D9 should turn better in AH (new arguments)

[flakbait]

No problem DOA, but you goofed on your geek-ese. It's not the square of the G force you're pulling, it's the square root of the G force. If you went with square you'd come up with 990 mph (110 * 9 [9 being the square of 3]). And if you want to get technical (   ) the number you get from the square root is 1.732050808. So your technical stall speed at 3 G's would be 190.5255888 mph.

I'm in a geek mood today.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[gripen]

Naudet,
Well, first it should be pointed out that all WWII fighters could be handled only inside flight envelope. This means that we can't use stall boundary for maneuvering like current jets (this is where EMC is handy). And as you can see from my example, I used 3G and 5G values to simulate max sustained rate turns with two different power values at same weight and drag (same flight envelope for both). For example we can say that the Spitfire I can do 3G sustained turn with 1000hp and 5G with 2000hp. And as you can see, those values are on line with EMC theory (the plane with higher power do better). And that 4G value simulated heavier plane (different flight envelope) with high power.

gripen

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

[Spatula]

why do you want to get into a turn contest in a D9?

[Urchin]

Spatula- I don't think they want to "get into a turning contest" with the 190D9- I think it is more along the lines that they think it should turn better than it does.  They aren't saying it should turn like a Spitfire, Zeke, or N1K2, they are saying it should turn better than the 190A8 does.  Since the 190A8 is probably 1 of the 2 or 3 worst turning planes in the game, I don't think there is much to worry about.  

I don't KNOW if it should turn better, to be honest.  It is a fairly poor turner, but as far as I know the 190 was historically not know for its turning ability.  If they can prove that there is a problem, then yes, I'd fully agree with them that the problem should be fixed as soon as possible.  Until then I'm pretty happy with the way the plane performs anyway, so I have no complaints.

[Naudet]

F4UDOA,

yes i see ur point, and i agree, the D9 wont turn beyond its stall frontier (1G stall speed i know is 204 km/h or 127mph for 1G, and 164km/h or 100mph at 1G in landing config) and the D9 is modelled right in this parts. I have tested it out and in landing config 100 mph is a real minimum and in flight u wont get below 127mph.

Its not the stall speeds i complain about, its only the E-retention/substained turn rate i find to weak.
The D9 should not lose E in a turn "as if u fly it into a wall" and this is my argument about.

I know the D9 would never turn with a Spit, Niki or ZEKE but from what i read it should be quite capable of turning with a P51 a P47 a tempest and tiffie.

The situation in AH we have for a D9 pilot is that everyplane will get seperation in a 180 degree turn from a D9, but in the books i read the D9 pilots did no high-yo-yo or other ACM to follow such a break, they simply flew too a flat turn.
And this is due to the good e-retention the D9 had. It could not match the circle of a Spit turn but it was not far of in the speed of turn. And this is my argument all about.

Btw does anyone know the stall speed (1G) of a P51, i read that the P51 wasnt able to fly at such low speeds like the FW190 due to the laminar wing foil (or how u call) wing construction.

[funkedup]

Remember that induced drag increases with the square of lift.  If you make the plane heavier, it needs more lift for a turn at a given g level, which means higher angle of attack and a lot more drag.

Wells has done a lot of number crunching on this subject (and posted it on this forum), and I'm sure HTC have done the calculations too.  For the Fw 190, high wingloading + low aspect ratio = high induced drag = lots of decceleration in high g turns.

I'm sure the Jumo helped the Dora as compared to the Fw 190A-8, but I'm not sure if the power increase is enough to offset the weight gain from the lighter models A-1 through A-5.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[minus]

funked the big  wing s are not the best thing for high speeds and especialy at high speed turns

[F4UDOA]

Naudet,

The stalls for the P-51D power off from the pilots handbook.

Clean no flaps.
10,000lbs= 106MPH   With full flaps=101MPH
9,000MPH= 101MPH    With Flaps= 94MPH
8,000MPH= 94MPH     With Flaps= 87MPH

I have some 190 docs too but they are in German.

[funkedup]

Minus there is some truth to your statement for straight and level flight.  But even at high speeds, once you start pulling a lot of g's, induced drag can quickly become the main source of drag on the airplane.  And high aspect ratio and low wingloading will give the least induced drag.

[Glasses]

My pet monkey said the D-9 was designed while Kurt Tank was having a few cognacs and that the P51 came to the designers of North American  while tripping on South American hemp cigarrets mmm.

That's where I take their huge performance came from I believe it so because I said so .

Now I am just pulling your legs and being annoying.

After Flying the Dora in WB lemme tell you this the Dora in AH is a dream to fly, a LWobble's wet dream.

[Wotan]

you aint just whistling dixie there glasses .......... all the 190s there are bad very very very bad

[minus]

funked:-)) do no but puling lotof G in dora :-)) i pull around 4 and i call that hard pull wehn goin G5 or 6 that is the deseperate extreme and surely not at 420 tas i puling  so are 3 g pull much or not at 400 tas ?  when puling 3 g it take a eternity to turn anyway