Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Stang on January 13, 2006, 05:40:50 PM
-
Was just wondering, since the fix to them was forgotten in the last update, when they will be fixed?
:(
-
NO flaps for joo!!
-
The skies shall be full of spit parts and whines when we get them muhahahah.
No more p47 and f4u floppy fish uber hoverflaps crap hahahaha.
-
So Naive you are Stang so naive indeed. :D
-
109s didn't have flaps in RL, and they certainly don't need them in here. Luftwhiners.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire, from the cockpit of a Spit XVI
109s didn't have flaps in RL, and they certainly don't need them in here. Luftwhiners.
:cry
-
sissies.
-
Needs more lube, I'm chafing!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/52_1137227572_achtung-luftwhiner.jpg)
So whats the deal? Flap deployment at higher speed?
-
Supposedly 109s did have "combat flaps" in RL,but I bet you half the BK's damaged brains the flaps won't do didley squat against the UFO Harrier like P-47/P-51 flaps.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Supposedly 109s did have "combat flaps" in RL,but I bet you half the BK's damaged brains the flaps won't do didley squat against the UFO Harrier like P-47/P-51 flaps.
Don't forget the F4u as well.
-
I'm not sure if its the ability to use flaps itself that would make a difference. The perceived problem in 109s or 190 is that these planes are inherently unstable. Their basic handling at speeds is pretty much expected and would easily be on par with any other fighter, but in most cases the MA environment forces the pilot to push his plane often into low speed combat, and this is where the perceived problem becomes often so serious.
I have tested the turn performances of every fighter classified plane in the game, and the conclusion I have reached is that the relative figures for theoretical maneuvering performances are quite good, or perhaps, as expected.
However, the problem is that while some planes can easily use certain test settings, the 109 and 190 cannot. Much heavier planes like the P-51, or even the P-47 which is more than twice the weight of a 109, can be pushed upto 0.05 degrees before the AoA limit and retain full controllability. It is perfecrtly stable and does not show any signs of impending stall. However, the 109 and 190 has its hands full at more than 1 degrees before the absolute threshold.
To explain a bit further, my turn testings used a stall-limiter to minimize the possibility of human error. The stall limiter is an in-game device that limits the controls of the plane so the maximum elevator input stops before the absolute limit of the plane's angle of attack, at which point the plane will stall out. Thus, by using the smallest stall limiter setting possible (0.05 degrees before stall AoA), all planes would be tested with an equal amount of human control and ultimately, the pure mechanical performance of the plane would be shown.
The problem is, of the 56 fighter planes available in AH, 20 planes cannot retain enough controllability to use a 0.05 setting. Of those 20, six are 109s, and five are 190s(including the Ta as a 190 type). In short, none of the German fighter planes can use the minimum stall limiter setting. All of these planes need to use a larger stall setting to retain controllability required to test a steady turn maneuvering.
Simply put, the stall limiter is a loose indicator to as how stable the plane will perform before it reaches the stall threshold. The 109 and the 190, cannot go up to the 0.05 setting at all, and even at a setting of 1.0 degrees (the 190s often needed to use 1.2~1.5 degrees) before stall, a minimal amount of human control (continuous stick adjustment movement) is required to stop the plane from falling out of flight path and ruining the turn test.
In comparison, the P-38s, P-51s, P-47s - all of them significantly heavier than any 190 or 109, are perfectly stable and show no signs of troubled control upto 0.05 degrees before stall. They did not require any kind of control at all - all I had to do was set the limiter setting, and just pull the stick back max deflection, and the limiter will automatically stop the plane from stalling out. The plane will turn wonderfully, and I take the measurements and make out a turn radius.
With 109s or 190s, I had to use different stall limiter settings, changing it with increments of 0.02 at the first try until I reached 1.0 degrees before stall - where the planes were finally stable enough to control - and still sometimes the plane would falter and destabilize, attempts to correct flightpath would avalanche it into a succession of overcontrol, and the plane would get out of flightpath and I would have to start the whole thing all over again.
In a word, flaps are not gonna help.
The 109s and 190s, for some reason, are inherently unstable. Either that, or the competition the 109/190s are facing is inherently overmodelled.
The P-38, as I said before, I can understand. The turn testings showed that the P-38 has quite a large turn radius in fact, and the only reason the P-38 seems to turn so good is it can progress through its turns and speed reduction in a very short time due to its torqueless nature. This is truly a case of HTC's excellent plane modelling.
However, the P-47. This plane is almost twice heavier than the Bf109s, and at least 3,000lbs heavier than the Fw190s. Some have suggested that the heavy weight will allow a plane to 'mush' through the stalls more stably - but the 'mush' factor so forgiving to the plane as to outmaneuver planes half its weight? Or retain total stability right upto the stall AoA?
What about the P-51? IIRC the P-51 wasn't such a forgiving plane. Had weight related CG issues with certain fuel tanks, and often commented as having a vicious stall and heavily influenced by torque. Yet, this plane is also very comfortable right up to the stalling AoA.
The 109s and 190s, wobble.
When speed is reduced the torque changes so drastically that it wobbles. When it nears stall, it becomes super sensitive, and heavy flight control input with start a chain reaction of destabilization, with the attitude of the plane changing so violently that even slight inputs to correct plane attitude will make the situation even more worse - commonly referred to as 'overcontrol'.
If this, is something normal to expect in prop fighters, then at least, up to an extent, it should exist with the P-51s or P-51s, or any kind of fighter planes we have - except it doesn't.
The reason people want 109 flaps deployed at higher speeds, IMO, is because they expect it to act like the P-51 or P-47 flaps. Cutting down E in high speeds, assisting maneuverability by stabilizing the plane at low speeds.... except, 109 flaps don't help at all.
So the chances are, even if we get the 109 flaps deployed at higher speeds, the plane will still wobble, and we'll be forced to back down stick pressure, and the P-51 or P-47 we're fighting will merrily 'mush' through the turns and rolls in a perfectly stable attitude, and march down to our rear end and shoot us down.
Flaps are not the problem.
It's the whoopeeed wobbling around that's the problem... The turn radius I've measured and tested suggests that if only we didn't have to go through such a stinkin' insanely difficult time just trying to keep the plane from rocking around left and right, we'd be able to perform a lot better against the planes that have a turn radius 150 feet wider and weight 4,000 lbs heavier, than our planes.
But as it is, currently, we're routinely outmaneuvered by planes with 150 feet wider turn radius and 4,000 lbs more fat. Its such a common sense for P-51/P-47 pilots to just drop speed, lower flaps, and dance around at 500 ft. over the ground with 109s and 190s - without the slightest hesitation or fear. These are planes they know they can beat in a slow-speed fight.
A crock of bullshi*, if you ask me.
-
Oh mY friggin lordy lord Kweasssa You hit the blind monkey with a rusty pipe over the head.
That's what I was discussing last night the Flaps won't do anything, since the P-51 and P-47 are so stable and have no drawbacks at low speed, which Historically both of these planes were very unstable below 200mph and high power settings, are mushing as you say out of the stall and have no drawbacks so they act like 150mph 2 ton heavier spitfires,against their historical counterparts.
One tactic the LW used was to get them slow at the lower altitudes because compared to these aircraft both the 109 and 190 performed and turn inside the radius of these planes.
Problem with the current model as you suggest is that the 109 and 190 perhaps are not modeled incorrectly(the 190 is though :D , fix my Dora,and Ta) , but that the aircraft they face more commonly or the historical counterparts are so forgiving it's more profitable for them to get them to bleed all their speed so they can kill them, in other words it's happening what is suppose to defeat those two but in reverse.
Essentially Historically mediocre planes at low speed are performing better to give the mediocre pilots a chance. Historically over performing planes at lower airspeed against these historical counterparts are given mediocre performance because the amount of pilots who fly the LW will always have to be the best, but since essentially they fly on a different flight model they'll most of the time lose, because AH is meant for that,doesn't matter what you do you'll get it in the end .
It'll never get fixed.
-
That's what I was discussing last night the Flaps won't do anything,
A while back I said the whole 'flaps for 109s' is nothing but a red-herring that some cling to. Flaps won't do a thing for planes as unstable as the 109s are in AH.
Folks who are caught up on this as some sort of fix will be dissappointed.
-
It cant make them worse though can it?
-
I could be surprised :D
-
look on the bright side, they may do nothing, but with flaps down it will make the wings bigger targets on dead 6 shots for america planes!!! yey!
-
Originally posted by Grits
It cant make them worse though can it?
Flaps dont do anything. They're just there for looks. All this crap about added lift and stabilization at low speeds is simply a load BS fairy tails... Myths at best.
-
109 Flaps: hand cranked. I have not seen a combat report where the pilot used them. But they had slots, which worked well most of the time.
190 flaps: Electically deployed? Useable to high speeds I belive.
P51 flaps? A lever, fully mechanical.
And this from Kweassa:
"However, the P-47. This plane is almost twice heavier than the Bf109s, and at least 3,000lbs heavier than the Fw190s"
Look at the wings and wingloading. The difference should be less then, but a 109 should normally (in the same timeframe) easily turn inside a P47.
Both of them really, and EASILY.
-
Look at the wings and wingloading. The difference should be less then, but a 109 should normally (in the same timeframe) easily turn inside a P47.
Both of them really, and EASILY.
Yes, it should.
Except it doesn't.
-
Kweassa,
I'm sure you did this a while ago and I actually even vaguely recall some of it... What were the other planes that were unable to go to the lowest setting on the stall limiter? Was the La-7 one, by any chance?
Also, do you think someone who was used to "fighting" the plane through the turn could get the most (or at least a lot more) out of it than someone who was not? I ask because I used to be practically alone in my opinion that the La-7 and G-10 were a match for a P-51D in a "turn-fight" (not knife fight per se.. but a circlejerk fight), because when I was flying them, they were.
It was hard as hell to get them to turn, but they could stick with a P-51 in the circlejerk. I don't know if that is true anymore, maybe the FMs have changed since I quit playing or something.
That is an interesting bit of research there.
-
The results are in the turn radius thread, linked at my sig. But for you, I'll compile them here for easier comparison.
Fighter Name (SL setting normal / SL one notch flaps / SL full flaps)
* fighters listed without SL settings for flaps are those that can use one setting throughout the entire testing
List of entire fighters
A6M2 (0.05)
A6M5b (0.05)
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.202 (0.05)
C.205 (1.0)
F4F-4 (0.05)
FM-2 (0.05)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
La-5FN (0.05)
La-7 (0.05)
Me163B (0.05)
Me262A (0.05)
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
N1K2-J (0.05)
P-38G (0.05)
P-38J (0.05)
P-38L (0.05)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
P-47D-11 (0.05)
P-47D-25 (0.05)
P-47D-40 (0.05)
P-51B (0.05)
P-51D (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.V (0.05)
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.VIII (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XVI (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
Yak-9T (0.05)
Yak-9U (0.05)
List of those cannot use minimal settings
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.205 (1.0)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- Bf109 variants (6)
- Fw190 variants (5)
- F4U variants (4)
- Miscel. (5)
So, while 20 planes cannot use thes settings, which seems a lot, actually half of them are 109s and 190s. The only other major plane with a number of variants that cannot handle the minimal setting, is the F4U. Speaking cynically, basically our 109s and 190s are in the same league as the "Ensign Eliminator" when it comes to maneuvering stability.
Also, do you think someone who was used to "fighting" the plane through the turn could get the most (or at least a lot more) out of it than someone who was not? I ask because I used to be practically alone in my opinion that the La-7 and G-10 were a match for a P-51D in a "turn-fight" (not knife fight per se.. but a circlejerk fight), because when I was flying them, they were.
Here's what I think.
The tested results are mechanical, and could be considered absolutely devoid of human factor. If what you are asking is that if human factor can alter the results enough to change the outcome, then my answer is "yes".
The problem is, when the human factor is assumed at a simular level, the characteristics of the plane in question are so malevolent that it reverses the historically known outcome. The opinion that a 109 would have a handy amount of advantage over the P-51 or a P-47 in slow-speed fights, was shared by pilots of both sides historically. However in AH, the results are often reversed.
In all likeliness, people who fly planes always make some kind of mistakes, big and small. However, one plane is so forgiving to that mistake as to remain stable right up to the stalling point, and overthrow the advantage of the other plane decisively, while the other is so unforgiving that a slight mistake immediately deprives the plane of its maneuvering advantage, preventing it from reaching its full potential - even with a considerable amount of pilot skill.
...and this, is with the Gustavs, which have a distinctly smaller turn radius than a P-47 or P-51, but still routinely get outmaneuvered them during flat turn contests that start out as a one circle fight. The K-4 has almost exactly same turn radius as the P-51, but stability is far worse. Unless a pilot employs other methods of combat, such as utilizing the climb, IMO there is no way for a Bf109K-4 to win a turn fight against a P-51 starting out at co-E situation.
-
Wow, Kweassa, you do a lot of serious work here!
Anyway, last time I had a sustained turnfight with a 109 (P47 D11 lite vs a 109F unknown) the 109 outturned me. It was from 10K down to rock, and ended with a screaming stall and flaps and all.
But....it was a long time ago. Shortly before AH II I think.
Anyway, if you wanna do some tests, or need some comparison, let me know, maybe me and a pal of mine can ease your workload ;)
We did some testing of turning, not so scientifical, but as in combat. and we do many tests, and swap planes. A 109F would outturn a Spit IX if the Spit had full fuel and a droptank while the 109 was 1/2. Stuff like that. Basically, our results did not change even if we swapped planes.
-
What's wierd to me is the difference in the stalls between 109 variants. All are very unstable, the F being the most to me, yet the g14 and g6 stalls seem much less harsh... anyone else get this feeling?
-
Kweassa,
All 109s out turn the P47 accoring to your own turn ability test. By significant margin in the "turn rate" category. 109G-10, worst turning 109, completes a turn 20% quicker than a jug, if that is not significan't, I don't know what is.
190s turn about the same in rate and slightly larger circle. Light Jugs have lower wingloading that a 190A8 last time I checked so I'm not suprised.
Bf109G-10 (1.0/1.3/1.3)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (176mph), 225.5m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 192.0m
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5)
4xMG151/20
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 21 seconds (171mph), 255.6m
- N/A
P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m
The stall limiter number don't mean that much. If HTC will set the stall buzzer to go off a little earlier for 109s, you'd believe the 109 can really be pushed into the stall.
I agree with you that most planes are too stable, and I think torque is not pronounced enough. However, the claim that 109s are outturned by P47s is simply not true and btw, neither by P51s by your test.
Bozon
-
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity. there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB. is that what you want? those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance. the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge. it makes it more gratifying when we win.
-
All 109s out turn the P47 accoring to your own turn ability test. By significant margin in the "turn rate" category. 109G-10, worst turning 109, completes a turn 20% quicker than a jug, if that is not significan't, I don't know what is.
bozon, this entire thread is basically about why planes that outturn others in contained test figures, cannot do so in real life in the MA.
In the testings I had help from a 'newbie device', which made it impossible for me to any kind of mistakes in stick input. Take that away, put me into real-life MA action and I am gonna make a mistake, usually not a very big one but mistakes do happen.
Put me in a P-51, in a stall fight, and my mistakes have a good chance to go unnoticed, but put me in a 109, and the slightest input problem will destabilize the plane, and blow all that advantage in turning radius away immediately. The 109 requires almost inhuman level of micro control to push it up to stall and still retain some sort of controllability, and that usually translates to a plane with significantly heavier weight and larger turn radius outmaneuvering it.
With all due respect, put me against great pilots like you or Yucca, Frenchy, Redtop in their P-47s, and basically my 109 doesn't stand a chance. What's funny is, usually a better maneuvering plane is supposed to act as a handicap-filler and increase the chance for the pilot with lesser skill to fight on equal terms with better pilots in clumsier machinery - which in the case of 109, actually feels more like handicap-giver. How will I able to utilize the better turning radius as an advantage, when I have to pass through a needle's eye to get there?
... but anyhow, since you agree on the basic premise that some AH planes are too stable, I am glad.
-
fgfds
-
I find the 109 to turn quite nicely. Just don't mix it with a Spitty!
??????????????????
-
Originally posted by storch
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity. there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB. is that what you want? those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance. the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge. it makes it more gratifying when we win.
what BS are you talking abiout?
im sure 110 is modeled 100%. it can loop wit 109/190, 51s, 47s, 38s, and even spits anytime by using its flaps and POP them with 4x 20mm + 2x 30mm guns.
:D
-
He's passing through the "I'm the bestest pilot EVAR, so if I lose the plane must be modelled wrong!" phase.
Most Luftwobbles (myself included) go through it at some point in their virtual careers. Happily, most of them get through it (myself included, I think).
-
true enough 1K3 with the exception of the 110 which is clearly overmodelled considerably.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I find the 109 to turn quite nicely. Just don't mix it with a Spitty!
??????????????????
You don't find anything, you don't fly 109s. You just make things up.
Bozon,
The stall limiter number don't mean that much. If HTC will set the stall buzzer to go off a little earlier for 109s, you'd believe the 109 can really be pushed into the stall.
The stall limiter has nothing to do with the stall horn.
fyi, many folks deleted that stall horn many years ago. Some use a buffeting sound some use nothing. So it makes no difference at all if HTC 'sets the stall buzzer to go off a little earlier'. It doesn't change the fact that the 109s have become more 'unstable' at low speeds with the recent patch.
Ik3,
Storch whines more the anyone about how planes are modeled in AH, just search his older posts. Take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Stang,
What's wierd to me is the difference in the stalls between 109 variants. All are very unstable, the F being the most to me, yet the g14 and g6 stalls seem much less harsh... anyone else get this feeling?
I agree there's a difference between models but I only have a sortie or two in the F-4 so I can't comment on it being worse.
Urchin,
It was hard as hell to get them to turn, but they could stick with a P-51 in the circlejerk. I don't know if that is true anymore, maybe the FMs have changed since I quit playing or something.
When did you quit playing? Before the last patch? I have flown 109s as much anyone over my years in AH and they have changed in terms of low speed stability. It can be over come but that's not really the point. Top speed, climb etc.. all basically the same. The G-14 is plagued by a bad FM in terms of speed etc.. but Pyro is aware and said he would take a look at it.
Bruno = Wotan btw...
-
Originally posted by Urchin
He's passing through the "I'm the bestest pilot EVAR, so if I lose the plane must be modelled wrong!" phase.
No, he is in the "I cant accept that I am not the bestest pilot EVAR, so the plane must be modelled wrong!" phase.
Several planes have legitimate issues with the performance numbers. The 190's are too heavy, the 109F is supposed to be at 1.42 ATA but it does not reach the top speed it should at that boost, the 109G-14 is slower than it should be in WEP, the F6F is 10-15mph too slow, the P-40b is around 400-500 fps short of its proper climb rate, the P-38L seems to have its speed a little too slow at high alt.
As I have said all along in every "LW planes are porked" or "109s changed" thread, I think the pure measureable performance numbers are very close in the majority of planes, and it is not a LW only 3-5 percent deficit. Its as Kweassa has pointed out so clearly with his turn rate/radius test, its the inability for the 109 and 190 to easily reach their max AoA without dramatic loss of stability in the roll axis that is the problem. This has huge ramifications in a turn fight and makes the 109s and 190s FEEL like they turn much worse than they actually do because its soooooo freaking hard to ride the edge of stall with out losing roll stability.
-
Originally posted by Grits
... Its as Kweassa has pointed out so clearly with his turn rate/radius test, its the inability for the 109 and 190 to easily reach their max AoA without dramatic loss of stability in the roll axis that is the problem. This has huge ramifications in a turn fight and makes the 109s and 190s FEEL like they turn much worse than they actually do because its soooooo freaking hard to ride the edge of stall with out losing roll stability.
Yeah! What they said!
And this shows up not just in flat turns, but also pulling (or trying to pull) over the top of a loop - leaving the LW planes with, well, nothing to work with in either manouever plane. At least not compared to their contemporaries.
I personally care a lot less about flaps than about the snap-spin and stability issues. I also care about the acceleration issues - which may or may not be related to the weight/power problems.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Several planes have legitimate issues with the performance numbers. The 190's are too heavy, the 109F is supposed to be at 1.42 ATA but it does not reach the top speed it should at that boost, the 109G-14 is slower than it should be in WEP, the F6F is 10-15mph too slow, the P-40b is around 400-500 fps short of its proper climb rate, the P-38L seems to have its speed a little too slow at high alt.
Our P-40B is at least 20 mph too slow at critical altitude (332 mph, should be 352-355 mph).
The P-38L doesn't model full rated power, but models the USAAF derating instead. The derated power settings are what the AAF placed in their manual, carrying over the charts from the P-38J verbatim (which had different engines than the L model). Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.
As to the 109s: I went offline and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it. In contrast, the P-51s were not nearly as twitchy. They would drop a wing just like the 109s, but required notably less rudder dancing to fly at the edge.
I did not find that the F-4 was worse than any other model. All were about the same in my estimation.
I do not recall when this started, largely because I don't fly 109s with great frequency as of late, with the exception of the 109F-4, which I use quite a bit in the TA for training. I still have AH1 on my machine, so I think I'll compare the respective 109 flight models (F-4, G-2, G-6) to what we have now. I'll report what I see.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks for taking the time to testing it out.
Although this part...
As to the 109s: I went offline and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it.
...is subject to debate - since obviously that a 'little practice' doesn't seem to subdue the malevolent attitude of the 109s nearly enough.
We've got people in AH who've been flying Luftwaffe planes for a decade now, since days of AW. I myself, while never a good pilot, have been using 109 for years since the day I joined Aces High in version 1.05.
If people like us can't adapt to such volatile behavior of the plane, frankly I'm stumped about just how much more 'little practice' we all need, to be able to use the 109s good enough to 'have a good amount of advantage over the P-51/P-47 in slow speed maneuvering'.
Kinda depressing.. actually. To find out that we are wholly incapable of doing something that is possible with just 'a little practice'... and breaking out into frustration so intense and stressful.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I still have AH1 on my machine, so I think I'll compare the respective 109 flight models (F-4, G-2, G-6) to what we have now. I'll report what I see.
I checked the AH1 FM for the 109s. Handling gradually degrades down with each increase is power. Thus, the 109F-4 is smooth right up to the limit with nary a twitch. However, the 109G-10 was far more prone to twitch at the limit. However, it is still less so than the current crop of 109s, although I can manage the current ones well enough.
I would not classify the AH2 109s as unstable. They are very stable. They just tend to get a bit nervous at the limit when maneuvering at high AoA, regardless of airspeed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.
Well thats the thing, I dont care if its well received or not, all planes Axis or Allied should be as accurate as possible within the capability of AH's program and let the chips fall where they may.
-
. The derated power settings are what the AAF placed in their manual, carrying over the charts from the P-38J verbatim (which had different engines than the L model). Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.
None of the planes in AH are modeled to 'factory ratings'. There's no evidence I have ever seen that shows the P-38L was flown operationally in any meaningful numbers at 1,725 hp. If you have some reliable info please post it.
In FB/AEP/PF they model 2 P-38Ls, one at 1600hp and one 1725hp. There were many long discussions over this issue over at UBI and no one has presented any evidence that shows 1725hp was used operationally in any meaningful numbers. Over at Zeno's Warbirds there's a chart for the 1725hp P-38L. I believe Vermilion and HT went through a discussion on Factory Specs sometime ago, mostly related to VVS planes.
As to the 109s: I went off line and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it. In contrast, the P-51s were not nearly as twitchy. They would drop a wing just like the 109s, but required notably less rudder dancing to fly at the edge.
I have flown 109s almost exclusively in AH since '99. I was here for various FMs changes including the infamous 1.04 FM. What ever you discover in your off line comparisons is almost pointless in how it relates to a real game situation.
The current 109s are 'unstable' they depart and wobble at all speeds, depending on AoA, a trait the real 109s never had. Certainly not more so then any of the heavier Ami fighters.
It's not just about 'managing' the instability, it's about being able to 'fight'. Currently if any 109 gets on my tail any quick, hard maneuver is enough to send the attacker into series of wobbles where by he loses all initiative and speed. Or else he flies straight and runs away. In a fight (real fight not one of those cherry picking high speed runs) the 109 is limited by what it can reasonable do when attacking and when attacked the instability limits the 109 options. None of these can't be overcome or managed but that's hardly the point. It is something never modeled before in AH, or in any other game (those others games that HT and crew had modeled included) and never mentioned anecdotally by real 109 pilots. It does remind me of WBs where by they manipulated the CoG of plane to tweak the FMs.
It's not right and should be looked at.
Back O/T
Flaps will do nothing to help the instability the 109s have.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
None of the planes in AH are modeled to 'factory ratings'. There's no evidence I have ever seen that shows the P-38L was flown operationally in any meaningful numbers at 1,725 hp. If you have some reliable info please post it.
In FB/AEP/PF they model 2 P-38Ls, one at 1600hp and one 1725hp. There were many long discussions over this issue over at UBI and no one has presented any evidence that shows 1725hp was used operationally in any meaningful numbers. Over at Zeno's Warbirds there's a chart for the 1725hp P-38L. I believe Vermilion and HT went through a discussion on Factory Specs sometime ago, mostly related to VVS planes.
Factory rated engine rigging was not common in the ETO and MTO. I have talked with pilots and mechanics who claimed that some pilots insisted upon the engines being rigged for the higher output. However, this required re-indexing the props to allow higher RPM. Turbo regulators were adjusted and there were several other things that needed to be done.
I do not think that we can ever determine how common the 1,725 hp rigging was within the AAF. That makes it tough to justify a change. Nonetheless, both Allison and Lockheed clearly show the full 1,725 hp WEP rating in their documentation for the engines and the finished fighters. P-38 crews have stated that the engines were re-rigged for 1,600 hp before delivery to operational squadrons. I do not know if this was done at the factory or in overseas assembly depots.
Either way, I do not expect the P-38L to get changed in AH2. I'd rather see the 109s, P-40B and F6F get adjusted, we have good evidence for those.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I have flown 109s almost exclusively in AH since '99. I was here for various FMs changes including the infamous 1.04 FM. What ever you discover in your off line comparisons is almost pointless in how it relates to a real game situation.
The current 109s are 'unstable' they depart and wobble at all speeds, depending on AoA, a trait the real 109s never had. Certainly not more so then any of the heavier Ami fighters.
It's not just about 'managing' the instability, it's about being able to 'fight'. Currently if any 109 gets on my tail any quick, hard maneuver is enough to send the attacker into series of wobbles where by he loses all initiative and speed. Or else he flies straight and runs away. In a fight (real fight not one of those cherry picking high speed runs) the 109 is limited by what it can reasonable do when attacking and when attacked the instability limits the 109 options. None of these can't be overcome or managed but that's hardly the point. It is something never modeled before in AH, or in any other game (those others games that HT and crew had modeled included) and never mentioned anecdotally by real 109 pilots. It does remind me of WBs where by they manipulated the CoG of plane to tweak the FMs.
It's not right and should be looked at.
Personally, I'd look at the slats as being related to this issue. Just a hunch.
Tonight after fighting off hordes for an hour, I stopped by the TA and took up a 109G-14. Ren and Kempek were dueling and I played tag with the G-14. I had no trouble remaining with them. I did have to fly it mightly close to the edge, and it was getting antsy.
Later, I mixed it up with Taurus45, who was in a Spitfire Mk.VIII. I found that high g inputs usually caused a minor departure, quickly caught but still annoying. These occurred after the slats deployed, but not WHEN the slats deployed. I was satisfied that the G-14 could be very effective against the Spit8, but I used tactics that suited the 109 rather than fighting to the Spit's strengths. I did notice that when coming over the top slow and inverted, the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.
My regards,
Widewing
-
the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.
That's basically the problem, the yaw axis. I had a similar experience in the K-4. I went up, rolled inverted and watched as a Spit squirted through underneath. As I tried to get the nose down (slats weren't out, speed was about 260 mph, combat trim was off) to get in behind him the plane began to yaw and I watched as the 'ball' slapped back and forth. No amount of rudder would stabilize it and I kind of fell over but was able to right myself. By then the fight was over with the Spit high tailing it to ack. The same thing happened with the G-14 when I fought a P-51. I ended up clipping a tree that time as I was very low.
As for whent he slats go out thats been like that since the betas. A little wobbly but you can a handle on it rather quickly.
For the P-38L and Combat Tour:
Since there is talk of pilot earned attributes I could envision a 1725 HP P-38L as well as high known boosts for other aircraft (25lb Spit XVI, 1.98ata K-4 etc). These could be reasonably limited by allowing them to the 'bestest' pilots. I don't if HT would agree.
-
Just out of curiosity, how much improvement in deck speed would the 1,725hp P-38L have?
I play both games. AH is my main dish, but for every 2 hours of AH, I also play about one hour of IL2/FB/AEP/PF. I found I couldn't catch a P-38L(late) with a Bf109G-10 on the deck, and had to use D-9s to chase it down.
Seemed to me it did at least about 370mph at deck.. is this figure correct?
-
About that: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Urchin,
When did you quit playing? Before the last patch? I have flown 109s as much anyone over my years in AH and they have changed in terms of low speed stability. It can be over come but that's not really the point. Top speed, climb etc.. all basically the same. The G-14 is plagued by a bad FM in terms of speed etc.. but Pyro is aware and said he would take a look at it.
Bruno = Wotan btw...
Yea Wotan, I quit playing a long time before the 109 patch. I played a little bit in H2H last month, I didn't notice all that much of a difference in the K-4, although I'd have lost knife fights with Spits and Ki-84s anyway back before it was changed.
I'd probably have to resubscribe and fly a new 109 against not turny planes and see what I think of it.
-
I'm in no way a plane engineering guy (does that make me an ENIGMAneer?-- sry) -- but it strikes me that there seems to be an uncanny consistancy in the instability emergence angles Kweassa reported.
Why should entirely different airframes, with different geometry and power, fall into one of two settings? Why do many planes come in at 0.05, and a few need RIGHT AT 1.0 degrees?
The only way this makes sense is human factor. Either Kweassa found the 1.0 worked for the 109 and extrapolated it to other planes that had trouble (ie he didnt repeatedly test in 0.02 degree increments for non-109 planes); or, HTC did it on purpose.
I cant think of any aeordyanmic reason why such disparate planes would lose stability at precisely the same AoA.
Kweassa, did you do the repeated testing on other planes, or did you use 1.0 for other instable planes as adefault?
-
Why should entirely different airframes, with different geometry and power, fall into one of two settings? Why do many planes come in at 0.05, and a few need RIGHT AT 1.0 degrees?
The only way this makes sense is human factor. Either Kweassa found the 1.0 worked for the 109 and extrapolated it to other planes that had trouble (ie he didnt repeatedly test in 0.02 degree increments for non-109 planes); or, HTC did it on purpose.
I cant think of any aeordyanmic reason why such disparate planes would lose stability at precisely the same AoA.
Kweassa, did you do the repeated testing on other planes, or did you use 1.0 for other instable planes as adefault?
The result was from individually testing all the planes. However, I must warn you that the 1.0 setting can be considered, again, only as a very loose general figure when it comes to debating plane stability, so the exact numbers don't really mean all that much. What it points out is some planes are much more unstable than others, but having a 1.0 setting over 0.05 does not necessarily mean that a 1.0 setting plane is as twice as instable per se.
Again, the SL settings were put in the testings to minimize human errors - basically, I set the SL at minimal level and pull the stick back max deflection at a certain bank angle that allows the plane to turn flat without losing alt. Any planes that cannot do that, I increased the SL settings and tested it again and again until I reached a satisfactory point where only slight stick adjustments were required to keep the plane turning stable.
Therefore, other people may be able to fly the 109s upto 0.09 degrees, I am able to fly it at 0.07.. and etc etc. The exact numbers do not specify the exact limits - but only a certain point where my personal judgement is involved.
What I mean by this, is that I can fly the 109 at max stick deflection, with something upto about 0.07 degrees, but at this state, the plane requires so much stick input that it provided no objective comparison in turning performance to others - if I use figures like that for measuring 109 turn radius, then I would probably have to get rid of the stall limiter entirely in the planes that can use the 0.05 setting ... and from that point the 'human error' or 'human difference' factor kicks in, making the tests not very objective or mechanical.
Therefore, the 1.0 setting is a setting where, for the tested planes that cannot use 0.05, can handily take on max-stick deflection with only very small course adjustments with the stick.... just as you can pull the stick back with the planes that can use 0.05 settings.
One thing for certain, is there is a certain margin between the different planes, and that fact can be verified by looking at the SL setting numbers. But the figures themselves, IMO, don't provide any deep meaning.
-
One thing I note is that although the F4U's fell into the 1.0 catagory, I do not find that they are unstable in combat like the 109/190, furthermore, they are not less stable than other US aircraft IMO. I think Kweassa has indirectly found something, and the stall limiter number are only a faint clue, but not every plane that can not get to .05 is unstable.
-
You talked about 1.0 being twic as unstable as 0.05 -- is that 0.05 supposed to be 0.5?
-
Sim, sorry about that, that was a mistake.
0.05 it is, so I should have said 'twenty times' :D
Grits, concerning the F4U I think it can be translated into the following;
1) F4U's, when pushed up to its limit, are unstable. This, in one way or other, matches the comments on F4Us having vicious stall characteristics when pushed upto stall.
2) But like you've said, they don't feel as unstable as the 109 or the 190 during combat, even in slow-speed maneuvering contests.
3) Then the implications are clear: you don't need to go upto such harsh environments in the F4U in the first place (!!). The F4U can handle quite stably when it stays within the 'safe zone' of maneuverability - and more often than not, that alone is already enough to outmaneuver a lot of more lighter enemy planes.
4) In other words, it's not reaching its full potential in absolute turn radius (or rather, dangerous levels of AoA) in most cases, and yet still the plane is stable enough at dangerously low speeds, with flaps out, to outmaneuver much lighter and nimble opposition.
5) On the contrary, the 109s and 190s have to be pushed to its utmost limit to reach its full potential in maneuvering - where the pilot must risk considerable amount of destabilization. Even if the pilot puts the flaps down, the flaps do not provide enough advantage in lift or stability to be able to outmaneuver enemy planes - and thus, the 109/190, unlike the F4U, cannot remain in the safe zone, and is always forced to go near the edge of the cliff to win, where everything starts to crumble beneath your feet.
At least, that's the way how I see it.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
...
5) On the contrary, the 109s and 190s have to be pushed to its utmost limit to reach its full potential in maneuvering - where the pilot must risk considerable amount of destabilization. Even if the pilot puts the flaps down, the flaps do not provide enough advantage in lift or stability to be able to outmaneuver enemy planes - and thus, the 109/190, unlike the F4U, cannot remain in the safe zone, and is always forced to go near the edge of the cliff to win, where everything starts to crumble beneath your feet.
At least, that's the way how I see it.
I concur with this analysis. Once a 109/190 gets into Luftwobble mode at low speed, it's more or less done for is the opponent recognizes it. And the safe zone is also a lot smaller than on other planes, making it even worse.
-
I concur with this analysis. Once a 109/190 gets into Luftwobble mode at low speed, it's more or less done for is the opponent recognizes it. And the safe zone is also a lot smaller than on other planes, making it even worse.
...and that's WITH the leading edge slats, which supposedly was a clever device to help the plane act more smooth and stable under the stress of stall...
Kinda makes you think, don't it?
Imagine what the 109 would have been like without slats...!
Outturned by 262s, anyone? :D
-
Have to agree that we are being a bit shortchanged on the 109s, they are very unstable at low speeds and I think I have died more often from spins at low speeds and such than enemy fire.
If HT does anything for the new patch/ update then please let it be taking a look at the stability of the 109s.
It's not often that you get the majority of the vets in the community ( I don't consider myself in that bracket by a long shot) agreeing to the extent that they have on this subject.
So if you read this HT, skuzzy, pyro et al then please at least have a look at the 109 situation.
cheers
Big G10
-
I just don't think there is a will to fix the 109's and 190's. I say this judging by small details in the way the planes are upgraded to new TOD standard. (visibility, cockpit bars, weapon loadout, stability.....)
My opinion.
-
The slats have been debated about. Aces like Rall did NOT prefer them in combat, while admitting that without them the landing speed would have been unacceptably high.
They apparently do not always work completely, - this conclusion is achieved in the end of the famous "slats" thread, where a good slats expert dropped in and gave some tips. The princip is sound, but the practical application not always. In AH they work about as well as in the perfect world.
Been flying the 109 a bit lately, jostling with La's, Yak's and Hurris amongt others. I do not sense it as an underdog at all! And if you could extend the flaps at higher speeds, that's all there is to it!
-
Originally posted by storch
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity. there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB. is that what you want? those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance. the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge. it makes it more gratifying when we win.
Hmmmmmmmmm................... . one of the BIG reasons I left WB was the treatment of the LW planes. BTW the 30mm over there is PORKED, hit but little or no damage, but more accurate!
I was overjoyed at the handling charactoristics of the AHI 109's!
Then in comes AHII and the 109's got IMHO porked.
Then comes patch 2.6 and IMHO the 109's got a little worse, if that's possible.
The 109s were my favorite planes until patch 2.6. Then the f4 lost the gonds, and seemed to turn worse, and the g14 seems just a tad bit worse then a g6, and the k4 (g10) lost the gonds and got that crappola 30mm only which is IMHO a real joke on a dead 6 shot under 200 yds with the site pip right on the con. You can watch the rounds go wide and left or right or high or low or any combination thereof but HIT! :mad:
My connect is dialup at 37k with a ping of right at 180 on a good day and averages 230 otherwise.
Now the 109s just plain SUCK IMHO!
IMHO TOD or combat tour or ????? would be MORE enjoyable if the axis aircraft were more competitive. After all they were in RL?
But that's just my opinion. AND my preference. Now the 109s seem neutered and far less of a threat then before.
-
disagree. 109 is sweet ;)
-
The 109s only place where they're not stalled is on the runway. When in flight you always fly stalled you just don't know it yet.
And the 190s......Well that's a whole nother' thread...
-
As it's obvious that the 109s are not performing as they should be, why don't we do this ?
Lets get the top 109 driver and the top pony driver, have them conduct a series of ACM as subscribed in various combat reports (that I'msure some guys on here have then we can see it for ourselves)
After all, we can then take the "but in real life, this how they performed" out of the equation and test them in our world.
For example, I was reading on here about an encounter that a pony driver had with Hartmann over Romania or Italy, I remember reading about the 2 of them flying side by side with flaps down at 100mph or slower, that the pony driver said that the pony was 85mph faster in the dive than a 109 etc
So I'd like to see a 109 in here fly under a 100 mph side by side with a pony with all the flaps down, then suddenly loop with the pony chase it down to the deck while remaing within 85 mph of it.
Once I see that then I will belive that the 109s are modelled correctly.
So lets get the top 2 drivers from the 109s and the ponys and film it.
-
Originally posted by storch
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity. there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB. is that what you want? those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance. the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge. it makes it more gratifying when we win.
Does this really stand up? I hear this particular argument all the time from lufwaffe fliers, but it doesnt make sense to me.
Look at other games: German stuff is, if anything, favored but the games do just fine.
Look at the fist person shooters....Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2. The best guns there are MG-42, and the "noob cannon" is the USSR's Ppsh submachine gun. The BAR is big, heavy, and slow; the Garand has good rate of far and clip, but is UNDERMODELLED (i love beinga ble to say that) in its hitting power. BattleField 1942 is gamier than heck, but there's no USA/Allied bias. In Counterstrike, I seem to remember loveing some German assault rifle for its lethality and accuracy.
None of these games suffered in popularity for not "favoring" the USA.
When I'm talking with freshly minted new guys, yeah, they may have taken up the P-51 or B-17 because they recognized it from History Channel....but when they go down in flames (which is usually when they're asking for tips, after all), theoir first question is always "whats the best plane to start in?" When I tell them about what's out there, they dont care if its USSR, USA, Japanese, or GB. They're perfectly happy tooling around in a Nik or a Spit XVI.
Because their goal isnt to be proud to be an american-- its to figure out how to work this particular game so they feel successful.
I really think HTC just does their level, honest best to model the planes. I also think the stallfighting so common in MA was just incredibly rare, so its very hard to use real life recollected stories (of unverifiable accuracy, lets be honest -- do we want the models based on what Eric Brown said? Wont that just be a different kind of bias?...but I digress).
Wasnt there a sim a few years ago that used physics modelling as foundation rather than table look up? I remember hearing about tinkering to see what longer wings woudl do to a B-52, for example....Wonder what the 190 did in there? If results were at all simular, I'd have to say theat despiite our preferences, HTC may have gotten it right. If not, thats something to talk about.
BUt lets drop the hooey about marketing bias, because the market proves the concept wrong.
-
Does this really stand up? I hear this particular argument all the time from lufwaffe fliers, but it doesnt make sense to me.
It's just a vent of frustration.
People discuss about certain things, and a certain 'consensus' is formed. However, things don't change, for a long time. Naturally, they start to think that their just calls fall on deaf ears, and are being mistreated.
However, not all the people feel that way.
HT needs data to change things. The problem is, things like "handling characteristics"... we cannot provide any objective, quantitive data to prove it. How do you prove something you "feel" is wrong?
Basically this whole thread, or at least, my posts in this whole thread, is an attempt to provide some sort of objective foundation to the claims that the 109s are incorrectly unstable. That the "feel" doesn't end with just a "feeling", but has some objective basis, and can be found out by comparing some of the traits and characteristics of the planes in a scientificial manner.
If HTC finds this makes sense, they will change something. If they don't feel that way, then nothing will change. However, I must confess that what more the players can prove with what little information on how the game engine works, I do not know. It may be practically impossible to prove a certain plane "handles" wrong - and that leads to the conclusion that even if a certain plane is indeed handling wrong, it still would never be fixed, because the players don't have a way to prove it.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
...
I really think HTC just does their level, honest best to model the planes. I also think the stallfighting so common in MA was just incredibly rare, so its very hard to use real life recollected stories (of unverifiable accuracy, lets be honest -- do we want the models based on what Eric Brown said? Wont that just be a different kind of bias?...but I digress).
...
This is a good point.
With the exception of the IJA planes, the rest of the major combatants didn't use low-speed turning as a primary tactic. And the IJA started moving away from this early in 1942. What we see in the MA is far from representative of typical WW2 dogfights. The most glaring difference is visibility - I don't think planes had them giant neon letters under 'em in WW2 - most shoot-downs happened where the victim never saw his attacker.
So ... this starts to look kind of like the "LW cockpits" thread in a way. Either all the planes should be as vicious at low speed as the LW planes, or the LW planes are modelled too harshly. If all the planes got "porked" to the level of the 109/190, there'd be buckets of whine. Me personally, I'd love to see low speed manouevers be as tricky as they should be for ALL planes. "Riding the edge of the envelope" has hardly any meaning for many of the planes (the ones that ain't LW, mainly).
But that ain't gonna happen for the reason I just stated. Which only leaves the option of tuning the LW rides so they are as manageable as the other planes. CT (ToD) will end up in stallfights - regardless of the mission-based set-up. And the folks who choose to drive LW planes will quickly find that they are falling from the sky in large numbers - either from gun fire or the FM.
-
HTC may have gotten it right.
Sure. The Bf-110 was the best performing fighter the Luftwaffe had in service. That is why it was universally adopted in 1941.
The “Bie-plan” for fighter replacement called for the gradual phasing out of the Bf-109 series and the FW-190's.
Combined with the work of the ES-Section researching “pilots with silly walks” as planned would have been lethal.
Had the war continued just 2 more years the plan would have come to fruition. This Bie-ES would have spread throughout and the Luftwaffe would have been able to field the Bf-110, flown by pilots with silly walks, in sufficient numbers to dominate the skies of Europe.
The RAF had a similar problem producing the sorely needed Hurricane IIc's to replace the Spitfires, Tempest, and Mustangs in service.
HTC has it spot on. :aok
Just like the Engineers at Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. The F-18 and F-16 were close right? Almost dead even with little to choose between their relative performance, that is what the numbers say, Right?
Of course it does help to use the right numbers.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure. The Bf-110 was the best performing fighter the Luftwaffe had in service. That is why it was universally adopted in 1941.
The “Bie-plan” for fighter replacement called for the gradual phasing out of the Bf-109 series and the FW-190's.
Combined with the work of the ES-Section researching “pilots with silly walks” as planned would have been lethal.
Had the war continued just 2 more years the plan would have come to fruition. This Bie-ES would have spread throughout and the Luftwaffe would have been able to field the Bf-110, flown by pilots with silly walks, in sufficient numbers to dominate the skies of Europe.
The RAF had a similar problem producing the sorely needed Hurricane IIc's to replace the Spitfires, Tempest, and Mustangs in service.
HTC has it spot on. :aok
Just like the Engineers at Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. The F-18 and F-16 were close right? Almost dead even with little to choose between their relative performance, that is what the numbers say, Right?
Of course it does help to use the right numbers.
All the best,
Crumpp
:aok
-
Hehe, Crumpp, glad to see you're alive. Haven't seen any posts from you recently. You OK or is it me not reading well enough?
Anyway, the 110 is off. I promised somewhere to post about it, but it took me a while to find my papers. It is a referrence that probably none of you have, - from Victor Mölders, Werner's brother.
It's in German, so I will have to translate it to English.
The main point about the 110 was that firstly, it was prone to unrecovarable spins, and secondly, flying a 110 in the BoB was the next thing to suicide. Well, stats may tell you another story, but this was the pilot's point of view.
In AH, the 110 is off IMHO. Why would a 1940 110 roll a lot better than a 1940 109 for instance?
But the Hurricane, - well....
In AH, the Mk IIC is slow, has great firepower, is rugged, and turns on a penny.
In real life, the Hurricane out-turned the Spitfire (by a margin though), or "turned on it's tail" like one pilot said, was a good gun platform, had well balanced controls, was rugged, was told to roll easier than a Spit, Had better view over the wing, but locked up at high speeds in a dive (elevator), and once pushed over the stall limit, had a naughty departure.
If anything, that's the only thing HTC have off.
Oh, and the elevator controls lock up at a very high speed, - just about when the airfoil is hitting the sound barrier. Didn't try that one in AH ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
If anything, that's the only thing HTC have off.
Oh, and the elevator controls lock up at a very high speed, - just about when the airfoil is hitting the sound barrier.
Okay lemme reply to the sound barrier comment: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Okay, now let me put some tact over that, .... a bit more... okay now we get this:
Sorry, but the Hurricane isn't getting anywhere NEAR the sound barrier, not even in a terminal velocity dive from 50,000 feet. The physics just doesn't support it.
As for "the only thing wrong" -- I disagree. Ever since AH2 came out every plane has had super dive and super zoom capabilities. The HurricaneIIc dives with the best and can zoom climb like there's no tomorrow. It can outclimb a good deal of aircraft while giving chase to them (in AH2, I mean) and the general drag issues (there is none) exist on many a plane.
-
You misunderstood a little.
In a powerdive from 30.000 feet, many WW2's AIRFOILS go close to the speed of sound. It is not the actual speed of the object from A to B compared to the speed of sound at that alt (or rather temperature), - it is the speed of the air over the wing so to speak. That could be somewhere between Mach 0.8 to mach 0.9 I belive.
You do realize that air travels faster over a normal wing than under it yes?
As for the "only thing wrong" I referred only to the 110 and Hurricane.
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?
-
Originally posted by Angus
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?
Fw-190A and P-47N
-
No......
-
lol, how about...
P-38 with dive flaps
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for the "only thing wrong" I referred only to the 110 and Hurricane.
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?
Spit XI?
Read about one that hit mach 0.94 (ish). 606mph in a 45 degree dive.
Airframe was OK but it broke the prop, had to glide in to a landing.
Farnborough 1944.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?
Fairey Swordfish, the fighter version (no torpedo, Lewis gun on top wing).
...um....Taranto....
.....1940?...
- oldman
-
Kev had it :aok
-
"They've gone plaid!"
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for "the only thing wrong" -- I disagree. Ever since AH2 came out every plane has had super dive and super zoom capabilities. The HurricaneIIc dives with the best and can zoom climb like there's no tomorrow.
Generally I'd say you have some point but in the specific case of the Hurricane you are wrong. It's perhaps the only plane I can drag into a dive and then zoom much higher of in a P47 - which has a poor zoom contrary to all the myths. This was not created in AHII, it was always like that.
Perhaps there are some things off in the modeling but I attribute most of it to the typical very low alts in AH. Down low, typical TAS speeds are low and drag is high, making zoom ability much more dependent on power to weight then on ballistics - heavy planes will suffer. In high altitudes, TAS speeds are much higher but IAS tend to be similar or lower than in low alts. Ballistics depends on TAS, turn and sustained climb depend on IAS so up high planes can barely keep to their corner or stall speeds (IAS) but have plenty of TAS for ballistic zoom - which explains why all high alt fighters are E fighters. Power also tends to drop with alt making prop pull less important in the zoom, making heavy planes zoom better.
This doesn't say AH modeling is right or wrong, it just say why some of the myths about plane performance do not hold for sea level. I'd like to try some zoom test at 25k.
Bozon
-
ROC and Zoom add. We have no specific "ZOOM" measures, tables, data or about anything. Ok Hurl yourself upwards with mass and speed, and when it approaches stall, approach your climbing speed and keep climbing.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?
The one which was equipped with the least exact measurment system and where the results were calculated with the least exact correction
niklas
-
Anybody ever seen a picture of that Spitfire?
Making that dive was last thing that airframe ever did and the pilot found God on the way down. I think "thankful to be alive" and "very lucky" are some of the words found in the description.
If you check out the POH dive speeds the Spitfire was rated too, it was unremarkable. Both German fighters could outdive it substantially at lower altitudes.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
And yet, zeros out dive p47s, spitfires can stay in a dive (and CLOSE) on a 190A.
AH has dives and zooms messed up. I know HT says "If one number is off they're all off, so if all the numbers are right they all must be right" -- but something else in his flight engine is messing this zoom/dive up. Others have supposed that perhaps it's due to drag. This is possible. I think there's just a flaw in the logic of the game engine. It happens. However, nobody's LOOKING for it, because "all the numbers are right, so everything must be spot on". Instead of trying to replicate real flight, the AH2 flight engine has its own self-contained world, in which you feed numbers and out it spits a plane's status. Even if the numbers are all self-checking that doesn't mean the system is infallible.
This is my opinion. Don't jump on my back. I know I can't do better. I know how hard it is to make a flight model, but this is my firm belief: this flight model is flawed and produces unrealistic zooms and dives.
Nobody's going to ever waste time checking 50,000 lines of code for a logical error, and nobody's going to quit over it, but it's a large detraction (in my mind) from the game's quality.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Spit XI?
Read about one that hit mach 0.94 (ish). 606mph in a 45 degree dive.
Airframe was OK but it broke the prop, had to glide in to a landing.
Farnborough 1944.
Actually, I believe it was a Spitfire PR. Mk XIX and the estimated (guessed at) Mach number was .92. This was not a designed, controlled test and there was no measurement equipment. This dive resulted from pilot error and the estimated speeds / mach can not be substantiated. IIRC the 'dive' began at 40 or 50k FT. The pilot of the Spit reported seeing a 'milky look' as the air moved over the wings.
The Spitfire Mk IX pilot’s notes quote a limiting Mach number of 0.85. This is a 'safe' number and similar to most other of WW2 fighters.
Here's a link to Pushing the envelope with test pilot Herb Fisher (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html), (Widewing's site)
Snipped :
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?
Keep clinging to those fairy tales...
-
Theres seperate incidents getting confused here (I'm guilty also)
1) Yes the XIX in the emergency dive, estimates from 0.94 - 0.96 mach.
2) Farnborough high speed dive trials, up to 0.92 mach.
1 - Anecdotal - yes, 2 was measured.
But considering theres anecdotal evidence that the 262 may have surpassed Mach 1, and also the prototype F-86 (both prior to Yeagers Mach 1 record), take it as you will.
-
There were several claims of Mach 1 or near Mach 1 from the Amis and the RAF but as it says in the quote I provided above:
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?
If the P-80 could not exceed mach .94 then a Spitfire, or P-51, or P-47 sure couldn't.
-
I can remember a heated thread where people stated that it was physically impossible even for a 262 to break the sound barrier. I am not in a position to comment on that as I don't understand the physics nearly well enough.
The myth that a F-86 broke the sound barrier first (before the X-1) is more credible, but it seems that Bell and Yeager don't want their thunder stolen, even after all these years. But if I'm not mistaken the F-86 was capable of it, in a dive of course.
-
It's no myth the AF changed it to the first man to break the sound barrier in lvl flight if I remember for the X-1.
-
First person that crossed the barrier with certanity was E-Walsh.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
There were several claims of Mach 1 or near Mach 1 from the Amis and the RAF but as it says in the quote I provided above:
Also some german pilots claimed that they exceeded 1000km/h in dives with the 109, in the 190 on a regular basis. Afaik this was the reason why the 109 dive tests were made.
niklas
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I can remember a heated thread where people stated that it was physically impossible even for a 262 to break the sound barrier. I am not in a position to comment on that as I don't understand the physics nearly well enough.
The myth that a F-86 broke the sound barrier first (before the X-1) is more credible, but it seems that Bell and Yeager don't want their thunder stolen, even after all these years. But if I'm not mistaken the F-86 was capable of it, in a dive of course.
Planes like the Me 262, Me 163. P-80 and P-84 simply generated too much drag to exceed Mach 1.0. Even in a vertical dive, at full throttle. Aero loads due to drag were sufficient to damage and even destroy these aircraft. The latter two had laminar flow wing designs, which delayed the drag rise a bit, but could not limit it enough.
Welch's forays above Mach 1 were due to the XP-86 being designed as a transonic aircraft. North American knew that with adequate thrust, the design was capable of speeds up to Mach 1.18 in a dive. They informed the USAAF of this early in 1947. When the USAAF officially became the USAF in 9/47, the Secretary of the Air Force notified North American that they were not to push the XP-86 up to transonic speeds until the XS-1 (later renamed X-1) had accomplished its mission of exploring transonic flight. Their primary reason for this was that they did not want to put their experimental budget at risk. Why would Congress authorize big allocations of money when a production prototype could be used for much of the same research? Added to this was the fact at Larry Bell was a close personal friend of Truman. Bell had been informed that the XP-86 should be able to break the "sound barrier" in a slight dive and immediately went to see the President. Truman promised Bell that the Bell XS-1 would get the first shot at supersonic flight, and actually dictated a letter to the Air Force stating that this is what he desired.
USAF documents for the XP-86 program show a chart ordered prepared by Al Boyd for the purpose of keeping the XP-86 at subsonic speeds until the XS-1 had accomplished its purpose for existing. This chart was issued to USAF test pilot Ken Chilstrom, who was to fly the Phase II flight program after the plane was handed over by North American. It was North American that managed and flew the Phase I program, with George Welch at the controls.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/SpeedLimitChart.jpg)
One problem for the Air Force was that it had no control over what non-government corporations did. North American agreed to this request in the belief that the XS-1 would be ready for a record run before the XP-86 was completed. However, due to handling issues and an extremely cautious flight schedule, the XS-1 program was creeping along at a snail's pace. Rocket motors were taking longer to develop than expected as well. Any chance that the XS-1 would win the race evaporated when the XS-1 experienced trim problems. Yeager ran out of trim adjustment at Mach .94. This required a major change to the plane that allowed North American to get the XP-86 into the air two weeks before the XS-1 could go for the record.
On its first flight (10/1/47), the XP-86 exceeded Mach 1 when to satisfy his own inner urge, Welch ignored the USAF directive, departed from the flight card and rolled the XP-86 into a dive. It is estimated that the XP-86 attained Mach 1.04 during the dive. Welch repeated this again on October 14th, roughly 60 minutes before Yeager and the XS-1 was released from its B-29 mothership for its first full power run, being the first to exceed Mach 1 in level flight (the XS-1 was actually climbing slightly).
In 2001, the USAF backhandedly acknowledged Welch's flights by officially changing their claim for Yeager and the XS-1 as being the first to exceed Mach 1 IN LEVEL FLIGHT.
For the full story of these events, find a copy of Aces Wild, written by retired North American test pilot, Al Blackburn. Released in 1999, published by Scholarly Resources.
You can also read my review blurb on the dust jacket.. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You can also read my review blurb on the dust jacket.. ;)
Thanks, Widewing, had never heard this story.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by niklas
Also some german pilots claimed that they exceeded 1000km/h in dives with the 109, in the 190 on a regular basis. Afaik this was the reason why the 109 dive tests were made.
niklas
"Test Pilots" by Wolfgang Spate has a chapter on those dive trials, performed by Lukas Schmid.
In this chapter, Schmid mentions a report released in winter 1942 that stated there had been 20 fatal accidents in the 109G in two months, all involving dives from high altitudes.(afaik these sort of accidents were not unique to the 109, but all fighter aircraft at the time)
In January 1943 the dive trials were ordered:
The internal orders for the flight tests were registered under Nr.109 05 E 43 and briefly said: 'First: Investigation and clearing of accidents. Over-correction of the aileron and insufficient effect of the elevator at higher Mach numbers. Second: Proof of stability of the Me 109 Wk. Nr. 9228 at high Mach numbers.'
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
If you check out the POH dive speeds the Spitfire was rated too, it was unremarkable. Both German fighters could outdive it substantially at lower altitudes.
Me 109E dive speed: 750km/h(466mph)
Spitfire II dive speed: 450mph
Me 109G-6 dive speeds:
0-4km = 750km/h(466mph)
4-5km = 700km/h(435mph)
5-7km = 600km/h(373mph)
7-9km = 500km/h(311mph)
Spitfire IX dive speeds:
0-20,000ft = 450mph
20-25,000ft = 430mph
25-30,000ft = 390mph
30-35,000ft = 340mph
35,000ft+ = 310mph
Spitfire XIV dive speeds:
0-20,000ft = 470mph
20-25,000ft = 430mph
25-30,000ft = 390mph
30-35,000ft = 340mph
-
Justin,
The Germans increased the dive limits in 1944 to 900kph. I am not going to write out the whole table and the document has been posted in these forums by me before.
There was no variant of the Spitfire that could outdive it's contemprary German fighter opponent.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Justin,
The Germans increased the dive limits in 1944 to 900kph. I am not going to write out the whole table and the document has been posted in these forums by me before.
There was no variant of the Spitfire that could outdive it's contemprary German fighter opponent.
All the best,
Crumpp
Yup, agrre with that crump:
One of the best tactics the LW used over the UK was to go into a turning dive, the spits couldn't keep up.
I'm just hoping that HT resolves the 109 issue, (not bothered about the flaps, just want the 109's to fly like 109's)
-
So, are you saying that the Farnborough experiment was rubbish?
Oh, and Widewing, sorry, Welsh it was. The Pearl harbour guy ;)
-
Fascinating story Widewing :aok
-
http://www.jazzitoria.dial.pipex.com/aspit-2.htm
Maybe somebody should inform the Spitfire society that they are grossly overestimating the performance of the 109.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Justin,
The Germans increased the dive limits in 1944 to 900kph. I am not going to write out the whole table and the document has been posted in these forums by me before.
I tried a search, but could not find the post you're talking about? The highest figure that I could find quoted here was 850km/h TAS, and the link to the scanned document was dead.
-
The experiment at Farnborough was a dive from max alt right?
I mean, we all know that the Spitfire was not a very fast diver, - 109's and 190's would leave it behind in a dive.
That said, they still needed to level out at perhaps lower speed.
I mean, a full power dive from ca 40K will build up a lot won't it?
-
Hi,
as far as i know the high estimated mach numbers while diving with a SpitIX was caused by wrong measurements due to turbulances in the pitot tube.
Same problem caused the 1000km/h claims of some german pilots.
The following graphic will explain why WWII planes wasnt able to reach mach0.9
(http://www.raf-roy.com/share/knegel/Screenes/DragvsMach.jpg)
As you can see, the planes run into a real wall at around mach0.75-0.8.
Even with max power in levelflight at sea level not many WWII planes did reach mach 0.6 (around 612km/h, up to this speed the drag coefficient is relative constant, above this the typical highspeed/supersonic problems did start).
Look to mach 0.75, how much the Cd already did increase(around 3 x as high as at mach 0.6).
Greetings, Knegel
Edit: i doubt that any prop driven plane ever did reach mach8.5, cause the propeller will act like a real airbreak at this speed, maybe the Me163 or 262 did reach 1050km/h (around mach0.85) close to sea level after a smooth dive.
-
The pitout tube measures airspeed.
There is also a stopwatch and an altimeter.
So, did they only rely on the pitout tube?
As a sidenote, didn't they run the aircraft to it's max?
-
Angus,
the vmax of the Me163 Komet was 960km/h(around mach0.8) in 3000m altitude, although the rocket produce more thrust and the air get more thin in higher altitude the Komet wasnt able to fly faster in a level fligt in higher altitudes, cause the as colder the air get, as higher the machnumbers get. The Me163 had max climbrate (tank almost empty) of around 150m/s, what mean, this is a vertical climb.
With other words, tha power of the Komet(almost empty tanks) was stronger than the gravity. While a dive it couldnt get much faster, cause it simply dont was controllable anymore, although it had a advanced highspeed wing construction(arrowed, very smal aspect ratio wings).
A propplane dont get any advantage out of its propeller at high machnumbers, cause the proppeller itself get earlyer into trouble than the plane, cause to produce thrust the propeller have to rotate faster than the plane fly. Actually the propeller will act much more early as airbreak, otherwise the engine simply would overdrive. In theory they could use a different reduction gear to overcome the engine max rpm problem, but still the blades would get supersonic problems and dont would be able to produce thrust. Therfor propeller driven planes cant reach mach1 at all and much earlyer they cant produce thrust anymore, so the result base on a free fall, the engine is only needed for the initial acceleration.
To reach mach 0,85 in a free fall is not very credible, but maybe they did add two tonns weight to increade the dragload, but i doubt a pilot(plane) would have survived this.
A stopclock and altmeter dont would help, cause the max speed only could get reached for some sec, a to short timespan to measure it in this way.
In general the highest to expect speed will be at 2000-3000m, here the drag due to thick air and lower mach numbers result in a minimum of drag, but here a pilot dont had much time left to pull up(specialy in a typical WWII plane).
They made divetests with a P51B(from 28.000ft), with removed propeller but metal covered elevators, and did reach machnumbers of 0,755. In a windtunnel they was able to reach mach 0,825(no propeller!!)
The P39N (much smaler wing aspect ratio) did reach max mach 0,8 while a powered dive from service selling(34.000ft), most trys was good below this(0,755 and 0,777).
Important to note is that they couldnt reach this speed with max rpm, they had to reduce the rpm, probably to avoid supersonic problems(increased drag) at the propellerbalades.
The resulting dragcoefficient at low machnumbers was a bit better in the P51(0,0215), as long as the P51 surface was clean, with a bit dust on it, it was worse than that of the P39(0,022) .
I doubt that a Spitfire was able to reach such numbers, it had a much worse dragload, what is most important. Maybe the heavy, late one, with clipped wings.
Greetings, Knegel
-
The MTT dive trials with Me 109F were at 100% engine settings, and they reached Mach 0.8. Dive angle was 70-80º.
Drag is not the limiting factor, the wing design is. For typical WW2 fighter wing designs, thinner was better(measured as ratio of thickness:chord at the wing root) - Me 109 with 15% thickness had a limit of about 0.8M, which closely matches the dive speed limits in the pilots manual. P-51 had 16% thickness, and a dive limit of 0.75M per the POH. Spitfire wing was 13%. Pilots notes give a dive speed limit corresponding to 0.85M. This Spitfire dive table reports 0.891M reached. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg)
-
Drag is not the limiting factor
Drag is the limiting factor.
The insturmentation was not accurate enough in the transonic realm to definatively say what the Spitfire achieved in WWII. Measuring speeds above Mach .8 was problematic at best.
In the 1950's they were still trying to overcome the margin of error.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1953/naca-report-1145/index.cgi?page0001.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1950/naca-tn-2046/index.cgi?page0002.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1950/naca-report-985/
Here is the results of the Mk IX dive trials:
(http://img17.potato.com/loc197/th_0d19f_MkIX_Dive.jpg) (http://img17.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc197&image=0d19f_MkIX_Dive.jpg)
Here is a Mk V that dove to an estimated 520mph.
http://www.potato.com/upload.php
So to claim such a high mach number for any wartime Spitfire is rather silly. The test shows the results achieved with an unknown condition Spitfire using instrumentation with a large margin of error.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Drag is the limiting factor.
Oh, I see. How could I not understand this before. It's all so clear now...
-
Oh, I see. How could I not understand this before. It's all so clear now...
Come on Justin! You know this. What are the four forces in flight and what happens those force vectors in a dive?
I should have made it clearer though that the speed measurement issues were seperate from the drag. Sorry for the confusion.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-four-dive
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#sec-four-forces
-
Your point of aspect ratio is linked to drag. Higher the aspect ratio the lower the drag.
Here is a good simple explaination found in the second part.
http://www.answers.com/topic/aspect-ratio?method=5&linktext=aspect%20ratio
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well, bear in mind, that many an almost supersonic WW2 prop fighter never returned to report, for it was buried into the ground.
Some have claimed that they did push their control surfaces through the sound barrier, - well, we won't find someone that will test that out today.
But even, in 1945, with radio, altimeter and stopwatch, as well as a pitout measure, I think the measurement should have been quite well doable.
Or is somebody claiming it was a hype?
AFAIK, the measurement turned out as a surprize, for the results were NOT expected. But again, the Spitty had a very thin wing, and infinately good (up to too good) elevator control.
-
Or is somebody claiming it was a hype?
Read the reports. Anything above Mach .8 was suspect during the war years.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by justin_g
The MTT dive trials with Me 109F were at 100% engine settings, and they reached Mach 0.8. Dive angle was 70-80º.
Drag is not the limiting factor, the wing design is. For typical WW2 fighter wing designs, thinner was better(measured as ratio of thickness:chord at the wing root) - Me 109 with 15% thickness had a limit of about 0.8M, which closely matches the dive speed limits in the pilots manual. P-51 had 16% thickness, and a dive limit of 0.75M per the POH. Spitfire wing was 13%. Pilots notes give a dive speed limit corresponding to 0.85M. This Spitfire dive table reports 0.891M reached. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg)
How can someone seriously believe that in a 45° dive, that means only 70% of your weight actually pulls you down (engine power can be neglected), a prop fighter can achive 0.88 ??? Oh yeah, while other fightres were barely able to reach 0.8 in vertical dive, the spitfire needed only 45° to outdive them by almost 0.1mach lol. And this only by a "very thin win" what´s actually not true at all in comparison to the 109.
The 109 did not have 15% thickness. Even the earliest models had a 2314-2311 airfoil combinition. The 109E had 14.2%/ 11% thickness combination. The 109F had a 14.5% / 11.35% thickness ratio combintion, the 2nd one is measured at the outside of the ailerons
The spitfire was betwen 12 and 13% in the roots, a RAF report mentions 13% straight on. The low tip ratio is an illusion due to the elliptical shape. The ratio varies with the depth, and elliptical shapes are not very deep at the VERY outside. For example thunderbolt, inside 16%, outside 9%. It´s just depends where you measure, and elliptical shapes seem be very thin on the outer part - but that´s more an illusion due to the elliptical shape. which get´s quickly larger when you move inside.
Furthemore the gradient of the spitfire wing was maybe even steeper because it had the maximum thickness ration already in 20%.
The P51 could not be dived fast because of the Allison engine. It hat to start in less than 30k.
The evaluation of the test is nice but useless. The whole report mentions how difficult the evaluation was. It´s just a guess. I´d like to know how germans did it. The german result looks way more reasonable when we compare it with our knowledge today.
I wonder why they did not test by cameras. If the pilot dives down and you film it with a highspeed camere, the same you use for speed records, you should be able to calculate by triangular formulas in a very simple way the max. speed.
A FW-190 report mentions how bombs under the wing can influence the speed indicator even in normal flight. Now think how a tube is influenced near mach 1.0 by the wing alone. You have to calibrate the whole machine when the tube is mounted, not the tube alone.
niklas
-
You're fighting with:
weight, thrust and drag yes?
And the fact that you will have to be able to recover from the dive.
Or....you'll run out of test pilots.
Last time I flew a little aircraft I was amazed how quickly one picks up speed in a little shallow dive.
A 3-5 ton WW2 fighter paddling downwards from strato-alt with 1500-2500 hp's in front will get to insane speeds very quickly.
Oh and BTW, Mach relates to temperature, so, lower at warmer temp right? About that time the diving aircraft has reached it's absolute max speed and is about to hit warmer and then thicker air.
-
Strange, yet another -
All allied graphs/conclusions/reports are wrong.
All LW ones are 100% correct.
:(
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Strange, yet another -
All allied graphs/conclusions/reports are wrong.
All LW ones are 100% correct.
:(
Perk the Spit V, SpitVIII, SpitIX, Spit XIV and SpitXVI.
-
You forgot the Spit I :D
Oh perk the Hurricane :)
-
We need to keep one Spit free so Kev has one to fly.
-
Originally posted by Stang
We need to keep one Spit free so Kev has one to fly.
Thanks Stang, too kind :)
-
All allied graphs/conclusions/reports are wrong.
What a juvenile thing to say. Guess science or physics is different on one side of the channel.
My gosh you must be right. Only the RAE had the ability to accurately measure speeds at high Mach during the war!! The rest of the world did not figure it out until after the war.
Those sneaky English, holding on to the technology while the rest of the world struggled.
Somebody make the Spitfire dive to Mach .89 now! Please HTC, my gameshape needs to be better!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wasn't just referrnig to this topic Crummp, goes for all the threads that eventually end up Allied vs Axis, or Spit vs 190/109.
Always ends up the same thing -
All LW docs are 100% actual and factual.
Allied docs are flawed, incorrect, not enough.
Not juvenile----FACT.
As I've said many times the two different levels of standards for proof required just totally bemuses me.
A good e.g.
Plenty of squadron level and goverment docs showing usage of 150 grade by Spit IX, XIV and XVI, but they're not good enough.
Yet an intention (OK an order) to use 1.98ata without ANY equivalent proof is jumped on as a "They must have used it, so it should be allowed".
Like the allegation Allied planes at 100%+, LW at 90%.
By whos standards, and of course the people saying it have had real life experience flying them.
You want a 100% accurate 'flight sim', best start saving up, you wont be playing it on a home PC.
-
Always ends up the same thing -
All LW docs are 100% actual and factual.
Allied docs are flawed, incorrect, not enough.
Not juvenile----FACT.
What Axis documents are posted in this thread? There's claim of high mach dives in the 109, those aren't any more credible then a Spit diving to mach .94.
If you look what Crumpp posted its NACA. If you look at the link I posted to Widewing's site Dr. Fisher sure aint an 'Axis'.
A prop plane diving much above .8 mach is just not credible no matter what plane you happen to choose in a flight game.
Put down that cross, apparently it's starting to chafe...
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Strange, yet another -
All allied graphs/conclusions/reports are wrong.
All LW ones are 100% correct.
:(
Of course Allied testing/evaluations on LW rides will NOT always absolute or be 99.99999999999999% correct. This same goes to Axis if they test allied rides.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way did German, Japan, and Italy test captured allied planes back in WWII? If yes what is the Luftwaffe opinion on captured spits, p47s, p51s?
-
Try answering my post instead of dancing round it.
Why is it all LW docs are taken as 100% accurate and factual, yet allied ones are constantly blown off as wrong, inacurrate, or plain just not enough (if first two reasons don't work)?
Why are there two completely different standards for proof?
What is this 90% LW rides 100% allied rides BS, anyone EVER actually flown one?
Thought not. (me neither)
-
Try answering my post instead of dancing round it.
Why is it all LW docs are taken as 100% accurate and factual, yet allied ones are constantly blown off as wrong, inacurrate, or plain just not enough (if first two reasons don't work)?
Because that is a stupid question created in your mind. Where in this thread has anyone posted an 'Axis document' as proof of anything? Any WW2 prop plane that claims to have reached well beyond .8 mach is false. Axis, Allied, Nuetral etc...
The only conspiracy in that is what you created. As I said put that cross down and take a break for a while.
-
Bruno - if you had read my ORIGINAL post correctly I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.
I just said it was going the typical way that any of these type threads go.
You think I'm wrong about level of proof etc -
Take a look back through some random threads and do an unbiased assessment.
Can think of (off top of my head)
K4 - Flettners, one poster suggested even though they were never operational, they should be in AH as they were fitted anyway.
K4 - 1.98ata, well an order in late March 45 hardly constitutes proof, yet people insist our K4 should it.
Yet allied planes docs need all the t's crossed, i's dotted signed by god, countersigned by Jesus to even be considered as MAYBE being factual.
Like I asked, do a quick look back through some old threads and do an unbiased assessment, you'll find I'm not so far off the mark.
Of course this is coming from some people who are convinced the FM's are constantly changing every patch on LW planes, DESPITE HT saying they haven't changed since AH2 was introduced.
Who the conspiracy theorist now?
-
I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.
Then why post anything at all?
You think I'm wrong about level of proof etc -
Take a look back through some random threads and do an unbiased assessment.
Can think of (off top of my head)
K4 - Flettners, one poster suggested even though they were never operational, they should be in AH as they were fitted anyway.
K4 - 1.98ata, well an order in late March 45 hardly constitutes proof, yet people insist our K4 should it.
You are talking about 1 guy, Kurfürst, who doesn't even post here any more.
et allied planes docs need all the t's crossed, i's dotted signed by god, countersigned by Jesus to even be considered as MAYBE being factual.
Well you're carrying his cross, ask for him a signature.
Seriously post a quote of anyone saying that...
Like I asked, do a quick look back through some old threads and do an unbiased assessment, you'll find I'm not so far off the mark.
Of course this is coming from some people who are convinced the FM's are constantly changing every patch on LW planes, DESPITE HT saying they haven't changed since AH2 was introduced.
Who the conspiracy theorist now?
Sure your off the mark. You over exaggerate and go into hysterics rather easily. From HT 'hating Spitfires' to the grand conspiracy to 'deny RAF fans a 25lb boost Spitfire'. All those threads are there do I need to quote from them?
The 109s in AH have changed in the way they handle, especially at higher AoA. It's been shown in Kweassa's turn time tests and confirmed by others who aren't necessarily LW aircraft fans. What hasn't changed is things like speed climb etc...
This is a thread about the 109 flaps that was hijacked into super diving Spitfires. Now, apparently, it's a thread about your self-created 'conspiracy'.
Your cry of 'conspiracy' and 'bias' followed the challenging of 'super diving' Spitfires. Had it been about 'super diving P-38s' you wouldn't have posted anything. So take your bias, your 'conspiracy' and lay them down next to that cross and relax a bit.
-
"We need to keep one Spit free so Kev has one to fly."
He flies one when it can fly Mach 0.891 as level speed. Untill then Tiffie has to do.
:D
-C+
-
Well, at least some of you guys are claiming that the Farnborough test is wrong, because it MUST be, because a Spitty could never dive that far.
BTW, I'll tell you a little story of a Hurry pilot who dove full power from 30K
Here ya go: (oh, 17th squadron, aircraft number is either YB-S or YB-T, Hurricane Mk II, year 1941)
"I climbed up to 30.000 feet, rolled over and shoved the nose down into a dive with the throttle forward. I watched as the needle of the airspeed indicator moved clockwise, passing the numerals 300, 400 and 500, which was the highest value on the dial. By now the engine was roaring and the wind screaming as it passed the canopy, and I felt it was time to pull the throttle back and start slowing down, but just at that moment it seemed like an explosion occurred in the cockpit as one of the canopy panes blew out and my head got sucked into the hole it left behind. I managed to free my head and started pulling at the control column to come out of the dive.
To my surprise, and a little later to my horror, I discovered I could not move the stick. I pulled with all my might but nothing happened and the aircraft continued diving vertically towards the ground at high speed. The hands of the altimeter were unwinding fast and I saw I was already passing 10.000 feet. Now I was becoming seriously alarmed. I undid my safety straps, put both feet on the instrument panel in front of me, wound both hands around the control column and heaved with all the strength I could muster. And, thank god, the nose started slowly inching away from the vertical. Now the sweat was pouring off me as I continued to pull with all my might, and suddenly it seemed as if something gave in and the nose started to rise rapidly. I got pressed down into the seat with tremendous force and the blood drained from my head - all became black and I lost conciousness.When I came-to again the aircraft was climbig vertically and very close to stalling. Although I was giddy I managed to regain control and get the aircraft flying level again. I looked at the altimeter and it showed 5000 feet. I shall never know how close to the mountains of Scotland I was when I passed out, but that cannot have been very far.
When I taxied to the parking stand people gathered around to stare at the aircraft. In addition to the pane in the canopy an access panel to the radio compartment had blown off, but what most caught people's attention were the wrinkles on the upper surface of the wings. Measurements later showed I had added three degrees of Dihedral to the wings!"
-
Oh, 500 mph+ at say 20K makes how much proportion of mach?
It's IAS BTW
Bet it is more than 0,7.....:D;)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Try answering my post instead of dancing round it.
Why is it all LW docs are taken as 100% accurate and factual, yet allied ones are constantly blown off as wrong, inacurrate, or plain just not enough (if first two reasons don't work)?
Simple: LW ones look realistic, even from modern viewpoints. Allied ones quite often look extraordinary high.
Take P51 for example. According to the specs it should be able to catch FW-190A and D, let alone TA-152 below 20k
In reality the 190A could escape on tree level, Kurt Tank himself left some in the dust with his TA-152 (unpossible according to the specs), and i know from a guy where his grandfather also could leave some P-51 easily behind which were diving to him in his 190D.
So you can believe any number that fits in your dreams because you see all this more as a kind of dream, or you can see it in a more realistic manner.
The dreamer gets excited with excellent numbers, the realist gets doubts, you know.
The germans had the world records for speed, had a mass build jet fighter, a fast rocket fighter, a supersonic rocket during the war and were leading in the swept back wing design what means they had a better understanding of effects near mach 1.0. I think they were leading in transsonic speed knowledge at this time. And their measurment results look pretty realistic today, so i think they were also leading in transsonic measurment equipment and/or result analysis.
You still can compare the 3 tested allied airplanes, because the same method and analysis was used for all 3. But comparing the german and allied tests which were done with different measurment systems and analysis can´t be done.
It´s noteworthy that the P47 and Spit seem to perform well. Maybe the reason is oncemore the elliptical wingshape. The tube is mounted at the very outside. for elliptical shapes that means that the tube is far more backward mounted compared to the middle of the wing (to take a fixpoint) than on the rectangular wing of a P-51. This means the tube was more influenced by the wing in case of the Spit and P47. Just an assumption but maybe...
niklas
-
Most aircraft would leave the Spitfire behind in the initial stages of the dive. Not disputed I belive.
But the dive ends when you have to abort it, so maybe that explained why the aircraft was allowed to so much velocity.
German aces like Rall claim that the 109 ended up like 1000 km/h, which is not unlikely if you can bend an old Hurricane into 800 km/h.
Yet the P47 was faster. According to Rall as well.
And, there is yet something that the old Spitty had, apart from an elliptical and very thin wing.....very good elevator authority.
Many of those guys buried into the ground. Nobody knows how fast they were. But touching the limit of mach with a WW2 fighter may have been close for many, - but actual tests were not that many, or we have no access to them
The Farnborough test was no dream, and there are, as pointed out, other measures possible than just pitout. Well, how did the LW measure.
Point A to point B is very well calibrated with a stopwatch, and bear in mind that Germany was not the only nation to build a racer.....
BTW, there are many anecdotes as well where P51's chased down 190's, be it up, down, or level. But the 190 type is usually not defined. Nor were those boosted up P51's, - mostly if not all.
-
Originally posted by niklas
I´d like to know how germans did it. The german result looks way more reasonable when we compare it with our knowledge today.
I wonder why they did not test by cameras. If the pilot dives down and you film it with a highspeed camere, the same you use for speed records, you should be able to calculate by triangular formulas in a very simple way the max. speed.
In "Test Pilots" Lukas Schmid(109 dive trials pilot) mentions: force gauges, calibration flights for the airpseed indicator system and a robot camera to take pictures of the instruments. He states that the camera was a rarity in those days. Btw here is the actual dive trial report, which may have more specific data on instrumentation: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm (click right side for next page)
-
Hm... RAE dive tests continued several years (also after war), several different instrumentations were used and the values were recorded with automatic devices. In addition RAE did large amount of wind tunnel testing to support these studies. IMHO RAE dive studies are far more comprehensive than any other study I've seen so far (and I've seen quite many).
gripen
-
Thanks for the opinion, Gripen.
-
The Farnborough test was no dream, and there are, as pointed out, other measures possible than just pitout. Well, how did the LW measure.
Those NACA reports I posted include the other measurement techniques Angus. Measuring speeds above mach .8 was just not that accurate and contained an inherently large percentage of error. Just as the NACA states.
-
Point A to point B is very well calibrated with a stopwatch, and bear in mind that Germany was not the only nation to build a racer.....
And it is fairly accurate at very low altitudes on a plane flying close to level.
Add in angle and altitude and the margin of error increases dramatically.
-
So your point is that they could not measure speeds in excess of "X" so the measurements above "X" are rubbish.
That is strange indeed, for with a given alt angle and time (simple) it's all point a to b.
The triangle at worst, will go roughly 50% (pythagoras) in the case of a 45 deg dive being mixed with a dive straight to earth. That however means that a lot of ground is covered in the dive.
I do not know if this was used in that particular test but I find it likely that an establishment uses a bullet proof and ancient measurement method to calibrate their gear.
What I sense is actually that you guys think that the measurements are not only a bit off but VERY much so.
Yet, it's a 9th grade method that should calibrate this quite nicely.
(or 7th grade?)
;)
-
So your point is that they could not measure speeds in excess of "X" so the measurements above "X" are rubbish.
Yes that is correct according to the science. If the measurements were accurate Angus, engineers would not be debating today about such things as F86 or the Me262.
To claim anything above mach .8 measured during the war as an absolute is simply silly.
Going by the POH recommendations of the Spitfires series it seems highly unlikely the measured results are absolutely accurate. The RAE know the limits of technology and it is funny the fans do not wish to recognize it. Any problems which occur above those recommended speeds do not get better in the transonic realm, only worse.
Yet, it's a 9th grade method that should calibrate this quite nicely.
Then you don't understand the magnitude of the problem. See above.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks for the opinion, Gripen.
Well, there is theoretical proof as well as large experimental proof (flight testing and wind tunnel testing) for relatively low drag rise at higher mach numbers in the case of the Spitfire. Exact mach values are not so important.
gripen
-
Where and under what conditions??
None of the drag polars I have on the Spit reflect anything but a typical shape of a WWII fighter.
Again, refer to the POH limits set. IF the Spitfire in reality had magical diving abilities, it would be reflected in the operating limits.
It is not. Not for the ANY wartime version.
I suspect that once again we find data being cherry picked and misrepresented as absolute performance of a wartime aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I have given exact references in earlier threads but there is some, just dug up the reports. Just go to PRO and search for dive testing, there is tons of them.
And there is no any kind of magic in the Spitfire.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Then why post anything at all?
You are talking about 1 guy, Kurfürst, who doesn't even post here any more.
Well you're carrying his cross, ask for him a signature.
Seriously post a quote of anyone saying that...
Sure your off the mark. You over exaggerate and go into hysterics rather easily. From HT 'hating Spitfires' to the grand conspiracy to 'deny RAF fans a 25lb boost Spitfire'. All those threads are there do I need to quote from them?
The 109s in AH have changed in the way they handle, especially at higher AoA. It's been shown in Kweassa's turn time tests and confirmed by others who aren't necessarily LW aircraft fans. What hasn't changed is things like speed climb etc...
This is a thread about the 109 flaps that was hijacked into super diving Spitfires. Now, apparently, it's a thread about your self-created 'conspiracy'.
Your cry of 'conspiracy' and 'bias' followed the challenging of 'super diving' Spitfires. Had it been about 'super diving P-38s' you wouldn't have posted anything. So take your bias, your 'conspiracy' and lay them down next to that cross and relax a bit.
Like it or not according to HT's own words -
THE 109/190 FM's HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE AH2 WAS INTRODUCED.
So get over YOUR paranoid, conspiracy theories.
Unless your suggesting HT is being less than truthfull?
I only picked the K4 examples because its two that jumped to mind, and the flettners WASN'T Kurfurst.
As for hi-jacking I'll think you'll find it wasn't me.
My general comment was how there is two different standards required for proof of a claimed statement.
Did find one paper that said the RAE re-calculated the dive test and came up with 0.9mach instead of 0.92mach.
Of course they are probably wrong again.
-
THE 109/190 FM's HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE AH2 WAS INTRODUCED.
Read what I wrote, The speed and climbs are the same... Handling has changed regardless of what HT said.
Widewing commenting on the G-14:
the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.
The same thing he described happens in the G-6 as well. It can happen in the K-4 but only if you get slower like at the top of a loop. This didn't happen before the last patch.
That's not 'conspiracy'. Besides, I don't pop into every aircraft thread crying about the 109 like you do about the poor 'ole Spitfire.
I only picked the K4 examples because its two that jumped to mind, and the flettners WASN'T Kurfurst.
For the most part it was. Anyway, how many 'flettner' threads do you see? Now compare those to the many threads you pop into crying about the anti-Spitfire conspiracy.
As for hi-jacking I'll think you'll find it wasn't me.
My general comment was how there is two different standards required for proof of a claimed statement.
Sure it was:
Bruno - if you had read my ORIGINAL post correctly I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.
That's the defintion of a thread hijack in your own words...
Did find one paper that said the RAE re-calculated the dive test and came up with 0.9mach instead of 0.92mach.
Of course they are probably wrong again.
I will repost:
Pushing the envelope with test pilot Herb Fisher (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html)
Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?
But I am sure Fisher is just part of the AH Axis conspiracy to keep the Spitfire down, aint he?
-
Actaully I have no complaints about the spit FM.
I will restate -
No matter what you may think
According to HT, and he has stated numerous times -
The FMs haven't changed since AH2 was released.
Only a change in the FM would change handling.
So I guess by "regardless of what of HT has said" basically means you think he is being less than truthfull?
The G-14 being a 'new' model its a new FM, so it may need tweaking.
Everything else is what it was when AH2 was released.
But continue in your belief that every patch they get worse, maybe you'll convince the people that know (HT etc), but don't hold your breath.
-
I really wish these threads didn't always delve into "conspiracies" or how one side thinks the other is trying to "take away" their ride.
I think at the core of this we all want the same thing - that AH represents the combat environment we all read about. So that the Spit v. 109 and P47 v. 190 match-ups play-out as they're supposed to. And so that none of the players are at a "human factors" disadvantage due to overly or underly restricted views, or unstable flight models.
As for "did things change?" ... if HT says they didn't touch the FM code I believe him. But Sargent's Rule says "Different Things Vary" ... so if any code was touched you never know what it may affect. Any developer knows that the simplest little change can yield the most horrific side effects for the dumbest possible reasons (compiler glitch, typo, memory leak, etc. etc.).
HT has been around long enough to know that if all the veteran players are noticing a change, then it's at least looking into.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I really wish these threads didn't always delve into "conspiracies" or how one side thinks the other is trying to "take away" their ride.
I think at the core of this we all want the same thing - that AH represents the combat environment we all read about. So that the Spit v. 109 and P47 v. 190 match-ups play-out as they're supposed to. And so that none of the players are at a "human factors" disadvantage due to overly or underly restricted views, or unstable flight models.
As for "did things change?" ... if HT says they didn't touch the FM code I believe him. But Sargent's Rule says "Different Things Vary" ... so if any code was touched you never know what it may affect. Any developer knows that the simplest little change can yield the most horrific side effects for the dumbest possible reasons (compiler glitch, typo, memory leak, etc. etc.).
HT has been around long enough to know that if all the veteran players are noticing a change, then it's at least looking into.
HERE HERE!!!!!
My thoughts exactly! Tried to say so earlier.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Hm... RAE dive tests continued several years (also after war), several different instrumentations were used and the values were recorded with automatic devices.
gripen
Why did they change instrumentation when it was so precise in case of the dive tests we talk about??
niklas
-
Niklas,
The tests were part of long term high speed research project and instrumentation improved (as well as corrections and methods overall) a lot during testing, the first tests were done some time late 1942 and testing continued still after war (at least until 1946). It was not just speed testing but comprenhensive high speed research (like pressure distribution measurements with rakes etc.).
Generally there is plenty of data available on RAE high speed research project if some one is actually interested about it instead claiming the results doubtfull. There might be some error in results but overall I see the tests quite reliable.
gripen
-
he G-14 being a 'new' model its a new FM, so it may need tweaking.
The model has nothing to do with the fm, HT could make a B-17 fly like a Zeke if wanted. The old G-6 is basically the same model as the current G-14.
Anyone can do a search of your replies and read your ramblings about how HT 'hates Spitfires' and how all those rampaging anti-Spit / pro-109 folks are out to keep the Spitfire fan down.
The complaints about the 109 are relatively tame compared to your rhetoric, in regards to the lower boosted Seafire and no 25lb boosted Spitfire, even though those complaints are much more wide spread, even among the 'old hares'.
HT may not have physical changed something to make the 109s handling different but clearly 'something has changed'. It's not just the G-14 either. If you read those early threads about the 109s post patch you will see as a '109 guy' I was defending HT. I confirmed through testing that all the 109s speed, climb etc... were basically the same and that the G-14 was off. After having flown them in the DA and main the changes became readily apparent and I was forced to accept what the others were saying. If you want to take these observations and conclude 'HT's a liar' go ahead, no skin off my nose. That's not the worse thing you have accused him of.
But continue in your belief that every patch they get worse, maybe you'll convince the people that know (HT etc), but don't hold your breath.
I never said 'with every patch things get worse' ever. Why build such a straw man? I will chalk it up to more of your 'hysterics' and leave it at that.
-
Must have been extremely meaningful testing if they did not change the POH limits.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
By new model I meant it's a new aircraft model in the game, so a new FM was needed for it. (wouldn't expect him to put an already ingame FM on it)
But of course you knew that, and just decided to go off burbling instead.
Same goes for the being less than truthfull - your the one that said "regardless of what HT has said" NOT me.
The obvious conclusion being that you don't think HT is being totally forthcoming or honest.
But nice try on twisting what I said - 9 outta 10.
Maybe you should try calling HT HQ and talking to them about how they go about doing models, FMs etc.
I can recommend it, and it's a very educational experience.
You might find some of your answers then.
-
(wouldn't expect him to put an already ingame FM on it)
That is EXACTLY what they did with the FW-190's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I would assume (eeek) its changed/tweaked for each model? Or they'd all fly the same.
-
Same goes for the being less than truthfull - your the one that said "regardless of what HT has said" NOT me.
The obvious conclusion being that you don't think HT is being totally forthcoming or honest.
That's the conclusion you reached all on your own. It's typical of you to reach for the most sinister conclusion (see HT hates Spitfires). The 109s FM may not have changed, but as DoKGonZo said, it could very well be be some other issue unrelated directly to 'FM' that is affecting the 109s handling. I don't presume to know what it could be but there's is clearly something 'different' and it has been noticed by any number of folks, not all them LW aircraft fans.
Regardless, of what said HT in regards to 'no FM change' something is different. If you want to assume HT is lying then that has nothing to do with me or what I have written in this thread.
You can not mask your paranoia by changing the subject and throwing out baseless counter accusations. Your 'hysterics' in regards to the Spitfire are well documented on this forum for any one to read. As I said that cross is obviously chafing...
-
Yawn
-
So, yawn, maybe that's the right thing to do.
By the way, before going further:
1. Where can the Farnborough test be found,- like online?
2. I recall a calculation of TAS to IAS and the reverse. Does anyone know where it is.
3. And the same, Mach at alt, - or actually temperature
4. Typical temp at alt.
If anyone has this handy, I would be delighted.
Then, we can find the .8 WALL :D
-
Angus,
Just search the PRO catalogue under department DSIR with search terms like "high AND speed", "dive", "Spitfire", "Thunderbolt" etc. and limit year range to say 1942-1948. You will get tons of reports on RAE high speed research (theoretical and experimental), note that there is plenty of NACA reports also among results.
gripen
-
Hi,
Grump, in one point you be particular wrong:
You wrote this; "Your point of aspect ratio is linked to drag. Higher the aspect ratio the lower the drag.", but this only count for relative slow speeds(around up to mach0.6, depending to the aspectratio) and specialy flights with a positive aoa. A aspectratio of zero is of course the best for highspeed. Every rocket have, better sayed miss, such a wing. :D
At higher speeds a smal aspectratio is more usefull, cause the airmasses can get shifted away sideward, to avoid shockwaves, arrowed wings are even better.
But as i wrote, even the Me163(very smal aspectratio), neighter the Me262 was able to fly at speeds above mach0,85(without to crash cause the controlls stopped to work or the wings got off due to shockwaves).
Drag like we know it from speeds below mach0,6 is not that important anymore. To bring away the air masses to avoid shockwaves is important to minimize the drag at high mach numbers.
I realy doubt that a Spitfire wing, with its washouts and very old airfoil, and its fuselage, with the upward mounted engine, was able to reach such mach numbers.
The P51 semi laminar airfoil was much advanced at highspeed(compare the Vmax with same engine,and this although the P51 is much more heavy), but even this heavy plane(more downward thrust) wasnt able to dive that fast.
Of course we can believe what we want, but the probabilitys are not good for the default WWII Spit.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Shockwaves at the wing occur because the speed of the airflow over it is approaching the speed of sound.
Basically the wing is about to "push it"
-
Going by the POH recommendations of the Spitfires series it seems highly unlikely the measured results are absolutely accurate.
The dive limits in the Pilots Notes for the Spitfire correspond to 0.85 Mach.
For P-51D, POH limit is 0.75M - but it mentions that "porpoising" motions did not start until 0.8M.
Me 109 manuals indicate dive limits corresponding to about 0.75M too, but the pilot for the dive trials reported "rolling motions" started at 0.8M.
-
Hi,
the Spitfire manual give a dive limit of around 1030km/h????
Greetings, Knegel
-
The dive limits in the Pilots Notes for the Spitfire correspond to 0.85 Mach.
That's why both German fighters have higher limits.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
From "Spitfire IX, XI & XVI Pilots Notes"
52. Flying limitations
(i) Maximum speeds m.p.h. (knots) I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach. No. of 85:
Between- S.L. and 20,000ft. - 450 (385)
- 20,000 & 25,000ft. - 430 (370)
- 25,000 & 30,000ft. - 390 (335)
- 30,000 & 35,000ft. - 340 (292)
Above
And Bf 109G-6/U4 flugzeug-handbuch states:
Sturzflug in 0 bis 4 km Höhe . . . . . . . . . . 750 km/h
Sturzflug in 4 bis 5 km Höhe . . . . . . . . . . 700 km/h
Sturzflug in 5 bis 7 km Höhe . . . . . . . . . . 600 km/h
Sturzflug in 7 bis 9 km Höhe . . . . . . . . . . 500 km/h
Apart from altitudes less than 4km, the Spitfire IX dive limits are higher than the Bf 109(Spitfire XIV & XIX Pilots Notes list 470mph under 20,000ft).
-
Originally posted by Knegel
I realy doubt that a Spitfire wing, with its washouts and very old airfoil, and its fuselage, with the upward mounted engine, was able to reach such mach numbers.
There was nothing special in the Spitfire wing, the main reason for relatively low drag rise at high mach numbers and low Cl was simply that the profile was relatively thin (IIRC about 12% in MAC). This can be confirmed from theoretical profile data as well from experimental data (flight testing and wind tunnel testing).
gripen
-
Just so Crumpp can see better:
Sturzflug in 0 bis 4 km Höhe (13,123'). . . . . . . . . . 750 km/h > 466mph
Sturzflug in 4 bis 5 km Höhe (16,404') . . . . . . . . . . 700 km/h > 435mph
Sturzflug in 5 bis 7 km Höhe (22,966'). . . . . . . . . . 600 km/h > 373mph
Sturzflug in 7 bis 9 km Höhe (29,528'). . . . . . . . . . 500 km/h > 311mph
-
NEIN; ES KANN NICHT PASSIEREN, EIN SPITFEUER IN SCHNELLSTURZFLUG SO NAH VOM BODEN OHNE ABSTURZ, DASS GEHT EINFACH NICH.
Ooops, I trolled
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
NEIN; ES KANN NICHT PASSIEREN, EIN SPITFEUER IN SCHNELLSTURZFLUG SO NAH VOM BODEN OHNE ABSTURZ, DASS GEHT EINFACH NICH.
...
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
NEIN; ES KANN NICHT PASSIEREN, EIN SPITFEUER IN SCHNELLSTURZFLUG SO NAH VOM BODEN OHNE ABSTURZ, DASS GEHT EINFACH NICH.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelt of elderberries?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
NEIN; ES KANN NICHT PASSIEREN, EIN SPITFEUER IN SCHNELLSTURZFLUG SO NAH VOM BODEN OHNE ABSTURZ, DASS GEHT EINFACH NICH.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelt of elderberries?
Bzzt ... nope ... that's the French Castle from Holy Grail, not the Tobaccanist Sketch.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Niklas,
The tests were part of long term high speed research project and instrumentation improved (as well as corrections and methods overall) a lot during testing, the first tests were done some time late 1942 and testing continued still after war (at least until 1946).
gripen
Well, the problem is: They can be off in a special part of the analysis, and this can affect all measurements. No wonder that all results seem to be good then.
In the report of the dive test they mention that they corrected speed down from 0.95 to 0.89 by an altitude correction. 0.06 near mach 1, this makes a huge difference. But what if there has to be taken additional effects into account ? Another correction down by 0.06?
The report says the tube showed neglectable error up to 0.90. Fine, if you mount it in a windtunnel and calibrate it maybe. But mounted on a wing? Did they not take other influences into account except for simple raise of compressibillity according to standard tables (e.g. like shown in the fw-190 IAS/TAS char, which ends at 700km/h for example - right there where at high alitude the mach effects shows up btw... understand?)
Unfortunatly no IAS is given only EAS.
Why did they stop in ´46 btw ? At this time jets got ready and the real importance to understand high speed effects started. Did they understand that their efforts were somewhat wasted because they were off in the past?
niklas
-
(http://img137.potato.com/loc47/th_6f7f1_FW190_Me109quirks.jpg) (http://img137.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc47&image=6f7f1_FW190_Me109quirks.jpg)
-
Originally posted by niklas
Well, the problem is: They can be off in a special part of the analysis, and this can affect all measurements. No wonder that all results seem to be good then.
It's quite unlikely that there is large systematical error to one direction simply because several different measuring devices were used (like rakes etc.).
Besides there in some cases there is plenty of variation specially in early measurements. Good thing is that RAE published corrections to earlier measurements once the methods improved. As an example wind tunnel measurements were corrected with new kind of blockage corrections afterwards (BTW NACA adopted same corrections).
Originally posted by niklas
Why did they stop in ´46 btw ? At this time jets got ready and the real importance to understand high speed effects started. Did they understand that their efforts were somewhat wasted because they were off in the past?
I don't know when they did actually stop, I have studied tests only on prop driven planes and the last report I've seen on Mustang was from year 1946. Wind tunnel data contains stuff also on planes like the Supermarine Attacker so apparently project was going on with jets.
gripen
-
Originally posted by justin_g
From "Spitfire IX, XI & XVI Pilots Notes"
52. Flying limitations
(i) Maximum speeds m.p.h. (knots) I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach. No. of 85:
Between
S.L. and 20,000ft. - 450 (385)
20,000 & 25,000ft. - 430 (370)
25,000 & 30,000ft. - 390 (335)
30,000 & 35,000ft. - 340 (292)
That´s interesting. I just tried to the machnumber for the 20k value by the fw-190 chart formula. It comes very close to the chart formula. That means up to mach 0.85 they did not take any further influences into account to correct IAS. Imo a bit optimistic...
niklas
-
Originally posted by gripen
Besides there in some cases there is plenty of variation specially in early measurements. Good thing is that RAE published corrections to earlier measurements once the methods improved. As an example wind tunnel measurements were corrected with new kind of blockage corrections afterwards (BTW NACA adopted same corrections).
gripen
I alredy said that you can compare allied tests in a kind of closed group. But comparing it to the german tests is not possible as long as we don´t have both reports and both correction methods available for a comparison.
Hehe, the outdated 2213 airfoil from the early 30ies the ultimative highspeed solution. I wonder why the X1 was not equipped with it.
niklas
-
Imo a bit optimistic...
Yep. But it is fun to watch the fans post all kinds of "evidence" as to why the speed measurements were accurate.
Someone needs to call NASA, I think we can solve many of the debates right here in these forums.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
It's quite unlikely that there is large systematical error to one direction simply because several different measuring devices were used (like rakes etc.).
There is not until we approach the transonic realm.
During the war, the limits were around Mach .8
-
Oh dear we're already up to Mach .85 ;)
Where's the .80 wall?
and:
"Hi,
the Spitfire manual give a dive limit of around 1030km/h????"
Yes id did ;)....apparently
-
Oh dear we're already up to Mach .85
Accuracy of measurement, Angus.
They measured mach .85 but that does NOT mean the aircraft achieved it. It's doubtful simply due to the fact the plane has that big propeller disc on the front!
The accuracy of any measurement above mach .8 is doubtful on ANY aircraft from WWII.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
My hovercraft is full of eels.
You are hereby charged that on the 28th day of May, 1970, you did willfully, unlawfully, and with malice of forethought, publish an alleged English-Hungarian phrase book with intent to cause a breach of the peace.
-
The accuracy of any measurement above mach .8 is doubtful on ANY aircraft from WWII.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to substantiate this "claim" in the NACA documents you linked. PROVE IT.
-
Originally posted by niklas
That´s interesting. I just tried to the machnumber for the 20k value by the fw-190 chart formula. It comes very close to the chart formula. That means up to mach 0.85 they did not take any further influences into account to correct IAS. Imo a bit optimistic...
niklas
I don't follow. Are you talking about compressibility corrections?
-
Originally posted by niklas
Hehe, the outdated 2213 airfoil from the early 30ies the ultimative highspeed solution.
Absolutely not. The Spitfire wing showed typical unwanted characters at high mach numbers for the profile used ie loss of lift, steep decrease of Clmax, pitching moment changes, large increase of drag at higher Cl etc. But if compared to other planes using similar profiles (like the P-38), these characters were much less pronounced and delayded due to relatively thin profile.
gripen
-
It is quite thin. Looks about as thin as anything I've seen on a WW2 fighter.
BTW, wonder what speed demons like the Fury could do. Now there's a thin wing as well.
Neville Duke was in the racings after the war. Gonna page his book a little to see if I come up with something.
-
Yes it is. it is surely good for high speed flying because of its thinness. Do you know how a thin wing handles AoA?
-C+
-
What's that got to do with it?
-
What's that got to do with it?
Umm...recovery perhaps?
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to substantiate this "claim" in the NACA documents you linked.
Sure there is, read the reports from 1/2 decade AFTER the war. Even then the margin of error above mach .8 is substantial.
I posted these reports to show that post war we where still struggling with transonic realm speed measurement.
Most of today's fighters place the pitot tube on the nose as this has been determined as the best location in order to reduce the margin of error in the transonic realm.
That does nothing though to solve the error's in other methods.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
None of the error correction factors in those reports show any noticable change in trend over 0.8M.
Give me a link to any one page from those reports which shows or explains this supposed decrease in accuracy over 0.8M... I don't see it.
-
"Umm...recovery perhaps?"
I'd say that in case of Spitfire the wing planform affects most the final stages of stall and probably recovery too, but it is all about the profile and its effects on max allowable AoA before you get to the effects of planform ie. the lift distribution along the span.
-C+
-
I won't comment of the dive speeds reported for Spitfires as I have not looked at any of the test documents. However, I do have a lot of test data from dive testing of a P-47D-30 performed in 1949. Curtiss Wright was exploring propeller designs that would retain a higher degree of efficiency at high Mach. Test pilot Herb Fisher flew the entire test series, making as many as 10 dives a day. The P-47 below (by then redesignated as the F-47) attained a maximum speed of Mach 0.83 during the second dive test of 10/27/49.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/Fisher-F-47D.JPG)
This Jug had been retro-fitted with dive recovery flaps, but Fisher pulled the circuit breaker and didn't use them. The under wing stores pylons had been removed to reduce drag.
I have several data sheets graphing dive performance of some of these flights and the one below represents Fisher's 6th dive of that day.
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/DiveChart.JPG)
Fisher attained Mach 0.79 during this dive.
Before he was done with the test program, Fisher made over 200 dives, all of which exceeded the AAF placcarded limits by a considerable margin. Fisher even brought along his 3 year-old son on one flight, where he attained Mach 0.78, no doubt making Herb Jr. the fastest toddler on earth for some years to come. Herb Jr wrote me and said, "I do not know if you have seen the “fastest toddler” picture, well the story is true. Here's a photo."
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-47JrAndSr.jpg)
Anyway, my point is this: Fisher's P-47 was fitted with all manner of data recording hardware, including a mach meter and a specilized pitot tube engineered for accuracy at transonic speeds. His airspeed was also measured with a ground based radar theodolite operated by NACA personnel (identical to that which verified Yeager's flights in the XS-1). They had redundant data sources to verify speeds attained.
Fisher wrote that as he reached Mach 0.80, the aircraft began to experience a severe vibration and the torque meter monitoring the prop shaft began to display a marked oscillation in torque. At Mach 0.83 the aircraft ceased accelerating and the torque meter indicated wild fluctuations. Fisher was quite concerned that the prop shaft might fail. Upon landing, an inspection revealed no apparent damage. Fisher flew the balance of the scheduled dives, but with a Mach 0.80 limit due to the very real risk of throwing the propeller under the extreme stresses of the monumental drag rise.
My understanding is that the Spitfire reported to have reached Mach 0.9 did so AFTER the prop shaft had failed and thrown the prop, thus eliminating a significant drag factor.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing Rules!
Would be nice to see more on that.
Anyway, it would not be the wings altogether, well, not the thickness. The Spitty's high speed elevator authority comes (I belive) from the positions. So, it's not the ellipse, nor aspect ratio, nor precisely the thickness that rules that party.
Well, my 2 cents.
-
The Spitty's high speed elevator authority comes (I belive) from the positions.
What does that have to do with diving ability? Other than putting the pilot and aircraft at risk?
Crumpp says:
They measured mach .85 but that does NOT mean the aircraft achieved it. It's doubtful simply due to the fact the plane has that big propeller disc on the front!
Fisher flew the balance of the scheduled dives, but with a Mach 0.80 limit due to the very real risk of throwing the propeller under the extreme stresses of the monumental drag rise.
My understanding is that the Spitfire reported to have reached Mach 0.9 did so AFTER the prop shaft had failed and thrown the prop, thus eliminating a significant drag factor.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spitty's high speed elevator authority comes (I belive) from the positions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does that have to do with diving ability? Other than putting the pilot and aircraft at risk?"
Well, for starters, giving him the option of recovering from an insane dive instead of becoming fertilizer for further generations. It's less risky being able to recover than not....
-
Well, for starters, giving him the option of recovering from an insane dive instead of becoming fertilizer for further generations. It's less risky being able to recover than not....
Only a handful of aircraft compressed to the point of no recovery. Almost all had higher stick force per G at high speed purposely designed in to preserve both the pilot and plane.
I posted that page from Perkins & Hage and I know you have seen it.
That prevents overloading. I have some pictures of overloaded Spitfires along with the reconstruction's of how they broke up in flight.
Additionally stick force per G is very much altitude and CG dependant and can vary over a very large range.
Having "light" elevator forces at high speed is not a feature, it's a flaw.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
" I have some pictures of overloaded Spitfires along with the reconstruction's of how they broke up in flight. "
Other than the Mk V? They were doing quite a bit of it for a while, I am pretty sure you have seen on the boards why exactly that was, and how that was countered.
Oh, how did you like the Hurri pilots tale? Well, he just happened to survive to tell the tale, and adding on to that, he claimed this would not have happened to him in a Spit.
And the page you mention, I may have seen it, it just doesn't come to mind right away, so gimme a hand and point at it will you :)
-
Could you give something on those pics? Are they not mostly Mk V's?
Anyway, since the "removal" of the prop apparently kept the aircraft bashing on untill that famous number, it indicates 3 things:
1. Elevator still works at THAT insane speed.
2. Structure is pretty solid.
3. The limiting factor to the divespeed is the prop itself. (Crumpp being very spot on about that, - hadn't crossed my mind it could be the prop itself, but explains a lot)
so? A wee more of the elevator stuff?
-
Anyway, since the "removal" of the prop apparently kept the aircraft bashing on untill that famous number, it indicates 3 things:
You think there is anything useful performance wise to be gained after that point?
-
Image of the Spit in question. It was a Spitfire PRXI which had none of the lumps and bumps on the wings of the fighter versions so it was a much cleaner wing.
Flight was April 27, 1944 a Farnborough and the plane was fitted with special recording gear for the high speed dive tests. According to the pilot the prop came off AFTER he'd passed the highest speeds.
He recorded a true airspeed of 606 mph or .89 mach.
This from Alfred Price's book "The Spitfire Story"
Not gonna argue about it either way as frankly I don't care :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1138992464_prxi.jpg)
-
Guppy, as ever :)
Crumpp:
"You think there is anything useful performance wise to be gained after that point?"
Performance wise, yes perhaps, if the prop would be the stopping part.
Anyway:
It shows that the wing was not the "stopper". The airframe didn't stop it.
If Guppy's quote is right, not even the prop is the stopper. It has been shown that the measurements were ok.
And you needed good G tolerance and elevator authority to get out of a crazy dive like that.
So, Crumpp, many factors determine the top diving speed, and I'll stick to my claim that the recordbreaker is probably somewhere 30 ft underground, - in a 109, 190, P47, P51 or whatever.
Oh, as a sidenote, - 606 TAS is how much IAS at 20K?
-
If Guppy's quote is right, not even the prop is the stopper. It has been shown that the measurements were ok.
Sure Angus.
We can bend physics for your favourite plane.
-
The mach 0.89 chart is for the same aircraft, but not on the same dive as when the prop came off. I don't know what speed was reached in the flight when the damage occured.
The RAE report that records the mach 0.89 dive was written in January 1944. It notes that all the flights were carried out by Sq ldr J R Tobin. As Guppy points out, the flight where the prop seperated was in April 1944, and Sq ldr Martindale was flying.
It was the same plane, though.
Oh, as a sidenote, - 606 TAS is how much IAS at 20K?
441, according to the chart I use. On the dive chart I've got, though, 606 was achieved at close to 29,000 ft. Speed was down to 510 TAS at 20,000 ft.
-
TAS to IAS (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html)
Looks like 433MPH IAS = 606MPH TAS at 20,000FT.
-
Which is the placard limits. Keep trying, I am sure you Spitfans can find a way to bend physics for your favourite plane.
606 TAS is how much IAS at 20K?
Which comes out to mach .85 using the 1976 standard atmosphere as the base. Of course this standard did not exist in the 1940's.
Just reducing speed in a conservative 3% error for atmosphere and instrumentation yields mach .82 on the standard atmosphere.
Is it more likely the Spitfire could bend physics or more likely the difference is in the yardstick used to measure??
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Keep trying, I am sure you Spitfans can find a way to bend physics for your favourite plane.
I do find it a bit strange that mach 0.83 is fine in a P-47, but 0.89 in a Spitfire is "bending physics".
Which comes out to mach .85 using the 1976 standard atmosphere as the base. Of course this standard did not exist in the 1940's.
Where does the 606 mph at 20k figure come from? In the RAE chart I have, maximum speed was 606 mph at 28,820 ft. Speed at 20,000ft was down to 510 TAS, and the pullout was underway.
Just reducing speed in a conservative 3% error for atmosphere and instrumentation yields mach .82 on the standard atmosphere.
Is it more likely the Spitfire could bend physics or more likely the difference is in the yardstick used to measure??
So 3% faster for the Spitfire is "bending physics"?
-
I do find it a bit strange that mach 0.83 is fine in a P-47, but 0.89 in a Spitfire is "bending physics".
Nashwan,
Just the fact it has a prop on the front cast serious doubts on any claim over Mach .8.
Instrumentation error can account for many claims over mach .8 as well. Read Widewings post.
So 3% faster for the Spitfire is "bending physics"?
Between, the likely and unlikely, it is more likely to be instrumentation error than the Spitfire magically being able to overcome the drag of the propeller.
Where does the 606 mph at 20k figure come from?
F4UDOA says:
Looks like 433MPH IAS = 606MPH TAS at 20,000FT.
Limits of the Spitfire Mk IX in IAS(knots) from the POH:
* S.L. and 20,000ft. - 450 (385)
* 20,000 & 25,000ft. - 430 (370)
* 25,000 & 30,000ft. - 390 (335)
* 30,000 & 35,000ft. - 340 (292)
Nashwan why don't you post the full report if you have it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So, what is 500 mph ias at 20K? If you can do that in a ..hurry... :D
And Crumpp, what about those Spitfire pictures, where they broke up? Were they V's or other?
-
Oh, for Crumpp,,,again:
"Just the fact it has a prop on the front cast serious doubts on any claim over Mach .8.
Instrumentation error can account for many claims over mach .8 as well. Read Widewings post.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So 3% faster for the Spitfire is "bending physics"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between, the likely and unlikely, it is more likely to be instrumentation error than the Spitfire magically being able to overcome the drag of the propeller."
Ahem.
1. Special instruments for speed tests. Maybe a secret precise science only in the US and with the LW?
2. Not a normal fighter version Spitfire. No cannon bulges etc.
3. No prop any more.....
4. Did anybody look into the mach difference at alt?
-
Special instruments for speed tests. Maybe a secret precise science only in the US and with the LW?
No Angus,
It was a technical barrier for all. As I have said from the begining, Angus. No sides here.
The pics are not needed for this yet another silly gaming argument that boils down too:
Please make my plane do something it could not, even though it was physically impossible.
Nor do you have the "right" that I take the time to scan and post them. They come form open source publications so you should be able to find them without a problem.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So, what is 500 mph ias at 20K? If you can do that in a ..hurry...
Why don't you do it??
-
500mph IAS at 20k? Assuming no P.E.C. ie: IAS = CAS, then using a handy-dandy NACA chart from 1943 for standard atmosphere conditions: 500mph IAS at 20k = 650mph TAS, 0.92M.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
................, according to the chart I use. On the dive chart I've got, though, 606 was achieved at close to 29,000 ft. Speed was down to 510 TAS at 20,000 ft.
Hi,
if this chart is right( i never saw it), it clearly show that the measurement must have been wrong, cause in general the highest speed can get reached in around 12000ft.
This is cause with decreasing temperatures the mach numbers increase, so i dont see a reason why the Spit should reach mach 9 in 29000ft, but less in 20000ft. The reson for this strange result probably is a measurement problem.
602mph in 20000ft is around mach 0,91 depending to the temperature!
Dont sounds very credible as safe divespeed. lol
I would say this datas corespondent to the IAS, that the gauges show the pilot, with all measurement mistakes inclusive!!
btw, the step between mach 0,83 and mach 0,89 is very very big!! Its only 3% more speed, but around 50% more drag!!!!
Thats the reason why most planes with common wings and dragload have a max divespeed of around mach 0,8 (+-0,03).
The reason why the P47 probably could dive faster is its heaveyer weight in relation to its drag. The P47 had relative smal wings for its weight, same like the P39, both planes got measured with similar speeds.
The Spit was a pretty light plane in relation to its drag, but the weight is the only thrust in a highspeed dive.
Greetings, Knegel
-
if this chart is right( i never saw it), it clearly show that the measurement must have been wrong, cause in general the highest speed can get reached in around 12000ft.
If you start a dive at 40,000 ft, and pullout at 27,000 ft, highest speed is not going to be reached at 12,000ft.
The purpose of these tests was to investigate high mach speeds (subsonic, of course), as such dives were carried out at high altitude.
This is cause with decreasing temperatures the mach numbers increase, so i dont see a reason why the Spit should reach mach 9 in 29000ft, but less in 20000ft. The reson for this strange result probably is a measurement problem.
No, the reason for this "strange result" is that the pullout started around 28,000 ft. From pulling about 0.7 G (normal to path) in the dive, G went up to 1.42 at 27,240 ft, up to 2.12 at 22,190 ft.
602mph in 20000ft is around mach 0,91 depending to the temperature!
Dont sounds very credible as safe divespeed. lol
Where is this figure coming from?
The Spitfire manual notes
* S.L. and 20,000ft. - 450 (385)
* 20,000 & 25,000ft. - 430 (370)
* 25,000 & 30,000ft. - 390 (335)
* 30,000 & 35,000ft. - 340 (292)
430 at 20,000 ft is about 590 TAS. That's about mach 0.84 (and the manual says limit is 0.85)
In the dive test I have, speed at 20,080 ft was 510 TAS.
I would say this datas corespondent to the IAS, that the gauges show the pilot, with all measurement mistakes inclusive!!
The manual figure certainly does, as it was a guide for pilots.
btw, the step between mach 0,83 and mach 0,89 is very very big!! Its only 3% more speed, but around 50% more drag!!!!
For the same plane. But for a plane with a higher critical mach, and therefore later onset of mach divergent drag? It could be less drag.
The reason why the P47 probably could dive faster is its heaveyer weight in relation to its drag. The P47 had relative smal wings for its weight, same like the P39, both planes got measured with similar speeds.
It also had pretty thick wings.
The Spit was a pretty light plane in relation to its drag, but the weight is the only thrust in a highspeed dive.
At what speed? Once mach diveregent drag starts to increase sharply, it dwarfs all other forms of drag. A plane with a later onset of MDD can have much lower total drag at high speeds.
To nick an image from Nasa:
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig90.jpg)
That shows the plane with the thinner wings having lower drag at all speeds, but that's not necessarily the case in all aircraft. Imagine a plane with thinner wings, higher drag at low speed, but entering MDD later:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1139074280_mdd.gif)
Aes you can see, it has lower drag at low speed, but because it enters MDD at lower speed, it has higher drag at very high speed.
-
That shows the plane with the thinner wings having lower drag at all speeds
All a correct but mute point as we have drag polars of the Spitfire. It was unremarkable for a WWII fighter.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by gripen
Absolutely not. The Spitfire wing showed typical unwanted characters at high mach numbers for the profile used ie loss of lift, steep decrease of Clmax, pitching moment changes, large increase of drag at higher Cl etc. But if compared to other planes using similar profiles (like the P-38), these characters were much less pronounced and delayded due to relatively thin profile.
gripen
gripen, you named naca reports etc. speaking in favour of the spitfire.
Why don´t you say that ALLl naca report mention a thickness ratio of 30-40% to be favorable for high speed flight?
I just happened to be in England and by luck spotted a sign to an aviation museum which turned out to be tangmere. They have a spit5 there and some post war world record jet plains. The difference is SO obvious. The spitfire with 20% chord ratio, steep gradient right away from the edge (don´t forget it´s depth, the win is thicker than that one of a 109!). That gets even more pronounced because the 22xx is pretty flat on the lower side, so the vast majority of the whole thickness is achieved on the upperside.
After the max. thickness, the turn towards a decreasing thickness is also VERY pronounced on a spitfire.
Both features, steep gradient in the pressure gaining section and aprupt turn towards decreasing thickness is EXACTLY the opposite of ALL late, post war and current designs who have all a shallow gradient due to 30-40% chord placement, a more symmetric layout on upper and bottom side and especially (and this is first mentioned in german sources during the war) a flat middle seciton on the topside to allow a gentle recover from supersonic airflow. Go to tangmere and compare the airfoils of the spit and the early jets there, it´s SO obvious!
Naaa, believe what you want. I respect the pilot who did the dive tests, regardless whether they were british, american, russians or german or any other country, but with such a desing claiming 0.89 can only be a hint that they had insufficent knowledge about interpreting transsonic flight results (at least in england).
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
gripen, you named naca reports etc. speaking in favour of the spitfire.
Why don´t you say that ALLl naca report mention a thickness ratio of 30-40% to be favorable for high speed flight?
I have not named here any NACA report (nor RAE report nor what so ever) in favour of the Spitfire. What I say above is that long term and large scale high speed research done by RAE (theoretical and experimental) support relatively low drag rise of the Spitfire at high mach numbers and low Cl values without cherry picking any particular report.
Originally posted by niklas
The spitfire with 20% chord ratio, steep gradient right away from the edge (don´t forget it´s depth, the win is thicker than that one of a 109!).
It's relative thickness which matters, using same logic the Saab Draken would not have been been supersonic because it has much thicker wing than the Bf 109.
Originally posted by niklas
Both features, steep gradient in the pressure gaining section and aprupt turn towards decreasing thickness is EXACTLY the opposite of ALL late, post war and current designs who have all a shallow gradient due to 30-40% chord placement, a more symmetric layout on upper and bottom side and especially (and this is first mentioned in german sources during the war) a flat middle seciton on the topside to allow a gentle recover from supersonic airflow.
What is the problem here? I say above that the Spitfire wing was absolutely not good for high mach numbers. But it does not change the fact that at low Cl, it had relatively low drag rise at high mach numbers.
gripen
-
Hi Nashwan,
according to my airspeed calculator 430mph IAS are 602MPH in 20000ft.
The Spitdatas give 430mph IAS up to 25000ft , here my calculator say 645mph, oh thats mach1 in this altitude.
In 20.000ft mach1 already did decrease to only roundabout 1070km/h!!
So even with your IAS calculation, even 590mph would be still mach0,89 in 20000ft and even more fast in 25000ft!!
Still not very credible, eh??
"Where does the 606 mph at 20k figure come from? In the RAE chart I have, maximum speed was 606 mph at 28,820 ft. Speed at 20,000ft was down to 510 TAS, and the pullout was underway."
606mph in 28.000ft?? Thats around mach0.96 in this altitude!!!
Realy, who will believe this(i jknow some do)??
I realy wonder why they made long tests with the rocket powered planes, they should have used a Spitfire in combination with a rocket, they would have reached Mach1 by easy, if it already almost did reach it while a thrustless dive!!
No, thats not credible!
Greetings,
-
I have not named here any NACA report (nor RAE report nor what so ever) in favour of the Spitfire. What I say above is that long term and large scale high speed research done by RAE (theoretical and experimental) support relatively low drag rise of the Spitfire at high mach numbers and low Cl values without cherry picking any particular report.
The Spitfire was not a low drag design. Anyone can get a polar and see.
-
A Spitty with a rocket, - or basiclly any other prop fighter, - in a dive, - would have hit mach 1 and probably disintegrated.
And of wing thickness: no wings at all are better ;)
There is one thing about those high-speed dives, - the airflow around the control surfaces may have broken mach.....
But anyway, what is being claimed here has a funny angle.
If Mach 0.8 is the wall for the normal ww2 prop fighter, then the lot of them will end up diving at that speed. Not much to choose between. Some of them will compress, others not. So, a good diver is an aircraft that accelerates fast in the initial part.
If this 0.8 figure holds, then also claims of many a pilot as well as the RAE tests have to be wrong. Even some of the manuals have to be wrong.
-
If Mach 0.8 is the wall for the normal ww2 prop fighter,
There are pretty much all around Mach ,8 Angus.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Spitfire was not a low drag design. Anyone can get a polar and see.
The question is about relatively low drag rise at high mach numbers and low Cl.
gripen
-
The 109 has 900 km/h as a limit, I belive in the manual. How much mach?
Yet there are pilots that claimed to have crossed it.
Yet the were caught with P47's.
Don't see 0.8 as an ultimate, that's all.
-
The question is about relatively low drag rise at high mach numbers and low Cl.
No doubt, Gripen and I meant what I said. Examining a drag polar shows nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary in the Spitfire in comparision to other WWII fighters.
It's not hard to calculate either.
How much mach?
.79 as stated or at least "as measured".
This is a really stupid argument as was posted by Guppy.
The Spitfire in quesiton was not even close to a production fighter and the propeller came off which is the biggest factor lending crediability to the measured speeds!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
900km/h TAS in low level are around mach0,73, even in 20000ft this 'only' would be mach0.84, but in this high alt the german planes wasnt allowed to dive that fast!!
But isnt the dive speed limit in the manual related to the speed the gauges show(IAS)?? In this case such values dont say anything regarding the real speed, cause the speed meter´s did vary pretty much.
Angus, you seems to forget that the measured speed with normal measurement systems (common pitot tube) get badly wrong at around mach0,75, even in normal speeds the measurement is pretty wrong with this system.
And for sure no WWII plane would have been able to reach mach1, they simply did miss the needed airfoil and toughness. They would have lost their wings due to shockwaves. As i wrote befor, even the Me163 and Me262 with their arrowed wings and thrust at highspeed wasnt able to reach Mach1. This planes even wasnt able to make a powered dive with more than 25° angle without to get into compressions, resulting in a endless dive. Mach 1 was far away.
The Me163 did reach 1006km/h(Mach0,84) in 3000m alt in level flight. But wasnt realy contollable anymore, it wasnt able to get much faster in a dive, its divelimit was .
Read here about the 163 and its highspeed problems, its critical mach was at "only" mach0,84!
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/me163/me163_tactical.html
You realy think the Spit had a smaler drag than the Komet, with its smal wings and aspectratio?? The Komet was able to reach its critical mach of 0,84 while climbing, but yes, sure, the spit was able to reach a much faster speed. lol (read in the article about what happen when critical mach got reached)
btw, the aspectratio is a major factor for smal drag while highspeed flights, cause the air can get shifted away in a 2 dimensional way, much more important than the thickness of the wing. The Komet had a wing aspectratio of 4,85, the arrowed wing also got proven as advanced.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No doubt, Gripen and I meant what I said. Examining a drag polar shows nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary in the Spitfire in comparision to other WWII fighters.
Hm... No one has argued otherwise here but regarding we are interested about drag rise on low Cl (dive condition) ie not about the shape of the polar.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's not hard to calculate either.
That would be interesting to see given your proven (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1369464#post1369464) calculation skills so please show us.
gripen
-
Eh, Knegel:
"You realy think the Spit had a smaler drag than the Komet, with its smal wings and aspectratio?? "
Nope. Now, dive the Komet on full thrust, it will probably break the sound barrier very quickly and dissolve into a furball?
BTW, I have seen somewhere a text about the 262, where they speak of the control surfaces going supersonic. Well, it's the airflow that is supersonic, the hull isn't.
That Spit, at least dove fast enough to break the prop off. That tells you it's either faulty or reached a higher speed than other prop driven fighters.
BTW, browse up and look at the Hurricane pilot's experience. He goes fast enough to "redesign" the wings with the shockwaves. The shockwaves occur when?
-
You love to show that Gripen. How completely childish. Big Deal I made an error in calculation. It happens.
However Lets show the another portion of that thread:
Lets compare the Spitfires with their contemprary FW-190 opponents:
Lets see and compare total drag @ 440fps at the Spitfires FTH altitude with the correct data:
BF 274 - 795.641828 @ 440 fps
Total Drag FW-190A5 -718.2845242@ 440 fps
BS354 - No data listed except the A/C was 7 mph slower w/50 bhp more output than the Merlin 66 @ (+18)
BS543 - 810.863789
FW-190A5 - 705.7484202
BS551 - 758.4823884
FW-190A5 - 704.890256
EN524 with 4 bladed prop - 765.4635575
FW-190A5 - 702.4712376
BS310 with 4-bladed prop - 793.0539968
FW-190A5 - 751.8834689
BS310 with 5 bladed prop - 794.0663191
FW-190A5 - 749.7161496
JL165 - done to death
MA 648 Merlin 66 (+18) SU Pump - 838.0549776
FW-190A5 - 804.8037275
BS310 - 792.6552588 Parasitic drag - 691.672177
FW-190A8 - 794.3964059 Parasitic drag - 606.4158622
At 315mph the total drag situation changes completely in the FW-190A8 favor.
JL165 vs FW-190A8 has been done to death, again in the FW-190A8's favor.
MA 648 is the ONLY Spitfire Mk IX to beat the FW-190A8 for drag and here is why:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External equipment of the above four aircraft was similar with the exception that MA.648 had the new pattern of air intake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA648 - 837.1701001 parasitic drag - 751.6212076
FW-190A8 - 869.2121249 parasitic drag - 709.9624067
The parasitic drag is always in the FW-190's favor but the total drag drops to within a few pounds of each other at 315 Mph but never swings in the FW-190's favor.
So ONE example of the Spitfire Mk IX with an experimental air intake beats the FW-190A8 in total drag. The others are behind their FW-190A contemporary the whole way.
That about covers the Spitfire Mk IX's vs. their contemporary FW-190 adversary.
Crumpp
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Not being deep enough in my reading of "The principles of flight" I only remember that close to mach, the rules start bending. Well, maybe tomorrow, I'll, have somthing, that thing is about the size of the phonebook.
Anyway, Crumpp said this
"You love to show that Gripen. How completely childish. Big Deal I made an error in calculation. It happens"
Crumpp, we all make mistakes. This was not your only one, and by god, I am not innocent of them either. But I have never seen anyone so slick in defending his "slip" to the death as you.
Sorry.
-
But I have never seen anyone so slick in defending his "slip" to the death as you.
Your opinion presented as fact and not worthy of discussion.
Mach .89 for a production Spitfire is laughable.
To attempt to portray it as the dive limits of the Spitfire is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.
Achieving it on a specially modified PRU version designed for these diving trials and loosing the propeller when those speeds were attained is much more plausible. Especially when instrumentation errors in transonic realm during the 1940's is factored in.
Gripen’s argument of the wing is simply laughable and quite frankly dishonest. "Mr. Aeronautics" certainly knows that the drag polar includes the wing and has seen enough production fighter variants to know he is simply spilling forth garbage to enhance his game shape.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You love to show that Gripen. How completely childish. Big Deal I made an error in calculation. It happens.
Actually I have not seen you to make any calculation correctly here yet. So why don't you just show how easy it's determine a polar.
Originally posted by Crumpp
However Lets show the another portion of that thread:
All I see that you use fully calculated Fw data on Fw 190A-5 and A-8 against flight tested data on Spitfires. Using flight tested data (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data_files/image005.jpg) gives a quite bit different picture.
Besides, Zigrat's spreadsheet contains errors and large generalizations as noted there.
gripen
-
All I see that you use fully calculated Fw data on Fw 190A-5 and A-8
Gripen, prove it.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen, prove it.
Easy, basicly allways when the dated engine power chart is given in the Fw charts, it's a calculation based on that power chart.
Besides, It's actually up to you to prove that those are flight tested.
gripen
-
Easy, basicly allways when the dated engine power chart is given in the Fw charts, it's a calculation based on that power chart.
Refers to a program began in July 1942 on increased performance for the BMW801 series.
That particular chart is transcribed or at least exactly matches data from earlier flights and is found in TD 284 reprinted.
I can prove it's a flight test as I have the flight reports.
You however cannot as you do not have them and can only throw out speculation.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I can prove it's a flight test as I have the flight reports.
So please prove it. It's up to you to prove and not up to me to disprove.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You however cannot as you do not have them and can only throw out speculation.
I have several hundred pages on microfilms from NASM on Fw 190 performance calculations and I know exactly how these are done.
gripen
-
Good if you have calculation reports then you know the calculated data is pessimistic not optimistic.
It should be easy to see these are flight test's and do not match up to calculations which are easy to spot from curve alone.
Unless of course your just completely intellectually dishonest as you've shown in the past.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Good if you have calculation reports then you know the calculated data is pessimistic not optimistic.
Actually calculations seem to be quite optimistic; as an example (calculated) Cd0 for the A-5 seem to be around 10% lower than wind tunnel tested. Notable thing is that the calculations for the later models became some what more realistic; there is a good story behind that but it really is an another story.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It should be easy to see these are flight test's and do not match up to calculations which are easy to spot from curve alone.
Actually these (Fw charts for A-5 and A-8) miss typical features of flight tested data; test dates, data points etc. and of course "Erfolg" claim.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Unless of course your just completely intellectually dishonest as you've shown in the past.
Oh well, I let readers decide...
gripen
-
Simple fix, post them.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Simple fix, post them.
What should I post, charts are here (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm) if some one is interested.
gripen
-
That is what I thought, Gripen. Your just running your mouth.
-
Or did you mean this:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1139176654_cdc.jpg)
There is hundreds of pages this kind of stuff, if some one is interested, contact NASM.
gripen
-
No I meant this:
(http://img128.potato.com/loc15/th_64fe0_FW190APerformance.jpg) (http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc15&image=64fe0_FW190APerformance.jpg)
For a normal finish FW-190A for the time period selected. Polishing only gets you a 5-8kph increase in the FW-190A series however.
This is not even optimistic performance. It is just average guaranteed performance.
So much for your calcs are optimistic theory Gripen.
I got tons of these flight test's, want some more?
-
Hm...
"Kompressibilität der Luft ist dabei noch nicht berücksichtigt!"
These are not corrected for compressibility.
And yes, post more please.
gripen
-
"Kompressibilität der Luft ist dabei noch nicht berücksichtigt!"
Wow, Work on your German. The numbers in parenthesis are indicated airspeeds. The Focke Wulf had a forward correction.
Kind of laughable at this point. Let me here your other theories!!
And yes, post more please.
You can find them scattered in Archives around the world. Good Luck and Happy Hunting.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, Work on your German. The numbers in parenthesis are indicated airspeeds. The Focke Wulf had a forward correction.
Kind of laughable at this point. Let here your other theories!!
Well, actually numbers in the parenthesis are for 3850kg. Someone need to work on his German but it's not me.
BTW below is a large scale test in Rechlin.
gripen
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1139178900_fws.jpg)
-
Crumpp. Come on M8 please ignore the ivory tower.
I was not referring to the "laughable RAE tests" or the "laughable aerodynamic calculations of Gripen", nor for that sake "Guppy's recent laughable" input in this thread. Not the "laughable" solid/unsolid 190 spar, nor my own "laughable" snide remarks that present you with the challenge of unworthy and unnessecary reasearches nor the laughable "go look for yourselves".
In my mind I rather had your remarks on the BoB-envolving thread, where you were ready to defend utter boulderdash to the death. Then I recalled your scruffle with Widewing even with Guppy, and of course Milo, Gripen, Nashwan, even Izzy (well, ok) and me, the "not military person". Well, that's that, but my mind tends to work in the way that if you have a scruffle with everybody, you may be wrong.
And, I have seen you slip. Slipping is ok. But fighting the slip to the death is not.
And boy, going through your slips in the "BoB" thread left me with a thousand questions. Ok, I am not an angel - in many of my remarks I provoke a question. But that's because I am nor sure, or simply searching.
The questions you provoke are usually of another nature. You stick to a statement, and you'll defend it in a most arrogant manner.
I really mean this, and this has become more apparent in the last days. So please breath deeply and consider this already "unworthy" text will you ?!?!?!
-
They are IAS, Gripen. Engeklammerte Werte......
This is going to be so good. Let's here your theories?
-
Ok, I am not an angel - in many of my remarks I provoke a question. But that's because I am nor sure, or simply searching.
No many of your remarks are intentionally inflammatory. If you have questions you simply ask. If you want to incite and anger don't be surprised when your treated in kind.
To get respect you have to give it. To those who act accordingly I go out of my way to be respectful. To those who act like jerks, get treated like jerks.
Please lets get back to Gripen's revelations about Focke Wulf performance. I really want to see this epiphany
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp:
"No many of your remarks are intentionally inflammatory"
How you interpret that is up to you. They are however not inflammable enough to catch your tail.
Well....a runner up.
Anyway, enjoy your forthcoming scruffle with everybody.
-
"Guppy's recent laughable"
Guppy did not put anything " laughable into this thread. He very honestly and resonably presented the facts about this Spitfire.
It is the fans in his wake who are being laughable.
And boy, going through your slips in the "BoB" thread left me with a thousand questions.
Get the report from the PRO and quite floundering around grasping at straws. It's not even an intelligent argument when all your sources are secondhand books from the 1970's.
Gripen do you want to post the set up's for those aircraft or do you want me to make you look silly?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Arrogance is a vice.
And for my books being "secondhand from the 70's"...well, you don't know what I have....for books. The one provoking this is quite new.
Being in Guppy's "wake" means that I generally agree with him.
As for the PRO, you keep hinting some stuff you ordered from there, but it didn't bring magic I guess.
I, unlike you, have at least been at the PRO....
-
Start your own Crumpp whine thread, Angus.
It's not everybody...It's you and a few die hard allied fanatics who think physics depends on which bank of the channel your on.
It's really a side show.
Gripen I will send that whole report to HTC. Just to make you look stupid.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Everybody is stupid except Mr Crumpp I guess.
And...the thread. You already named it before I started it. Worried?
-
Look Familiar Gripen?
From Oct 1943:
(http://img42.potato.com/loc240/th_61f5d_endurance_test.jpg) (http://img42.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc240&image=61f5d_endurance_test.jpg)
All of those aircraft have either wingracks or at a minimum the ETC501 rack mounted. All of those speeds are IAS without Focke Wulfs foward correction to TAS.
I will send the report to HTC so your BS gets out.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
They are IAS, Gripen. Engeklammerte Werte......
Well, all I see you can't (again) understand the stuff you post. Just look the text and numbers, these are not IAS values; calculate TAS at FTH (ICAN) if you want the proof.
Originally posted by Crumpp
All of those aircraft have either wingracks or at a minimum the ETC501 rack mounted.
That is not what the text and the article says, the rating for the Jabo was tested with 5 planes. And these planes were A-4s or A-5.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Knegel
according to my airspeed calculator 430mph IAS are 602MPH in 20000ft.
The Spitdatas give 430mph IAS up to 25000ft , here my calculator say 645mph, oh thats mach1 in this altitude.
That calculator must not use standard atmosphere conditions. 430mph IAS(assuming IAS=CAS) is 570mph at 20k, 606mph at 25k. Equal to Mach No. of 0.805 & 0.875.
In 20.000ft mach1 already did decrease to only roundabout 1070km/h!!
Only if it was 53ºC below zero. Standard Atmosphere temperature at 20,000ft is -24.6º, which makes the speed of sound = 1137km/h(707mph)
So even with your IAS calculation, even 590mph would be still mach0,89 in 20000ft and even more fast in 25000ft!!
In Standard Atmosphere: 590mph = 0.83M @ 20,000ft, 0.85 @ 25,000ft.
606mph in 28.000ft?? Thats around mach0.96 in this altitude!!!
Again, for standard atmosphere conditions 606mph @ 28,000ft is = 0.89M.
-
Google translation of the text at the bottom of Fw 190 chart:
Eingeklammerte Werte wurden für Fw 190 A-3 bis A-5 als erflogene Leistungen angegeben. (siehe Rechlin Erpr. Nr. 1661).
(Fehlanzeige des Farhrtmessers infolge Kompressibilität der Luft ist dabei noch nicht berücksichtigt!)
in parentheses worth were indicated for Fw190 A-3 to A-5 as reached achievements. (see Rechlin Erpr. No. 1661)
(nil return of the airspeed indicator due to compressibility is not yet considered thereby!)
To me that says the data in brackets is from flight tests(Erpr.Nr.1661), but without a compressibility correction - which means they are higher numbers than the actual speeds. Eg: Fw 190A-5 chart showing 680km/h, & 662km/h with compressibility correction.
-
Well, that is what I have been saying; 680km/h IAS at 6300m would be around 900km/h TAS at standard conditions (including correction for compressibility).
gripen
-
Jep justin,
i did insert -15° sea level by mistake.
But the temp still is a good question. Are there any hints regarding the temp while the dive test??
I still doubt that mach0,89 is credible for a plane with common wings.
Angus, iam not sure if you read the links that some people did post here, or any other informations regarding supersonic problems, but it looks like not. Otherwise i cant understand your written like this:
"Nope. Now, dive the Komet on full thrust, it will probably break the sound barrier very quickly and dissolve into a furball?"
The Komet wouldnt break the soundbarrier in one piece, neighter any other WWII plane would reach this speed without to get destroyed.
Read the article regarding the Komet flight, where the Komet got into its critical mach (mach0.84). The pilot did cut down the throttle and got the plane out of the dive not far above the baltic sea. He lost many parts of his vertical stab and the wing´s was loose after that.
btw, didnt i read somewhere that the Testers of the Spit flight took back their mach0,9 claim??
Greetings, Knegel
-
Heres the link to the Spitfire dive chart with claimed 0.891MSpitfire dive chart with 0.891M (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg) This chart is not for the flight where the prop broke off, btw.
-
See Rule #4
-
Crumpp,
That data from Rechlin is "TAS" without compressibility correction. You can compare it with the Focke-Wulf sheet so often posted here that shows Fw 190 A-5 speeds at different ratings, each rating with a pair of curves: one with IAS corrected only for density and the other with density and compressibility.
-
Hi Justin,
according to the datasheet the plane didnt reach mach 0,89. 606mph at -32°C are less than mach0,88.
Edit: What was the weight of this plane??
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Where is this figure coming from?
The Spitfire manual notes
* S.L. and 20,000ft. - 450 (385)
* 20,000 & 25,000ft. - 430 (370)
* 25,000 & 30,000ft. - 390 (335)
* 30,000 & 35,000ft. - 340 (292)
430 at 20,000 ft is about 590 TAS. That's about mach 0.84 (and the manual says limit is 0.85)
Ok, i just had a closer look. Actually it´s quite easy.
430mph = 692km/h. Going up FW-190 chart to 6km -> ~880km/h, 546mph Mach 0.77.
Recalculated by Hand:
R...........287,0500
Kappa...1,4050
Tgrad...-0,0065
G..........9,8100
Rho0....1,2250
T0 [K]...288,1500
Höhe [m]....6000,0000
CAS km/h...692,0000
At Altitude:
Temp.........249,1500
Rho...........0,6595
A [m/s].....316,9913......(speed of sound)
CorrRho 0,7337
Step0 Calc:
CAS m/s 192,2222
TAS_C0 261,9738............(applied corrrho, density correction of IAS->TAS)
M_C0 0,826438284......(using step0 TAS)
KorrM 1,0873................(fw190 formula)
Step1 Calc:
TAS_C1[m/s].......240,9302............(applied KorrM)
TAS_C1 [km/h]....867,3486
M_C1 ..................0,7601
I used two steps because Machnumber must be determined by a kind of iteration actually. I mean as long as you don´t know your exact TAS where you need Mach number, you can´t calculate the exact Machnumber. So you need an iteration.
In any case claiming M0.85 for 430mph IAS is pretty off.
niklas
-
Niklas,
If you have Excel spreadsheet, it has a handy solver tool which is great to solve problems needing some amount of iterations like speed corrections. Or did you allready use it?
gripen
-
That data from Rechlin is "TAS" without compressibility correction. You can compare it with the Focke-Wulf sheet so often posted here that shows Fw 190 A-5 speeds at different ratings, each rating with a pair of curves: one with IAS corrected only for density and the other with density and compressibility.
Your absolutely correct! Arrgh, I hate the subtleties of German sometimes. These corrections just twist your mind. It was not until I got a report were Focke Wulf made a correction error on the FW-190A8 series that the light bulb blinked on. You will see the correct corrected speeds annotated VwKC. If not then you have to run the curves through the conversion curve.
Considering the weights the curve gives good agreement and easily falls in the 3% guarantees.
(http://img145.potato.com/loc164/th_91273_FW190APerformance.jpg) (http://img145.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc164&image=91273_FW190APerformance.jpg)
(http://img140.potato.com/loc267/th_e429a_fw190_A5_speed.JPG) (http://img140.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=e429a_fw190_A5_speed.JPG)
What I like best is just when they spell it out:
(http://img145.potato.com/loc218/th_455e9_FW190speed2.jpg) (http://img145.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc218&image=455e9_FW190speed2.jpg)
(http://img128.potato.com/loc97/th_5831d_Gripenssnippet2.jpg) (http://img128.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc97&image=5831d_Gripenssnippet2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Those last two are for speed increases acheived with "special emergency" power over the previous (start-emergency?) power rating. There are no airspeed corrections listed.
Erreichte Ladedrücke bei 2700 U/min und eingeschalteter erhöhter Notleistung:
"Reached load pressures during 2700 U/min and switched on increased emergency achievement:"
angezeigte geschwindigkeiten / geschwindigkeitssteigerung
"indicated speeds / speed increase"
Eg: ES+GL with 1,63ata reached Va(ias) = 575km/h @ 100m, an improvement of 40km/h. This a/c appears to be the + marks and _._ line in the graph.
-
Below is an example how the calculated speed charts (like A-5 chart (http://img140.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=e429a_fw190_A5_speed.JPG) mentioned above) were created in the FW. The speed marked as x) is TAS calculated from the data (like polar , engine chart etc.) and the speed marked as xx) is calculated TAS without compressibility correction. Might look like a bit backwards system but apparently they needed TAS without compressibility correction for example for specsheets or such things.
gripen
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1139304171_fwko.jpg)
-
Might look like a bit backwards system but apparently they needed TAS without compressibility correction
It is called a correction, Gripen. It is used to account for things like positional error.
for specsheets or such things.
Yes in order to compare the Ground Speeds of the FW-190's variants with a different pitot tube.
When they moved the tube outside the influence of the propeller it required new corrections to show the correct True Airspeed.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Eg: ES+GL with 1,63ata reached Va(ias) = 575km/h @ 100m, an improvement of 40km/h. This a/c appears to be the + marks and _._ line in the graph.
I think that is about right.
It reached 580kph(ias) at 0 meters.
At Start u Notleistung or 1.42ata @ 2700U/min we can estimate the speed at 580kph (ias) - 40kph = 540kph
We can borrow the correction curve for EB-104, another FW-190A5 series (FW-190G3). Assuming the USAAF was not incompetent and the correction is in the ballpark, of course.
540kph + 19kph correction = 559kph which is within 1% of the Rechlin and Focke Wulf listings.
Pretty good agreement I would say.
All the best,
Crumpp
Forgot to add the correction curve:
(http://img43.potato.com/loc243/th_b2909_EB_104correction.jpg) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc243&image=b2909_EB_104correction.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is called a correction, Gripen. It is used to account for things like positional error.
The chart I posted above has nothing to do with positional error, all values are calculated.
gripen
-
The chart I posted above has nothing to do with positional error, all values are calculated.
Where do you think corrections come from? The correction fairy? :confused:
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where do you think corrections come from? The correction fairy? :confused:
In that chart compressibility correction comes simply from calculated TAS which gives mach number at given conditions. After mach number is known, the total compressibility error can be calculated and the assumed compressibility correction (for sea level) of the metering system is accounted resulting the compressibility correction for the TAS corrected only for density.
Note that compressibility and density errors are the same for any calculated or real world tested speed and condition combination. But the position error of the metering system depends just on that particular installation; the EB-104 had one kind of position error curve and another plane had a different (as you probably allready know).
gripen
-
Concerning metering device errors I'd like to point out that eg. In FW the pitot system was mounted in a tip of a long pole which extended well forward of the main wing thus being, IMO, relatively error free (not counting the possible deficiencies in pitot systems metering speed in general). Whereas in Spitfire the pitot device is quite close under the wing and suspect to generate some errors due to changing pressures around the wing. I'd imagine that the Brits used a different kind of metering device in test flights?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Concerning metering device errors I'd like to point out that eg. In FW the pitot system was mounted in a tip of a long pole which extended well forward of the main wing thus being, IMO, relatively error free (not counting the possible deficiencies in pitot systems metering speed in general). Whereas in Spitfire the pitot device is quite close under the wing and suspect to generate some errors due to changing pressures around the wing. I'd imagine that the Brits used a different kind of metering device in test flights?
As noted several times in this thread; the RAE used several different metering devices and instrumentation for those high speed test dives (as an example rakes to measure pressure distribution). IIRC Morgan&Shackladys book contains some illustration on these devices. They tried to continously improve the methods and also corrected results afterwards once the better corrections became available.
There might be some amount error in the measurements, specially in the earliest but overall the results should be quite reliable.
gripen
-
There might be some amount error in the measurements, specially in the earliest but overall the results should be quite reliable.
As for the dives, sure within the limits of the technology of the day.
As noted several times in this thread;
I don't think Charge is refering to the dives however, Gripen. He is pointing out that Focke Wulf's system worked for Focke Wulf designs.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't think Charge is refering to the dives however, Gripen. He is pointing out that Focke Wulf's system worked for Focke Wulf designs.
There appear to be quite bit variation in the FW pitot systems, as an example the V34 had meter correction around 13km/h at 550km/h (that includes compressibility because the correction seem to be calculated in the different order than current IAS/CAS/TAS system).
gripen
-
There appear to be quite bit variation in the FW pitot systems, as an example the V34 had meter correction around 13km/h at 550km/h (that includes compressibility because the correction seem to be calculated in the different order than current IAS/CAS/TAS system).
That's because of changes to the airspeed measurement systems used Gripen.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's because of changes to the airspeed measurement systems used Gripen.
There is allways some error in pitot tube and metering systems, that is why position error is measured generally allways for performance tests. Therefore using position error of a plane with another plane is not relevant.
gripen
-
Therefore using position error of a plane with another plane is not relevant.
It is when the planes use the same system but different locations of the point of measure.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is when the planes use the same system but different locations of the point of measure.
The location does not matter, there is allways variation even among similar installations. That is why calibration flights are made in the beginning of the performance tests.
gripen
-
The location does not matter
:lol
-
Hm... That is a good example how a quote is taken out of context.
"The location does not matter, there is allways variation even among similar installations."
What ever is the location of the pitot tube, the position error should be measured in that particular plane. The correction of another plane with similar installation is probably more or less different.
gripen
-
Wasn't taken out of context Gripen. The measuring system is not in the same location in the FW-190A8 and above.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wasn't taken out of context Gripen. The measuring system is not in the same location in the FW-190A8 and above.
Actually it was taken out of context; it does not matter what ever is the location pitot tube, the error of that particular installation should be measured. It does not matter what plane, sub type or installation we talk about, the error should be measured.
gripen
-
Actually it was taken out of context; it does not matter what ever is the location pitot tube, the error of that particular installation should be measured. It does not matter what plane, sub type or installation we talk about, the error should be measured.
Somebody hum a tune so Gripen's dance has accompaniment.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Somebody hum a tune so Gripen's dance has accompaniment.
Well, anybody can read from above who actually has problems to understand the speed merasurements and corrections.
gripen
-
Well, anybody can read from above who actually has problems to understand the speed merasurements and corrections.
Not really Gripen.
Anyone can read you have an obvious agenda.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not really Gripen.
Anyone can read the evidence from above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Anyone can read you have an obvious agenda.
Anyone can draw his/her own conclusions.
gripen
-
Anyone is probably sick of this scheiße - can't you just PM each other? :D
-
Now where were we again?
-
"As noted several times in this thread; the RAE used several different metering devices and instrumentation for those high speed test dives (as an example rakes to measure pressure distribution). IIRC Morgan&Shackladys book contains some illustration on these devices. They tried to continously improve the methods and also corrected results afterwards once the better corrections became available."
TY, that is what I was wondering. Is it documented what kind of metering system was used in Spitfire's high speed tests?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
TY, that is what I was wondering. Is it documented what kind of metering system was used in Spitfire's high speed tests?
If you mean those tests where mach 0,89 was claimed with a Spitfire XI, there is IIRC pictures in the report (I have only seen the report couple years ago in the PRO). Basicly a pitot tube but specially made for these tests, in addition there were devices to measure temperature etc.
gripen
-
Here's an odd question.
CL is based on the airfoil right? The amount of lift created with the airfoil?
If it's right, I have an odd point to add.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Here's an odd question.
CL is based on the airfoil right? The amount of lift created with the airfoil?
If it's right, I have an odd point to add.....
Yes and no.
The airfoil shape of course affects on lift characters of the wing and the limits of the Cl. But the Cl itself is just a number to handle lift of the wing in analyses without physical dimensions of the wing.
gripen
-
Are there any error correction tables available for Spit as are available for FW?
It would be interesting to compare them to see how much pitot system location affected the results.
-C+
-
Charge,
There is at least one in the NACA test report (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf), note that it's not same system as used for the dive testing.
gripen
-
I haven't followed this thread for quite a while (since page 3 or so) so just in for a quick question as I am too lazy to search through 6 pages.
Was there ever any conclusion to why the 109 flaps were "overlooked" last version? Any replies from HTC? Any (frustration mode moved up a notch) why da hell has there not been a quick fix in a patch to this as it was "overlooked".
Will it be "overlooked" more times before CT?
-
the AvA is a good example as to why HTC must turn a blind eye to the whole LW modelling thing the allies are being trounced even with the nerfed LW planes. imagine what it would be like with anything closely matching what the planes flew like as reported by FW and Messerschmitt the game would be void of players.
-
Troll....:noid
-
Originally posted by storch
the AvA is a good example as to why HTC must turn a blind eye to the whole LW modelling thing the allies are being trounced even with the nerfed LW planes. imagine what it would be like with anything closely matching what the planes flew like as reported by FW and Messerschmitt the game would be void of players.
or you are, in fact, proving that they are correct in their modelling by proving they can be competitive when flown historically.
-
"Was there ever any conclusion to why the 109 flaps were "overlooked" last version? "
What other planes have their flaps overlooked? They all should be fixed at the same time. Too bad that fixing only a few planes looks like an artificial crutch to boost those machines.
***
"or you are, in fact, proving that they are correct in their modelling by proving they can be competitive when flown historically."
The 109s and 190s can be flown competitively in AvA but that hardly is sufficient to tell about their correct modelling.
It surely was an eyeopener to try SpitIX on AvA last week... :lol
Not so much better than 109 in turning as I thought, but with that aileron speed and cannons it is very dangerous in reversals except that I doubt single Hisso round can take off a wing of a 109 from 600y distance or that Spit was that good in rolling plane especially with speed, not to mention the lack of accelerated stalls in rapid pull-outs...bla bla...:p
109 has its high speed elevator forces nicely modelled so why are the heavy ailerons not modelled in Spits?
-C+
-
They are.....
-
Originally posted by Charge
"
I doubt single Hisso round can take off a wing of a 109 from 600y distance 109 -C+
oh come now, surely you are aware that slightly modified hisso knock offs were utilized by the soviet union to shoot down gary powers in his U2. that whole cockamamie SA missle story was a cover up to hide the true weapons system. and it was a single ping too. honestly you luftwhiners are really overbearing.