Grumman Rules the Sky

[J.A.W.]

See Rule #4

[Wmaker]

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

Are you referring to this document: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf?

The ~4450ft/min isn't with the drop tank...

It is the curve (1) which illustrates performance with the drop tank attached (~2500ft/min initial climb rate, doesn't mention power setting, but based on the power loading mentioned it's ~1450hp). The curve (2) (4450ft/min initial climb rate) illustrates combat loading condition (no drop tank) and combat power/WEP with ADI.

The document is for the F8F-2 but it states that it is based on F8F-1 flight test. I understand that as F8F-2 performance in the document is extrapolated from the F8F-1 flight test results to account for the higher weight of the F8F-2.

[Karnak]

I have never claimed infallibility Knak..Of course I may be wrong.. that is why I posed a question..
 & as stated - I am more than pleased to get the 'straight dope' - 'true' data - & stand corrected - while letting false data go..

 While you  - it seems - are seriously lacking in an understanding of irony..

Not at all.

I have offered several methods of testing the headwind-climb thing..
But you wont even consider it, so fixated are you -on the strength of your 'opinion'..

It isn't an opinion.  It is simple logic.  I obviously don't know what makes you so fixated on the wrong answer as to the headwind climb issue, but there is something that is holding back your understanding of it.  It is completely absurd to think that a headwind allows a steeper climb angle unless you're talking about a kite that is held by somebody on the ground.

Look up the Galileo story.. facts beat dogma.. eventually..

I am well familiar with it.  Perhaps you ought to ponder it as well.  Dogma does not mean the conclusion of the majority.  You are dogmatically refusing to supply data to support your new theory that flying into a headwind allows a steeper climb angle.  Telling us methods to test it is useless as we all know methods to test it.  You are the one making the claim, it is you who must test it.

[Golfer]

You're mistyping Karnak. The headwind will definitely allow for a steeper climb angle.  It's rate you guys are talking about.  One uses a ruler the other uses a clock for measurement.

[Karnak]

You're mistyping Karnak. The headwind will definitely allow for a steeper climb angle.  It's rate you guys are talking about.  One uses a ruler the other uses a clock for measurement.

How?  Air speed is what matters and the headwind ceases to matter once the aircraft is in the air as it moves relative to the air it is flying in.

[Golfer]

How?  Air speed is what matters and the headwind ceases to matter once the aircraft is in the air as it moves relative to the air it is flying in.

Rise over run. I'm talking about climb gradient in feet/mile not pitch attitude.

[kvuo75]

How?  Air speed is what matters and the headwind ceases to matter once the aircraft is in the air as it moves relative to the air it is flying in.

imagine.. a 135mph wind.. you could climb vertically..

it would take the same time to get to an altitude tho.

[Karnak]

You guys are both fixated on ground speed.  Ground speed is irrelevant to a climb test.

[WWhiskey]

Distance traveled forward in space is decreased with a head wind as opposed to no wind,, but the time to climb and rate of climb does not change with wind



climb gradient in feet/mile is not part of the test



There are some charts and graphs somewhere around here!

[kvuo75]

You guys are both fixated on ground speed.  Ground speed is irrelevant to a climb test.

agreed.


angle and rate are not the same thing. wind changes climb angle, not rate.



as golfer said before:

 

You're mistyping Karnak. The headwind will definitely allow for a steeper climb angle.  It's rate you guys are talking about.  One uses a ruler the other uses a clock for measurement.

edit:

I suppose we should make the distinction, angle relative to the ground, since the plane would fly thru the same amount of air at the same aoa.

[WWhiskey]

Angle,, as you are using it,, would be a line on a peice of paper,, not relavant to a time to height test.
 The angle of the aircraft is not changed by the wind ,, only the angle of the line inside a box for a  height / distance test... And there would still be no difference from one aircraft to another, all other factors being the same

IE if the f8f climbed at 5700 fpm,, it would do so, no matter what the head wind was,, all of these tests can be done inside the game,, the results would be a shortened take off roll into a head wind,, but all relavant factors for flight would still be the same, take off airspeed would have to be reached,, ground speed would be less by the amount of wind making the roll shorter but ground speed has no relavence to flight ability.
 If the tests had measured from wheels up, to height, none of this would even be relevant but since the it is part of the test the headwind does give a slight head start ,,but that to can be figured ,,
if the headwind speed is known it can be removed from the equation with simple math?

[Golfer]

You guys are both fixated on ground speed.  Ground speed is irrelevant to a climb test.

No I'm not and we ARE on the same page.

It's just when you say headwind doesn't affect the angle (to me this is gradient or feet per mile) that's untrue because ground speed does matter.  You're talking about altitude climbed in reference to a distance traveled after all.

For a time to climb the only thing a headwind will do is shorten your ground roll on takeoff.

For an aircraft already flying the headwind won't change the time to climb since that's feet per minute.  Not feet per mile.

[GScholz]

"Wind speed" as you guys are using it is itself measured in relation to the ground, and is therefore irrelevant. The only "wind speed" that is relevant is the speed of the airflow around the aircraft. Angle of attack remains the same regardless of "ground wind speed". What angle the aircraft climbs at in relation to the ground is also irrelevant in a time to altitude test.

[Karnak]

Ok.  I see what you're saying.  I was talking about the angle, pitch, of the airplane and you're talking about the angle of the climb as it relates to the ground.

The climb angle is steeper, but the aircraft is not at a steeper pitch as it climbs.


To me the angle of the climb as traveled is irrelevant, it is an irrelevant piece of trivia as it doesn't actually affect anything.  The ground is irrelevant in a climb test.  J.A.W. has to be talking about the pitch of the plane, not the angle of the climb in relation to the ground, or his insistence that the headwind is relevant doesn't make sense.

[Golfer]

I'm not saying anything different with the exception of a shortened ground roll.

Just pointing out that Karnak saying angle (which I interpreted to mean gradient) in ft/mile doesn't change with wind. I'm very confident he knows it does and it may have been a mistype and he meant to say pitch attitude or rate of climb doesn't change which is true.