N1K faster than G2?

[jato757]

   

Originally posted by Zigrat:


Any way you cut it, teh me109 was a poor design by 1944 standards. For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.

Or se the he-100 which the stupid germans never produced    

your right about the poor disign for 1944 standards because it was made in the mid '30s


and u should take a look at something, a picture of the he-100 and the ki-61, u will find that they look almost the same     so i think it was produced but not directy by the germans, yea thats stupid. in my opinion the 109 is a very clean plane in design

------------------
 


[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-25-2001).]

[Regurge]

Yeah and the FW190 is just a copied zero.

[Tac]

Funked, my self esteem fell so low a few nights ago I actually stopped caring and took up a n1k.

Not only did "it" catch up with VULCAN's tiffie, it also stayed on its 6 for a damn good while, even when vulcan extended. Only my incredibly crappy aim in those guns was the reason why vulcan dinnae die during that time. I was jumped by a high 109, and even then "it" kept turning pulling stick fully (thing I NEVER do in any other plane) and almost killing that 109 as it zoomed up on the 3 passes it did on me.

Vulcan got me on one of those zooms, I had forgotten about him.

All this at around 5k and below in a small furball.
 
Something is very fishy with "it". Try flying "it" without using ANY acm tricks, just point and click, maybe use a bit of rudder and deflection , no more. You will see the magic.

[DB603]

S!


 Very interesting discussion about 109.I have done a walk around of an actual 109G-6 and did not see any roughs seams etc.Actually the surface was smooth and seams not wide canyons.
 About the slats.They opened independently from eachother and could cause these rolls.But in general they helped to fight in high AoA since the airflow was still there over control surfaces.Also FAF pilots could tell they were quite near the edge when the slats opened and snapped the stick a bit.HT..pls model them or are they already?




------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34

[illo]

   

For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.

Yakolevs until late Yak-3 desingns had rough construction resulting very much extra drag. MB overall lines were clean looking but but rough construction reduced maximum speed quite drastically. NII VVS test planes (which still had much worse high speed performance than AHs Yak-9u) were much better performing than yaks used in combat. Even yak-3 which had improved aerodynamics from yak-9 series suffered from various problems at high speeds. I've heard pilot reports about yak-3 canopies being ripped off by airflow near speeds of 700kmh. Highspeed performance and handling of yak-9 is poor joke in AH (960kmh in dive, and speeds over 700kmh without controls completely locking up). I think i will post some NII VVS or other test documents soon.


as a sidenote, Yaks were designed as cheap and fast to produce.That was ofcourse at cost of production quality and some performance. But for overall effort it was considered better way, which i think we must agree.



[This message has been edited by illo (edited 04-26-2001).]

[Lephturn]

I didn't say "size is irrelevant".  I said that in the case of the windscreen problem on the 109, the windscreen's size was "largely irrelevant".  I mean that in terms of the resulting problem of boundary layer separation and the resulting drag the size difference in the windscreen between the 109 and other aircraft is largely irrelevant to that specific problem, it's not a blanket statement.

My point was that you are taking a much too simplistic view of aerodynamics, namely not considering boundry layer separation in the case of the 109's windscreen problem.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[hazed-]

speaking of US designs....
Lets not forget US's great sabre f86, as based on kurt tank designs.the flying wing in the 50's that eventuallly led to the new B2 was based on german designs.Much of Americas rocketry know how came from captured german scientists.The cruise missile is based on the same principles as the V2.Submarine launched intercontinental missiles were conceaved by the germans in WW2.
dowding:
Look we all know the nazis were scum.
However there were good germans too.Those that designed the machines were not necessarily nazis and many were just the oppersite.
lufftaffe irreparable chip on the old shoulder? are you mad   ? I merely want truth not propaganda.It seems to me noone can speak about LW and get a fair hearing.
I may joke with the german voice etc but thats just what it is...jokes.
I dont have the SS uniform     or a chip on my shoulder so please stop turning everything into... what do they call them? 'luftwhines'?
I want to enjoy AH and being branded 'lufftwobble whiner/loon' etc everytime i question anything is annoying because its infantile and boring.


------------------
Hazed
3./JG2

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 04-26-2001).]

[juzz]

1. F-86 was not based on K.T. designs - the swept wing data came from German wind tunnel testing.

2. B-2 copied German designs? No, no - Jack Northrop was designing and building flying wings back in the 40's, eg: B-35 design work started in 1942.
   

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 04-26-2001).]

[F4UDOA]

Here is a flying wing design before any German flying wing data was even available. If not for the end of hostilities it may have actually seen combat.

The flying pancake, The Vought F5U

   

and even earlier in 1942 the Vought V-173

 

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 04-26-2001).]

[funked]

We already had some discussion of this fantasy that B-2 was based on German designs:  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/001081.html

This kind of revisionist BS is good for TV ratings and for selling books with lots of colorful drawings.  But sadly a lot of people believe it.  

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-26-2001).]

[juzz]

Anyone else wondering how we got here? This used to be a niki-whine thread...

[funked]

Niki sux!  It's an F-22!

There.  

[wells]

 

I'd be interested to see the drag numbers on a 109 versus a P-47

Best I can figure is 109G6, with 173 sq ft wing, 1475 hp, doing 322 mph on the deck.  Cd = 0.0293

P-47, with 300 sq ft wing, 2000 hp, doing 330 mph on the deck, Cd = 0.0212

[Zigrat]

g6 does 337 on the deck

so the cd,0 is not as bad as you posted

i calculate .0245 for 109 g6 no gondolas

[wells]

Zig,

I wasn't using AH performance in my calculation.  I used this chart on Niklas' site, showing the G6 max speed to be only 520 km/h.
 http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109g_k_charts2.html

Niklas,

Are those charts for carrying gondolas?  The weight is given as 3350 kg.