Low alt performance of Big Planes in AH

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Fishu, if we are still talking about 5k, the P-47D-30 should accelerate a little better than a Typhoon in level flight at low speeds.  It's got a better power:weight ratio as evidenced by the climb rates at 5k on the HTC charts.  

At high speeds (above 250 mph or so) I would expect the Typhoon to accelerate better though.  Typhoon AFAIK is the fastest accelerating plane above 250 mph and below 7,000 feet.  P-51 and G-10 are pretty fast in that regime too.

I already did a lot of Typhoon acceleration tests, so I'll do a P-47D-30 test to compare.  

Begining of acceleration is slow in Typhoon, but that thing flies very fast at low..
Outruns Bf109G10 on the deck  
But that plane sure does lose its speed VERY easy compared to other planes..
I had a *long* run with BF109G10 chasing my Typhoon as I were looking for tanks and told him not to, but he still kept chasing...
There I noticed how easily Typhoon looses speed in small turns, because I had before that flown P47 many times and felt Typhoon like fast rocket that you don't really wan't to turn after you set its course..
Where P47 did not loose speed as easy and did also maneuver far better. (not to talk about that E retention in any case..)

Typhoon is not as maneuverable in real life either as P-47, but I don't think that P-47 either is any stunt machine..
Do I have to mention those several times when I kept zooming multiple targets alone in P-47 with droptank in it? it hold E *pretty* well...

I have seen this happen in Yak also, when P-47 with lower E pulls up after me after I have dive & pull up.. and keep E better than P-51 which had faster speed before pull.
(not to mention that P-47 hitting me from 1.3k away two seconds before we both stalled  )
(and yes.. .50 caliber in AH can hit up to 1.5k in any plane)

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Badboy:
I'm not sure offhand what US aircraft had powered ailerons during WWII, I think the P-38 did, even though its roll rate was not particularly impressive. I'll have to check. But it is easy to see a strong correlation between the W.W.II aircraft that had light ailerons at high speeds and those that were most successful.

P-38 L model had hydraulical ailerons at least..
I don't think that J or any previous one had.

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Badboy:
As an afterthought, one of the most impressive applications of that principle occurred during the Korean conflict when the F86, with its hydraulically powered ailerons, was able to use that advantage to defeat the superior turn rate of the MiG15. It turns out that the main proponent of the theory, (Colonel Boyd USAF) was instrumental in having the F86's ailerons so equipped. I feel confident that it was the roll rate advantage (without wishing to play down the skill and courage of the pilots involved) that was largely responsible for the high kill ratio achieved during that conflict. I'm not sure offhand what US aircraft had powered ailerons during WWII, I think the P-38 did, even though its roll rate was not particularly impressive. I'll have to check. But it is easy to see a strong correlation between the W.W.II aircraft that had light ailerons at high speeds and those that were most successful.

Badboy

Col. Boyd was quite a man...

BadBoy, ever read anything about the problem
with the F-86F's aileron's locking up during a roll at low altitude?

Boyd, Ascani, and Yeager happened upon it when  Emmet Hatch augered one time...took 'em forever but they went to one of the assembly lines that installed them. Turns out a guy was putting a bolt in backwards.  

I would guess the reason the P-38 got boosted ailerons due to the difficulty of turning the yoke at high speeds

- Jig

[funked]

Badboy, P-38L had powered ailerons.  Roll rate was exceptional at high speeds because full aileron deflection could be achieved.

The Corsair used balance tabs on the ailerons, giving a similar effect.

Late model Hellcats had balance tabs as well, but they don't appear to have been as effective.

[ispar]

Hmmm. That assertion wasn't based on hard factual data, so... I stand corrected  . Interesting discussion chaps, glad it's cooled down a bit.

------------------
"If I told you that there were a squadron of fighters waiting to pounce the moment you fired at me, would you believe me?"

"No."

"Er... how about just one then?"