Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[pervert]

I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm??

"Twenty-five G airframes were designated for shipment to Spain, along with engines, spares, and tooling to begin manufacture.  Eventually, due to shipment problems getting through the 8th and 9th US Army Air Forces, the airframes arrived, but the Daimler-Benz engines did not arrive. " This may be why they refer to it as a G?

As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice 

[BnZs]

As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice  

On that score, even the P-47D-11 can sustain a tighter turn radius than the P-51 even in clean configuration, and this goes directly against everything I've ever read from pilots who flew/fought both types have to say about it, as well as differing from the result you would expect from comparing their wing-loadings and clean stall speeds.

Fighting a 109 in a P-47D-11 is potentially more like what fighting a 109 in a P-51 was actually like.

[BnZs]

According to Wiki, the Buchons were license-built versions of the 109 G-2. As well all know, the G-2 is a very different animal in loading and turning when compared to later Gs and the K. The listed maximum weight for the Buchon is 7,341 lbs, which makes me think that at typical combat loadings, i.e, with some fuel burned off, it probably would have a distinct wing-loading advantage over the P-51. Once again, this is distinct from the G-14 or K-4, which actually work out similar or slightly heavier than the P-51 in wing-loading, depending on relative fuel states, and thus probably enjoyed a far less pronounced turning advantage.

I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm??

"Twenty-five G airframes were designated for shipment to Spain, along with engines, spares, and tooling to begin manufacture.  Eventually, due to shipment problems getting through the 8th and 9th US Army Air Forces, the airframes arrived, but the Daimler-Benz engines did not arrive. " This may be why they refer to it as a G?

[Guppy35]

According to Wiki, the Buchons were license-built versions of the 109 G-2. As well all know, the G-2 is a very different animal in loading and turning when compared to later Gs and the K. The listed maximum weight for the Buchon is 7,341 lbs, which makes me think that at typical combat loadings, i.e, with some fuel burned off, it probably would have a distinct wing-loading advantage over the P-51. Once again, this is distinct from the G-14 or K-4, which actually work out similar or slightly heavier than the P-51 in wing-loading, depending on relative fuel states, and thus probably enjoyed a far less pronounced turning advantage.

Spainish Buchons had Merlin engines.  Different beast then a wartime 109

[BnZs]

Spainish Buchons had Merlin engines.  Different beast then a wartime 109

The weight would seem to be similar though.

[shreck]

Greetings 

The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:

   F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.

   F4U vs P40?
   F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
   F4U vs BF109s?
   F4U vs FW 190D?
   F4U vs Ki84
   F4U vs P51

Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged.  Thx .

   Corsairs are ---> EASYMODE <---        

[Guppy35]

The weight would seem to be similar though.

Handling was/is different from everything I've read. 

[thorsim]

actually i proposed scaling up the course, sorry if that was unclear ...

and a scaled up course that is still tight for the planes in this discussion i don't think the 109 would have the roll rate problems you state because the speeds would be slower than where the problems present themselves i.e. like in a dog fight you are not near your max speed or at least not for long usually and certainly not flying a course so maneuver intensive as the red bull course.  the 109 was very maneuverable in all but the highest end of it's speed envelope.

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.

[thorsim]

explain why it couldn/t.

that is what we are discussing, but please,

feel free to post somebody with real world experience in the types that says it will.

[thorsim]

i think you all think i am discounting the loadings, i am not.  

i just think weight and size also matter separate from the loadings ...

i.e. if we could find planes of different size and weight but with the same wing loading, power/weight, lift/weight,
etc., i believe the smaller lighter aircraft would still have some advantage in maneuverability.

maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion, direction and velocity, so the ability to accelerate and decelerate also comes into play for my purposes.    

THorism:

It does nothing of the sort, to change your direction in any plane, I.E. loop turn,  spit s.

Lift & gravity are the only forces that do this, and mass is the only thing that apposes it.

So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.

PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",

Because in one of your post you argued against yourself, you said very clearly
So in the case adding weight did not make the plane less maneuverable PER YOUR STATEMENT.

Am I missing something or is the statement.

Any thing that adds weight makes a plane less maneuverable i.e.  ""In and By its self",
VS
A complete contradiction.

My guess is you will now try to define what is is.

Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.

HiTech

[Vinkman]

your proposal above reduces the maneuver fight to a single sustained maneuver.  part of maneuverability evaluation should include the efficiency that an aircraft has in the process of changing its velocity vector shouldn't it?  mass and the energy required to over come it's inertia must be taken into account each time the process of changing ones velocity vector is done, and often maneuver fights are a constant series of changes from one maneuver to another.  that is where i believe the size and weight advantages come into play for the smaller lighter aircraft.

Thor,
The definition of curved motion is accelerating the object off its motion vector. Acceleration by definition is a change of motion. In a "sustained manuever" the acceleration (change in motion) is of a fixed direction and magnitude and will produce a circle. The same acceleration with varying direction can produce a variety of curved shapes, but these do not result in a new or additional term in the equation that saps engergy or reduces manueverability because the mass of object is "changing direction". The object is changing direction in a sustained manuever as well.  

Note: energy sapping will occur differently for different maneuvers due to Aero drag, but not because of weight or mass. But we should not confuse efficiency or energy sapping with the effect mass has on manueverablity. These are very different principles and should not be used as though they are related.

Scaling and heavier planes:

Here is a thought experiment that is probably trapping your intuitive sense into your belief about heavier planes.  Take a Cube 1ft by 1ft by 1ft and lets say it weighs 100lbs.  The volume of the cube is 1 cubic ft and the area of any side of the cube is 1 sq ft. If I set the cube on the ground, the loading on the side touching the ground is 100lbs/sq ft.  
Now double all the dimensions of the cube. The cube is now 2x2x2 ft. The area of a side is now 4sq ft. How much does the cube weigh? The cube weighs 800lbs because the mass is going up with the third power of the demension change. Now note that the area only went up with the square of the dimention change. so the loading on the new cube 200lb/sq ft.
So if you took a 109 or Corsair and doubled all the dimentions you would not have a plane that is just as manueverable as the original because the wing area would be 4 times larger but the plane would weight 8 times as much.
Your "intuition" about scaling up the plane is correct, but you can see now why it is correct, because the mass to wing area would greater on scaled up plane and it would be less manueverable.

I hope you might also see that is possible to design a bigger plane with the same mass/wing/power ratios as a smaller plane, and that if you did it would perform the same.

I hope that helps.

[thorsim]

I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm??

As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice 

that is why i made my original post.  i don't think the maneuver fight is your best approach if you are the f4u vs a 109.

BnZ took the real world approach to the contrary, hence this discussion.

[thorsim]

I hope you might also see that is possible to design a bigger plane with the same mass/wing/power ratios as a smaller plane, and that if you did it would perform the same.

i still think that if you could get the mass/wing/power the same that there would be drag and momentum issues to overcome in a significantly larger plane ...

i understand that they could turn the same circles and climb at the same rate but performing the same across the board would imo be a very difficult design hurdle ...

i wish we had a good example, what about the other aerobatic planes that are not used in the red bull races i assume because they for whatever reason do not perform as well ...

actually i am getting a headache as well ...

please post more information i am gonna think about this again for a while ...

not gonna bust balls over this anymore until the new year, btw tks for some of you extending your patience with this discussion.

however please continue i will be watching and thinking ...

+S+

t



 

[CAP1]

that is what we are discussing, but please,

feel free to post somebody with real world experience in the types that says it will.

any chance you watched that video i linked? it was fairly informative.

[CAP1]

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.

one of our r/c club members flew p-51's. he died last summer.

he used to tell us of things he did. one thing that stuck in my mind, was that he had gotten to fly a couple different me-109's and a couple different fw-190's.

 he loved the 190. he liked everything about it. i think i remember him saying somethign like.......if i had flown one of these before the war, i'd have worried a lot more about running into them in my p-51.

 

 he hated the 109. tight. hard to see out of.....he didn't like it at all.