Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[BnZs]

i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples.  you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.  

They are perfectly pertinent. The F-104 is half the weight of the F-15 but has nearly double the wing-loading and not near as much thrust...so naturally  it is far less maneuverable. The only thing "wrong" with using this as an example is that it blows your idiocy out of the water.

If you want a WWII example, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat are both significantly larger the Fw-190A and yet could turn much better (per actual side-by-side tests) because of a decidedly lower wing-loading.

[Sol75]

can i assume this advantage in the process of maneuvering would show up every time one executed a maneuver? so in a maneuver contest that was continuous series of one maneuver after another, could i conclude that this advantage should have some real effect on the outcome of the contest?

Not really.  The difference would be quite small, unless the weight differential was dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, 10s of thousands of pounds.  Again, we are only speaking of intertia, which in the aircraft we are speaking of (ww2) the differences are quite small.  Now, if you wanted to compare... say..a fully loaded P-51D, and a (theroetical) fully loaded modern combat aircraft, (likely a MUCH heavier airframe) with the same wing loading and T/W ratio etc, (this is a stretch I know) Then the modern aircraft, being 4-5 times heavier MIGHT have a bit of a disadvantage.

Thor, I think your use of terms is messing up your opinion.  What I am referring to (the inertia) might be best described as how "nimble" an aircraft is, not "maneuverability", and has little to no impact on air combat, as I said, unless the differences are HUGE.

Sol

[Sol75]

however adding a fuel tank with 2000lbs more fuel likely will make it less maneuverable.

This would increase the wing loading, and the thrust:weight ratio, and yes, would decrease "maneuverability".

If you increased the wing and engine power to compensate for the additional weight, the extra weight would have no impact.

[BnZs]

Check your thinking here Sol...

All aircraft fight with inertia every time they turn. The force that fights inertia and forces a change of direction in a turn is lift.

An aircraft that weighs twice flying at the same speed will have twice as much inertia. But if it has twice as much lift available, then that again results in a null difference.

And the same principle applies to other aspects of maneuver like roll rate. A roll is induced by the lift the ailerons bring to bear against aerodynamic and inertia forces that will resist the roll. So once again, it is a ratio.

Thus it is possible for a larger and heavier craft to be more "nimble" in every area of maneuver.

The first limit (besides cost and common sense) you would run into building a enormous-scale aerobatic airplane would be the strength of the pilot to deflect control surfaces on extremely large aircraft, assuming un-powered control surfaces. However, on the scale of WWII fighter aircraft, from smallest to largest, this apparently never became a factor, because the largest single engine fighter of the war, the P-47, enjoyed a brisk roll rate and relatively light controls at high airspeeds, better than that of some contemporaries that were literally half its size, like the 109s.

Not really.  The difference would be quite small, unless the weight differential was dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, 10s of thousands of pounds.  Again, we are only speaking of intertia, which in the aircraft we are speaking of (ww2) the differences are quite small.  Now, if you wanted to compare... say..a fully loaded P-51D, and a (theroetical) fully loaded modern combat aircraft, (likely a MUCH heavier airframe) with the same wing loading and T/W ratio etc, (this is a stretch I know) Then the modern aircraft, being 4-5 times heavier MIGHT have a bit of a disadvantage.

Thor, I think your use of terms is messing up your opinion.  What I am referring to (the inertia) might be best described as how "nimble" an aircraft is, not "maneuverability", and has little to no impact on air combat, as I said, unless the differences are HUGE.

Sol

[thorsim]

sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...

given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent?  

why?  

[Sol75]

Actually BnZ, I think we are in agreement lol.  I am strictly speaking of the MOMENT of the directional change, IE the instant the ctrl surface is deflected.  The heavier aircraft will take a split second longer to react, as I said above, not really enough to even be noticed by the pilot, but there, nontheless.

As for the oversizing thing, notice I said discarding ALL other factors, I am quite aware that you could not just "upsize" an aircraft and expect the same performance ability.

In case my posts were not clear, I am opposing thorsom's theories, not supporting them, and I am also on massive doses of percocet for my giant kidney stone, so I may not be translating what I am thinking into written word as well as I may think i am LOL

Sol

[Sol75]

sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...

given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent? 

why? 

In the Red Bull air races, most pilots are flying 1 of 2 aircraft, (though modified) the Edge 540, or the Extra-300, with the Edge being dominant by a large margin.

When they reduce the weight of thier aircraft, they are NOT reducing the wing area by an equal amount, thus the WING LOADING goes down by the amount of the weight removed.  Thus, YES "maneuverability" is improved.

If they chopped a chunk of wing off proportional to the weight removed, thier maneuverability would remain the same (aside fromt he slight increase in T/W ratio)

Sol

as to which aircraft i would prefer in an air race? Probably the 109, for the simple reason it's thrust to weight ratio is better, thus its acceleration out of maneuver would be better.

[thorsim]

once again i never discounted in any of these discussions other factors roll rate stick forces etc. ...

i just think size and weight tell in maneuverability ...

i need to leave right now, see you guys for the FSO ...

sol i hope your discomfort ends as quickly and painlessly as possible ...

++S++

t

[BnZs]

sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...

given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent?  

why?  

One thing you apparently fail to understand is that when the weight of an airframe is changed, the airframe itself usually is not. 109s and Spitfires did *not* receive increased wing areas when larger and heavier engines were installed, so their maneuverability fell. It would have been self-defeating to do so, since the primary quest was for speed, i.e, an increase in thrust/drag. Installing a larger engine AND more wing would have tended to nullify this effect...you'd end up with an aircraft that performed the same but burned more gas, what would be the point? These fighter aircraft were usually designed around a given engine, not the other way around. When you already know you are going to be using a given engine, there is nothing you can do to increase performance *except* attach as little airplane as the mission requires to it. And a 1,500 horsepower engine is a little less costly to build, maintain, and feed than a 2,500 hp one, all other factors being equal.

By the same token, if a guy is looking to improve the performance of his competition aerobatic plane, weight shaving is alot more practical than new wings and/or bigger powerplants.

Oh, and sense you ask the question...neither a scaled down 109 or F4U would be ideal (And you would WANT them both to be scaled down, because of issues of fitting through the gates or not scraping the water with a wingtip in extremely low-alt knife-edge flight) because in both cases their wingloadings would be too high and their power/weight and top speeds excessive to the requirements, compared to the aerobatic planes this competition was actually designed to use. But if I had to choose one, I would choose the F4U because of superior aileron design making it more competitive in the all important roll rate department. Just from watching the races, I don't think the 109's advantage in climb or sustained turn rate stemming from its superior power-loading would play much of a factor. As I say, both airplanes have way too much speed and power and not enough turning ability for this event.

[Sol75]

100% agreed BnZ, no way would a scaled down 109/hog be good for the redbull air races.  As for the roll rate on the hog vs 109, I didn;t think of that, sicne I dont fly 109's in the game, but that is quite true, roll rate is VITAL in a red bull style air race, and likely would be more important than the acceleration of the 109.

Sol

[WMLute]

How come I just KNEW Thorism would read sol's post and think he was agreeing with him?

(sigh)

Just got off the phone w/ Sol and he is gonna edit his posts.  (or just add a new one)

Bear in mind the guy is drugged to the gils so his communication skills are a bit addled.

He was trying to describe a "feeling" when flying a larger plane and changing vectors and how inertia would affect it.  I.E. how a P38 is slower to react than say a zeke when you change vectors.  (loose example)

I kinda understand his point, but he was comparing different planes as opposed to the same plane scaled 2x, so what he was saying got a bit confused.  (percocet)

[Sol75]

I am actually going to experiment with this using X-plane...After thinking about this a while, i am not sure even intertia would have any effect.  On the larger airframe, the control surfaces owuld also be larger, thus the cotrol forces to overcome inertia also larger... I dont htink I took that into account in my previous posts.  I will be curious what the results will be in xplane, which is known to have a very high-fi flight model.

Sol

[StokesAk]

thorsim,

stop trying

thank you

[Guppy35]

I now have a headache

[CAP1]

why don't you prove it ...

outside of the video game i mean ...

after all i've been waiting on one real world account for this general argument for what 3 or 4 tours now?

posted threads on other BBS where you guys get squashed with these "arguments" ...

posted videos of pilots who have flown multiple types that completely contradict your "facts" ...

i just want to see one or two pilots of these planes saying that the turn favors the hog or
even that the hog would be close vs. a 109.

there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...

like a hog out turning a 109 ...

in the real world    


  

explain why it couldn/t.