the centrifugal engines but I expect them to be much more forgiving in this sense than the early axial flow engines.

-C+

[expat]

Yes please to the Meteor 

[Die Hard]

The Meteor had weighted down ailerons due to some stability problems in wild maneuvers. The pilots complained about it being tiring to fly.
Meteor III has some 495 mph as a top speed and good ROC, SL speed is also good.
The maneuver I saw was in a formation flight with Vampires. That was at Farnborough many years back.
The Meteor did a low-level loop at quite little speed. So, I dropped a jaw
BTW, the engine sound is quite bizarre, - very much different from other jet engines.
In AH, it would be a perk plane IMHO, somewhere in between the Tempest and the 262.
And (not meaning to steal the thread) as targets, the V-1 would be nice

Cool that you've seen the Meteor in real life, I've never had the opportunity to see either of those early jets up close and personal. Earlies jet I've "met" is the DH Vampire. If you look at this clip of a 262 over Berlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFeDxZlrGM

It doesn't do any loops, but makes a few fairly tight turns. How does it compare to the Meteor you saw?

[Enker]

If we had the Meteor, Squid would be strolling on land.

[Angus]

Cool that you've seen the Meteor in real life, I've never had the opportunity to see either of those early jets up close and personal. Earlies jet I've "met" is the DH Vampire. If you look at this clip of a 262 over Berlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFeDxZlrGM


It doesn't do any loops, but makes a few fairly tight turns. How does it compare to the Meteor you saw?

Nice video of the 262!
Now on airshows, both would be doing much better than in RL WW2, since they would be much lighter.
The Meteow was in a Vic with two Vampires if I recall right, and they broke left & right high while the Meteor did this slow loop. They were very low and not so fast, so that's what dropped my jaw, - knowing he couldn't rev up that fast, I was sure he would stall.
From WW2 the 262 could not turn with any of the Allied prop fighters AFAIK, but that is from anecdotes. I did speak with a pilot who had an engagement with a 262 once, it tried to get a bead on a p51 which turned, 262 followed and was immediately outturned by the 51 and shot down.
Could have been a 65 sqn P51C, but not sure.
Anyway, you don't go turnfighting in a 262 in AH, so in our MA, a Meteor could be a scary plane 

[Furball]

Found this article which is pretty cool:-

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft
 
By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R.

This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.

[Anaxogoras]

Can't resist:

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a62ce201f2faf028473747cce6fd8415