Originally posted by Pyro:
Wells, I don't doubt your argument, but I do doubt your findings. Can you send me a film of a sustained 175mph knife-edge flight? I can't do it.
This film shows a sustained 2K climb in P38, 0 - 10K (1.04 patch 1).
http://user.tninet.se/~zbg663q/TMP/film2.ahf The spitfire mark5 can climb 2.5K (swings between 2- 3.5K fpm), no film, didn't bother to stay long enough for it to stabilize.
Not very different from before the patch, except the climb occurs at a higher speed (185 vs 110).
Next film shows the P38 real slowly climb on a knifeedge on a single engine.
Well ok, just barely, after it stabilized and before WEP runs out, it gains some 300 feet.
http://user.tninet.se/~zbg663q/TMP/film3.ahf (before patch you could sustain a 500 fpm knifeedge climb single engine in P38)
This is funny sort of.
I've seen so much bickering (on AGW), and screams of "PORK", on details ranging from some support, through anecdotal to esoteric.
And I used to get so tired of the, most of the time, pointless, never ending squabbling.
Well, here finally is the real thing, worthy of the title, 'PORK!' :-).
Very few propeller planes can *sustain* altitude on a knifeedge.
Its simple, in level flight the wings provide lift, on a knifeedge only the fuselage side provides lift.
Some modern aerobatic planes with large power to plane-weight ratio can do this, *sustain altitude* on a knife-edge, I don't think they can climb, PITTS come to mind, some russian aerobatic planes which I don't recall the names of can also do it.
For the WW2 planes to climb with 2-3K in this attitude is as likely as the P51 outrunning the Me262 or passing the sound barrier in level flight.
