Tempest V turn radius in Aces High

[Widewing]

With regard to a USAAF test of the Tempest V (which they liked very much), it is very plain that the test pilots found that while the Tempest was an outstanding aircraft, their findings are at odds with Aces High.

See the portion of the test report below... While finding the Tempest to be an outstanding fighter they also found that its turn radius was considerably greater than that of the Typhoon. Yet, in Aces High, the Tempest has a markedly smaller turn radius than the Typhoon. Perhaps, when the Tempest is updated, this discrepancy can be addressed.

[J.A.W.]

Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..

[Widewing]

Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..

There were no design changes that would decrease the turn radius. If anything, it gained weight.

[Saxman]

Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..

Rrrright. But if you look at, well, pretty much EVERY other aircraft, the trend seems to be increasingly larger turning circles throughout the series as sustained maneuverability becomes increasingly deemphasized. Were there exceptions? Almost certainly. But they're just that: exceptions.

Looking at the Spits, you have a pretty clear increase in turn radius from the I to V to IX to XIV. Even in the case of the Zeros (which are pretty much the definition of "maneuverability over power"), the development cycle was for more power, increased weight, and larger turning circles as the war progressed.

[J.A.W.]

Significantly more power available to haul 'em round - via later series Sabre mills..

[Saxman]

Significantly more power available to haul 'em round - via later series Sabre mills..

Wait, what? I can see where that would help keep from bleeding off speed in a maneuver, but isn't the size of the turning circle a product of aerodynamics and lift from the wing against the weight of the aircraft?

The F4U-4 has over twice the engine power of the F4F-4. But the F4F-4 has a significantly smaller turning radius with flaps up. It takes the Corsair dropping its flaps (changing the shape of the airfoil and increasing lift) to cut inside the F4F's turns.

And using the same airfoil for comparison, by your argument the F4U-4 should turn inside the F4U-1 by benefit of its increased horsepower and more effective prop. The -4 very much does NOT.

[BnZs]

Might as well ask for a P-51 that turns at least as well as a Jug Wide... Madness

[J.A.W.]

Bit more to it than that, there is turn radius in distance & speed/time to complete..

Of course A-H ought to correct anomalous performance, but this evaluation reckons there wasn't much in it..

Perhaps the A-H Typhoon needs upgrading here too..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html

[Widewing]

I find it interesting that while the P-51B and Tempest have the same wing loading (about 38 lb/sqft), the Tempest (with a very similar laminar flow airfoil) has a 16% to 18% (clean/full flaps) smaller turn radius that the Mustang. It becomes more of a mystery when one compares the difference in flap designs.

[J.A.W.]

Distance between prop disc & wing differential?

According to the AFDU trials posted above there wasn't much in turn performance between Mustang/Typhoon or Tempest..

Typhoon has shortest nose, & P-51 longest..

Typhoon also has a thick profile high lift wing of lesser area..

[Widewing]

Distance between prop disc & wing differential?

According to the AFDU trials posted above there wasn't much in turn performance between Mustang/Typhoon or Tempest..

Typhoon has shortest nose, & P-51 longest..

Typhoon also has a thick profile high lift wing of lesser area..

"Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III."

In Aces high, both the Tempest and Typhoon have a considerably smaller turn radius than the Mustangs. Clearly, they should not.

[J.A.W.]

As stated, there is more to it than simple turning circle..

Top-scoring RNZAF ace Evan Mackie explains..

"The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW190 but at about 220mph it completes the actual turn quicker."

"Using +11lbs boost & 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get in to a position to fire after about 3 complete turns..."

[BnZs]

Turn radius is so strongly a function of slow-flying ability that the airplane with the lower stall speed will almost certainly have the smaller turn radius. A more heavily loaded airplane with a more powerful engine may sometimes have a faster sustained turn rate due to ability to sustain more Gs, but not a smaller radius. Therefore weight creep in a given airframe will hurt turn radius, more power or no.

[Widewing]

As stated, there is more to it than simple turning circle..

Top-scoring RNZAF ace Evan Mackie explains..

"The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW190 but at about 220mph it completes the actual turn quicker."

"Using +11lbs boost & 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get in to a position to fire after about 3 complete turns..."

Turn rate is important, but no more than turn radius. To benefit from a higher turn rate, you would have to have a offset turning circle to the aircraft with the better turn radius. if not, you may stay behind the better turning fighter, but you'll never get in position to shoot. The best turn rate occurs at corner speed. Go below corner, and rate drops off, even as radius tightens. Go above corner velocity and the limiting factor is g loading on the pilot.

[J.A.W.]

Which is why the Tempest's superb roll rate trumped mere horizontal turning contests..