Author Topic: are the "vorfluegel" modelled in 109 FM?  (Read 928 times)

Offline SnakeEyes

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
are the "vorfluegel" modelled in 109 FM?
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2000, 08:36:00 PM »
Hehe... Kurt Tank also reported that he didn't experience any of the effects of compressability during this dive, Wells (the quote translates to "no flutter").

Can you say.... **cough** **roadkill!** **cough**  

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

funked

  • Guest
are the "vorfluegel" modelled in 109 FM?
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2000, 10:54:00 PM »
I think Tank was in the Bob Hoover category as a test pilot.  "No flutter" for him would result in rectal seat cushion ingestion for a normal pilot.  They don't make engineers like they used to.    

Or maybe he had a logbook notation saying "no flutter" but he neglected to write down that there was "scary vibration" and that he voided his bowels.  

Also I misquoted in the previous post.  It was 700 km/h indicated at 6000 m.  I get Ma = 0.8375

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-28-2000).]

Offline SnakeEyes

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
are the "vorfluegel" modelled in 109 FM?
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2000, 11:12:00 PM »
Plus, as wells has posted in the AGW group, apparently flutter is not the same thing as mach buffet... that's why I usually leave this stuff to the experts.  

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

funked

  • Guest
are the "vorfluegel" modelled in 109 FM?
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2000, 07:49:00 PM »
Keep in mind this wasn't some sort of special high-Mach test flight.  He was just conducting a "quality control" flight as he did when each new variant reached production.