Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LePaul on October 26, 2005, 05:22:20 PM
-
My squaddies and I were discussing the amazing, non-energy bleeding, amazing physics La7 the other night. We all seem to experience the same sort of experience...
In P-51D or other high energy fighter at 400 mph...La7 comes head on with us, no shots fired. P-51D maintains straight & level while La7 commences a hard left turn onto the P-51D's 6'clock. La7 manages to not only get on the 51D's 6, but catch up and overtake the P-51D, shooting it down. All while the P-51D has maintained E, straight & level.
How??
Again, not a whine but a serious question. Some on the squad say faulty physics, others just sigh and point out its the incredibly uber La7.
How can this lil critter maintain E and out run an aircraft it passed?
-
Seriously, post a film of it so we can see it.
If the La-7 and P-51 are both doing 400 and the La-7 does a hard, flat turn after passing the P-51, well, the P-51 should be safe.
So my guess would be that you are underestimating the La-7's e state and the La-7 is doing an energy conserving turn, not a hard flat turn.
-
a properly executed lead turn can git-r-done. i also think you're over-estimating the 400mph speed of the 51 or whatever...
-
a properly executed lead turn can git-r-done. i also think you're over-estimating the 400mph speed of the 51 or whatever...
Exactly...
Without film showing the exact situation you described its pointless to speculate any further.
-
Ill start filming more aggressively and post. Again, this was from vox communication with others who've been downed from an La7 just never seems to loose E. It happned to me the other night and either the guy flying the thing is amazing or Ive woefully under estimated that plane.
-
the interesting thinig about an La7 is that it is both under- and overestimated.
-
Rope em, while the uber la-7 is a hoot to fly it will eventually lose the vertical battle against such planes as the 109g-10 and have seen the same result in the ki-84.Their are a few really good la-7 sticks who can stay up awhile in the vertical with a g10,but I havent seen anyone of them do it consistantly.Another thing about the super uber la-7 is people tend to forget it does have a throttle and most ussually run it 'balls to the wall",which frequently leds to their demise.I'm much more concerned when I meet a good 38 driver than when I see some la-7 pop up in the screen.I have flown the la-7 and as most who actually fly will atest it's a great little t&b plane,slow speed does tend to get a little tricky at times but over all it's a nice overhorsed package with good guns.
Don't perk the la-7 cause its really not all that super a/c that people freak out about.
VIC
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
i think LePaul is right, although not in this extreme.
That a G10 can stand in a vertical is rubbish, it only can stand a La7 for some time, if it start with plenty of altitude advantage.
The general E-physics in AH are somewhat strange.
As less wingload = less E-bleed, while it should be the other way around.
To compare different Airframes always will lead to whining, therefor i would preffer to compare similar airframes to show the unlogical behaviour.
Compare the SpitV and SpitIX or 109F4 and 109G2, or 109G6 and 109G10
Of course the SpitV should be able to turn more tight, due to less weight, but on the other hand it also should bleed more energy while that, than the SpitIXc. But in AH the SpitIXc almost only can run, while the Spitv turn like mad without to lose energy.
Same its with the 109F4 vs the 109G2, although the 109G2 had the same powerload it not only cant turn as tight as the 109F4, it also bleed more energy while that, the G6 is even more handycaped regarding its vertical performence.
If in AH a 109F4 and 109G2 turn with the same radius, the 109G2 will lose and thats rubbish, cause the G2(WEP enabled) had a better powerload and specialy while highspeed turns it had more inertia. While typical B&Z movements(diving down, zooming vertical up, stallturn, diving down etc) the different show up even more.
I dont think that all planes are made with the same formulas, but particular they look very very strange.
I think we dont need to see a movie to show the extreme E-management of the La7 in relation to most other planes. Same count for the SpitV, 109F4, Me110, Ki84, MC205, F4U+P38+P51 with flaps, Tempest and bombers in general(good visible specialy in high alt) and maybe more.
BUT, if we compare the planes in relation to their realistic Oponents, like P51,F4U,P38, F4F, SpitV vs A6M, Ki61, N1k, Ki84 or SpitV/IXc vs 109F2/G2, 190A5/D9 or Yak9/La5FN vs 109G2/G10/190A5/F8/D9 etc only the Tempest and La7 are somewhat unbeatable. Cause the better rollperformence i consider the La7 as the best plane in game. It need a very very good F4U-4 or Ki84 driver to beat it, 109G10 and FW190D drivers always get into trouble, if they meet a La7 with a worthy pilot.
The plane performence with the incredible guns make this both planes realy outstanding. Even the Ki84 have problems to match up this planes.
This are only my obeservations and thought´s.
Greetings,
-
One aspect that is "not right" when comparing the La7 to eg the 109G6 is the comparative dive acceleration of the two aircraft.
Dive tests carried out on the La7 (comparing it to a G4) showed that whilst the La7 accelerated better during the initial part of the dive the G4 was able to out dive the La7 during the latter part.
This is not the case in AH IMO (unloaded G6 does not begin to catch an unloaded La7 in high speed dive) and seems to be a function of how AH handles pure drag. Something that is apparantly not a significant factor in normal manouvering.
Except for a minor increase in thrust from a new prop profile the only difference between the La5FN and the La7 should be that of differing pure drag. (and its subsequent component effect upon induced drag?) Is this difference so insignificant?
I wonder if HTC's Lavochkins are modelled in this way.
If pure drag is so insignificant a component then should not the (in envelope) e properties of the La5FN and the La7 be the same?
Many would consider the La7 and the latter 109G's to be ac of moderately high wing loading. Whilst the La7 has a slightly higher wing area we can see a set up where the equivilent loading is much the same in terms of weight/lift area.
Yet the known best speeds for climb rates for the two ac is significantly different. The La7's best climb speed is very much lower than the 109G6 infact it is much lower than most high wing loaded, low drag ac. Yet it still enjoys (roughly) equivilent climb rates at these lower speeds (higher angle of climb) and it has superior straight line speeds.
This would seem to point to a model where thrust and drag were bigger components than we see in AH Lavochkins at present
I do not know the maths or modelling method HTC use and am ignorant of much aerodynamic science, but it does seem to me that AH Lavochkins should suffer more pure drag and enjoy the thrust to over come it.
What would this mean......
greater e loss throttled back
greater accel at lower speeds
less accel at higher speeds (including dive)
-
Who cares anymore ....
-
We all do. But the thing is it never changes, so while we care there's nothing we can do about it. Just accept that nothing in this game even resembles "historical" flight-wise. If you accept that you can play within this arbitrary system.
-
We all do. But the thing is it never changes, so while we care there's nothing we can do about it. Just accept that nothing in this game even resembles "historical" flight-wise. If you accept that you can play within this arbitrary system.
Wisdom flows from the Krusty one.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.
HiTech
LOL PWNED
Bronk
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.
HiTech
LOL...where is Morpheus with a good "QUAH!!!" or "pwned" when you need it.
EDIT: Crap...Bronk beat me to it!
-
Its not like no one has ever brought this up before. The answer has always been the same, lead turn, timing, e state, bla bla bla bla.
Read the post again. He did not say how did he end up on my six at guns range. That can be explaned with lead turns, timing, e states etc. The guy said, how did he do a 180, and then run the 51 down. Big difference. It does not just require no e loss, but exceleration on top of that. I see it every day in the DA and MA. SpitV puling a 180, following a g10 up and closing on it. Although I can be wrong in the MA instances, in the DA its a controleld anvironment. I know the G10 is faster than my Spit at the merge, but I still catch him. I call it AH physics. Learn to love it :D
-
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.
Which one?
That the AH Bf-110 is the best early war fighter the LW has in it's inventory?
Sorry wrong subject, we were talking about the La7........
:confused:
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Its not like no one has ever brought this up before. The answer has always been the same, lead turn, timing, e state, bla bla bla bla.
Read the post again. He did not say how did he end up on my six at guns range. That can be explaned with lead turns, timing, e states etc. The guy said, how did he do a 180, and then run the 51 down. Big difference. It does not just require no e loss, but exceleration on top of that. I see it every day in the DA and MA. SpitV puling a 180, following a g10 up and closing on it. Although I can be wrong in the MA instances, in the DA its a controleld anvironment. I know the G10 is faster than my Spit at the merge, but I still catch him. I call it AH physics. Learn to love it :D
Precisely. How can an La7 merge, do a 180 and GAIN on an a high energy/fast fighter like a P-51, G10, etc etc. Its sort of like the "two trains leave point A at the same time...yada yada". I'm just trying to follow the logic, physics, etc. Im not accusing or saying anything is wrong....just HOW. It would seem to me that the aircraft that maintained speed and heading would keep a significant lead over the La7 that did a 180 degree turn.
-
The answere is simple LePaul. He was faster than your p51 to begin with.
The thing is, it seems everyone makes these claims how somthing strange things happened to them. Never the other way around. And 2nd how there never seems to be a film of these strange events. Possible because every time some one looks at the strange event film , it turned out not to be strange and hence not worth posting?
So what do you belive is more probable. 1st something strange with the la7, but after multiple years there never seems to be a film of the strangness. Or the 2nd probablitly, you miss judged his E state or direction at the merge ?
HiTech
-
Im trying not to interpet your reply as a flame, more a tongue-in-cheek response. :cool:
I film most of my bomber sorties for films...since I dont fly fighter much, I tend not to film them. Im filming everything lately.
I've also posted this link to my squaddies to chime in on.
My question was just that, how could something catch up so fast. How can an La7 match a faster plane? It just seems the La7 has *no* weaknesses in the game.
-
It just seems the La7 has *no* weaknesses in the game.
Ivan Kozhedub loves LA-7 and he shot 2 mustangs with it :cool:
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I film most of my bomber sorties for films...since I dont fly fighter much, I tend not to film them.
That response is probably the key. If you don't know fighters very well then you probably don't understand the different merges, angles and E states. I bet the lala had way more E and did a very effeceint merge to get you. BTW, if you saw he was gaining why didn't you at least turn and try something...anything? I never understand why ppl just fly straight and level hoping to outrun someone.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
We all do. But the thing is it never changes, so while we care there's nothing we can do about it. Just accept that nothing in this game even resembles "historical" flight-wise. If you accept that you can play within this arbitrary system.
WTG:cool:
i dont want AH to turn like IL-2 game online. IL-2 makes FM changes so much that both sides are crying foul. For example, Maddox just released a new patch and the axis sides are crying foul because allied 50 cals got uber. Many claim Maddox is pro axis when it comes to FM modeling.
To prevent AH from turning to "IL-2" is to be conservative. make less radical changes:)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
It just seems the La7 has *no* weaknesses in the game.
sure it does... the pilot.
:aok
-
Hi Hitech,
>Possible because every time some one looks at the strange event film , it turned out not to be strange and hence not worth posting?
Reminds me of an Arthur C. Clarke quote:
"I don't believe in UFOs. I have seen too many of them."
(He found a natural explanation not involving aliens for each of his UFO sightings. Much to his disappointment!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
There's a huge amount of misconceptions as how aircrafts "should" behave. Then again, even a plane's engineers don't always know how a drawing board design will behave in R/L and rely on trial and error. The most common is the "wingloading" illusion - which is nothing more that a VERY ROUGH estimate for something not very well defined and still so many like to compare it.
Is AH clean of FM quirks? hell no, but it's not like HT can test the real things and correct accordingly. Bugs and errors are possible too but needs to be documents to be dealt with => film.
Bozon
-
You're right bozon... but there are lots of other things you can go by. If everybody that FLEW the planes said an la7 could out dive a 109 only at first, but the 109 would then surpass it in the dive, but if our AH la7 outdives a 109 completely, it's a clue that things aren't all perfect.
So no, we cannot compare to the real things, most of the time. But we can compare observations others have made about them.
-
HT can test the real things
Flight tested data does exist.
Since this performance falls within a percentage and not an absolute, it makes for a pretty wide margin of "realistic" performance.
This is a good thing for a Gaming Company and allows them to adjust their computer models, which are an absolute and inherently unrealistic, to balance "gameplay".
When this balance is not achieved or aircraft do not fall with their historical roles players have grounds for complaint.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
O sure u say planes are neutered or ubered just becoz of gameplay ?
Is that what u want to say ?
INteresting.
-
Originally posted by hitech
The thing is, it seems everyone makes these claims how somthing strange things happened to them. Never the other way around. And 2nd how there never seems to be a film of these strange events. Possible because every time some one looks at the strange event film , it turned out not to be strange and hence not worth posting?
So what do you belive is more probable. 1st something strange with the la7, but after multiple years there never seems to be a film of the strangness. Or the 2nd probablitly, you miss judged his E state or direction at the merge ?
HiTech
Hey,
most people i know, who are good pilots and like a challenge dont use the La7, SpitV, Tempest or F4U. At least i always wonder about the very easy kills if i fly a SpitV or La7. I dont need to think about E-fight, i turn like i want and need to make horrible mistakes to lose.
With a FW190A8 vs a La7 its most easy visible. Even if the A8 have plenty of altitude advantage, after the 1st attack and following upzoom the La7 hang on its tail. SpitV vs 109G10 or FW190A5 is another easy visible extreme. The 190A5 only can run, but even in a smooth dive it have probelms to get away, every turn result in much E-bleed, while the SpitV simply dont lose E. But a much more light plane with very big wings, with much less power simply should lose more energy while turning. Thats why the real SpitV had bad problems vs the 190A4. It could turn more tight, but lost to much speed while that and while highspeed manouvers in general, so they wasnt able to disengage, neighter to follow a 190A after a evaded attack(similar like Yak9 vs 190D9 in AH).
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Flight tested data does exist.
Since this performance falls within a percentage and not an absolute, it makes for a pretty wide margin of "realistic" performance.
This is a good thing for a Gaming Company and allows them to adjust their computer models, which are an absolute and inherently unrealistic, to balance "gameplay".
When this balance is not achieved or aircraft do not fall with their historical roles players have grounds for complaint.
All the best,
Crumpp
Crumpp we do no such thing. And your acusation is full of dog due due.
Infact I wish all sources on flight data had the exact same values, would make our job much easyier.
HiTech
-
Crumpp we do no such thing. And your accusation is full of dog due due.
What accusation?? :huh
Hitech, My post simply points out that aircraft manufacturers only guarantee performance within a specified percentage.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1130685407_raftestflightstandards.jpg)
For Focke Wulf:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1130685804_fockewulftolerences.jpg)
This leaves a wide path open for interpretation when a Game has to assign an absolute value to relative performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Knegel
SpitV vs 109G10 or FW190A5 is another easy visible extreme. The 190A5 only can run, but even in a smooth dive it have probelms to get away, every turn result in much E-bleed, while the SpitV simply dont lose E. But a much more light plane with very big wings, with much less power simply should lose more energy while turning.
You got it backwards. Usually the plane with the lower wingloading will loose less E in a turn since it requires lower angles of attack to produce the extra lift needed. Again I must note that wingloading is a very rough estimate for this since if you slap two huge barn doors to a plane it will not become a good turner (if it is able to fly at all...).
How much E you loose depend also on power loading (a slighy less biased preformance estimator, but stil...). While you bleed E, your engine pumps in more E - so you can have high wingloading and actually accelerate in the turn (think air 2 air missile - tiny wings, rocket engine).
Now take our spit V - very low wingloading and a wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA (long eliptical wings are generally good for this). Add the fact that this is the late , high boot engine version and I believe it has a better powerloading than our spit IX. The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite. The are not ment to flat turn since this ability was sacrificed for speed. And by the way - this is not always a disadvantage.
Bozon
-
wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA
Great Post Bozon.
However, the Spitfire wing is not dramatically more efficient than most wings in WWII. The difference is negligible in actual performance.
Designers in the late 1930's were well aware of the benefits of elliptical distribution and the methods of manipulating the wing to achieve it.
Elliptical construction does not mean elliptical distribution when you twist the wing.
The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite.
FW190's have pretty good power loading and it appears they could hold a decent angle of bank.
The RAF report is long on pilot opinion with very little science. The pilot is asked to give his opinion on the FW190 vs Spitfire IX after a 30 minute flight in the Focke Wulf. No comparision flight was done against the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66. However in the air,he meets some Mustang's and procedes first to evade them to save his life, then in mock combat. Which variant of Mustang we do not know. Interesting though as the RAE Tactical trials of Fabers FW-190A3 generalized that "the Mustang I is superior in turning performance".
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223258_pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
The USAAF report is much better. It gives us altitude, airspeed, and aircraft set up.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223654_p47-fw190-2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well suddenly I cannot post images so Bozon I will have to email you the reports.
You have probably seen them alreadly though.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I have a nice account of a P51C turning with a 190
P51 out turned the 190 and shot it down
-
I have a nice account of a P51C turning with a 190
I have plenty of accounts of FW190's outturning P51's and other aircraft. Big Deal.
Point is these are flight test's and not pilot stories.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223258_pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223654_p47-fw190-2.jpg)
Here is one pilot who outurned one, shot it down and then outran 5 P51's at tree top level during the Ardennes Offensive.
All of his fighter victories where from outturning his opponents.
http://www.riveting-images.com/Robert_Bailey_s_Aviation_Art/Robert_Bailey_s__War_Wolf_/robert_bailey_s__war_wolf_.html
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bosch.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by bozon
You got it backwards. Usually the plane with the lower wingloading will loose less E in a turn since it requires lower angles of attack to produce the extra lift needed. Again I must note that wingloading is a very rough estimate for this since if you slap two huge barn doors to a plane it will not become a good turner (if it is able to fly at all...).
How much E you loose depend also on power loading (a slighy less biased preformance estimator, but stil...). While you bleed E, your engine pumps in more E - so you can have high wingloading and actually accelerate in the turn (think air 2 air missile - tiny wings, rocket engine).
Now take our spit V - very low wingloading and a wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA (long eliptical wings are generally good for this). Add the fact that this is the late , high boot engine version and I believe it has a better powerloading than our spit IX. The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite. The are not ment to flat turn since this ability was sacrificed for speed. And by the way - this is not always a disadvantage.
Bozon
Here you have a misunderstanding!
A better liftload(wingload, aspectratio, airfoil etc) make a plane turning more tight, not turning with less E-bleed!
While turning with same radius the more light plane need less AOA, but it have less inertia at same time!! If the more heavy plane have a more strong engine the more heavy plane will keep more energy.
Most people forget that the weight/inertia also work into flightdirection not only in form of a more heavy wingload.
If both planes turn with max AoA, the light plane for sure will lose more energy, cause missing inertia, the benifit is a more tight turn.
The 190A, same like the P38 and other heavy wingloaded planes simply have a very smal drag in relation to their weight. This enhance the turnradius at slow speed, but while highspeed manouvers they keep energy like mad(at least they should).
Greetings, Knegel
-
Like swinging a light or heavy bucket ;)
-
Oh Crumpp:
"I have plenty of accounts of FW190's outturning P51's and other aircraft. Big Deal."
Well there is not a big gap to choose from, so it can go both ways. In my example it was a one-on-one for a long time ending with stallturns at treetop level. The Mustang needed flaps, - 1 notch.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
If both planes turn with max AoA, the light plane for sure will lose more energy, cause missing inertia, the benifit is a more tight turn.
If they are both at max AoA (assuming identical wings only bigger), at the same speed then they are not pulling the same G (assuming the same weight) and still you have the question of engine power (assuming the same prop efficiency). Notice the number or rediculous asumptions needed?
If the more heavy plane have a more strong engine the more heavy plane will keep more energy.
Most people forget that the weight/inertia also work into flightdirection not only in form of a more heavy wingload.
There are too many more in the sentence for me to more understand it, but it's more wrong if I do.
The 190A, same like the P38 and other heavy wingloaded planes simply have a very small drag in relation to their weight. This enhance the turnradius at slow speed, but while highspeed manouvers they keep energy like mad(at least they should).
You are confusing induced drag and parasitic drag.
-
Hi,
no, i dont confuse paraside drag and induced drag!
A 190A8 (say 4300kg) and a 190A4 (say 3900kg) have the same max AoA and so the same induced drag.
If both planes turn with highspeed(much energy) and max AoA, the 190A4 will turn more tight, but the A8 dont will bleed that much energy. Same drag(indueced + zero drag) but more inertia = less E-bleed.
Differnt it will be while a sustained turn, cause here the planes have a constant speed and therfor no inertia into flightdirection. Therfor the A4 can turn more tight with similar speed like the A8.
Thats why the 190A4 was better in all, than the SpitV, but in sustained turn.
A smal wing simply have a much smaler max indued drag than a big wing.
The 190A a smaler zerodrag and a smaler max indued drag than the SpitV but, if highspeed, more inertia and more power.
Cause the same reason the P47D was able to make a B&Z fight vs a Spitfire(They made tests regarding this in wartime).
As more power the planes got and as faster the main combatspeed got as bigger the wingload could be, cause at highspeed even a high wingloaded plane make a turn on the edge of a blackout. The extreme regarding this probably was the F104.
Most late war planes had a rather high wighload exact cause this reason.
Next to all this the aspectratio is a often undervalued factor. The aspectratio reduce the relative induced drag and enhance the liftfactor with a given AoA. Thats why planes like the Ta152H and P38 had much better liftload and (induced)dragload than the wingload and needed AoA would indicate.
Greetings, Knegel
-
but more inertia = less E-bleed.
By that logic you'd want to load your plane with lead to make it turn better - more inertia. But I see that arguing here is pointless.
Enjoy AH.
Bozon
-
Hi Knegel.
A smal wing simply have a much smaler max indued drag than a big wing.
While this statment is absolutly true. It is also meaning less when considering turning of any sort.
What you realy want to compare is E loss per G of turn. I.E. When 2 planes are doing the same turn. Who is loosing E the quickest.
In your case you are comparing when 2 planes are both doing there max turns at the same speed. But 1 plane could be a 10g turn and the other 2 Gs.
HiTech
-
Yep,
One HARD way to test the relative E loss would be a method where different planes would maintain constant G and constant speed in a turn from same altitude. Variometer would show the approx. relative difference, right?
I know that kind of state would be hard to maintain accurately but the measurement errors would probably decrease into acceptable levels with practice.
-
Are you all clear about the fact that induced drag means LIFT induced drag.
The same wing with higher loading at the same speed will for instance require more power for the job to keep it there.
The same wing with higher loading at the same thrust setting will create more induced drag resulting in the aircraft being slower for total drag will be more.
But anyway since it's going on about banking what's the effect on chord and span?
-
So ...because I am slow at this...........
Example A
I have 2 planes both able to generate the same thrust (engine prop etc). Both with the same control and lift surfaces, both of the same weight.
But one has less pure (or parasitic) drag than the other.
What performance differences would you expect to see?
Sustained rate of turn?
Top speed
Climb rate
acceleration
de acceleration
zoom
Example B
I have 2 planes both with the same top speed abilities and climb rates. Both with the same control and lift surfaces, both of the same weight.
But one has greater thrust and pure(parasitic) drag than the other.
What performance differences would you expect to see?
Sustained rate of turn?
acceleration
de acceleration
zoom
-
Are you all clear about the fact that induced drag means LIFT induced drag.
Lift stays constant.
In the case of lift, the lift force is (by its definition) perpendicular to the relative wind, so there is no such thing as dissipation due to lift.
People seem to confuse the CD(i) with the FORCE and POWER of induced drag.
While the CD(i) and the FORCE appear to go up gradually acting as a steady pull:
At higher angles of attack (approaching or exceeding the critical angle of attack) the basic-model approximations break down. The coefficient of parasite drag will rapidly become quite large, and the induced drag will probably be quite large also
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-coeff-ias
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-force-ias
However the POWER or force application if very different:
Figure 4.15 shows the amount of dissipation due to drag, for the various types of drag. Dissipation is a form of power, i.e. energy per unit time.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-power-ias
The mushing realm is where induced drag becomes a wall and the power increases dramatically. Before then it is hardly a factor.
Tilt,
Your doing pretty much the same effect in both cases AFAIK. The lowering the drag increases thrust.
Everything would go up or perform better.
Hitech says:
What you realy want to compare is E loss per G of turn. I.E. When 2 planes are doing the same turn. Who is loosing E the quickest.
Depends on the turn doesn't it? As long as an aircraft does not drop off the backside of the lift polar beyond CLmax, it would not be in the mushing realm were the power of induced drag becomes a factor in dissipation.
Any aircraft which does this will experience dissipation due to drag not just high wingloaded aircraft.
Notice too that force of parasitic drag increases dramatically in the mushing realm. This is due to the aircraft having to present more surface to the relative wind as it increases AoA, correct? Wouldn't the larger wing surface present more parasitic drag?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Are AH planes considering the viscosity drag? Not sure about the correct term in english, but it is related to the drag generated by the air flowing in contact with ANY surface. So, for two planes with exact flat area (lets say frontal area section opposing the air flow in a forward movement), the one with wider wings will suffer more viscosity drag. This is, in fact, the second component of parasite drag.
-
Hi,
Originally posted by Bonzon
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but more inertia = less E-bleed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic you'd want to load your plane with lead to make it turn better - more inertia. But I see that arguing here is pointless.
Enjoy AH.
Bozon
I dont talk about the most tight turn!
But actually exact thats what most nations did! Of course there is a edge where the heavy liftload of a plane get to be a handycap, but as long as a plane can turn with high G it dont make sence to use bigger wings, cause bigger wings have more drag as result.
The japanese HQ did follow your logic, the result we know.
A A6M2 couldnt follow a P40 in a highspeed turn, not cause the stiffness off the elevator, but cause it did bleed energy while that. VS later US planes the different was even bigger. As result, although much to late, they cutted the wingarea of the Zero and Ki43 down, but not enough.
The wing had to be as smal as possible, but it must have been possible to pull high G´s at normal combatspeed. Since the normal combatspeed increase with more power, the wing´s could get smaler(or the weight more big).
Originally posted by hitech
Hi Knegel.
While this statment is absolutly true. It is also meaning less when considering turning of any sort.
What you realy want to compare is E loss per G of turn. I.E. When 2 planes are doing the same turn. Who is loosing E the quickest.
In your case you are comparing when 2 planes are both doing there max turns at the same speed. But 1 plane could be a 10g turn and the other 2 Gs.
HiTech
If a 109G2 and a 109F4 make a decelerating turn, with same G-force and same power, at a given speed both planes will bleed same energy! As faster the planes as more the inertia help to keep energy, as slower the plane as more the more weight will be a handycap.
The 109F will need less AoA to pull the same G, therfor it will cause less drag, but the 109G2 have more inertia(swing). With same power the E-bleed get determined by the dragload, while a decelerating turn the inertia often get forgotten. The higher drag of the 109G2 get evened out by the higher inertia, depending to the speed.
While a sustained turn, no inertia into flightdirection work, therfor in this case the 109G2(if same power) will lose, but the 109G2 had more power, therfor i doubt that it would lose while a turn with same G-load. At least the climbratio of the 109G2 with combatpower was better than that of the 109F4, this indicate that the more power did overcome the more induced drag.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Example A
I have 2 planes both able to generate the same thrust (engine prop etc). Both with the same control and lift surfaces, both of the same weight.
But one has less pure (or parasitic) drag than the other.
What performance differences would you expect to see?
Sustained rate of turn?
Top speed
Climb rate
acceleration
de acceleration
zoom
Your example is two identical planes, one has its airbreaks sticking out. they create nothing but turbulance (drag).
Sustained rate of turn - The same, provided the plane with the excess drag can sustain the same speed in the turn.
Top speed - here parasitic drag rules over induced drag, less of it - more speed. THIS is the reason planes got smaller smaller wings, for less parasitic drag at high speeds at the cost of more induced drag at lower speeds / manuvering.
Climb rate - potential energy storing rate. Drag is the sink that burns you energy, therefor higher drag means that your burned fuel is used to stirr the air instead of making you climb and increase potential energy.
acceleration - prop pulling forward, drag pulling backward. less net forward force, less acceleration.
zoom - pure zoom climb is done at zero G so parasitic drag is all the drag there is - you don't even need wings and they are just more surface area to create drag. Lets consider powerless zoom climb - this is ballistics. Try throwing a pingpong ball straight up. Now try a metal ball of the same dimention. Which can you throw higher?
Here what counts is drag/mass ratio. If you want to make a plane zoom well FROM HIGH SPEEDS you want it heavy and you can use relatively small wings. sounds familiar? P47! YES mamma! This is the only case where your weight works for you and not against you (and the inverse case - 0 G dive).
Bozon
-
Thanks Bozon
Example A is a comparison between the La7 and the La5FN.
Basically (aerodynamically) the La7 is an La5FN with reduced parasitic drag and a very minor increase in thrust. (plus a weight saving of 120 kg in 3360)
Example B was me scratching for the ramifications of increasing both thrust and parasitic drag (in the FM) to achieve the same top speed and climb rates.
Instinctively I beleived that by increasing thrust and parasitic drag proportionally the result would be
Greater accel at low speeds.
Lesser accel at high speeds.
Lesser accel and final top speed in dive.
Slightly reduced zoom.
Greater de accel when throttling back at all speeds.
Lesser endurance at optimum cruise setting.
-
Could this be relevant to the original post?
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_015a.html
-
Serious, and La7 in the same sentence, your having a laugh.