general note: the EMC made the wing loading concept obsolete, despite the fact being quote all the time wingloading doesnt give any usefull results if comparing planes turning performances, ONLY when wing is of same contruction it is important BUT even than the power loading plays a role.
and a correction, the factors important for EMC are: engine power, total drag and mass, NOT the lift factor
here the definition of specific exess power:
Specific excess power (Ps) is the amount by which available engine power exceeds total drag, expressed in relation to the aircraft's mass. It's dependend on the exact flight condition (altitude, speed, Gs, power setting etc.), and provides an exact answer for each flight condition.
to Buzzbait:
The test i refer to doesnt mention gondolas on the 109G and so assumed that the 109 did not have it.
But taking your argument into account that the 109G without gondolas outturns a P51 (at speeds were controls dont get blocked). The D9 should be clearly capable of outturning the P51, cause in more than one source D9 pilots state that the Dora could turn tighter and faster than the 109G-Series, together with its formidable high speed handling this would give the P51 more than a match.
to hitech:
the EMC is good to give ideas of substained turn, not instantainous turn, cause the instantainous turn (if i got everything right the guy that explained the EMC to me told me) is related wingloading.
My main critics points on todays AH D9 is the e-retention, which is directly related to substained turn, it is a know fact to anyone flying this bird that u will lose more E in even a low G turn against any other fighter in AH (with exception of the FW190F8 maybe), and after everything i read about the Dora and out off discussions with people that know something about the forces involved in flight physics (like the guys that described the EMC to me), this can not be true. The D9 should have better substained turn/e-retention than it has atm.
to gripen:
yes it is right, lower wing loading means better instantainous turn
but ur not really correct about turning cirle, lower wing loading doesnt mean directly a tighter turn:
In a sustained turn, an aircraft uses all of its power just to turn. Add a more powerful engine, and the sustained turn of an aircraft will improve even at constant wing loading - the pilot can pull tighter, creating more drag, wich increased engine power will overcome.
Now if u compare A3 and D9 u have the following:
A3 lower wingloading.
D9 more power, less drag
so the instantainous turn of A3 is better, but the substained turn of D9 is better and it might also be that (if the power increase is high enough) the pilot can pull more Gs, turn tighter and faster
this fact is also proven for the D9 over the A-Series from a GE pilot on the eastern front:
"...i could the FW 190 D9 into a turn tight and still retain my speed advantage. In the FW 190 A i had flown preciously, during dogfights i had often to reduce to minimum flying speed in the turn."
This guys fought Yak-3 and Yak-9. He could fly the same turning circle as in FW 190A at a higher speed.
Btw could anyone of you imagine to reduce flying speed in FW190A to minimum in a dogfight with a YAK?? No way to get out in one piece.
P.S. my arguments are very important for the altitude below 25K, above this alt the power even of the JUMO213 decreased steadily and the small wing span of the FW190 made it an unpleasant plane to fly above 30K this is why the TA152 had the increase wing span. But below 25K the D9 was and should be a very good fighter craft.
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
