Grumman Rules the Sky

[J.A.W.]

J.A.W.,

You'll need to go to somebody else for the mathematics of it, but what I described is how it works.  You're very much too locked into using the ground as a reference.

As to the airplane on a treadmill, that is a question that made the rounds and fooled a lot of people who don't understand how airplanes work.  In the proposed question the treadmill run in the opposite direction that the aircraft is going.  So no, my understanding is not "nonsensical".

Try actually thinking about what I and others have said rather than ignoring it all in your utter confidence that we're all morons and you are all knowing.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

Look  Knak, & be fair here,

 I have not referred to anyone here - on this question of wind assist to climb rate..
as 'morons' at all, & I resent your claiming that..

 I  have suggested that proof could be established by scientific formulae, or by a decent
simulation program that could be run on those exact parameters..

Perhaps someone could even take actual GPS recording on a real flight & run a climb rate check,
into wind vs still air vs tail wind, & see how that co-relates to the ASI functions on-board..

All 'conclusions' made on the basis of perceived knowledge, - unless verified by reliable/repeatable test results  - are simply 'opinion'..

& no amount of snarky/emotive 'credibility' claims are a substitute for validated facts..

[Widewing]

& Ww, as usual simply ignores facts that are inconvenient to his assumptions..


The climb rates demonstrated by the Navy  'record' - as compared to the mil-spec
'combat' rating F8F data published & posted in this thread - are so far apart - that
 - it is an inescapable fact  - the stunt climb had to have been done - at a much more
favourable power-to-weight ratio..

As you posted Ww, a climb rate of ~6,300 ft/min..

Can you post a document that shows this was just regular  mil-spec F8F climb rate?

One that shows power/load-out levels? ( like the Spitfire & `51H climb charts)

If not, then it surely remains in the stunt category..

& can you explain why the R-B race-cat FAI recognised ( & now lapsed) record was
not very much quicker than what the USN 'mil-spec stocker' achieved?

The FAI conditions were more stringent.. ..perhaps?

A few things.... Climb data published for the F8F-1 was for MIL power at full combat weight (max internal fuel, with ammo). Not Combat Power with ADI. So, those figure represent being down a lot of hp and heavier. Moreover, those Navy "handout sheets" were notoriously conservative. On their F6F-5 sheet, the Navy listed the max speed as 379.5 mph (330 knots). They refer to this as MIL power, but it actually corresponds to something closer to Normal power. There is lots of actual test data that shows 391 mph at MIL power and 408 using WEP for the -5 Hellcat.

I think it just bugs you that a carrier fighter had better climb performance than the P-51H. By the way, 90" of MAP was never authorized in post-war service use. Wear and tear on the engine was excessive. By the end of 1946, Mustangs, including H models, were being transferred to reserve units, being replaced by P-80s as fast as the jets became available.

As to the  record set by Rear Bear... Lyle Shelton and his crew were well aware that Rare Bear's much reduced wing area would require substantially high takeoff speed with a corresponding longer takeoff run. The issue of greater torque meant that power would have to added carefully (meaning slowly). Shelton believed that Rare Bear's climb rate (well in excess of 7,000 fpm) would be enough to offset the time on ground due to the longer takeoff roll. Events showed he was right. But, only just barely. You realize that Rare bear holds the 3 kilometer speed record for prop driven engine aircraft, right? 528.33 mph average speed, hitting 541 mph on one downwind leg.

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[BaldEagl]

Quite the opposite in fact, Baldy..

I am always happy to go with the facts, & the stronger the evidence base the better..

Proof works for me, so provide some..

Make an effort to find & post some useful data for a change  - instead of useless negativity
& a predictably pathetic resort to posting some pointless ad-hominem crap..

You could look up & see if you can post those 'Mythbusters' tests, if you like..

There's nothing for me to have to provide.  You were asked a question.  Simply answer it.  Here it is again in case you forgot:

Here is the original question for you


   
plane on a conveyor belt?
« on: January 19, 2007, 09:30:28 PM »
A plane is standing on a runway that can move like a giant conveyor belt. The plane applies full forward power and attempts to take off. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane's wheel speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same but in the opposite direction, similar to a treadmill.

The question is:

Will the plane take off or not?

[J.A.W.]

A few things.... Climb data published for the F8F-1 was for MIL power at full combat weight (max internal fuel, with ammo). Not Combat Power with ADI. So, those figure represent being down a lot of hp and heavier. Moreover, those Navy "handout sheets" were notoriously conservative. On their F6F-5 sheet, the Navy listed the max speed as 379.5 mph (330 knots). They refer to this as MIL power, but it actually corresponds to something closer to Normal power. There is lots of actual test data that shows 391 mph at MIL power and 408 using WEP for the -5 Hellcat.

I think it just bugs you that a carrier fighter had better climb performance than the P-51H. By the way, 90" of MAP was never authorized in post-war service use. Wear and tear on the engine was excessive. By the end of 1946, Mustangs, including H models, were being transferred to reserve units, being replaced by P-80s as fast as the jets became available.

As to the  record set by Rear Bear... Lyle Shelton and his crew were well aware that Rare Bear's much reduced wing area would require substantially high takeoff speed with a corresponding longer takeoff run. The issue of greater torque meant that power would have to added carefully (meaning slowly). Shelton believed that Rare Bear's climb rate (well in excess of 7,000 fpm) would be enough to offset the time on ground due to the longer takeoff roll. Events showed he was right. But, only just barely. You realize that Rare bear holds the 3 kilometer speed record for prop driven engine aircraft, right? 528.33 mph average speed, hitting 541 mph on one downwind leg.

Ah no, Ww, you are incorrect -  just go back & actually read those F8F 'standard characteristics'..

The 'combat' condition lists a rating of 2,500hp ( 'wet' =/ADI/WEP),
a weight of 10,337lbs & an initial climb rate of 4,665ft/min..

So ~2,000ft/min less than the stunt-cat made..

The maths don't lie.. it just had to be a cheater-stunt,
& one which, would likely - not meet FAI 'stocker' or flight condition requirements..

Also ( & AFAIR) Rear-Bare, sorry, Rare-Bear, was properly prepped for that record, including reverting to optimum lift wing configuration..

If you have any mil-spec documents that show ( as the ones I have posted)
a Navy F8F making ~6500ft/min & what power/load-out ratings it took, then kindly post them,
that of course would provide strong evidence in support of what is - so far - just
anecdotal information ( & your opinion too, natch..).

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[BaldEagl]

See Rule #4

[Widewing]

Ah no, Ww, you are incorrect -  just go back & actually read those F8F 'standard characteristics'..

The 'combat' condition lists a rating of 2,500hp ( 'wet' =/ADI/WEP),
a weight of 10,337lbs & an initial climb rate of 4,665ft/min..

So ~2,000ft/min less than the stunt-cat made..

The maths don't lie.. it just had to be a cheater-stunt,
& one which, would likely - not meet FAI 'stocker' or flight condition requirements..

Also ( & AFAIR) Rear-Bare, sorry, Rare-Bear, was properly prepped for that record, including reverting to optimum lift wing configuration..

If you have any mil-spec documents that show ( as the ones I have posted)
a Navy F8F making ~6500ft/min & what power/load-out ratings it took, then kindly post them,
that of course would provide strong evidence in support of what is - so far - just
anecdotal information ( & your opinion too, natch..).

The data you cite was with full internal fuel, plus a full 150 gallon centerline drop tank...   

And no, Rare Bear was originally rebuilt with clipped wings. Your, "including reverting to optimum lift wing configuration" is simply horsesheep.

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[Widewing]

See Rule #4

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[Karnak]

J.A.W.,

Seriously, stop.  I have not seen you actually consider what anybody has said anywhere.  You are acting like you don't care at all about getting things right and understanding them, but rather only in winning an argument like it is a debate team and it doesn't matter if one position is right and one is wrong.  I am not saying you're always wrong as I have seen some of your posts where you are correct, or at least correct in the context of the conversation.  But you are not always right and you don't seem to even consider that as a possibility.

[pembquist]

After I checked this website it all started making sense: http://www.calendar-365.com/moon/moon-calendar.html

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[bozon]

Next he'll ask for proof that the sun sets in the west.

Stop wasting bandwidth on this troll - it is better spent on pr0n.