Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on December 13, 2013, 01:34:47 PM
-
Great video. Where else can you see five F8Fs in formation. The Grumman heritage formation is terrific. Note that the F8F-2 is smaller than the FM-2, with twice the power and a high activity prop. No wonder a stock Bearcat held the time to climb record for prop aircraft for decades (a modified F8F-2 hold it now).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSdx1g6nDTg&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSdx1g6nDTg&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
-
Yeah.. the airshow stunt climb 'record' - that was a 'record' - only in the loosest sense...
The actual service acceptance test stats show that a number of other recip fighters
had quicker mil-spec climb rates & in a similar stunt set-up would do better too..
See.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_Climb_AFDS.jpg
I note that the official record attained (& both unofficial & official record F8Fs were modified)
has been dropped from the FAI books now..
Anyone got a budget to set a new one?
-
& if ol' cigar chompin' Curtiss Le May had been keen on stunts,
he could've ordered his techs to prep a trick pony & dust off them salty boys..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg
-
Yeah.. the airshow stunt climb 'record' - that was a 'record' - only in the loosest sense...
The actual service acceptance test stats show that a number of other recip fighters
had quicker mil-spec climb rates & in a similar stunt set-up would do better too..
See.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_Climb_AFDS.jpg
I note that the official record attained (& both unofficial & official record F8Fs were modified)
has been dropped from the FAI books now..
Anyone got a budget to set a new one?
You gonna post any supporting evidence for this claim or are you planning on just going with the "If I keep saying it it has to gain credibility" tactic?
Right now Widewing has orders of magnitude more credibility than you do.
-
It not a claim its a fact.. .
& its been discussed here in another thread already..
See post #321 in the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread.
& there is no call to keep over-personalising things..
"..orders of magnitude more credibility than you.." type crap..
Just keep to the established facts & an evidence-based discussion on them, thanks..
By all means bring some good data to support your case..
-
By all means bring some good data to support your case..
Yes please do, as all you bring is blah blah blah one liners.
-
It not a claim its a fact.. .
& its been discussed here in another thread already..
The only argument you made was that F8F took off into a strong headwind. Inasmuch as the duty runway is usually determined by the wind, so what? Ever fly out of Cleveland? There's usually a good breeze off of the lake. All the headwind would do is shorten the takeoff roll by, perhaps, one to two seconds.
The Navy mechanics enabled combat power with the wheels down (simply bypassing a microswitch).
Other than that, it was a standard F8F-1, and from a standing start, passed 10,000 feet in less than 1.6 minutes. There wasn't another prop fighter on earth in 1946 that could come close to that. It took almost 20 years to beat it, and it was barely edged out by a highly modified F8F-2, Rare Bear. That record still stands.
Now how do you classify that as a stunt?
-
I 'll have to put you on my ignore list too, m.m. - unless you tone down the hostile trolling..
& Ww, the stunt F8F load-out was light, & the WEP fit out was non mil-spec too..
As previously noted the USAF was jet-bent..
& just ignored the 'record' as a an airshow stunt, employing an obsolescent (in their view) bird..
Check those `51H climb rate boost/weight figures, the USAF could've taken it - if they wanted to..
As could've the RAF, in a hot-rod Hornet or Sabre-Fury, but they were jet-bent too..
-
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?
Isn't it like the effect of a tailwind on IAS vs ground speed?
Don't real record attempts put factor limits on wind speed assistance?
-
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?
Isn't it like the effect of a tailwind on IAS vs ground speed?
Don't real record attempts put factor limits on wind speed assistance?
The effect on climb rate of flying into, across, or with the direction of the wind is zero. In a time to climb test taking off into the wind will shorten your ground roll/acceleration to flying airspeed time but that is it.
Are you thinking angle of climb? Because with a headwind that will be steeper. You will get to the same altitude at the same time no matter what the wind (ignoring take off role,) but the distance you travel over the earth will be different with different winds.
-
It not a claim its a fact.. .
& its been discussed here in another thread already..
See post #321 in the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread.
& there is no call to keep over-personalising things..
"..orders of magnitude more credibility than you.." type crap..
Just keep to the established facts & an evidence-based discussion on them, thanks..
By all means bring some good data to support your case..
Yes, you claimed it there too. As I said, you're claiming it repeatedly like that makes it more believable. What you don't seem to be able to do is post any supporting evidence of your claim. Because you can't do that your claim is being disregarded as mere talk.
Post the supporting data.
-
Knak, do you read the data - like in the links [# 1,2..this thread] posted?
If you did - you would see that the mil-spec climb rate for a `51H at low weight/high boost is
clearly high enough to make an attempt on a stunt climb 'record' - & esp' if tricked out too..
Like-wise the hottest Brit recip's could too..
-
Rich & famous stunt flier Howard Hughes could have got his hands on a 109K,
pulled the needless mil-spec junk out of it, run it at high boost on 150 grade juice
& taken that 'record' - if he'd wanted to..
Actually, is it true that the USAF got pissed off with him - for messing around with a 262?
-
The son of Cdr Leonard, who flew one of two F8F-1s involved in the record flights commented on the same argument J.A.W. is making now...
"I am often amazed at the contortions exercised by those, who were probably, at best, babes in arms at the time of events past, or, more likely, not even a gleam in someone’s eye, to denigrate or cast aspersions, in of course their apparent expert opinion, when the events in question do not meet their preconceived notions. It is certainly gratifying to see so many skilled F8F drivers and experienced military/naval test pilots wade in with their insights. And that is about as polite as I can put it.
Let see . . . entries from Leonard pilot’s log book for November 1946 . . .
5 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test climb to 10000. 2:15 to get up 1:55 to get down (wheels touching)”
8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: “test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power”
8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test for combat power. Torquemeter reading 113 and 108”
15 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “test combat power and general handling for climb test. 1 climb 10000 ft - 2 min”
20 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “Patux to Cleveland on Air Show Duty. Operation Pogo Stick”
22 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “climb standing start to 10000 feet 1 min 40 seconds record take off 150 feet”
As an aside, at the completion of this particular flight, Leonard had totaled 1681.6 hours. 635.3 of those were recorded in a log book lost aboard USS Yorktown in June 1942. Of the 1046.3 Midway-forward hours, all but 92.3 were in fighter types. His first flight in an F8F was on 22 Dec 1945 at NAS Patuxent, oddly enough, in b/n 90438 mentioned above.
And no, contrary to one apparent expert opinion, this was not a hold a stop watch in the other hand as the plane passes through 10000 feet.
Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment called a “theater”. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it was relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this “theater” equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.
Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”
So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.
An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:
“It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ‘Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,’ or ‘Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.’ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.
“In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.
“The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."
And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport’s record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.
Last, obviously, I have the log book where Leonard’s flight is recorded.
Good enough? Sorry if that doesn’t match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics, I can't help that. Guess short of being there (and I wasn't even a gleam at the time), an official record as recorded in a pilots log and a statement from the NAA records guy will just have to do."
-
Glad you posted that Ww..
Since it puts the 'record' straight - so to speak - on your original claims about FAI records
& also records the clear deviation from stock mil-spec & low load out..
Going by the published `51H figures link-posted a competitive USAF time to climb contest
would've been on.. if they'd cared to do so..
Maybe a Buchon-109 - with a race-spec Merlin - could be a current contender to set a mark?
-
Here are service standard performance documents for Bearcat & D-H Hornet..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_I_aircraft_data_card.jpg
Note: both documents list a 'combat' climb time to 20,000ft..
The F8F takes 5.5min, the Hornet does it in 4.0min..
Standard 'combat' initial climb rate for F8F is listed as 4,655ft/min, the Hornet makes over 5,000.
At 'combat' rating the F8F is using 2,500 hp/244sq/ft wing @ 10,337lbs for lift..
..vs Hornet which has at 'combat' - 4,140hp/361sq/ft wing @ 12,537lbs for lift.
Anyone want to 'do the math'?
-
The F8F had break-away wing tips in case the pilot pulled too many g's. In reality, one wingtip would break away and the plane would enter an unrecoverable spin. Was this massive design flaw ever remedied?
-
The F8F had break-away wing tips in case the pilot pulled too many g's. In reality, one wingtip would break away and the plane would enter an unrecoverable spin. Was this massive design flaw ever remedied?
That was on the F8F-1. The F8F-2 didn't have them.
jaw, a twin engine a/c is in a different class.
-
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?
LOL
My idiot alarm just went off.
-
Well, m.m. dunno what you are going on about class distinction-wise..
But..as far as true mil-spec time to climb goes, yes the Hornet is a classy unit..
You could compare it to the F7F if you like..
However, if you run a hp/weight/wing area ratio on the `51H at 90in boost/8,000lbs
It may well have the standard mil-spec Bearcrap whipped too..
& didn't the USN ground the 'Blue Angels' F8F's & relegate them to F6Fs due to
too many hot-dog airshow stunts going wrong/fatal crash mis-haps?
-
LOL
My idiot alarm just went off.
Yup. Once airborne it ceases to matter, hence the term "air speed".
-
LOL
My idiot alarm just went off.
Yeah, & I'll bet whoever gave you that - really wanted to know - when you are around, huh?
-
& m.m., here is another single engine job that would give a true mil-spec F8F a hurry up..
( the Sabre-Fury, which had 3,000+ hp to burn, but alas - went unwanted by the jet-bent RAF..)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
-
Yup. Once airborne it ceases to matter, hence the term "air speed".
With the rare exception of wind shear, which probably wasn't around on a day when they were doing performance testing.
As others have said, headwind will affect distance traveled during climb and ground speed, and nothing more.
- oldman
-
Are you sure?
What with the climb angle lift/drag/thrust/forward speed/vertical speed=climb rate factors?
& at the very least..
.. a stiff cold November wind off the lake is gonna let that big mill run at its best,
air density/cooling/power output factor-wise..
-
LOL
My idiot alarm just went off.
:aok :rofl
-
With the rare exception of wind shear, which probably wasn't around on a day when they were doing performance testing.
As others have said, headwind will affect distance traveled during climb and ground speed, and nothing more.
- oldman
Better sit back down and relax, Oldman. You're getting outta your league here. :D
-
Hey, cheap shots make an easy smokescreen.. & you could show some formulae as proof..
That would be a bit too logical/scientific (work) though.. right?
-
Hey, cheap shots make an easy smokescreen.. & you could show some formulae as proof..
That would be a bit too logical/scientific (work) though.. right?
Actually, we were sort of hoping that you might have some sort of formulae, or at least one formula, to support your contention that climb rate increases as headwind increases. I, at least, desperately could use the education.
- oldman (can't believe I'm feeding the troll. Hey, it's late.)
-
Do you actually read the posts?
If you did .. then you would know that I invited discussion, & did not make any such 'contention'..
Discussion is not trolling, but posting data-less derision is..
Here is the mighty Sabre 7 , 3000hp for take off @ 3,850rpm - from a mere 2238cu"..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Napier_Sabre.pdf
-
Do you actually read the posts?
If you did .. then you would know that I invited discussion, & did not make any such 'contention'..
I'm sorry, that's just not so.
You wrote:
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?
Isn't it like the effect of a tailwind on IAS vs ground speed?
Don't real record attempts put factor limits on wind speed assistance?
And when people responded that it didn't make any difference, you wrote:
Are you sure?
What with the climb angle lift/drag/thrust/forward speed/vertical speed=climb rate factors?
And when people noted that they were sure, you responded:
Hey, cheap shots make an easy smokescreen.. & you could show some formulae as proof..
You offered these comments to denigrate Widewing's contention that the Bearcat held a climb record. Ordinary people reading this would surmise that you maintain that headwind increases climb rate, and that the Bearcat's record was thus somehow unfairly obtained. Otherwise you're simply trolling; you just as easily might have said "Anyone care to discuss the effect of moulting starlings on propeller pitch?"
I regret that I'm writing this, it pains me to know that I'm a willing victim of a troll.
- oldman
-
Hey ol' man, you still trippin' or what?
What you gonna do if 'n I do post the actual formulae &... prove you wrong?
Withdraw & apologise.. I doubt it..
Fact is, Ww claimed that them soggy bottom boys done got an FAI record..
Well, they didn't.. they did an airshow stunt climb & churched it up some..
& you love to take the high road.. on the cheap shot highway that is..
The thread title just aint true.. Fact.. as shown by real data.. as posted.. by me..
& even the USN kept the F4U flying combat long after the recip' Grummans were.. target drones..
-
This about to get fun :O :x
-
Best meltdown ever. :aok
-
Definitely yes. Horsepower, super charger, fuel flo to the max boyz. Yeah, what he said, Sopwith SE5 rule the air and spank that navy iron. Coefficient of lift, drag, money in dah bank, science stuff, awesome. DISCUSS. I live under a bridge and scare people. Formula, math, BAM.
-
Dang, P.. you IS trippin'..& maybe time you hit up Dr Venkmann for a shot of Thorazine..L.O.L..
-
Definitely yes. Horsepower, super charger, fuel flo to the max boyz. Yeah, what he said, Sopwith SE5 rule the air and spank that navy iron. Coefficient of lift, drag, money in dah bank, science stuff, awesome. DISCUSS. I live under a bridge and scare people. Formula, math, BAM.
:rofl :rofl :rofl QFT!
-
Fact is, Ww claimed that them soggy bottom boys done got an FAI record..
Show us where Widewing made such a silly claim.
-
Sure,
Check: post #306 in the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread.
Ww wrote, re the Navy F8F 'record'..
"...was recognised as a legitimate record by the FAI..."
& it jest aint so..
-
Show us where Widewing made such a silly claim.
Well now FLS, if you think that was a silly claim for Ww to make..
Check this one in post#284, (in the same thread).. its a doozy..
Ww wrote,
"Indeed, a unmodified F8F-1 held the time to climb record from 1946 in to the mid `80s. "
Hmmm, was 'bout mid `70s when the ol' F-15 Eagle smashed a bunch of time-to-climb records
wasn't it, & didn't the good ol' F4 Phantom set some round.. `59-60? From memory..
-
I think you're arguing in bad faith. I believe the FAI would recognize a record held for 10 years. Seems reasonable to me. I also think WW referred to the piston engine record holding until the 80's.
-
Not at all, zero "bad faith", just the facts.. ..man..
& do you read the posts?, just see Ww's post on page one this thread (lucky # 13?),
where he transcribes confirmation that there was NO FAI recognition for that 'record'..
Now - where is the 'bad faith', there aint any, .. from me ..anyhow..
-
FLS, you can 'believe' what you like, whether it 'seems reasonable' or otherwise..
It aint necessarily so..
Ww.. did not add the 'recip record' qualifier.. if he had, there would be NO claim contention there..
There it is..
Back to topic..
We have seen that the mil-spec F8F gives 'combat' figures of:
2,500hp/244sq/ft wing/10,337lbs for climb.
The Sabre Fury could do:
3,000hp/280sq/ft wing/11,500lbs for climb.
Anyone want to 'do the math'?
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202181.html
-
Not at all, zero "bad faith", just the facts.. ..man..
& do you read the posts?, just see Ww's post on page one this thread (lucky # 13?),
where he transcribes confirmation that there was NO FAI recognition for that 'record'..
Now - where is the 'bad faith', there aint any, .. from me ..anyhow..
That post does not say what you claim it says, your response proves my point.
-
See rule #4
-
You miss the mark again. There were no FAI records prior to the FAI. I think we all agree with that.
The FAI acknowledges that records were set prior to the FAI which seems to be more than you can do.
-
See Rule #4
-
FLS... too funny.. Do you even know how long the FAI has been around?
Here's a clue.. Glenn Curtiss was setting speed records in France ~100 years ago..
& where is the FAI based? Why Paris France of course..
Look it up...
The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, FAI - The World Air Sports Federation, is the world governing body for air sports, aeronautics and astronautics world records. Its head office is in Lausanne, Switzerland.
-
See Rule #4
-
FLS... too funny.. Do you even know how long the FAI has been around?
Here's a clue.. Glenn Curtiss was setting speed records in France ~100 years ago..
& where is the FAI based? Why Paris France of course..
Look it up...
Here's the part you decided not to quote when you claimed WW was wrong.
"Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”
So I didn't write "before FAI time to climb records". Does that change my point? No. If there was a national record that nobody else in the world had beat that would not be anything like a world record right?
Again you prove my point, you're arguing just to argue. Lucky me I had time to waste tonight but that's over. :D
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
The Bearcat was a tremendous aircraft. A Pacific Focke-Wulf.
-
I did say that the FAI recognized the original record, based upon FAI acceptance of the Rare Bear record that beat it. Clearly, the FAI recognized that it existed, or how would they acknowledge that it was beaten? Obviously, all records established prior to the forming of the FAI existed.... In fact, a great many records were set before the FAI. The P-82's record non-stop flight Hawaii to New York was accomplished before the FAI. Does that make it invalid? Of course not.
-
The Bearcat was a tremendous aircraft. A Pacific Focke-Wulf.
Grumman designed the Bearcat after the design team had flown a captured 190. Grumman looked at the 190 concept and realized that they could stretch it by designing the smallest airframe into which they could install the R-2800. After a few tweeks to the prototype, they took it to the Joint Fighter Conference in October of 1944. There, it was the hit of the conference. Still, Grumman learned from other aircraft manufacturers. The installed a dorsal fillet after talking to the NAA engineers. They included dive recovery flaps after talking to NACA engineers. Like the F6F-5, the F8F incorporated spring tab ailerons, providing a roll rate in excess of 100 degrees per second. What they ended up with very well may have been the best air to air dogfighter even designed. It wasn't a stroke of genius, it was solid engineering that took the best ideas from other designers along with their own and combined them into a single aircraft. The F8F-2 was the final evolution. It ruled the roost at a time when the Navy was transitioning to jet fighters. Thus, it never had a chance to establish itself in combat against other aircraft. It did, however prove to a very capable attack aircraft in Southeast Asia.
Every pilot I know who has flown the Bearcat says the same thing... There's nothing else quite like it.
-
Conveyor Belts,, and head winds I got it now!!! of course! :bhead
-
See Rule #4
-
"Conveyer belts" & that'd be a CV function - in principle - wouldn't it ?
-
"Conveyer belts" & that'd be a CV function - in principle - wouldn't it ?
No, it is a reference to the silly question that a lot of people get wrong: If an airplane tried to take off on a conveyer belt running in opposite direction, could it?
-
No, it is a reference to the silly question that a lot of people get wrong: If an airplane tried to take off on a conveyer belt running in opposite direction, could it?
the conver belt speeds up relative to the planes speed in the opposite direction as well
-
Heat limited by the wheel bearings. :D
-
the conver belt speeds up relative to the planes speed in the opposite direction as well
Yup, but it doesn't make a difference. Plane still takes off. Plane's don't use wheels to accelerate like a care does.
-
Yup, but it doesn't make a difference. Plane still takes off. Plane's don't use wheels to accelerate like a care does.
Depends on the car ( & its wheel bearings) Ask Craig Breedlove..
& the effect of a CV steaming at flank speed into a stiff breeze on aircraft ops is?
What would happen if they tried to fly off in those conditions - heading off the stern?
Stern consequences? L.O.L...
-
Depends on the car ( & its wheel bearings) Ask Craig Breedlove..
& the effect of a CV steaming at flank speed into a stiff breeze on aircraft ops is?
the reason you take off into wind is to lower ground speed.. since ground is usually limited (cv deck, runway)
once you're off the ground, the wind doesn't matter.
(unless there's wind shear)
in fact, if you were between solid cloud layers without navigation aids, you wouldn't be able to determine the speed or direction of the wind... the plane flies thru the airmass. that's all it does. it doesn't know or care which direction or how quickly the airmass is moving.. wind is relative to the ground. once you're off the ground there is really no wind as far as the aircraft is concerned..
-
Unless you are held-up by a headwind, & run out of juice - with no place to land..
Or if your aircraft is a balloon.. or even a Zeppelin..
So wind can often be a flying concern, really..
-
Unless you are held-up by a headwind, & run out off juice with no place to land..
Or if your aircraft is a balloon..
neither of which have anything to do with climb rate which I think you were talking about originally.
-
No, but the 'Grumman Rules the Sky matter' is 'bout done, anyhow.. ..they don't..
& still only opinions, or empirical views.. ..expressed headwind/climb rate-wise..
Nothing scientific put up as proof..
& a dedicated thread would probably be best..
.. - if there was any genuine interest in discussing it..
-
No, but the 'Grumman Rules the Sky matter' is 'bout done, anyhow.. ..they don't..
& still only opinions, or empirical views.. ..expressed headwind/climb rate-wise..
Nothing scientific put up as proof..
& a dedicated thread would probably be best..
.. - if there was any genuine interest in discussing it..
How the hell is a headwind supposed to help you climb? Don't even worry about physics, use basic logic.
If you ignore how fast the airplane is moving over the surface of the planet a headwind functionally doesn't exist. If the aircraft's best climb air speed is 180mph then to get the best climb it will have an airspeed of 180mph. A headwind of 20mph merely means it attains that 180mph air speed while traveling over the ground at 160mph. Likewise, a 20mph tail wind means that it attains 180mph air speed while going 200mph over the ground. (Altitude of course changes the specific relationship of air speed and ground speed) In all examples the airplane does 180mph air speed and climbs at the same rate.
-
If you are really interested in the correct answer Knak,
Best start a new thread on the topic, since - its clouding the thrust of this one..
Tantamount to being ..a bit.. ..hi-jack-wise..
-
Anyone with aeronautical knowledge care to discuss the effect on climb rate of
flying into a stiff headwind ?
We already covered that. It shaves a second off the time to climb.o
-
& Ww, the stunt F8F load-out was light, & the WEP fit out was non mil-spec too..
We covered that too. It was not light. Wep usage the way they did it shaves a few seconds off time to climb.
-
Brooke you've got a head for maths right?
Given the parameters for F8F thrust/weight/lift are available..
& the effects on climb are graphically shown in the `51H climb charts I posted..
It shouldn't take a Cray to compute the climb rate required & thrust/weight necessary
for matching the time to climb stunt, right?
That would sure show load-out/power factors..
& here's a stab at headwind climb assist..
A stiff cold November wind blowing off the flat lake surface could well extend up thousands of feet..
& since climb performance is, obviously thrust/lift related..
Thrust in climb = lift..
& to maintain climb speed in a headwind you increase Angle of Attack..
The same speed with higher A of A must.. logically.. give a boost in climb rate..
..so time to climb is gonna be measurably less..
Wonder if that cheat complies with FAI record attempt reg's.. I doubt it..
-
& so to actually generate those Navy time-to-climb figures..
Which are way above the book figures for a mil-spec stocker..
& are close to what a highly modified race-engine powered, stripped-down race-bear made..
The maths cant lie, it had to be a 'perfect storm' type deal..
Tricked up max boost, light load out, hi-density lift/max boost-coolant ambient air temp
& free lift from headwind..
No wonder they didn't put it forward to the FAI.. since a cheater deal would not fly there..
& if the FAI record scrutineer observers had been there..
No FAI recip mil-spec stocker record ratified/awarded , for sure..
-
Cool stunt though, & obviously well planned..
Probably stand as a model for a current attempt..
Except for the likely FAI record-conditions-stipulation-compliance-violation..
Wonder if we could apply correction factors, theoretically & see how many seconds would
have to be added for a.. legit' record..
-
& here's a stab at headwind climb assist..
Headwind doesn't matter more than a second or two. We covered that before starting here.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.msg4722504.html#msg4722504
We are going over old ground here.
Once your airplane is in the air, wind no longer matters to your climb rate.
-
& to maintain climb speed in a headwind you increase Angle of Attack..
No. You don't.
I apologize. I had thought, from your prior posts, that you had flown planes. I've sort of been making fun of you, and I shouldn't. So I'm sorry.
- oldman
-
See Rule #4
-
Or 'logically' - has anyone here got access to a decent simulation program..
.. which can accurately factor in the known parameters.. & fly the stunt?
-
If speed x A of A = lift..
& speed is a factor of thrust minus drag..
& climb speed/AoA ratio is lift, then 'free' airspeed from a headwind of ~40mph at steady A of A..
Must 'logically' increase rate of climb.. No ?
Or, increased AoA @ steady speed [ extra thrust from 'free' headwind] = quicker climb..
-
If a headwind really mattered then the FAI must have headwind parameters specified for each record, particularily time to climb. If so, those paramaters have to be public, otherwise no one would know if they'd set a legitimate record or not. Show us what those paramaters are. You seem to be an expert on the FAI so you should easily find them.
I'm also curious why there's never a wind/speed direction included with any aircraft speed and/or climb charts. :headscratch: Puzzeling. Very puzzeling.
-
See Rule #4
-
Seems so, coz if you looked a couple of original tests I have posted, you'd see the correction
factors applied..
I 'll post one here - for example..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg
&,
http://www.spitfireperfomance.com/jf934climb.jpg
And what exactly do roll rate and aileron deflection have to do with climbing into a headwind and where on those charts does it tell me what the wind speed/direction is?
What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked.
-
See Rule #4
-
What does EAS stand for Baldy?
& did you look at the Spit climb chart?
See the difference weight/thrust/speed makes to climb rate?
See the 'ICAN' & 'Standard Atmosphere' correction factor notation?
See the boost/revs used?
Do you imagine service test pilots are going to include a cheap stunt trick in an official report?
That would not be a valid/representative data set.. would it?
Why don't you find & post the FAI requirements?
m.m. checked the FAI site out, but didn't bother to link it..
Step up, if you like, Baldy..
I have no idea what you are talking about relative to wind and climb rate....
The chances of flying on a "standard day" are almost nil. Thus, there is a correction for temperature and pressure. There's no correction for wind speed as it is utterly immaterial to climb rate. :rolleyes:
-
See Rule #4
-
Let's see if we can get you to understand the simple physics..
If an airplane is traveling at 300 mph into a 20 mph headwind, its ground speed is 280 mph. Its air speed is still 300 mph. This is because the airplane is moving through a fluid. The speed of the fluid has no bearing on its air speed or climb rate.
-
Your 'logic' is no more valid than mine.. ( & you were wrong about the FAI)..
& groundspeed/airspeed are 2 dimensional - climb is 3rd..
Anyone got the actual.. scientifically validated.. test formulae to put up?
-
I reiterate my earlier post.
-
& repeating it does not increase its validity..
Any ex-submariners here wanna to chime in..
- on oceanic current flow direction effects on sub climb performance?
L.O.L..
-
That is, unless you are doing a 'perfect storm' airshow climb stunt - huh, Ww?
Are you sure 'standard atmosphere' does not include windspeed?
Did you check out those service Spitfire Mk 8 climb rates..
Maybe we can talk Brad Pitt into putting a race-mill Merlin in his Spitfire..
For an attempt on the FAI record..L.O.L...
Sure, someone could install a high output Merlin into a Spit and try for the record.... The record is held by Rare Bear, whose R-3350 was generating in excess of 4,000 hp when it set the record. All of that said, a service grade Spit VIII averages about 1,000 fpm less than the service grade F8F-1 that set the record in 1946, where it averaged about 6,400 fpm.
Also, the best Spit VIII climb rate in that chart was obtained running 25 lb boost. 18 lb was the standard Combat Power setting, and that boost is reflected in Aces High.
-
then 'free' airspeed from a headwind of ~40mph at steady A of A..
Must 'logically' increase rate of climb..
No. You don't get it.
You are well-read. Go back to Langewiesche's book and read his analogy about the man in the train.
- oldman
-
See rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Fluid Dynamics....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics)
-
See rule #4
-
Sure, someone could install a high output Merlin into a Spit and try for the record.... The record is held by Rare Bear, whose R-3350 was generating in excess of 4,000 hp when it set the record. All of that said, a service grade Spit VIII averages about 1,000 fpm less than the service grade F8F-1 that set the record in 1946, where it averaged about 6,400 fpm.
Also, the best Spit VIII climb rate in that chart was obtained running 25 lb boost. 18 lb was the standard Combat Power setting, and that boost is reflected in Aces High.
Ww, kindly post official test evidence of a 'service grade' F8F making '6,400 fpm'.
& note: that is 'bout what those `51H charts give for a 90in/8,000lbs climb rate..
Do you have a ball-park figure for race-Merlin mill outputs?
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Ww, kindly post official test evidence of a 'service grade' F8F making '6,400 fpm'.
You own a calculator, right? Ignoring the time spent on the takeoff roll, the time spent folding gear and building speed to best climb speed, it still requires an average climb rate of 6,250 fpm. Since it did take time to get airborne and build speed, clearly the F8F had to average in excess of 6,400 fpm to get to 10k in 96 seconds.
-
Yes, Ww, it is perfectly self-evident that the stunt-cat made those numbers..
& the posted documents in this thread show that..
.. several other contemporary recips could likely do them,
or even better them - under stunt circumstances - too..
Can you post an authentic document that can confirm it was a truly representative &
run of the mill - mil-spec performance envelope type-deal?
-
& USN/Govt official service tests, not some possibly dubious manufacturer's stuff like
Bell & Republic seemed to have had a bad habit of pushing...
To be fair, I have never seen anything to that effect - about `40s Grumman...
-
A basic mind/meat calculation for the `51H @ 90in/8,000lbs.. & ~6,400ft/min..
.. gives a power to weight ratio of ~3.6..
& the published 'combat' rating/load out for the F8F.. 2500HP/10337lbs.. & ~4,600ft/min
...gives a power to weight ratio of ~4.1..
So given that climb rate is largely a thrust/AoA/speed = lift/climb rate..
Then unless the stunt-cat was overpower/underweight..
Something is a tad maritime creature decomposition scented here.. perhaps..
-
`51H @ 90in
"90in" of what?
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Yes, Ww, it is perfectly self-evident that the stunt-cat made those numbers..
Again, as I already posted.... One of the two pilots attempting the fastest climb stated:
"He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition."
Davenport set the record.
Now, please stop insisting it was a stunt.
-
I recall reading a study that found that people who knew nothing of a subject were pretty cognizant of the amount of knowledge they had on that subject, as were people who knew a moderate amount about it or were experts on it. People who just knew a bit about it were, however, very prone to vastly overestimating how much they knew.
J.A.W.'s complete inability to understand air speed and the meaninglessness of a headwind in relation to aircraft performance leads me to suspect that he falls into the latter category when it comes to how flight actually works. He seems very fixated on the airplane as an automobile level of understanding.
-
Again too funny..
Are you guys for real.. 90in refers to..( good for a V-1650-9 WEP of 2,200+hp on ADI)
Forced induction from supercharging.. intake manifold air pressure.. boost..
..& in US recips was counted in inches/Hg..
- You ever had a blood pressure test on an ol' timey Hg ( mercury column) unit?
The Brits called it boost in psi ( lb/square inch over atmo).
& to the LW - it was metric ata or ~ pressure in bar above atmospheric..
Liquid cooled mills could generally handle more pressure longer, than aircooled,
(no mil-spec R-2800 was ever cleared for running @ 90in Hg..)
& that's why the slickest pony -`51H could deal to a salty ol' soggy bottom bearcrap..
That Napier Sabre 7 (as posted) was rated @ 3055hp military from ~take-off height
on a mere +17.25 lbs boost/ADI (ADI = MW-50 to the LW) ... 90in/Hg was closer to +30lbs..
& Baldy, kindly do us all a favour & check in for a cognitive capacity evaluation.. will ya..
Prove it. And do it without the name calling and sarcasm.
-
I recall reading a study that found that people who knew nothing of a subject were pretty cognizant of the amount of knowledge they had on that subject, as were people who knew a moderate amount about it or were experts on it. People who just knew a bit about it were, however, very prone to vastly overestimating how much they knew.
J.A.W.'s complete inability to understand air speed and the meaninglessness of a headwind in relation to aircraft performance leads me to suspect that he falls into the latter category when it comes to how flight actually works. He seems very fixated on the airplane as an automobile level of understanding.
as I hoped to show with the treadmill reference ,oh well,, easy enough to just ignore I guess .
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
& a conveyer belt/treadmill will act like a catapult launch..
- if the brakes are used to hold the plane to the surface `til airspeed is gained..
Treadmill is going the opposite direction. If the plane's breaks are on it will go backwards.
Knak, - just because you don't understand something, that don't mean ITS stupid..
I understand it just fine. Everybody else here understands it just fine, including the actual pilots here.
You don't understand it and think that flying into a head wind allows a steeper climb angle.
It does not.
-
"Prove it"..
-
"Prove it"..
You prove it. You're the one making the nonsensical claim that nobody agrees with.
I, and others, already explained it. An aircraft is moving within the air and, after the aircraft takes off, the air's speed over the ground is irrelevant to the aircraft's performance metrics, excepting ground speed. In respect to the air the aircraft will be moving at the speed of its best climb rate if the aircraft is climbing at the aircraft's best rate. If that speed is 180mph the aircraft will be moving forward at 180mph in relation to the air, the aircraft's speed in relation to the ground is 100% irrelevant. It does not matter if the air is going 20mph over the ground in any direction unless the aircraft is maneuvering in relation to the ground, which in a pure climb test it is not.
If the aircraft steepens its climb and drops to an air speed of 160mph the aircraft will no longer be climbing and its best rate.
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
-
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?
-
Didn't the 'Mythbusters' run through all these permutations with R-C models on treadmills?
From memory - they even tried a full-scale conveyer-belt/aircraft stunt too..
Wonder - if they'd allow a youtube clip of it to be posted here?
-
Didn't the 'Mythbusters' run through all these permutations with R-C models on treadmills?
From memory - they even tried a full-scale conveyer-belt/aircraft stunt too..
Wonder - if they'd allow a youtube clip of it to be posted here?
So what you're saying then is that you don't know the answer.
Just make something up like you always do then stand by it.
-
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..
-
& 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.
-
See Rule #4
-
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?
-
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..).
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
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... :rolleyes:
And no, Rare Bear was originally rebuilt with clipped wings. Your, "including reverting to optimum lift wing configuration" is simply horsesheep.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
-
After I checked this website it all started making sense: http://www.calendar-365.com/moon/moon-calendar.html (http://www.calendar-365.com/moon/moon-calendar.html)
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
-
See Rule #4
-
The data you cite was with full internal fuel, plus a full 150 gallon centerline drop tank... :rolleyes:
Are you referring to this document: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You guys are both fixated on ground speed. Ground speed is irrelevant to a climb test.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Where it makes a difference is when there are tall trees at the end of a short runway. But you're right, in the context of the present conversation everyone is talking about rate of climb, not angle of climb.
- oldman
-
Where it makes a difference is when there are tall trees at the end of a short runway. But you're right, in the context of the present conversation everyone is talking about rate of climb, not angle of climb.
- oldman
Yes, in reality it matters to me, but in a strict view of the subject it doesn't matter as we're assuming a take off from a flat plain at sea level.
-
See Rule #4
-
Any R.C. guys flying with a GPS transponder aboard or a laser/radar range finder that run
a field test, trying.. climb rate vs AOA/speed into wind vs no wind vs tail wind?
Those are measurements from the ground.
-
See Rule #4
-
Knak, - just stop.. now.. will you.. your level of 'understanding' is becoming embarrassing..
The 'ground ' taken R.C model measurements will be compared from a level/fixed basis..
The airborne measurements ( GPS vs aircraft ASI/climb) will be compared with each other,
in the dynamic/flight state - in the plane..
Got it now?
Yes, you clearly don't understand.
In a best climb the plane's pitch is the same regardless of whatever the wind is doing or not doing (assuming steady state). The steeper angle of the climb as measured from the ground is a trivia question and answer that has no bearing on the climb rate of the aircraft or the air speed of the aircraft or the pitch of the aircraft while climbing.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
What exactly are you contending JAW?
Make your statement as to what you're saying with regard to how things work. Shelve the BS and in one sentence state what you're asserting with regard to climb rate and wind and how the hell we got here. Then go from there supporting it.
-
Sure G, to summarise..
How to TEST, as opposed to simply dismiss/deride - based on dogmatic 'knowing'..
The effect of head wind on climb rate..
A heavier than air - aircraft - has to generate thrust, for lift- in order to climb..
The greater the level of thrust - over drag - & > lift - the quicker the climb..
Climb rate is matter of lift produced - via Angle of Attack/speed..
You are an S.S. fan G, so you get that the S.S. has such an excess of thrust over drag that it don't need aero lift at all..
Planes however do, & air-speed is airspeed over a wing..& dependent on thrust being provided..
More thrust can overcome AoA induced drag & maintain a higher angle..
Which - for a given speed - will allow quicker climb rate & a faster time-to-climb..
& more speed - at original, lesser AoA will too..
So will headwind induced 'free' airspeed come into play?
A valid scientific test will settle the question, & ranting dogma wont..
-
So will headwind induced 'free' airspeed come into play?
It isn't free. Going by ground speed, which is what we have to do to even keep the headwind as a headwind, it means that to do 180mph we're doing 200mph the the air and to keep the plane moving at an airspeed of 200mph through the air we need to put more of our thrust to overcoming drag which means there is less thrust available for climbing. The reason being that going 200mph produces more drag than going 180mph does, thus needing more thrust to accomplish.
-
It appears jaw has a few months on us arguing with none other than a guy who has flown Bearcats and Mustangs. (Matt Jackson)
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?11186-Time-to-climb
Your record is broken
-
It appears jaw has a few months on us arguing with none other than a guy who has flown Bearcats and Mustangs. (Matt Jackson)
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?11186-Time-to-climb
Your record is broken
hahaha wow.
-
I found that stuff a day or two ago,, but got distracted
A few pages in Matt Jackson,, who has flown both modified and stock versions of the same plane sets the record
.Matt Jackson
Registered Member
Join Date
Mar 2002
Location
Van Nuys CA
Posts
172
Blog Entries
2
Re: Time to climb
Originally Posted by J.A.W.
That's great, & those highly modified racers must be quite a handful..
It is a given - that flight time aboard them is a rare & beautiful thing..
As for mil-spec stockers..
Well, the military acceptance service test standards -[ & not including 'manufacturers' figures]
- were established back in the day - when they were factory fresh..
The P-51H - was a factory hot-rod compared with a `51D, being a light-built airframe with 500 more hp..
Not nearly in the same category as a Strega for sure..
..but test-pilot proven to be line-ball performance-wise with the fastest U.S. R-2800 powered stockers, even so..
The reality is the H model was tested and max climb rate recorded was 3220 FPM at rated Military HP. The Bear Cat as I said has a bit more at 4570 FPM so I don't know where you get your info., but its a bit flawed. You can see the actual North American Data by looking under P51H climb performance on Google. It has a posted North American document that clearly shows the H is no where near the Bear Cat. Just is not so. Nice thought though. H is an awesome plane, but not nearly as great a performer as some have claimed. Michael O'Leary wrote an incredible book called Mustangs where all the North American test data is listed. There are no secrets, just a lot of misinformed people with stories of performance that was not there. The best climbing Mustangs were the Light weight models that were built to British standards. The H was an off-shoot but came no where near the light weight Mustang performance figures. So the H while a better performer as a stocker then the D is no where near the Stock Bear Cat. The Bear Cat also held the time to climb record from a standing start to 10,000 in 1946 and was only eclipsed by a jet. Rare Bear Hold the current time to climb and I don't see any H model records of note either.
But you still argue, much like a cow with a fence post,,, I'm not sure why you came here and brought this up now? you've already been schooled by someone who has actually flown all aircraft in question,,, what is it you hope to accomplish here that you couldn't get there?
-
Yeah, funny - coz just like the guys on this thread,
- M.J. could not admit his `51H stick time was ..
..ZERO..
& just like when a proposed TEST is discussed here, he too fell back on a big noting rant..
As if ego beats science.. ..L.O.L...
Unless, maybe.. you mean for 'hot air balloon' lift/thrust.. ..L.O.L...
He didn't run an F8F at Reno this year either.. not that he won.. anyhow..
But a `51 did...
-
So all this is for you is insisting the P-51H is the epitome of awesome and no radial engine powered Ironworks airplane could ever best it in performance and going "LALALALALA" with your fingers in your ears when evidence is given otherwise.
Check.
Moving on.
-
J.A.W.,
Do you agree that the faster an aircraft travels through the air the greater its parasitic drag becomes?
-
sorry for being late to the party but wouldn't a head wind decrease rate of climb as it would cause turbulence in the airflow over the wing at high angles of attack? as the head wind hits the leading edge it would swirl over top wing surface disrupting the airflow effectively bringing on stall like characteristics? with out a head wind the air would pass over the top surface parallel to the path of the aircraft providing a smoother flow of air that generates the lift? please kanark correct me if I'm wrong .
-
The only reason I could think of to bring that fight here, would be have the P-51h and the F8F modeled in game so you could see the test recreated but both of them did not see combat so they would not be modeled here?
Since there are only 2 P-51H's still airworthy,, maybe your time would be better spent trying to get now of them up to try it out.
BTW. Since the H is such a hot rod build instead of an advanced D model,,, basically a new plane,,, why did the U.S. Send P-51D's to Korea, instead of the all powerful H?
-
See Rule #4
-
Great. You win.
Go break the record with a 51H.
-
I used the space shuttle as an example of showing you that you don't know with any level of certainty what you're speaking of. The fact you equate the fabric thermal protection covering to body armor shows your ignorance.
You didn't connect the dots
There's a difference between you and I. When I learned the shuttle was covered in fabric I shut my mouth and listened to something someone with experience was telling me.
-
Yeah, funny - coz just like the guys on this thread,
- M.J. could not admit his `51H stick time was ..
I read that thread to the end and not once did I see mention of his stick time in an H
I did see a question asked by him tho that peaked my interest. I'll paraphrase,,, if the pony could have,, why hasn't one done so? It's been plenty long enough for someone to prove,, yet Rare Bear still stands alone,,
And that's a fact Jack!
-
& it seems you don't read the posts either Brooke..
I read them.
Either that or you simply ignore those which run counter to your assumptions..
..or what you 'believe' - as FLS puts it..
Do the maths lie?
Got any proof via scientific formulae?
Otherwise opinions are fine.. but weak.. as evidence, even 'logic' - don't cut it against maths..
& same goes for ol' mans empirical/experiential opinions, since he hasn't actually done
a climb which matches the parameters of the stunt, obviously..
These are aspects of basic physics and basic aerodynamics. The equations in aerodynamics (thrust, lift, drag, etc.) depend on speed of the aircraft through the air, not on the speed of the air relative to anything else. That's why if you put a wind tunnel in a train car and tested a model while the train is at rest, you would get the same results as if the train car were moving along at a steady 30 mph. This is the concept in physics of a reference frame.
Here is an equation for rate of climb in reference frame of the air that the aircraft is traveling through: ROC = (T - D) * v/W, where T = thrust, D = drag, v = velocity of aircraft through the air (relative to the air it is travelling in), W is the weight of the aircraft. D = 0.5 * rho * v^2 * S * C_D, where rho = density of air, S = wing area, C_D = coefficient of drag. T = eta * 375 * gamma * BHP / v, where eta is propeller efficiency, gamma is a factor for how much of full power is being applied (1.0 for full power, 0.5 for half power, 0 for no power, etc.), and BHP is the brake horsepower of the engine.
By high-school physics, here is an equation for rate of climb in air moving relative to the ground (i.e., in ground's reference frame), choosing a reference frame with y direction perpendicular to ground and x direction parallel to ground and with an arbitrary wind velocity vector (v_x, v_y): ROC_withwind = ROC + v_y. This is high school physics. Note now that ROC is independent of v_x and v_y, and thus that ROC_withwind depends on v (speed of aircraft through the air, independent of what the speed of that air is relative to the ground) and on v_y (the speed of the air perpendicular to the ground, such as updraft or downdraft), but is completely independent of v_x (speed of air parallel to the ground, such as headwind or tailwind).
There are lots of references online on such things. Here's one among many for the math of ROC: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/perf/climb/ (http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/perf/climb/). For basic physics, there are lots of books -- just look in Amazon and they will have many. For an introduction to aerodynamics, I like "Introduction to Flight," by John D. Anderson, Jr.
-
obviously you guys have never heard the old saying......"cant fix stupid"
-
I like debating things on the forum. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, though -- that's not what I expect to get out of it.
-
WW, it aint about 'stupid' as ink claims..( 'stupid' claim, really)
It comes down to Cubic $.. ..which is why R-B is past its best-by-date Reno race results-wise too..
&that R-B FAI record has lapsed..
I sure did ask M.J. about `51H stick-time.. he simply could not admit it.. he had zip..
WW, an A-H F-51H vs F8F-2 showdown based on those mil-spec test fihures could be cool, good idea..
-
I read them.
These are aspects of basic physics and basic aerodynamics. The equations in aerodynamics (thrust, lift, drag, etc.) depend on speed of the aircraft through the air, not on the speed of the air relative to anything else. That's why if you put a wind tunnel in a train car and tested a model while the train is at rest, you would get the same results as if the train car were moving along at a steady 30 mph. This is the concept in physics of a reference frame.
Here is an equation for rate of climb in reference frame of the air that the aircraft is traveling through: ROC = (T - D) * v/W, where T = thrust, D = drag, v = velocity of aircraft through the air (relative to the air it is travelling in), W is the weight of the aircraft. D = 0.5 * rho * v^2 * S * C_D, where rho = density of air, S = wing area, C_D = coefficient of drag. T = eta * 375 * gamma * BHP / v, where eta is propeller efficiency, gamma is a factor for how much of full power is being applied (1.0 for full power, 0.5 for half power, 0 for no power, etc.), and BHP is the brake horsepower of the engine.
By high-school physics, here is an equation for rate of climb in air moving relative to the ground (i.e., in ground's reference frame), choosing a reference frame with y direction perpendicular to ground and x direction parallel to ground and with an arbitrary wind velocity vector (v_x, v_y): ROC_withwind = ROC + v_y. This is high school physics. Note now that ROC is independent of v_x and v_y, and thus that ROC_withwind depends on v (speed of aircraft through the air, independent of what the speed of that air is relative to the ground) and on v_y (the speed of the air perpendicular to the ground, such as updraft or downdraft), but is completely independent of v_x (speed of air parallel to the ground, such as headwind or tailwind).
There are lots of references online on such things. Here's one among many for the math of ROC: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/perf/climb/ (http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/perf/climb/). For basic physics, there are lots of books -- just look in Amazon and they will have many. For an introduction to aerodynamics, I like "Introduction to Flight," by John D. Anderson, Jr.
Sure, & thanks for the efforts there Brooke..
Anyone recall the ol' 'Bumblebee' test.. back in the day, & according to the - then - current physics theory..
The B.B. couldn't possibly fly.. but the B.B. knew better.. & he had flight tests as proof..
-
The ultimate world record for a climb to 3,000 meters stands at 91.6 seconds, set in 1972 by Lyle Shelton in a modified Grumman F8F Bearcat.
FIA or not,, that is still the holly Grail, unless you know of another piston propeller plane that has done it faster?
-
No FAI certified record AFAIK, WW.
But I done heard of an unofficial Navy fly-boy stunt - abusing Gov't property - that ran mighty close..
A race Merlin in a Spitfire or Buchon/109 ought to be able to take it..
If a `51H can't..
-
If you need any GV training ,, just let me know! You do play this game don't you?
-
I appreciate the kind offer WW,
& while I got tired of the Secret Weapons/Blazing Angels/Il-Stumovik rigmarole,
the A-H's semi-authentic - yet user friendly, sim-experience does offer appeal..
I am still operating below the radar currently, 'til I get enough confidence to 'come out' A-H-wise
so to speak.. ..but thanks, & I'll def' let you know..
-
Are we sure this isn't Gaston? His response to Brooke is suspiciously like Gaston's insistence that physics is wrong.
J.A.W.,
Just to be clear, despite your repeated insults to me about my claim, this is a very well understood thing. There is no mystery or unknown to debate. Headwinds do not affect climb rate.
-
sorry for being late to the party but wouldn't a head wind decrease rate of climb as it would cause turbulence in the airflow over the wing at high angles of attack? as the head wind hits the leading edge it would swirl over top wing surface disrupting the airflow effectively bringing on stall like characteristics? with out a head wind the air would pass over the top surface parallel to the path of the aircraft providing a smoother flow of air that generates the lift? please kanark correct me if I'm wrong .
This happens in the rare instance of wind shear, usually associated with thunderstorm activity. Until the early 1990s no one knew anything about it.
But that's not what's being "discussed" in this thread. Once a plane's wheels lift off the ground, the plane is flying in the air mass around it. There's no headwind, there's no tailwind, except as the plane is viewed in relation to the ground. If the plane's airspeed indicator says it's moving at 130 knots, that will be true whether the air mass is moving towards the airfield or away from the airfield. The ground speed will be different, but the plane, basically, doesn't care.
- oldman
-
See Rule #4
-
It's easy enought to do,,, just go offline, set the wind speed at whatever speed and direction, pick a plane ,up on said runway into the wind full throttle,let auto climb do the rest,,,
Do this once with wind and once without,, the roll out will be the only thing that changes, time the whole thing but also time from automatic "wheels up". The wheels up times to 10k should be exactly the same, the rollout would get shorter with more wind speed ,,,use the same plane every time.
Remember to set you wind from zero to 10k,, I'd try more than one wind speed to see the rollout difference,,, save the films from all runs for scrutiny,
I'd do it myself tomorrow but I'm volunteering at the VA . :salute
-
This happens in the rare instance of wind shear, usually associated with thunderstorm activity. Until the early 1990s no one knew anything about it.
But that's not what's being "discussed" in this thread. Once a plane's wheels lift off the ground, the plane is flying in the air mass around it. There's no headwind, there's no tailwind, except as the plane is viewed in relation to the ground. If the plane's airspeed indicator says it's moving at 130 knots, that will be true whether the air mass is moving towards the airfield or away from the airfield. The ground speed will be different, but the plane, basically, doesn't care.
- oldman
Ol'man I do get the IAS relativity thing, as shown onboard by ASI/climb-rate read outs..
Still it would be cool to check 'em against GPS readings for potential anomalies..
Anyone recall back when 'everyone knew' that wing lift was due to Bernoulli's Principle?
When all along it was really just the wing's plane surface - squashing down on air, afore it could bleed out from under..
-
It's easy enought to do,,, just go offline, set the wind speed at whatever speed and direction, pick a plane ,up on said runway into the wind full throttle,let auto climb do the rest,,,
Do this once with wind and once without,, the roll out will be the only thing that changes, time the whole thing but also time from automatic "wheels up". The wheels up times to 10k should be exactly the same, the rollout would get shorter with more wind speed ,,,use the same plane every time.
Remember to set you wind from zero to 10k,, I'd try more than one wind speed to see the rollout difference,,, save the films from all runs for scrutiny,
I'd do it myself tomorrow but I'm volunteering at the VA . :salute
Ah, yeah, & it has been suggested - see post #77 this thread..
-
You have the game downloaded I assume ,, so you have that access,, I used to play with the wind speed all the time in the offline mode,, I'd bet any of the custom arenas could be set up as well with any head wind you like,,,
As I said I'm busy in the morning but I should be back around by 2pm central if you don't get it figured out before then!
-
You have the game downloaded I assume ,, so you have that access,, I used to play with the wind speed all the time in the offline mode,, I'd bet any of the custom arenas could be set up as well with any head wind you like,,,
As I said I'm busy in the morning but I should be back around by 2pm central if you don't get it figured out before then!
Not on this machine ( I'm supposed to be working, shhhh.. & please - don't tell on me..)
& I am not confident that anything I did sim test-wise .. would be regarded as kosher.. - here anyhow..
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
Lots of Bearcats....
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dGpGcvocM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFsBr8DyE5BBMxTgCl3H7ag)
Lots of Bearcats....
Hey that's great Ww, & so, you aint trawled up any `51H vids yet then, huh?
Maybe find an authentic SAC feature, & post that too?
-
This video is about a rebuilt A6M3... Narrated by its pilot. Interesting, especially at the end where he states that the Zero could defeat any fighter of its era in a low speed dogfight. Except, that is.... a Bearcat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUseKNrh6Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUseKNrh6Q)
-
This video is about a rebuilt A6M3... Narrated by its pilot. Interesting, especially at the end where he states that the Zero could defeat any fighter of its era in a low speed dogfight. Except, that is.... a Bearcat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUseKNrh6Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmUseKNrh6Q)
.
Really, Ww, - 'spose that fat ol' barrel-buoy barnacle scraper oughta be good at low & slow..
..since it aint that hot at the high Mach end of the envelope..
-
Nothing's better than a P-51H. Nothing. Facts be damned.
-
P-51H...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfPOVWOIL8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfPOVWOIL8M)
-
P-51H...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfPOVWOIL8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfPOVWOIL8M)
Much obliged there Ww, most kind indeed..
Dang.. aint she a slick lil' filly though..
Musta been a real buzz to put the spurs ( 2,200hp @ 3000rpm/90in Hg/ADI) to her..
Esp when ol'uncle Sam was springing for the tab..
Guessin' you'd kinda like to give her a lick o' the leather when she's all shuckered down & bare-back @ 8,000lbs, huh Ww?
& G, naw, don't think so - I still reckon a big ol' Brit Sabre-Fury would stomp on that pretty pony, but good..
-
So will headwind induced 'free' airspeed come into play?
There is actually a way to use the "free" energy from wind, but not in the way you seem to be thinking...
I fly a lot of RC, and sailplanes (thermal and slope) in particular (but also have a lot of warbird and aerobatic biplane experience).
To use the wind as an energy source requires being in flight already (not taking off, so to speak), and while at flying speed passing from a lower-speed wind layer into a higher-speed wind layer (which will give you a "temporarily" higher airspeed; for "free"). If you continue on the same heading / AoA, you'll slow and lose that speed; but if you instead continue to pull up and over the top you can maintain that extra airspeed and begin flying downwind, which will then give you the effect of that higher airspeed added to the downwind speed. When you then complete your loop , and simultaneously break back through the lower-speed wind layer you'll be back at the "starting point" but will arrive there at a higher airspeed than you began. You can repeat that looping flight, continuously passing from the lower-speed wind layer into the higher-speed wind layer (and gaining airspeed each time you that), and maintaining that gain in speed by turning downwind and dropping back into the lower-speed layer... Each time you do that you'll go faster, and faster, and faster, and faster; gaining "free" energy from the wind.
Kind of neat, and lots of fun! Look into "dynamic soaring"... For an rc glider that will generally fly at less than 30mph in a level glide, the speed record at this point is in the neighborhood of 450 -500mph. Not too shabby for "free" energy.
Of course, as the others have mentioned this won't work as an assist for a climb to altitude test; it's not a method to "cheat", but it's fun never-the-less. Birds of prey have been using this method for millennia; humans are really just getting started with it.
-
Nothing's better than a P-51H. Nothing. Facts be damned.
Now see here G...
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?2812-Hawker-Fury-Prototypes-3-amp-4&p=110375
-
There is actually a way to use the "free" energy from wind, but not in the way you seem to be thinking...
I fly a lot of RC, and sailplanes (thermal and slope) in particular (but also have a lot of warbird and aerobatic biplane experience).
To use the wind as an energy source requires being in flight already (not taking off, so to speak), and while at flying speed passing from a lower-speed wind layer into a higher-speed wind layer (which will give you a "temporarily" higher airspeed; for "free"). If you continue on the same heading / AoA, you'll slow and lose that speed; but if you instead continue to pull up and over the top you can maintain that extra airspeed and begin flying downwind, which will then give you the effect of that higher airspeed added to the downwind speed. When you then complete your loop , and simultaneously break back through the lower-speed wind layer you'll be back at the "starting point" but will arrive there at a higher airspeed than you began. You can repeat that looping flight, continuously passing from the lower-speed wind layer into the higher-speed wind layer (and gaining airspeed each time you that), and maintaining that gain in speed by turning downwind and dropping back into the lower-speed layer... Each time you do that you'll go faster, and faster, and faster, and faster; gaining "free" energy from the wind.
Kind of neat, and lots of fun! Look into "dynamic soaring"... For an rc glider that will generally fly at less than 30mph in a level glide, the speed record at this point is in the neighborhood of 450 -500mph. Not too shabby for "free" energy.
Of course, as the others have mentioned this won't work as an assist for a climb to altitude test; it's not a method to "cheat", but it's fun never-the-less. Birds of prey have been using this method for millennia; humans are really just getting started with it.
.
Again thanks for the thoughtful & well considered post Mtn-m,
One to add to the 'this what I - seen - heard - done - know'.. file..
-
Ok I wasnt gonna sleep anyway so i did it for ya!
Yak-3 full fuel from the tower full throttle to east runway film starts automatically every time so there is no question of error on my part
I did not measure anything as far as roll out to wheels up,, but I have the films and will send them to anyone who wants to see them,, they are AH films
run 1 ;test 0 wind time to 10k 3.02 minutes
run 2 ; actual ----- 0 wind time to 10k 3.03 minutes
run 3 ; actual 25mph head wind time to 10k 3.04 minutes
run 4 ; actual 40mph head wind time to 10k 3.00 minutes
no real difference in any of the settings from 0 to 45 MPH If I need to check for a higher speed wind,, just let me know!
I had the Yak already in the hanger so its what i used,, to check the game against reality Id need the real planes numbers and weight!
-
Did you notice what the air speed was for each climb?
-
Ok I wasnt gonna sleep anyway so i did it for ya!
Yak-3 full fuel from the tower full throttle to east runway film starts automatically every time so there is no question of error on my part
I did not measure anything as far as roll out to wheels up,, but I have the films and will send them to anyone who wants to see them,, they are AH films
run 1 ;test 0 wind time to 10k 3.02 minutes
run 2 ; actual ----- 0 wind time to 10k 3.03 minutes
run 3 ; actual 25mph head wind time to 10k 3.04 minutes
run 4 ; actual 40mph head wind time to 10k 3.00 minutes
no real difference in any of the settings from 0 to 45 MPH If I need to check for a higher speed wind,, just let me know!
I had the Yak already in the hanger so its what i used,, to check the game against reality Id need the real planes numbers and weight!
Many thanks WW, good effort & most appreciated..
Now.. would Brooke care to chime in.. on the p-factor/significance level of your findings?
-
Did you notice what the air speed was for each climb?
no but I went back
40 mph HW was 113/150 first number is what the film viewer said/ second number was indicated in red on the firewall
25 mph HW was 149/175
0 wind was __ 186/190 all at 10k roughly!
-
Here's a good comparison of the F8F-2 vs the P-51D... Takeoff roll. Both power up at the same time. The F8F sprints away, is airborne in about 300 feet and pulls into a near 45 degree climb. Meanwhile, the Mustang hasn't broken ground yet. It's an entertaining video, but the first 30 seconds shows the difference in acceleration and initial climb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI)
-
Here's a good comparison of the F8F-2 vs the P-51D... Takeoff roll. Both power up at the same time. The F8F sprints away, is airborne in about 300 feet and pulls into a near 45 degree climb. Meanwhile, the Mustang hasn't broken ground yet. It's an entertaining video, but the first 30 seconds shows the difference in acceleration and initial climb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI)
Yeah Ww, & pretty sure you done posted that vid already on the 'Best Heavy Fighter' thread..
So, again..
That fat 'n' tame ol' hack D - well she sure aint no skittish hot pursang '51H pumpin' WEP @ 8k T.O.W - is she now, boy?
& likely if Capt T.Mantell had saddled up a feisty H 'Stang - 'stead of a lazy ol' D, he'd a whipped that dang UFO too,
skinning it real good - jest like if it'd been a salty ol' blue-belly Bearcat..
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Ohhh... I thought I was on ignore. Too bad.
You stilll haven't answered the question.
Here it is again:
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?
-
Ohhh... I thought I was on ignore. Too bad.
You stilll haven't answered the question.
Here it is again:
BaldEagl, pretty typical of someone without facts or logic, so he reverts to name calling in a feeble attempt to make his case.
-
Have you guys ever heard of the phrase "don't feed the troll"?
;)
-
Skuzzy has been very generous in this thread... Must be the holiday spirit.... ;)
-
IIRC Skuzzy said he won't do anything unless it is reported.
-
Old man I got it . You could be doing 300Kts IAS but only doing 270 kts ground speed in a 30 kt winds :) The aircraft won't stall out as it has the wind is acting as if it's moving forwards on the ground . adversely if the wind is coming from behind and your doing 300Kts ISA and the wind is blowing at 30kts then your having to go 330kts relative to the ground . This would have zero effect to rate of climb as the wing still produces the same amount of lift no matter as it still thinks it's going the the air at that 300kts with a ground tail wind .
-
IIRC Skuzzy said he won't do anything unless it is reported.
I have a feeling when a particular person's argument is shown to be nothing more than thin air and straw men, he hits the report button.
ack-ack
-
Ohhh... I thought I was on ignore. Too bad.
You stilll haven't answered the question.
Here it is again:
I vote for no as air is not passing over the wings . Would that be right?
-
I vote for no as air is not passing over the wings . Would that be right?
Airplanes aren't cars.
-
read up , got it . Aircraft not driven by wheels so doesn't take off due to ground speed but IAS . doesn't matter how fast the conveyor moves as the wheels are free spinning .
-
Since this topic is wandering anyway I think it's time to bust out the old down wind turn stall for J.A.W. Flying against a fifty knot headwind in level flight with a ground speed of 30 knots in a plane with a stall speed of 50 knots are you more likely to stall if you turn downwind than you would making the same turn but with only a 2 knot headwind and a ground speed of 78 knots?
Further, why could it be said that knowledge of the correct answer could in fact lead to a more dangerous decision than believing in the incorrect answer?
-
This would have zero effect to rate of climb as the wing still produces the same amount of lift no matter as it still thinks it's going the the air at that 300kts with a ground tail wind .
Airplanes do not climb because they have excess lift. They climb because they have excess power. Lift has squat to do with a steady state climb.
-
Thats what I was pointing out . it wouldn't matter what the wind was doing , as long as the air is passing over the wing so it's not stalling .
-
Again thanks for the thoughtful & well considered post Mtn-m,
One to add to the 'this what I - seen - heard - done - know'.. file..
Who'da thunk it? You can throw a glider off the hill on a windy day and get it to go over 450mph!
An example... If you watch past the first few minutes, he flies slower (405mph) with a better camera set-up so you can actually see the plane, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfoxjNg-eg0
And a fairly simple video explanation of how it works.-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVN-oF6tPLc
-
Isn't it or is it, hmmm, anyhow, the physic that needs to be understood is, what causes a plane to move forward; power, aye? Power (thrust) drives the ability to create lift, aye?
Thus the plane takes off.
Or did I miss something? I'm only one cartooooon pilot (said in my best Ron White 'one man' voice.)
-
Ah yes, now where were we again?
Oh right, so to summarise then..
The premise of the thread topic is -as it relates to Grumman recip' fighters, plainly false..
The USN dumped both F6F & F8F off its CVs - in favour of the late production F4U..
& the airshow climb 'record' has been revealed as a cute stunt, but a cheat in reality..
Like-wise, the R-2800, which was WEP rated for 2,500hp at take-off in the F8F was
out-powered by a thousand hp in take-off rating by the Napier Sabre.
Wonder how a Beatcat would go with a 3,500hp Sabre hauling it?
Well, anyhow - it would sure look purtier, with a rhino-plasty & that's fo' sure.
The video of the P-51D being out-climbed by the F8F is like-wise a cheater stunt,
& the published official data shows the 51H was capable of dealing to the F8F in true mil-spec..
There it is..
-
I thought this thread dead.
Which it should be
Inanely.
All it is
Is drivel.
-
& Yet, somehow, P. - you feel oddly compelled.. - enough to add your opinion.. again.. FWIW..
-
& the airshow climb 'record' has been revealed as a cute stunt, but a cheat in reality..
Incorrect. It was proven (about three times over, in this thread and another) to be the opposite of what you say.
-
Not so Brooke, lets review..
1, Was it an FAI sanctioned or recognised ' World Record' - as claimed by Widey?
No, it was not..
2, Was it a dead-clean stone-cold stock mil-spec F8F ?
No it was not..
3, Would it have met the criteria for an FAI sanctioned record?
No it would not..
4, Did flying into a stiff cold headwind improve performance?
Yes, of course it did..
These are the established facts..
-
4, Did flying into a stiff cold headwind improve performance?
Yes, of course it did..
These are the established facts..
I dont know about the other points, but #4 is still as incorrect as it ever was.
-
So, if it was flying off the deck of a CV sternwards, while the CV was steaming V-max ahead in tropical heat..
Or if it was fully loaded & flying from a 10,000ft elevation strip in zero wind at 45`C in high summer..
It would make the same time-to-climb as it did for that stunt?
Yeah, right..
-
Ooh you're the guy who is butthurt for no seemingly good reason that your beloved P51H isn't as good an airplane as the Bearcat.
Cool. How out we just say you're special and skip the ceremony and agree when in your online presence the so decreed slicker than greased snot H-Mustang trumps all comers and stunt technicality using aeroplanes?
Simplify things?
-
Geeze G,
- Didn't you even read post # 199?
So, again I 'll put it to you, - yeah, sure, the little Limey powered pony `51H was the best performing US recip,
- but that don't mean it was the all-time best, period..
-
Not so Brooke, lets review..
Yes, let's review:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.msg4722462.html#msg4722462
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.msg4722504.html#msg4722504
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.msg4722545.html#msg4722545
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356969.msg4733811.html#msg4733811
Those are just four relevant links from among many more than four repeating what has been gone over again and again. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something misstated or misleading, it will remain misstated or misleading.
-
The same applies to what you put up too, Brooke..
Fact.. the maths you did shows a significant theoretical time advantage to roll out into a headwind..
Fact, W.W., did an A-H Yak test simulation showed a similar time gain..
Fact, the WEP was admitted to be rigged..
Fact, the 'record' was never put to the FAI for certification, & nor would it have been ratified if they had..
Fact, it was a neatly orchestrated stunt - no contest - & no contest as any kind of 'official record' either..
However, big picture-wise,
(& even if the 'record' - had been more kosher than a very observant orthodox Rabbi),
- the thread premise is still busted..
-
So, if it was flying off the deck of a CV sternwards, while the CV was steaming V-max ahead in tropical heat..
Or if it was fully loaded & flying from a 10,000ft elevation strip in zero wind at 45`C in high summer..
It would make the same time-to-climb as it did for that stunt?
Yeah, right..
Tempature and altitude changes would, of course, make a difference. A headwind, no difference at all once airborne, and given how rapidly the F8F gets airborne it wouldn't change things by more than 5 seconds in total, if that.
-
Knak, WW did 'fly' it, in a Yak & found a significant difference ( where's that p-factor then - Brooke)..
Obviously, compared to a hot/summer day - a cold wind chill is going to provide both superior lift & power output..
& 5 seconds is a lot, ~5% in fact..
-
Oh goodie, you're back. You STILL haven't answered the question. Here it is for about the fourth time. You have a 50/50 chance of getting it right with a guess:
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?
-
Funny Baldy, but the Mythbuster ep - where they did just that check, both with scale & full size aircraft,
was replayed on TV the other night, - don't say you aint seen it..
& if I cared, I 'd put up the youtube vid of it for you.. ..Its a doozy..
( & the answer is, it depends.. .. i.e. - if the plane has its brakes on, or not..)
-
( & the answer is, it depends.. .. i.e. - if the plane has its brakes on, or not..)
fundamental ignorance.
everyone knows wheel speed is most important in airplanes.
-
'Fundamental ignorance'
Yes indeed,
..since if the plane's brakes are on - the conveyer belt will ( if running forwards, & fast enough) effectively catapult it..
-
The same applies to what you put up too, Brooke..
Fact, W.W., did an A-H Yak test simulation showed a similar time gain..
run 1 ;test 0 wind time to 10k 3.02 minutes
run 2 ; actual ----- 0 wind time to 10k 3.03 minutes
run 3 ; actual 25mph head wind time to 10k 3.04 minutes
run 4 ; actual 40mph head wind time to 10k 3.00 minutes
That is not fact, there was no significant time gain in any of the tests, the only gain was in length or amount of runway need to lift off the ground.
.03 seconds is not a gain, if it was, how would you explain the longest flight to be with a 25MPH headwind?
-
( & the answer is, it depends.. .. i.e. - if the plane has its brakes on, or not..)
Ahh... no
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
... so if the brakes are on the conveyer belt stops.
So answer the question. 50/50 chance you get it right by guessing.
-
The same applies to what you put up too, Brooke..
Fact.. the maths you did shows a significant theoretical time advantage to roll out into a headwind..
The math shows the exact opposite of what you say. Also, there is no mention of any headwind. You are the only one mentioning that.
Fact, the WEP was admitted to be rigged..
Irrelevant -- see above references.
Fact, the 'record' was never put to the FAI for certification, & nor would it have been ratified if they had..
Irrelevant -- see above references.
Fact, it was a neatly orchestrated stunt - no contest - & no contest as any kind of 'official record' either..
Incorrect.
-
Baldy, if it matters so much to you, just post the Mythbusters findings, they actually did it..
W.W., your timings appear confused, is it .03 seconds, or .03 minutes, or 3min & 3 secs?
Anyhow, given the difference in power to weight of a maxed out WEP/light load F8F on climb - to a Yak,
-- more'n likely - the margin would be even more significant.
Brooke, if you like, forget about the headwind ( although it was mentioned in other source material),
but, simply applying the adjective 'irrelevant' in the face of the facts wont fly..
Certification criteria is obviously relevant, if you want to claim a valid record, as opposed to a stunt..
The Navy climb stunt was a craftily & cunningly executed cheater & clearly predicated on maxing out
the result, so - credit to them on the timing result.. the fact remains, however it was not kosher, nor sanctioned
as official by the FAI, as Widey claimed.
Widey made a bunch of claims that have been debunked, I suppose 'irrelevant' will be your way of
smokescreening that too.. ..do try & be a bit objective, for the sake of credibility..
-
:headscratch: Didn't this guy get a vacation recently for this exact crap or is it just me?
-
Brooke, if you like, forget about the headwind ( although it was mentioned in other source material),
It doesn't matter to me. With no headwind, there is a 0 second difference. With a 30 mph headwind, there is a couple second difference, which is insignificant.
Certification criteria is obviously relevant, if you want to claim a valid record, as opposed to a stunt..
It is irrelevant for reasons already stated now at least five times. There was no FAI record process at the time. Hence, saying that it doesn't meet FAI requirements is a misstatement and is irrelevant. All that matters is that you do the test and see what you get, which was done.
The Navy climb stunt was a craftily & cunningly executed cheater & clearly predicated on maxing out
the result, so - credit to them on the timing result.. the fact remains, however it was not kosher, nor sanctioned
as official by the FAI, as Widey claimed.
See above.
-
You are wrong, Brooke, since - just as today - if you want an FAI record, & even establish a new one..
You have to apply 1st, & meet the FAI sanctioning criteria, as stipulated..
The FAI has ratified World aviation records for over a century, in fact..
The RAF record flight went through exactly that process & claimed/were awarded the official record
( & with a quicker time too, by the way) ~5 years after the Navy's unofficial/unratified stunt..
These are, simply, the facts of the matter.
-
3 hundredths of a minute
Or 1.8 seconds. Sorry for the confusion,
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
A bit too morfiend raddled there, are ya mate? L.O.L.. ..come again?
-
A bit too morfiend raddled there, are ya mate? L.O.L.. ..come again?
I think I should report this to Skuzzy as non-constructive trolling and attempted provocation.
-
Wrong again m.m., that is "banter, & in direct contextual response"..
Learn the difference..
-
I think I should report this to Skuzzy as non-constructive trolling and attempted provocation.
Funny how I quoted you Milo and he has to go after me,I think because I might have mentioned how the tyffie had a couple of problems that he had to find an outlet.
Either that or I hit too close to home with my dyslexic read on your post! :devil
:salute
-
Apologies then - if I misread your post Mf.. It was a bit raddled though.
-
Wrong again m.m., that is "banter, & in direct contextual response"..
Learn the difference..
Mine also was "banter and direct contextual response" to Drano's post.
-
Yeah right , but anyhow - that's up to Skuzzy to buy, or not - now..
-
So, what is your in-game name again JAW?
I was wondering if we have ever enjoyed a fight or two.
-
Yeah right , but anyhow - that's up to Skuzzy to buy, or not - now..
:rofl
JAW hit the report button.
ack-ack
-
But I wasn't the 1st, & I openly admitted it, unlike certain tellers of tales to teacher..
-
Apologies then - if I misread your post Mf.. It was a bit raddled though.
No need to apologize as there is nothing you could posibly say to me that would rattle or as you put it raddle me! I simply dont think and internet personality could bother me.
:salute
-
But I wasn't the 1st, & I openly admitted it, unlike certain tellers of tales to teacher..
:rofl
Figures you're one of those types.
ack-ack
-
No need to apologize as there is nothing you could posibly say to me that would rattle or as you put it raddle me! I simply dont think and internet personality could bother me.
:salute
Cool bananas.. got it..
-
:rofl
Figures you're one of those types.
ack-ack
Well, you are wrong again, I 'm more the 'step out-side & lets sort it out here & now' type..
-
4, Did flying into a stiff cold headwind improve performance?
Yes, of course it did..
The temperature and air density would make a difference, but I can't believe anyone who knows anything about aerodynamics would be stressed about the whole headwind idea (or even a "stiff" headwind), let alone a group with the knowledge I'd expect from the FAI.
The advantage of the headwind is potentially two-fold though.
First, since take-off is all about airspeed, the stationary plane "at the word go" is already "moving" at the speed of the wind. So the time "saved" is roughly equal to the amount of time it would take the plane to achieve that same airspeed without wind (i.e. a stationary plane in a 30 mph headwind has an airspeed of 30mph; how long would it take that plane to reach 30 mph in dead calm air?).
It isn't about accelerating all the way to take-off speed, it's just an advantage until the plane would have reached the relative wind speed...
The advantage would be very slight, of course, but it would also arguably occur at the point of roll where the plane would be at a poor rate of acceleration?
The second advantage would be due to the shorter ground roll. The wheels rolling along the ground aren't drag-free, so the slightly shorter ground roll would result in slightly less overall drag to overcome. Again, the advantage would be very slight...
One advantage would be gone in the time it takes the plane to accelerate to wind speed, the other would be gone once the wheels cleared the ground.
Which air mass is likely to be more dynamic / turbulent? Calm, or windy? If the wind gives an advantage in take-off, it could also be detrimental if it led to "bumpy" air conditions.
-
but I can't believe anyone who knows anything about aerodynamics would be stressed about the whole headwind idea
The only one concerned about it is JAW, and I didn't see any mention of it anywhere in the description of the test.
Even if there were one, the effect of it is a couple of seconds -- insignificant. Math explanation is in links I provided above.
-
Well Brooke - if you don't think a ~5% difference is mathematically significant,
you'd better not tell the IRS that.. L.O.L..
-
You are wrong, Brooke, since - just as today - if you want an FAI record, & even establish a new one..
FAI didn't keep time-to-climb records back then, as has been pointed out many times. FAI is irrelevant to this.
What has been established unarguably is that the test was done as part of a military-testing program, was done with a standard f8f, is not affected significantly by headwind (even if there was one -- there is no statement of it that I saw other than by you) as proven with math and physics, and is not affected significantly by WEP from power up instead of just from gear up as proven with math and physics. Any statements contrary to these are falsehoods.
-
Well Brooke - if you don't think a ~5% difference is mathematically significant,
you'd better not tell the IRS that.. L.O.L..
See references above.
Headwind (if there was one) add a couple seconds to time to climb.
WEP, add 1 second.
A few seconds longer on the time to climb number is not significant to the conclusion.
-
Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..
The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.
As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..
The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..
There wasn't one made by the USN for that airshow ( not Patuxent test facility) stunt climb..
The RAF did a few years later, however & got an officially ratified FAI record....one that was quicker, too..
-
Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..
The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.
As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..
The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..
There wasn't one made by the USN for that airshow ( not Patuxent test facility) stunt climb..
The RAF did a few years later, however & got an officially ratified FAI record....one that was quicker, too..
my wind tests showed a 1.8 second decrease at 40 MPH head wind on a 180 second trip or. 1%, given that the margin of error is greater than that as shown by the first and second flight and adding to the fact that the third flight was slower then the first two even with a 25 MPH headwind, for all relative testing they are virtually identical ! My test results don't help your argument!
I have no real history of the p-51h or it's official flight test results, if you've posted them and they are certified to meet all your specs then good for you, I don't understand tho why we are still arguing this point in this forum? Neither plane is in this game, you don't play this game and this thread has nothing to do with game play!
-
Ok I wasnt gonna sleep anyway so i did it for ya!
Yak-3 full fuel from the tower full throttle to east runway film starts automatically every time so there is no question of error on my part
I did not measure anything as far as roll out to wheels up,, but I have the films and will send them to anyone who wants to see them,, they are AH films
run 1 ;test 0 wind time to 10k 3.02 minutes
run 2 ; actual ----- 0 wind time to 10k 3.03 minutes
run 3 ; actual 25mph head wind time to 10k 3.04 minutes
run 4 ; actual 40mph head wind time to 10k 3.00 minutes
no real difference in any of the settings from 0 to 45 MPH If I need to check for a higher speed wind,, just let me know!
I had the Yak already in the hanger so its what i used,, to check the game against reality Id need the real planes numbers and weight!
W.W., best time is run 4 - at 40mph headwind, by .04 mins..
-
& W.W., the other objections as posted are 'irrelevant' ( as Brooke would put it) -to the thread topic..
-
W.W., best time is run 4 - at 40mph headwind, by .04 mins..
J, You do realize that .04 mins = 2.4 Seconds, a variation on 3.00 mins of 1.333% right? So where did your 5% claim come from?
-
Well Baldy - since it is of interest to you..
As relating to the stunt-cat time-to-climb..
Brooke reckoned a WEP run from get-go, plus roll-out into a cold dense headwind was worth several seconds..
& the aircooled R-2800 can run at max possible out-put the whole way..
Since the stunt-cat was about twice as quick to 10,000ft as the Yak, those saved seconds add up to ~5%..
Not an insignificant advantage at all, albeit its a cheat..
-
Well Baldy - since it is of interest to you..
As relating to the stunt-cat time-to-climb..
Brooke reckoned a WEP run from get-go, plus roll-out into a cold dense headwind was worth several seconds..
& the aircooled R-2800 can run at max possible out-put the whole way..
Since the stunt-cat was about twice as quick to 10,000ft as the Yak, those saved seconds add up to ~5%..
Not an insignificant advantage at all, albeit its a cheat..
The headwind was proved by the very tests you qouted as reducing the climb rate by 1.333% or 2.4 seconds. Brook guessed 3 seconds... close enough.
Cold and dense... ok fine. That wasn't ever in your argument before but the reduction in time to climb will be marginal.
As to max possible output the whole way you don't really expect us to believe no other plane can run WEP for three minutes? Right.
And what the hell does a Yak now have to do with any of this.
Now go along for good this time troll.
-
Oh Baldy.. stop.. its too funny..
Reducing time-to-climb = increased climb rate..
Yak was used since no F8F is available in A-H,
Cold stiff November wind off the lake was always there, even if you weren't
Stop trolling now will you..
-
Brooke, wrong again.. add cheat times for engine (WEP & wind chill factors), roll out & W.W.'s wind test results..
So, what is the difference in time between using WEP until wheels up and not using WEP until wheels up? In one case it is 14 - 13 (1 second), and in the other case it is 15 - 14 (1 second). In either case, the difference is 1 second.
The time difference between a plane taking off with the headwind and one without is no more than the time for a plane in no wind to accelerate to the speed of the headwind. If the headwind is, say, 30 mph, a Bearcat accelerates to 30 mph in, what, 2-3 seconds? If you want to account for a nonstated 30 mph headwind, add 3 seconds to the times to climb.
The mil-spec Standard Aircraft Characteristics tests are not done with stripped-out juiced-up stunt planes.
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193)) confirms the opposite of that. It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).
As those posted documents show, a regular F8F stocker wont duplicate that stunt climb rate..
See quote above.
The FAI would have considered a new record bid, as they had done for decades previously..
The FAI, which didn't have a program for keeping track of time to climb records, would have considered a time to climb record? Sorry, but this is purely speculation on your part, and you can't go back in time to give such a speculation any support; but it is irrelevant anyway. The test was done. The data was collected.
And that's that.
-
Brooke, seriously - if you want to know how to apply for an FAI record,
Whether beating an existing one, or establishing a new one - look up the FAI site, its all there..
No speculation at all, the opposite in fact.. For an FAI certified record..
The USN would've had to comply with their stipulated requirements - just the same as you, or I, now,
Or Glenn Curtiss in 1909..
-
Brooke, seriously - if you want to know how to apply for an FAI record,
From http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 :
Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then."
As has been said many times, any talk of FAI is irrelevant.
All that matters is the data from the test and the conditions of the test.
-
Oh Baldy.. stop.. its too funny..
Reducing time-to-climb = increased climb rate..
Yak was used since no F8F is available in A-H,
Cold stiff November wind off the lake was always there, even if you weren't
Stop trolling now will you..
What is it you don't understand about math... oh wait... I know... everything.
-
Hey, Brooke - the whole FAI thing was just another one of Widey's bogus claims anyhow..
It was a neat stunt, no doubt, but its a fact that a number of recip's contemporary with the F8F
could've done beat it, if their operators had been so inclined..( or even knew about it)
You could try it in a WEP-maxed & light-load Bf 109K or Spit 14 here in A-H, too..
-
What is it you don't understand about math... oh wait... I know... everything.
Look Baldy, - if you cant work out the relationship between time-to-climb & climb rate.. ..nevermind..
& I was gonna say, I reckon your film of beating down that B-26 was boss..
( & how's your p-factor capacity been lately, bit of constriction there, maybe?)
-
Look Baldy, - if you cant work out the relationship between time-to-climb & climb rate.. ..nevermind..
& I was gonna say, I reckon your film of beating down that B-26 was boss..
Why should I? The record was time to climb. Nothing else.
-
From http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 :
As has been said many times, any talk of FAI is irrelevant.
All that matters is the data from the test and the conditions of the test.
& Brooke, just how do you suppose the Brits got their Meteor climb record on the books?
They applied to the FAI for it, of course - according to longstanding FAI protocols..
Having met the criteria, it duly went on the record..
& the USN didn't - despite what Widey so casually claimed..
-
Why should I? The record was time to climb. Nothing else.
Alright Mr Maths, what is the relationship between time-to-climb & climb rate - then?
Nevermind - since you have already got it wrong, that'll do..
-
Alright Mr Maths, what is the relationship between time-to-climb & climb rate - then?
Not a simple answer as you have roll time invloved based on how the tests were timed. I'm sure you considered this though right?
Once airborn 3 minutes to 10K = 3,333.333 ft/minute, to 20K it's 6666.666 ft/min but that's not what was measured so is irrelevent. Give me the roll time and I'll give you the real answer. You must know it since you know so much about this test.
BTW that's average across the climb. Specific climb rates vary by altitude but you knew that.
-
Nah, its really pretty bloody simple..
Greater climb rate speed/distance = lower time-to-climb figure - in seconds elapsed.. ( based on the mean, natch..).
-
Nah, its really pretty bloody simple..
Greater climb rate speed/distance = lower time-to-climb figure - in seconds elapsed.. ( based on the mean, natch..).
Greater climb rate = lower time to climb. Agreed. Speed/distance? Please please please explain that to me. I'm so awaiting your mathematical genious.
-
Again too easy..
climb rate = TAS/AoA..
-
Again too easy..
climb rate = TAS/AoA..
That has nothing to do with speed/distance. I have alarming news for you; 350 mph/mile = 350 mph. Duh.
And BTW, climb rate = ft/min unless you grew up on a different planet, which seems more and more likely.
-
& Brooke, just how do you suppose the Brits got their Meteor climb record on the books?
They applied to the FAI for it, of course - according to longstanding FAI protocols..
Having met the criteria, it duly went on the record..
& the USN didn't - despite what Widey so casually claimed..
As explained:
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then."
-
Again too easy..
climb rate = TAS/AoA..
ROC = TAS * sin(climb angle). Also, climb angle is not equal to angle of attack (AoA). The two are very different things. AoA is angle between wing's chord and aircraft's velocity vector. Angle of climb is angle between velocity vector and ground.
-
Brooke, no call to go all 'rocket science' on us, oh wait, what would the space shuttle do..
Ah that'd be somefink like 90 degrees AoA on climb out wouldn't it..
& when will you comprehend the FAI thing..
If you want to beat or set a novel ( new, not fictional) FAI/World record for virtually anything aviation related,
then approach them for the record ratification criteria..
As it happens - there were no supersonic manned flight records in the FAI book in 1946 either,
but that was gonna change too..
-
& one more time..
If you DONT approach the FAI for ratification of your 'record', whether a never before attempted one,
or one that has been contested for a century or longer..
It WONT be official, & WONT appear in the FAI records list, obviously..
& therefore it WONT be acknowledged or even officially EXIST..
Of course the RAF Record Flight were cognizant of these facts..
& ensured that the proper approach to the protocols was made.. & got the record, officially in the FAI books..
-
& got the record, officially in the FAI books..
That has nothing to do with a 1946 Bearcat test.
-
You've got that the wrong way 'round Brooke..
A 1946 USN airshow stunt has nothing to do with an officially sanctioned FAI World time-to-climb record..
-
You've got that the wrong way 'round Brooke..
A 1946 USN airshow stunt has nothing to do with an officially sanctioned FAI World time-to-climb record..
so what is the FIA SANCTIONED time to climb numbers for the P-51h?
-
You've got that the wrong way 'round Brooke..
A 1946 USN airshow stunt has nothing to do with an officially sanctioned FAI World time-to-climb record..
We were talking about a Bearcat test done in 1946, and the title and subject of this topic was not changed to "FAI: a discussion of it's record keeping policies, 1950 to 1951". So, no, I don't have it the wrong way around.
FAI is irrelevant to all of this:
From Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI: “No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then."
-
W.W. Dunno, ask Widey, the FAI thing - it was his claim, bogus or otherwise..
My understanding is the jet-bent USAAF wanted to do the 'sound barrier' not mess around with airshow stunts.
They didn't even run a recip 'Thunderbirds' display team, unlike the Navy 'Blue Angels'..
Brooke, when will you realize that the FAI has been responsible for aviation World Records for over a century..
When was it - do you suppose - that they started separate records for recips & turbo-jets? 1919? or 1949?
-
We were talking about a Bearcat test done in 1946, and the title and subject of this topic was not changed to "FAI: a discussion of it's record keeping policies, 1950 to 1951". So, no, I don't have it the wrong way around.
FAI is irrelevant to all of this:
Brooke, just how do you think new category FAI records are entered into existence?
By the proposal being put to FAI for ratification consideration,
- something that in the case of a time-to-climb record, the USN did not do, but the RAF clearly did..
-
Because the only person who gives a flip is you and they were too busy being big balled aviators flying Sierra Hotel airplanes to do the paperwork?
-
Did you read post #199 yet, G?
Here's some `51H info for you, since you are a fan..
Steve Couches has a bit of `51H stick time..
& he reckons..
"I always say - you drive the `51D, but you can fly a `51H.
It weighs 1,600lbs less & you can take off with a full fuel load in 8-900ft."
Those tail-hook heroes weren't the only game in town, 'cept maybe - in the cunning stunt dept..
I'm not bothered, & anyhow, it was Widey's fanciful 'story' that started the whole F8F/FAI thing..
-
Did you read post #199 yet, G?
Here's some `51H info for you, since you are a fan..
Steve Couches has a bit of `51H stick time..
& he reckons..
"I always say - you drive the `51D, but you can fly a `51H.
It weighs 1,600lbs less & you can take off with a full fuel load in 8-900ft."
Those tail-hook heroes weren't the only game in town, 'cept maybe - in the cunning stunt dept..
I'm not bothered, & anyhow, it was Widey's fanciful 'story' that started the whole F8F/FAI thing..
Thanks for the entertainment - character be damned :rock
-
Brooke, just how do you think new category FAI records are entered into existence?
By the proposal being put to FAI for ratification consideration,
- something that in the case of a time-to-climb record, the USN did not do, but the RAF clearly did..
You need a new topic (one other than this topic) for a discussion of FAI's record keeping policies, 1950 to 1951.
-
Yeah, agreed Brooke, its done.
& the whole FAI/F8F 1946 thing - it just was another spurious story of Widey's anyhow..
-
Simple question.. When Rare Bear broke the time to climb record for piston-engine, prop driven aircraft, what record did it break?
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
-
Well Widey, that kinda depends..
Do you mean an actual FAI World Record?
Or some salty ol' flim-flam tail-hook shenanigans?
-
Well Widey, that kinda depends..
Do you mean an actual FAI World Record?
Or some salty ol' flim-flam tail-hook shenanigans?
As I said, it's a simple question..... You're just ducking it.
-
& What is the current FAI time-to-climb recip record, & does it actually better the R-B,
( or the `46 barnacle-scrapers, & unofficial, even) record?
-
& What is the current FAI time-to-climb recip record, & does it actually better the R-B,
( or the `46 barnacle-scrapers, & unofficial, even) record?
I'm asking the question... You're answering.
-
Wow I can't believe this is still going on.
And JAW since obviously you know everything (clearly since you have continued arguing with multiple people telling you otherwise), quit ducking the question and just answer it. Or do you need time still to continue your google search for the answer?
Seriously dude what is the point of you carrying on for 21 pages now ranting and raving when it has nothing to do with you. None of these planes are in the game (which it doesn't even appear you play). Clearly you are carrying on just to get a rise out of people, or because you are an attention seeker. Either way pretty sad, and I honestly can't believe the admins have let it carry on this long.
Anyway, I'm done here. Not in my nature to start crap or troll. :salute guys.
-
I'm asking the question... You're answering.
Yes, & you will find - correct to a fairly high degree of confidence, unlike some made-up B.S. - answers here..
http://www.fai.org/records
-
Yes, & you will find - correct to a fairly high degree of confidence, unlike some made-up B.S. - answers here..
http://www.fai.org/records
If you keep ducking, you'll get dizzy.
-
You provide your answer, Widey, & I'll fact check it, - like your stuff usually badly needs..
-
You provide your answer, Widey, & I'll fact check it, - like your stuff usually badly needs..
Back in the windbag mode, I see. Just tell us what record was broken, and what set it.
-
Back in the windbag mode, I see. Just tell us what record was broken, and what set it.
Oh come on now WW that would require actual research instead of just pure trolling. You should know better by now :bolt:
-
Back in the windbag mode, I see. Just tell us what record was broken, and what set it.
Don't think so ol' buddy, 'windbag' mode is your specialty..
Don't worry, if you get this one wrong too, I wont resort to any emotive cheap shots, either..
-
Oh come on now WW that would require actual research instead of just pure trolling. You should know better by now :bolt:
& if you actually read the posts - you could check the FAI records list, that I linked - instead of 'trolling'..
-
I actually have read the posts. And what has been pointed out several times before is that the FAI has nothing to do with this. You keep throwing that out there. No matter how many times you do it's not going to change anything. Is the FAI record the only thing you are arguing about on here? No. You keep bringing up headwind etc. And no matter how many people respond to you and try to give you the correct answer you argue with everyone. That is why it looks like you are purely in this for the troll. Which judging from your multiple posts in different threads arguing with people, is correct.
I can't believe I took the bait. :bhead
-
Well, if you had read the posts then you'd know it was Widey's ('silly' according to FLS) suggestion
that it was an FAI record in the 1st place..
& I note that your posting 'contribution' here pretty much meets a 'trolling' definition too..
Why don't YOU answer Widey's question?
-
Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”
So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.
An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:
“It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ‘Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,’ or ‘Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.’ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.
“In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.
“The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."
And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport’s record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.
But I'm guessing you didn't even take the time to read that. Am I right? Clearly I am, since if you had then your first little comment would be null and void. And in fact I am not trolling. Only curious why you continue to try to get a rise out of people. But I guess you didn't read my first post either. I wouldn't guess so.
Lastly, I won't answer his question because unlike you I do not claim to know everything. In fact I have no clue about any air records. I have an above average knowledge of WW1 and WW2 aircraft because I have always been fascinated with them since I was a child. Even so I still don't know everything about them, and learn something new everyday. If you would have actually taken the time to read my first post instead of continuing to try to get a rise out of people you would have seen what my "contribution" to this post were. It is that it irritates me when people come on here and post stuff only to try to get attention, or to rile people up.
Do you even play Aces High or plan on playing it??? If so what is your in game name?
-
Re-read post #38 this thread, & stand corrected..
-
Re-read post #38 this thread, & stand corrected..
And yet I'm not talking about another thread. I'm talking about this one. Even if it was said in that thread, it was older and clearly he corrected the mistake if you even took the time to read what I just posted. Which again I'm guessing you didn't. But oh wait I forgot, no matter what you are always right.
Again I ask do you even play this game? If so in game name?
-
Kindly provide the thread & post # where "he corrected the mistake"..
& as an A-H player identity-wise, I choose not to broadcast that information..
-
Again I ask do you even play this game? If so in game name?
The troll is winning in these threads.
Pretty amazing.
- oldman
-
You just proved my point exactly. You didn't even take the time to read through the whole post of what I JUST posted. And very clearly didn't read the one before. I ask for your in game name because as it stands it seems like you are someone that actually isn't a member of the AH community coming here just to rile up paying members of the community. You very clearly have no interest in actual facts, otherwise you would take the time to read the WHOLE post that people make when speaking to you. Thank you very much for confirming mine (and probably multiple others) suspicion that you are just here to get people worked up.
-
The troll is winning in these threads.
Pretty amazing.
- oldman
I know oldman shame on me for taking the bait :bhead
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
I'm still waiting for you to explain speed/distance. :rofl
-
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”
So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.
Clearly you didn't read it any of the times. Nice try though. I am done with this thread and any others you post in as it has been proven in my eyes what you are here for.
:salute to every one else. I wouldn't try to reason with this guy. If he is somehow not a troll (which doesn't look very likely at all at this point), then he obviously thinks he knows everything.
-
:salute to every one else. I wouldn't try to reason with this guy. If he is somehow not a troll (which doesn't look very likely at all at this point), then he obviously thinks he knows everything.
Oh, don't worry. I don't think anyone's trying to reason with him anymore. We're just having fun watching him dig his own grave.
-
See Rule #4
-
Lol. You say I can't comprehend yet you look at that and still talk about an FAI record. If you would have even read the tiny bit I just reposted you would see that he admitted that it was not an FAI record. And yet you still bring it up and try to insult me on comprehension. Nice try buddy :ahand
Nothing more to say here. You just dug your hole deep enough. Thanks for the attempted insult though.
-
Oh, don't worry. I don't think anyone's trying to reason with him anymore. We're just having fun watching him dig his own grave.
Baldy, you are a riot.. is that YOUR entry in the 'top-troll' post comp?
-
Lol. You say I can't comprehend yet you look at that and still talk about an FAI record. If you would have even read the tiny bit I just reposted you would see that he admitted that it was not an FAI record. And yet you still bring it up and try to insult me on comprehension. Nice try buddy :ahand
Nothing more to say here. You just dug your hole deep enough. Thanks for the attempted insult though.
Again too funny, you do realize that is a cut & paste from another BBS, & not Widey at all - don't you?
-
Baldy, you are a riot.. is that YOUR entry in the 'top-troll' post comp?
Nah, mine's in the other thread.
-
Again too funny, you do realize that is a cut & paste from another BBS, & not Widey at all - don't you?
And that has absolutely what to do with my point to you? Nothing at all. Just QFT.
-
Lol. You say I can't comprehend yet you look at that and still talk about an FAI record. If you would have even read the tiny bit I just reposted you would see that he admitted that it was not an FAI record. And yet you still bring it up and try to insult me on comprehension. Nice try buddy :ahand
Nothing more to say here. You just dug your hole deep enough. Thanks for the attempted insult though.
Well that undertaking wasn't worth much now was it..
If you cant comprehend basics, I have to ignore you, just like Baldy..
-
Oh no... ignore? Please please please don't ignore me. :rofl
-
Yes because I'm the one with comprehension problems. As I just pointed out it was shown EARLY in the thread that it didn't hold an "FAI Record". I even just posted it trying to give you the benefit of the doubt multiple times. Regardless if it is copy and paste from another BBS it still shows the same thing. Yet you go on and on about FAI, and try to insult me about my intelligence.
-
Yes because I'm the one with comprehension problems. As I just pointed out it was shown EARLY in the thread that it didn't hold an "FAI Record". I even just posted it trying to give you the benefit of the doubt multiple times. Regardless if it is copy and paste from another BBS it still shows the same thing. Yet you go on and on about FAI, and try to insult me about my intelligence.
No need, you are doing a fine job at that yourself... just 'keep digging' L.O.L...
& I never claimed it did hold an FAI record, unlike Widey..
-
No need, you are doing a fine job at that yourself... just 'keep digging' L.O.L...
& I never claimed it did hold an FAI record, unlike Widey..
I know you didn't... *facepalm* and I'm the one being insulted here... Your whole thing you have been arguing about to me is that he said it held an FAI record... I copy pasted that from something HE posted on this thread. Regardless of where it came from HE posted it admitting it didn't hold an FAI record.... So now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
-
I know you didn't... *facepalm* and I'm the one being insulted here... Your whole thing you have been arguing about to me is that he said it held an FAI record... I copy pasted that from something HE posted on this thread. Regardless of where it came from HE posted it admitting it didn't hold an FAI record.... So now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
No I am not, doing a sly C & P tacit admission aint a true mea-culpa where I come from..
& your fanciful feelings based emotive complaints of being 'insulted' are simply whining..
-
Whatever you say champ.