Something more realistic, less arcade.

[EVZ]

if the oil starvation is an overheating issue the 109s would be screwed with the heads at the bottom (top if you're inverted)

Very astute!

for the other Vs I imagine its more of an engine life constraint with the big end not getting enough lube.

The problem isn't + oil pressure, diaphram oil pumps for aircraft went out during WWI and were replaced by sealed chamber impeller pumps. The problem is return flow to the sump ... a well designed engine provides for this under all expected circumstances, including INVERTED and NEG G. But many WWII engines were not exactly designed for fighter aircraft ... The merlin was initially intended as transport/bomber engine adapted to a race RACE PLANE and AVAILABLE for the Spit when needed.  The Allison V-12 was adapted from an engine for a threshing machine. Adaptation included oil return during inverted flight, but NEG G might trap oil and impede it's return to the sump.  

[MachFly]

No, I'm not.  I don't expect that the aircraft would have been designed/built with the expectation of sustaining negative G.

That's true, it was not needed at the time.

[MachFly]

It seems inverted flight and negative G force are being confused here ... VERY different things ... as are Radial and Rotary Engines. Positive flow lubrication has been around for a VERY long time. NEG G -May- affect some WWII lube systems, Inverted flight doesn't. I've seen the porposeing escape manuver some have refered to here, it definately DOES pull negative, but it's a terribly ineffective manuver that get's them killed real quick. Not sure WHO is teaching this to noobs but I suspect their motives ???  

When your flying inverted straight & level your at -1Gs.

[RTHolmes]

The problem isn't + oil pressure, diaphram oil pumps for aircraft went out during WWI and were replaced by sealed chamber impeller pumps. The problem is return flow to the sump ... a well designed engine provides for this under all expected circumstances, including INVERTED and NEG G. But many WWII engines were not exactly designed for fighter aircraft ...

ahhh ok I hadnt thought about the scavenging bit.

threshing machine

[EVZ]

When your flying inverted straight & level your at -1Gs.

No, you're still flying at +1 G ... in the static sense. When your flying right side up, Straight and Level you're at +1 G too ... those of us bound to this planet live our LIVES at +1 G. When refering to AIRCRAFT in flight,  we are talking about + and - influences on airframe and occupant (basicaly - tension & compresion, -stress-) it's not static gravity, we just use that as a unit of measure. 

Areodynamically -1 G is the neutralization of planetary (+1G static) gravity (= no stress, weightless). Regular Inverted flight does NOT accomplish that. This is what NASA does on their parabolic (-1G stress) stratosphere training flights for astronauts. It -IS notable that -1G flight -relieves- normal (static) stress loading on an airframe. 

[MachFly]

No, you're still flying at +1 G ... in the static sense. When your flying right side up, Straight and Level you're at +1 G too ... those of us bound to this planet live our LIVES at +1 G. When refering to AIRCRAFT in flight,  we are talking about + and - influences on airframe and occupant (basicaly - tension & compresion, -stress-) it's not static gravity, we just use that as a unit of measure. 

Areodynamically -1 G is the neutralization of planetary (+1G static) gravity (= no stress, weightless). Regular Inverted flight does NOT accomplish that. This is what NASA does on their parabolic (-1G stress) stratosphere training flights for astronauts. It -IS notable that -1G flight -relieves- normal (static) stress loading on an airframe. 

Your mostly correct. Except when you have no stress on the airframe it's 0Gs.
Try standing on your head, you'll feel stress. At 0Gs your actually floating and there is no stress.

[colmbo]

Inverted flight doesn't.

I think most people think of inverted flight as a negative G endeavour...not just the 180 point on a roll or top of a loop.

[colmbo]

No, you're still flying at +1 G ...

Have you ever flown inverted in a real life airplane?  Whether you thinks it's + or - G, I can tell you it's toes to top of head...outballs out. 

[nrshida]

The merlin was initially intended as transport/bomber engine adapted to a race RACE PLANE and AVAILABLE for the Spit when needed.  

 

The Allison V-12 was adapted from an engine for a threshing machine.

A stroke of luck for the war effort then that farming implements demand so much power in a compact and lightweight package 


I find adept stick stirrers very hard to shoot. There was a certain Corsair pilot in the MA a few weeks ago who was virtually untouchable. He MC Hammered all my remaining ammunition away. This aspect I find a bit 'gamey'. Anyone found a reliable countermeasure?

[Tank-Ace]

Only semi-reliable counter-measure I've found is to get in close and lob a few taters at them. Almost always, if you land even a single round anywhere on the airframe, you'll either kill him, or remove enough parts that he can't manuver so violently.

[FLOTSOM]

ok people i will try to explain the negative g manuver, it was simple to do, but i dont have all the colorful technical words so i will do my best and have to hope you can figure it out.

Brkfast dove in on me from an alt advantage as i was already almost too slow to move trying to climb up to join my squadies nuetralize some of the bad guys advantage. i saw him coming at me with speed and almost at my lower alt so i turned first into him to use my little remaining speed to reduce the distance between us giving him less time to set up a shot, and to make him turn to avoid what he would believe to be a possible ho/ram attempt.....hey it was all i could think of........so as he boomed just past me, having turned away after missing his very small shot window, i nosed down picked up a little speed and banked. i knew he would be coming back and i would not have time to obtain any real speed before he was on me. as i banked while slightly ruddering downward i watched him climb turn and drop in again. i neared the point of my nose pointing at him i leveled my wings and then started to climb with a little bit of rudder for twist, he did as i expected, he nosed up a bit and adjust his intercept course. i climbed and flipped as if i was gunna do a loop in front of him broadside, he angle his attack to meet me at the top of my loop, i then popped my flaps and pushed the nose hard into the negative (actually climbing upwards while inverted) he couldnt correct fast enough and fired his shots just under me where i should have been then zoomed away. i went into a stall flubbered around a bit but recovered. by then we had alot more company from both sides to concentrate on so there wasnt a third pass.

it was cheesey, and a bit gamey i admit, but i was at a disadvantage against a faster plane that held the high ground from the start with a more skilled pilot flying it. i gamed him twice, i know that in rl i would have died but like i told him at the time, well it kept me alive in here...

  Brkfast it was a fun encounter

[EVZ]

Have you ever flown inverted in a real life airplane?  Whether you thinks it's + or - G, I can tell you it's toes to top of head...outballs out. 

Sure, and that's plain old hanging upside down from a tree branch (static) GRAVITY. + / - G is NOT gravity ... it's a unit of measure used to express the amount of stress being applied to an airframe (in this context). There is no such stress being applied when you are flyimg straight and level and inverted. You are just hanging upside down from that tree branch. 

[MachFly]

Sure, and that's plain old hanging upside down from a tree branch (static) GRAVITY. + / - G is NOT gravity ... it's a unit of measure used to express the amount of stress being applied to an airframe (in this context). There is no such stress being applied when you are flyimg straight and level and inverted. You are just hanging upside down from that tree branch. 

So your saying that there is not stress when your flight straight and level either? There is, it's 1G, when your inverted it's -1G. Go stand on your head right now, you'll see the difference.


By "sure" did you mean yes, you have flown inverted?

[Krusty]

G is a measure of acceleration. Metes per second squared? If you're upside down or rightside up, as long as you're stable in terms of your flight it's 1G.

Inverted or upright, if you're flying level with no sink at a steady speed I'd say that's 1G.

Now inverted 1G can still cause issues with engine pumps, lubricants, oil feeds, radiator feeds, etc. There's only 1G acting on them, but it's going in a different direction than they need it to go for them to operate properly. Kind of like how long can you last standing on your head before the blood rushes to it and you have to stop? Your body didn't break down, it didn't lose structural integrity from stresses, but the fluids are meant to pump in certain ways with and against gravity, and if you reverse that direction it can lead to problems.

Same with engines.


EDIT: Let's put it this way, P-51 guns were known to jam if fired at -1G or more. It's not that they fell apart and couldn't work... It's that they were designed to feed with gravity's help, and wouldn't function fighting against gravity.

[EVZ]

Your mostly correct. Except when you have no stress on the airframe it's 0Gs.
Try standing on your head, you'll feel stress. At 0Gs your actually floating and there is no stress.

You're correct. But the stress you feel is static gravity - mathematically speaking it's a constant, not an applied mechanical force.

Now stop and think about that airplane doing the parabolic 0G flight so that the astronauts can float around in a (simulated) 0G environment for a few minutes and experience weightlessness BEFORE doing the spam in a can thing.

The AIRFRAME has to be subjected to (areodynamic) NEGATIVE 1G stress in order to CREATE the (static 0G) weightless environment inside it. Technically it's a mathematical illusion, a simulation, static gravity is still functioning, but the percieved experience is VERY close to weightlessness. It serves to illustrate the DIFFERENCE between MECHANICAL STRESS measured in units of +/- G and STATIC GRAVITY. For this unit of measurement 0G does not = weightless. It = NO APPLIED STRESS.


Hmmmm ... Maybe Hightech should model a Nazi UFO with a graviton powerplant ?