Updated ENY values for Planes

[Wagger]

Information in reference to maneuvering at speed.

AU/AWC/RWP067/96-04
AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY
THE P-51 MUSTANG AS AN ESCORT FIGHTER
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND DROP TANKS TO AN
INDEPENDENT AIR FORCE
by
Karen Daneu Lt Col, USAF
A Research Report Submitted To the Faculty In Fulfillment of the Curriculum Requirement
Advisor: Dr. James A. Mowbray
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 1 April 1996


The most radical design feature was the advent of the laminar flow wing. The laminar flow theory had been known and studied by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Mr. A.C. Robinson of NACA provided NAA with the unpublished research data and design studies. The NACA officials had estimated the new airfoil would reduce drag 50 percent below that of a normal conventional wing.8
Laminar flow results from a symmetrical airfoil that has the same curvature on the upper and lower surfaces. The thin leading edge widens to a point of greatest thickness at the farthest aft point before air breaks down and providing less lift in the high-drag turbulent area.9 In simple terms, the pressure producing lift is spread out more.10 Figure 1 compares a cross section of the P-51 wing to that of the Spitfire and FW 190, illustrating the laminar flow concept.11
6
This design allowed for reduced peak airflow velocities over the wing, thus postponing and minimizing “compressibility” effects on the airplane (drag rise, lift loss, nose down “tuck,” buffeting and loss of elevator effectiveness for dive recovery) which hampered other fighters of the day when approaching mach numbers greater than 0.7. The new airfoil provided an advantage in high-speed combat maneuvers.12

[Shuffler]

lmao  where did ya pick that up at? Now everyone will want a spinning globe in their sig.

I made it awhile back.

[thorsim]

well *clean* is clearly stated in the data i posted and they are obviously referring to the load state.  did you look at the data because your argument about lift loading also favors all the FWs so i don't understand what you are trying to say there.  

i am not positive about the ponys weight as i have found 2000lbs of variance in the stated loaded weights between the different published sources that i have looked at so far ...

however in the flight magazine article about the FW-a3 brown tested they state the wing loading as 42.3 lbs per square foot and it still retains a power loading and lift loading advantage over the pony ...

point being one of the FWs should clearly turn better than the p51s depending on what HTC deems most important in their physics model.  

i got the data from another BBS site where people are pretty strict about these things so i am not sure what you mean about the source being biased, you yourself admitted to fudging with your fuel loading in order to produce the weights you wanted, because they didn't they are bias?  i told you we could use the empty weight if you wanted.

when we compare both empty, then the pony is still over a 1/4 ton heavier than the heaviest FW fighter, since power is the same, lift and power loading are even more in the FWs favor.

right?

as far as the flaps go, other games both newer and older are moving away from the POH as a satisfactory source that accurately represents the aircrafts capability in that regard.  just as HTC decided not used the POH as too subjective to use in other areas of decision making about FMs.

just curious, when you complain about the ponies turn rate do you consider the combat flap turn rate or not?  

+S+

t

"Clean" and "Dirty" are common colloquial references to no flaps/flaps conditions, and that is how I used it.

The figures you quoted were either simply designed to mislead or the person posting them didn't bother to notice that for a P-51D to have a wing loading of 48 lbs/foot it would have to weigh in at over 11,100 lbs...indicating full fuel *and* drop tanks. And it is clear from the differences in stall speed that the P-51 has the better lift-loading, not just lighter wing-loading by crude lbs/feet estimates.

The only problems I've heard about the Fws being heavy in AHII were regarding the 190 A-8, the claim there IIRC being that it has the weight of an up-armored version but in the opinion of those making the claim it lacks the toughness one would expect from an up-armored version.

I can't rattle the mathematical formulas off the top of my head, but I've read enough from Shaw and others to learn that the plane with the better lift loading will have the better instantaneous turn rate and radius, and almost always the smaller sustained turn radius. It is possible for a plane with a better power loading to have an equal or superior turn rate despite heavier loading, as the D9 apparently does in AHII. There is a limit however, especially with prop planes. Thus the 109 K-4 does not beat the A6M in sustained turn rate, despite a vastly superior power loading.

So the physics of the P-51 turning slightly better than both the A and D makes perfect sense, and is borne out by WWII testing and combat reports, where the P-51D was found to be slightly more nimble. Thus there is nothing to complain about in the relative performance of P-51 and 190, although one might *might* be justifiable in wondering why the turn so poorly for their wingloading in relation to most other craft in AHII.

[thorsim]

i am not sure about the ponies wing, i have read that the construction process did not result in a wing that could achieve the kind of flow that the designers were hoping for. 
i mean that there is some doubt that the wing actually achieved "Laminar Flow", so i have never been clear about what the wing actually achieved for the pony. can anyone clear this up?  not being difficult here but this is one of those historic "he said she said" things that is difficult to sort through as the sources seem to disagree. 
   

Information in reference to maneuvering at speed.

AU/AWC/RWP067/96-04
AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY
THE P-51 MUSTANG AS AN ESCORT FIGHTER
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND DROP TANKS TO AN
INDEPENDENT AIR FORCE
by
Karen Daneu Lt Col, USAF
A Research Report Submitted To the Faculty In Fulfillment of the Curriculum Requirement
Advisor: Dr. James A. Mowbray
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 1 April 1996


The most radical design feature was the advent of the laminar flow wing. The laminar flow theory had been known and studied by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Mr. A.C. Robinson of NACA provided NAA with the unpublished research data and design studies. The NACA officials had estimated the new airfoil would reduce drag 50 percent below that of a normal conventional wing.8
Laminar flow results from a symmetrical airfoil that has the same curvature on the upper and lower surfaces. The thin leading edge widens to a point of greatest thickness at the farthest aft point before air breaks down and providing less lift in the high-drag turbulent area.9 In simple terms, the pressure producing lift is spread out more.10 Figure 1 compares a cross section of the P-51 wing to that of the Spitfire and FW 190, illustrating the laminar flow concept.11
6
This design allowed for reduced peak airflow velocities over the wing, thus postponing and minimizing “compressibility” effects on the airplane (drag rise, lift loss, nose down “tuck,” buffeting and loss of elevator effectiveness for dive recovery) which hampered other fighters of the day when approaching mach numbers greater than 0.7. The new airfoil provided an advantage in high-speed combat maneuvers.12

[thorsim]

Why do so many people hinge the ability of a fighter on its turn radius?

i don't think we do we are addressing some complaints and right now we are looking at the reasoning behind those complaints, sort of

i do pretty well in my a8 and that can not be done with flat turns the way it is in the game.

+S+

t

[Wagger]

To produce the top aerodynamic efficiency from the laminar flow, an absolutely smooth surface was required. The engineers planned to paint and fill the wing surface to provide the necessary unvarying surface. The surface of the wing surface had to have an exceptionally smooth finish with less than .0005 of an inch surface roughness tolerated, and a maximum wave allowance was .0001 of an inch in any two inches of surface.13 Countersunk rivets, Dzus fasteners, secured panels while still providing a smooth surface.14
Figure 1. Wing Cross Sections15
7
During acceptance trials in Britain the aircraft was sprayed with a high-speed glossy paint finish to determine the actual effect of the finish when compared with a “standard” paint scheme. The lack of any discernible difference between the resulting flight performance using the two aircraft finishes surprised the engineers. It was concluded that the actual design and construction, especially the external smoothness could not be improved upon, and the design was especially aerodynamically “clean.”16


Arms and Armour Press, 1989), 31. 14 Robert W. Gruenhagen, Mustang: The Story of the P-51 Fighter, (New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1976), 43. 15 Alfred Price, Fighter Aircraft, Combat Development in World War Two, (London:
Arms and Armour Press, 1989), 31. 16 Ibid., 57.

[thorsim]

oh ok thanks wagger.  the british were happy, did the engineers ever conclude that the flow was what they were hoping for or not?

i am not clear whether the wing gave them the results they wanted in the unpainted state,

or whether it did not give them those results even when painted ...

did they ever state their conclusions?

+S+

t

[Ack-Ack]

Why do so many people hinge the ability of a fighter on its turn radius?

Because we all know that the only way to fight is lufberry turns!


ack-ack

[BnZs]

Thorsim, give it up. There is no way the Fw-190 has lighter wingloading unless you enormously fudge the fuel load in the 190s favor. Comparing internal fuel loading for similar range is not fudging...comparing a Pony that has burned off most of the aux tank and jettisoned the drops in preparation to fight a 190 that just burned a quarter of its tank getting to the fight is about as accurate a real-word situational setup as you are going to get. Comparing a 190 with full internal against a P-51D in a state it was never meant to fight in and almost never *did* fight in-full aux tank and two drops-IS fudging beyond allowable bounds.

Oddly, I've heard the Co-E of lift for the P-51 quoted at everything from 1.2-1.5. But incontravertably, the 1G stall speed is proportional to the relationship between available lift and the plane's weight. There can be no question the Pony, stalling at a lower speed, has a better lift loading.

So again, from a physics standpoint, there is no reason to suspect the 190 of being a superior turner to the Pony, and there is no sign in the historical record that there was true. Meanwhile, there are huge numbers of reports of P-51s turning well with 109s, which IS odd.

BTW, I have more sorties in the 190 family than I have any other plane type. I am not against the plane. I probably have more sorties in it that you have sorties period. If you want to question something, question the s.l speed of the 190 A-5, not the relative turn performance of the P-51D and 190.

point being one of the FWs should clearly turn better than the p51s depending on what HTC deems most important in their physics model.  

There is no "deeming one factor" most important. I assure you that Hitech CAN rattle the mathematical formula for turn radius and turn rate off the top of his head, and that is what is used to define plane performance.

[thorsim]

you post no sources except what is represented in the game, which refuses to show its sources ...

why don't you give up i have no doubt you can make the game represent what you want and you still refuse to address the planes with no gas or with equal fuel loads, you sir are the one fudging things not the historians.

you focus on wing loading when it works for you, then dismiss it when it works against you.  

at least one of the 190s must clearly out turn the p51 that is just how the math puts things, you can protest all you want but the numbers are the numbers.  

nice avoiding the flaps btw, like they don't make all the difference.  

Thorsim, give it up. There is no way the Fw-190 has lighter wingloading unless you enormously fudge the fuel load in the 190s favor. Comparing internal fuel loading for similar range is not fudging...comparing a Pony that has burned off most of the aux tank and jettisoned the drops in preparation to fight a 190 that just burned a quarter of its tank getting to the fight is about as accurate a real-word situational setup as you are going to get. Comparing a 190 with full internal against a P-51D in a state it was never meant to fight in and almost never *did* fight in-full aux tank and two drops-IS fudging beyond allowable bounds.

Oddly, I've heard the Co-E of lift for the P-51 quoted at everything from 1.2-1.5. But incontravertably, the 1G stall speed is proportional to the relationship between available lift and the plane's weight. There can be no question the Pony, stalling at a lower speed, has a better lift loading.

So again, from a physics standpoint, there is no reason to suspect the 190 of being a superior turner to the Pony, and there is no sign in the historical record that there was true. Meanwhile, there are huge numbers of reports of P-51s turning well with 109s, which IS odd.

BTW, I have more sorties in the 190 family than I have any other plane type. I am not against the plane. I probably have more sorties in it that you have sorties period. If you want to question something, question the s.l speed of the 190 A-5, not the relative turn performance of the P-51D and 190.




There is no "deeming one factor" most important. I assure you that Hitech CAN rattle the mathematical formula for turn radius and turn rate off the top of his head, and that is what is used to define plane performance.

[Wagger]

Thor the point I am trying to get across is based on the answer of BnZs Inf reference to Maneuverability at high speeds.  It did not have the compressibility, problems of most designs during the time period and that helped it in high speed maneuvers.
 

[thorsim]

Thor the point I am trying to get across is based on the answer of BnZs Inf reference to Maneuverability at high speeds.  It did not have the compressibility, problems of most designs during the time period and that helped it in high speed maneuvers.
 

ahh right wagger i think you made that point well, others did also. 

i was curious as to just what the engineers were surprised about achieving the desired effect with a "dirty" wing?,
or surprised by not achieving the effect they wanted at all clean wing or dirty?

+S+

t

[BnZs]

you post no sources except what is represented in the game, which refuses to show its sources ...

AHII accurately represents the weights at combat conditions. HTC is punctillous about these things. I use the game because it is an easy way to compare known loadouts, instead of guessing if X quoted loadout from other sources represents guns, ammo, full aux tanks, drops, etc.

why don't you give up i have no doubt you can make the game represent what you want and you still refuse to address the planes with no gas or with equal fuel loads, you sir are the one fudging things not the historians.

A P-51D with full internal and two drops does not represent equal fuel loads stacked up against a 190 with full internal. The P-51D is carrying vastly more fuel under that arrangement. It represents a configuration in which the P-51D obviously did not generally fight, since the aux tank was burned first or  left empty on shorter range missions, and the drop tanks would be discarded.

you focus on wing loading when it works for you, then dismiss it when it works against you.

The 190's wing-loading is clearly higher than the P-51's unless you are loading the P-51 in a manner which does reflect weights at which they were actually fought. However, it is possible that if the Clmax of the 190 were enough higher than the P-51, it might cancel out the difference in basic wing-loading. So how can we most easily compare the ratio of total lift to weight for both planes? Stall speeds, they are proportional to the relationship between weight and lift available. The plane which stalls at 127mph IAS simply does not have as much lift available in relationship to its weight as one that stalls at 100mph IAS.

at least one of the 190s must clearly out turn the p51 that is just how the math puts things, you can protest all you want but the numbers are the numbers.

You have demonstrated nothing mathematically except that you can give the P-51D roughly the same wingloading as a 190D with full internal IF you weight the P-51D down with loading that it was not fought at, enough internal and external to fly for five times as long the 190 can on full fuel. The relative stall speeds of the P-51 an 190 incontravertably demonstrates that you are wrong about lift loading.
 

nice avoiding the flaps btw, like they don't make all the difference.  

The P-51, like other USAAF planes, has flaps that were explicitly designed to aid in maneuvering and specifically rated for high airspeeds to do just that. The 190 does not. Get over it.

[thorsim]

yea well until you post your data and it's source there is no point in discussing reality with you and your video game speculation ...

i am sorry you are dissatisfied with HTCs treatment of the p51 ...  

as far as the designers of the 190 and its flaps go, why do you suppose they had a "flight" deployment setting if the designers only intended them to be used for landing?

you do realize the designers did not write/publish the POHs don't you?

that is my problem with them being represented as the ultimate authority in such cases.

for example according to the POH the p51 could not be expected to do a snap roll without departing,
but you knew that right?

+S+

t

AHII accurately represents the weights at combat conditions. HTC is punctillous about these things. I use the game because it is an easy way to compare known loadouts, instead of guessing if X quoted loadout from other sources represents guns, ammo, full aux tanks, drops, etc.
A P-51D with full internal and two drops does not represent equal fuel loads stacked up against a 190 with full internal. The P-51D is carrying vastly more fuel under that arrangement. It represents a configuration in which the P-51D obviously did not generally fight, since the aux tank was burned first or  left empty on shorter range missions, and the drop tanks would be discarded.
The 190's wing-loading is clearly higher than the P-51's unless you are loading the P-51 in a manner which does reflect weights at which they were actually fought. However, it is possible that if the Clmax of the 190 were enough higher than the P-51, it might cancel out the difference in basic wing-loading. So how can we most easily compare the ratio of total lift to weight for both planes? Stall speeds, they are proportional to the relationship between weight and lift available. The plane which stalls at 127mph IAS simply does not have as much lift available in relationship to its weight as one that stalls at 100mph IAS.

You have demonstrated nothing mathematically except that you can give the P-51D roughly the same wingloading as a 190D with full internal IF you weight the P-51D down with loading that it was not fought at, enough internal and external to fly for five times as long the 190 can on full fuel. The relative stall speeds of the P-51 an 190 incontravertably demonstrates that you are wrong about lift loading.
 
The P-51, like other USAAF planes, has flaps that were explicitly designed to aid in maneuvering and specifically rated for high airspeeds to do just that. The 190 does not. Get over it.

[Saurdaukar]

Because we all know that the only way to fight is lufberry turns!


ack-ack

Its an improvement over the HO-and-run routine.

Ill take it!