Author Topic: What is more important for the spiral climb maneuver?  (Read 1024 times)

Offline Randall172

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
What is more important for the spiral climb maneuver?
« on: May 15, 2016, 10:17:23 PM »
What allows a plane to perform better spiral climbs, turn performance, or climb performance?

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11621
      • Trainer's Website
Re: What is more important for the spiral climb maneuver?
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2016, 10:29:23 PM »
Climb performance.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: What is more important for the spiral climb maneuver?
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2016, 10:10:00 AM »
What allows a plane to perform better spiral climbs, turn performance, or climb performance?
:airplane: Power to weight ratio! A big engine with light airframe is going to climb better, turn tighter and generally perform better in all aspects of flight! The problem comes with "time aloft" in a fighter! To do this, you would have to design a aircraft with little fuel, so you would have limited flight time! Take today's fighters, with jet engines, at best, most have about 20 minutes flight time with full power applied, but half that when in afterburner! Generally speaking, in a combat zone, they all "hit" a tanker for fuel before entering enemy airspace!
Best example I can think of right now is the British "Spitfire" series of aircraft! Great climbers, great turners in a fight, but limited to flight time. I have heard them referred to as a "flying splinters" because of the plywood used in building the aircraft!
But, look at the history of them in the "Battle of Britain", where they turned back the vaunted German air force! Its true that in some respects, the BF-109's were superior in some ways to the spit, but didn't have the fuel left to stay and duke it out with the spits over Britain! Many spits were landed "dead stick" after staying aloft fighting the German fighters, on the hundreds of airfield's scattered around Britain.
Again, if you are looking for a fighter in real life which would meet all of your requests, you have to go with a big engine and light airframe! Non of the American aircraft would meet that criteria during the second world war, but they excelled in many other ways to overcome the enemy, namely pilot training!
A good example of what I am pointing out is the P-47's, or Jugs, as they were called! They really couldn't turn fight a BF-109, but through better pilot training and a "tough" bird, using hit and run tactics, they overall out performed the lighter German fighters.
The best "balance" of power vs airframe was the famed P-51D, which was by far the superior fighter of the second world war! In turn fighting or in "vertical" fighting, it was superior in every way in the hands of a well trained pilot!
Hope this enlightens you about your questions. Google your questions on your PC and you will see about what I am talking about!
« Last Edit: May 16, 2016, 10:12:15 AM by earl1937 »
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!