Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Naudet on August 14, 2001, 02:43:00 AM
-
Why the D9 should be a better tunring plane as it is at the moment.
I know we had this discussion quite often in the forum, but i now come up with a new argumentation.
To not offend our allieds, i will just compare the D9 to the other german planes FW190 and ME109.
From tests between allied planes and captured FW190A3 and ME109G6 it can be taken as fact that the FW190A3 turns better than the G6, why, cause the A3 turns as good as a P51B while the G6 is clearly outturned by the P51B.
In AH we have (assuming equal pilot skills) a better turning 109er over all FW190.
Now i explain why the D9 should outturn both the A5 and 109er in AH.
The concept i use is the energy maneuvering concept (EMC), that explains turning performance mostly due to the exess power a plane has. It is much advanced over the wingloading concept which has much to many flaws ti be off any use. It can be said that wingloading only gives ideas about performance differences when the wing is of totaly the same constrution except the wing area, than the wingloading will give an idea which plane turns better. But if u compare different wig types this no longer is usefull
The rules are more exess power = better turning performance, especially substained turn.
The factors important for the EMC are engine output (i use emergency power output in this post), drag factor, weight and so far i understood it right lift factor.
Now we can say why the D9 should turn better than the A5 and A8. The lift factor is the same, but engine output has increased, drag is reduced (D9s drag factor is lower than of A-series) weight compared to A5 is nearly the same and to A8 it is also lower. So the overall exess power of the D9 is higher than A5 or A8 and so turn performance is increased.
Compared to the 109er we can now get back to our test from above. The A3 turns better than the G6, we can assume that the D9 has equal or slightly better exess power than the A3 due to the much increased engine output and the lower drag compensating the lower weight of the A3. So D9 should outturn the G6 in substained turns.
The G10 should also be turning worse, as engine power may have increased but also weight increases.
This is normally also covered from statements of LW pilots, the later the 109er version the better climb and speed but turning getting worse. And also the statement that D9 could hold turns longer than A8 or 109er G series.
Now a little excurs to turn vs allied planes.
Vs a P5P1 a D9 should turn the same. But against a P51D it should get a slight advantage, cause the weight of the D has increased and also the drag has increased due to the bubble canopy. Additionaly in this case we can directly look at the wingloading cause both birds use the same wingtype and size, and Ds wingloading is higher therefore turning is worse than B.
I know now a large number of people will beat at me, but for the blaming posts plz use the thread i posted under „Beat on the worst LW Whiner Naudet“.
Serious arguments can be posted here, insults plz in the other posts.
tc Naudet
-
"From tests between allied planes and captured FW190A3 and ME109G6 it can be taken as fact that the FW190A3 turns better than the G6, why, cause the A3 turns as good as a P51B while the G6 is clearly outturned by the P51B."
There's a RAF pilot test flight report of the Fw 190A-3 where he states he could easily out-turn some P-51's(Note: P-51 is much lighter than P-51B) which attacked him(he couldn't tell if they were mock attacks, or if those Mustang guys were actually trying to kill him!).
"weight compared to A5 is nearly the same and to A8 it is also lower."
Not true. The A-5 still weighs MUCH less than the D-9.
"The G10 should also be turning worse, as engine power may have increased but also weight increases"
1. D-9 has less drag than A-5, weighs more, and has much more power.
2. G-10 has less drag than G-6, weighs more, and has much more power.
Why are you saying that the D-9 would improve in turning ability over the A-5, but that the G-10 would be worse than the G-6? According to the basis of your argument the G-10 should turn better than the G-6.
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]
-
I see ur point on the G10, here i must refer to the pilot report of JG301/302, Hoehenstaffel of JG26, were they stated that the design of the 109 was already at its peak wiht the F4/G1+G2 and that the modification after those versions only worsened the flight charakteristics especially turning performance.
This fact is due to the 109er being modified beyond its original design capacities while the FW190 had not reached the design limits even with planes like the D11,D12 or D13. And weight increase from G6 to G10 is a higher percentage increase than from A5 to D9.
And on the A5 weight, my sources always give something like 8200 lbs normally loaded while the D9 is around 8400 lbs. If u have other numbers plz post em here and give the source, than i might have to correct the A5 to D9 performance assumptions.
And the RAF pilots statement about A3 turning would support my assumtion that the FW190 D9 should turn better than P51D (maybe even P51B).
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
Hmmm...
If you mean this RAF pilot statement:
Statement (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
It does not say that the A-3 actually out turned Mustang but was able to get on the tail. I quess that pilot means that due to good roll rate of the A-3 he was able to out turn Mustangs in the beginning of the turn. According to this:
Better Statement (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_b_6.jpg)
The Mustang turns better than the A-3.
gripen
-
gripen, something is wrong with the links, the only lead to a "this page is not available" message.
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
Strange, they do work for me. But try this main page instead:
Index (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm)
BTW the G-6 used for tactical trials against the Mustang was with wing cannons (TP814 according to West's Captive Luftwaffe).
gripen
-
My own experience flying a lot A8 A5 and D9:
A5 outturns D9 all the time.
A8 and F8 outturns initially the D9 (all at lo speeds), but bleeds energy faster, so, D9 is able to maintain itself circling more time. After one or two complete circles, the advantage should be at the Dora side.
I agree with the point that D9 should outturn A8 from the first time, and not only after one or two circles.
The extrange thing is that A8/F8 and A5 have better control at very hi speeds than D9, even better roll rate.
-
I find the energy retention of the D9 is too low, this is also supported by the EMC, cause if u have more exess power at hand u dont loose E as fast as with less power, also less drag --> less E loss.
-
Sounds right Naudet but to have anything done we gotto post pure numbers, and see if you're right, I'd be very happy if you are ;)
The only high speed problem the 190 ever had was the slight weight increase of the Ailerons, and when ya thing about it, there were very few planes that actually exeeded 500Mph the way we do in AH.
-
LOL its a thing with the pure numbers, the wingloading argument is still a major one in AH discussion thought i already was proven directly after the 2nd WW that this argument has to many flaws and is only valuable when u look at wings of same design that have different wing area
-
Naudet,
I thought that A3 and D9 are of completely different wing and fuselage design, A3 being one of the early well turning FWs and D9 being a "long-nosed" version.
A3 cleary out-turns 109s, but D9 should not.
My sources mention over 9400 lbs loaded weight for D9, also I think that wing loading is a valid factor. Both 109s and P-51D have a smaller wing loading.
Furthermore 109G-10 should not be much worse turner than G-6. Difference in weight was not that much.
Some of the sources I compiled earlier for comparisons in EAW: Plane Stats (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/planestats.gif)
-
Originally posted by BlauK:
Naudet,
I thought that A3 and D9 are of completely different wing and fuselage design, A3 being one of the early well turning FWs and D9 being a "long-nosed" version.
the 190A3 has an almost identical wing to that of the D9. Is true that in the 190A6 the wing was a bit strenghtened to allow for the use of MG151 on the outter wing, but that was it.
The D9 had an identical wing to that of the A6,A7 and A8, and an almost identical one ot that of the A3.
About the fuselage, no again. THe BMW was moved a couple inches forward in the A4-A5 version change. But the fuselage itself was the same. The D9 added a section to the tail to compensate for the longer nose, but the main airframe was exactly identical.
My sources list the 190D9 around 350lbs lighter than a 190A8. AS the 190A8 is around 1000lbs lighter than the 190A5, you get that D9 is 650lbs heavier than A5.
I dont know if that is very accurate, but is the best I have on the matter.
I also think that the E-retaining of the 190D9 is under what it should. But that is an opinion I have comparing it with other planes of the set, not because factual data.
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
The normal laoded weight for a D9 as out of original FW climb chart is 4270 kg, that includes ETC 504 rack, full fuel and loaded guns. At this weight the plane is combat ready.
An A8 at same status (figher, normally laoded) was 4380 kg.
Thats the data i got for D9 and A8.The figures i have for A3 are loaded 8770 lbs. No data on kg available to me.
-
Don't think it would cut it guys. I've read that the D-9 could outturn the A series "in the hands of a competent pilot"- but I've never seen data on turn circles or turn rate comparing the two. Without those, I don't think HTC would be willing to make the Dora turn better.
-
just by comparing powerloadings, you see clearly that the 190D9 should have a better turnrate than the 190A8, and not that much worse than the 190A5. Turning circle should be smaller than 190A8 and wider than 190A5.
Of course I'm talking in a 2100hp powered Ju213A Fw190D9. At this point I still dont know wich engine-fuel-booster combination is the D9 actually using (I think its B4 and MW50,but I'm not that sure at 100%)
-
I don't know much about these turn rate or E retention measurements but to me it seems that there is two different ways to compare turning performance.
Because the A-3 has lower wingloading with same wing it should be able tolerate more pull (more Gs) at any given speed than the D-9.
But because the D-9 has lower drag and more power than the A-3, the D-9 should be able to maintain it's speed (or accelerate) better at any given tolerable G load than the A-3.
But which turns better, at sustained rate or at losing speed, I don't know. As usually, we need hard data.
gripen
-
S! Naudet
First of all, the test you referred to, that being I assume the AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) test between a G6 and a 51b, in that case, the tested G6 was equipped with 2 underwing 20mm gondolas. So obviously it weighed considerably more than a standard G6. That is the only reason the 51b outturned it.
So the rest of your hypothesis is not correct.
-
So should a 109G6 flat out outurn a P51B?
-
S!
Depends whether it is a high speed turn or a low speed one.
The P-51b had much better high speed handling, both in roll and turn, than the 109G6, but in a low speed situation, the lower wing loading and better acceleration of the G6 should give it the advantage.
But it was relatively close, and when the 109G6 had gondolas loaded, the advantage would switch to the Mustang.
-
Might help this discussion if you drop the generic term turn rate and discuss instantainous turn rate and sustained turn rate.
HiTech
-
Hitech- he did already I believe. Back in the first post.
The concept i use is the energy maneuvering concept (EMC), that explains turning performance mostly due to the exess power a plane has. It is much advanced over the wingloading concept which has much to many flaws ti be off any use. It can be said that wingloading only gives ideas about performance differences when the wing is of totaly the same constrution except the wing area, than the wingloading will give an idea which plane turns better. But if u compare different wig types this no longer is usefull
The rules are more exess power = better turning performance, especially sustained turn.
The factors important for the EMC are engine output (i use emergency power output in this post), drag factor, weight and so far i understood it right lift factor.
Now we can say why the D9 should turn better than the A5 and A8. The lift factor is the same, but engine output has increased, drag is reduced (D9s drag factor is lower than of A-series) weight compared to A5 is nearly the same and to A8 it is also lower. So the overall exess power of the D9 is higher than A5 or A8 and so turn performance is increased.
Compared to the 109er we can now get back to our test from above. The A3 turns better than the G6, we can assume that the D9 has equal or slightly better exess power than the A3 due to the much increased engine output and the lower drag compensating the lower weight of the A3. So D9 should outturn the G6 in sustained turns.
The G10 should also be turning worse, as engine power may have increased but also weight increases.
Granted- I don't really understand this stuff as I'm not really a physics type- but I did see sustained turn in there.
Vs a P51 a D9 should turn the same. But against a P51D it should get a slight advantage, cause the weight of the D has increased and also the drag has increased due to the bubble canopy. Additionaly in this case we can directly look at the wingloading cause both birds use the same wingtype and size, and Ds wingloading is higher therefore turning is worse than B.
I believe he MEANS sustained turn here, since wingloading affects the sustained turn rate, not the instantaneous turn rate, correct?
just by comparing powerloadings, you see clearly that the 190D9 should have a better turnrate than the 190A8, and not that much worse than the 190A5. Turning circle should be smaller than 190A8 and wider than 190A5.
Of course I'm talking in a 2100hp powered Ju213A Fw190D9. At this point I still dont know wich engine-fuel-booster combination is the D9 actually using (I think its B4 and MW50,but I'm not that sure at 100%)
Sorry, I missed the post by R4M. Turning circle refers to sustained turn rate as well, right?
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
-
I don't know if I'm using right terms now but let's try.
Because the A-3 is lighter than the D-9 with same wing then the A-3 should be able to tolerate more Gs (or deg/s) at any given speed than the D-9. So this means that the A-3 has better instantainous turn rate than the D-9 at any given speed.
The sustained turn rate seems to be much complicated question. We know that because the D-9 has lower drag and more power than the A-3, the D-9 can maintain speed better than the A-3 at any given tolerable G load. This means that the D-9 reaches sustained turn rate at faster speed than the A-3.
Because the A-3 has lower wing loading it should have smaller turning circle at sustained turn rate than the D-9. But still the D-9 might be able to turn faster (deg/s), if it does a bit larger turning circle at somewhat faster speed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
gripen
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
cc Buzzbait
Hi speed turn = 51
Lo speed turn = 109
Just like my AH experience and a few reports ive read. Pretty nice HTC. :)
-
general note: the EMC made the wing loading concept obsolete, despite the fact being quote all the time wingloading doesnt give any usefull results if comparing planes turning performances, ONLY when wing is of same contruction it is important BUT even than the power loading plays a role.
and a correction, the factors important for EMC are: engine power, total drag and mass, NOT the lift factor
here the definition of specific exess power:
Specific excess power (Ps) is the amount by which available engine power exceeds total drag, expressed in relation to the aircraft's mass. It's dependend on the exact flight condition (altitude, speed, Gs, power setting etc.), and provides an exact answer for each flight condition.
to Buzzbait:
The test i refer to doesnt mention gondolas on the 109G and so assumed that the 109 did not have it.
But taking your argument into account that the 109G without gondolas outturns a P51 (at speeds were controls dont get blocked). The D9 should be clearly capable of outturning the P51, cause in more than one source D9 pilots state that the Dora could turn tighter and faster than the 109G-Series, together with its formidable high speed handling this would give the P51 more than a match.
to hitech:
the EMC is good to give ideas of substained turn, not instantainous turn, cause the instantainous turn (if i got everything right the guy that explained the EMC to me told me) is related wingloading.
My main critics points on todays AH D9 is the e-retention, which is directly related to substained turn, it is a know fact to anyone flying this bird that u will lose more E in even a low G turn against any other fighter in AH (with exception of the FW190F8 maybe), and after everything i read about the Dora and out off discussions with people that know something about the forces involved in flight physics (like the guys that described the EMC to me), this can not be true. The D9 should have better substained turn/e-retention than it has atm.
to gripen:
yes it is right, lower wing loading means better instantainous turn
but ur not really correct about turning cirle, lower wing loading doesnt mean directly a tighter turn:
In a sustained turn, an aircraft uses all of its power just to turn. Add a more powerful engine, and the sustained turn of an aircraft will improve even at constant wing loading - the pilot can pull tighter, creating more drag, wich increased engine power will overcome.
Now if u compare A3 and D9 u have the following:
A3 lower wingloading.
D9 more power, less drag
so the instantainous turn of A3 is better, but the substained turn of D9 is better and it might also be that (if the power increase is high enough) the pilot can pull more Gs, turn tighter and faster
this fact is also proven for the D9 over the A-Series from a GE pilot on the eastern front:
"...i could the FW 190 D9 into a turn tight and still retain my speed advantage. In the FW 190 A i had flown preciously, during dogfights i had often to reduce to minimum flying speed in the turn."
This guys fought Yak-3 and Yak-9. He could fly the same turning circle as in FW 190A at a higher speed.
Btw could anyone of you imagine to reduce flying speed in FW190A to minimum in a dogfight with a YAK?? No way to get out in one piece.
P.S. my arguments are very important for the altitude below 25K, above this alt the power even of the JUMO213 decreased steadily and the small wing span of the FW190 made it an unpleasant plane to fly above 30K this is why the TA152 had the increase wing span. But below 25K the D9 was and should be a very good fighter craft.
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
Naudet,
OK, we agree that instantious turn rate part of my post and I also agree with you that comparing max lift coefficient values of the different planes is not right way for the turn rate measurements (because Clmax for given G value varies a lot among planes).
But I won't buy your sustained turn rate argument without further evidence. First of all, we should have hard data to be sure about this; I admit that I might be wrong. Anyway, I have some copies of the Spitfire I turn test data which contain size of the turning circle, 360deg turn time and G values (please note that from now on I'm not talking about real sustained turn rate but hypotethical example based on Spitfire data). For example the Spitfire I (6000lbs) had turning circle 688ft at 3G and about 170mph TAS (17s/360deg), at 5G it did 678ft at about 225mph (13,3s/360deg). So we can see that increasing speed and G value does not affect a lot to the turning circle for given airframe at given weight. In the case of the D-9 and A-3, the D-9 is a lot heavier for given airframe and that means that it probably can't turn as tight as the A-3 despite it has less drag and more power.
But as mentioned before the D-9 might be able to turn at faster rate (deg/s) if it does a bit larger turning circle at faster speed. For example the Spitfire I could do 800ft turning circle at 4g and about 215mph (about 16s/360deg).
Anyway, I might be wrong. BTW is that Oskar Romm's comment?
gripen
-
Does anyone know the 1G or wings level stall speed of the D-9? If you do then you can calculate all of this stuff very quickly.
BTW, the part about low drag helping an A/C through a turn is only partly true. Use a Zero for an example. If an A6M5 is on the tail of a D-9 at say 100yards at 250MPH. The D-9 breaks left hard and maintains a 4G turn for 360 degrees. He will in theorey pull away from the Zeke because his D-9 will burn less E in the turn and therefore will be faster at the end of the turn leaving the Zeke in the dust right? Not really.
Basically because as the Zero pulls G he will burn E faster because of his high induced drag or drag created by lift. However as he looses E his cricle becomes much smaller faster. So the D-9 may gain some distance but not before offering up a really good kill shot. Also keep in mind that the Zero doesn't have to pull as many G's as the D-9 to make the same circle. The D-9 pilot may be pulling his head of in a max G turn while the Zero pilot is easing into a sustained 3 turn and still gaining on the D-9. Don't believe it?
-
Eric Brown said the stall speed of the A3 was 127mph in clean condition. What altitude I don't know, but in AH 127mph, power off, is almost the exact speed the D9 will dump the wing (wrong wing at that). With flaps I've had the AH 190D9 down to 100mph power on before it stalled.
I found these figures at LRG:
Wing span: 34 ft 5 ½ inches
Wing area: 196.99 sq/ft
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
Wow,
I think I was wrong on some of my numbers. Apparently a 4G turn in a Zeke gives you the same radius as a 4G turn in Dora.
Anyway the big difference is (if you go by the assumption that the 1G stall in a D9 is 110MPH) that as soon as you hit 220MPH in a Dora at 4G's you will stall. While the Zero can pull 4G's at 150MPH. So I guess the real question is what is the sustained turn speed of a Dora.
Standbye
BTW, Thanks Flakbait, I needed those numbers.
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: F4UDOA ]
-
Gripen, i cant give u numbers for turning cirle and speed.
When i would have them i would have already posted em here. As far as i know those data not available for the D9.
When i get a bit more free time i might be able to travel to the germany archive at Freiburg and get access to original FockeWulf data. But this for sure will happen not in the near future.
Yes it is Oscar-Walter Romms statement.
For example the Spitfire I (6000lbs) had turning circle 688ft at 3G and about 170mph TAS (17s/360deg), at 5G it did 678ft at about 225mph (13,3s/360deg). So we can see that increasing speed and G value does not affect a lot to the turning circle for given airframe at given weight.
What u did here is only increase the G-load and speed, but u did not increase engine power.
The idea is (for a plane with all factors except power being the same):
in a turn the higher powered plane can hold higher G loads in substained turn cause the engine power overcomes the extra drag created through the higher G load.
And therefor u can also pull more Gs cause the increased power enables u to overcome a greater overall drag compared to the low powered plane.
And to tell u the guy that explained this concept told me that empiric test with existing planes (the EMC was formed in 1969) have show that the idea is right and that planes that have greater exess power will have better substained turn rates/radius.
And to all that ask for numbers, again i dont have the numbers, noone has the numbers, even HT seems not to have any specific data about FW190 turn performances.
As i said this is a new argument/idea that assists my argumentation the D9 of AH needs to hold E better (same as substained turn).
to F4UDOA:
the scenario u describe is certainly true, if a D9 in gunrange pulls a hard turn would over an A6M a very good shot. But i dont want a D9 that turns an A6M. When i get shot down, i know what mistake i made.
The problem i have is that the D9 is more or less worthless once ur target knows u are there. OK u can survive nearly every engagement due to ur speed, but compared to other planes it is quite easy for ur tgt to avoid u, all due the fact that the D9 cant turn anything here in this game.
But again i thank u that this discussion so far ran without any insults, emotional outbreaks and u all can be sure i took all ur arguments into account.
-
Naudet,
I guess I should not ramble so much in my messages. I was just using a Zero for an extreme example.
What I am trying to say is that the D9 should turn well because of it's low drag and high power to weight ratio. However it will only turn well within it's envelope. That being two things.
1. It's 1G or level stall speed which is a direct indicator of it's 3 or 4G stall. Just take the 1G stall number ie. 110MPH and multiply it times the square of how many G's you are pulling, such as 110MPH* 1.73(for a 3G turn)= 190.3MPH 3G stall. It sounds like an over simplified equation but it is the same result when you do the longer calculation. So the D9 will turn well but it will stall much sooner than most other A/C in AH that have lower stalling speeds.
2. Sustained turn rate. Every A/C has a speed that they can fly around in a circle and maintain their speed. I am working on calculating that right now but I'm guessing that the speed for the D9 is somewhat higher than most others in the game. I believe that this has already been calculated.
If Zigrat is out there then maybe he can add both instantanious and sustained turn rates to his spreadsheet.
-
No problem DOA, but you goofed on your geek-ese. It's not the square of the G force you're pulling, it's the square root of the G force. If you went with square you'd come up with 990 mph (110 * 9 [9 being the square of 3]). And if you want to get technical ( :D ) the number you get from the square root is 1.732050808. So your technical stall speed at 3 G's would be 190.5255888 mph.
I'm in a geek mood today.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
Naudet,
Well, first it should be pointed out that all WWII fighters could be handled only inside flight envelope. This means that we can't use stall boundary for maneuvering like current jets (this is where EMC is handy). And as you can see from my example, I used 3G and 5G values to simulate max sustained rate turns with two different power values at same weight and drag (same flight envelope for both). For example we can say that the Spitfire I can do 3G sustained turn with 1000hp and 5G with 2000hp. And as you can see, those values are on line with EMC theory (the plane with higher power do better). And that 4G value simulated heavier plane (different flight envelope) with high power.
gripen
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
why do you want to get into a turn contest in a D9?
-
Spatula- I don't think they want to "get into a turning contest" with the 190D9- I think it is more along the lines that they think it should turn better than it does. They aren't saying it should turn like a Spitfire, Zeke, or N1K2, they are saying it should turn better than the 190A8 does. Since the 190A8 is probably 1 of the 2 or 3 worst turning planes in the game, I don't think there is much to worry about.
I don't KNOW if it should turn better, to be honest. It is a fairly poor turner, but as far as I know the 190 was historically not know for its turning ability. If they can prove that there is a problem, then yes, I'd fully agree with them that the problem should be fixed as soon as possible. Until then I'm pretty happy with the way the plane performs anyway, so I have no complaints.
-
F4UDOA,
yes i see ur point, and i agree, the D9 wont turn beyond its stall frontier (1G stall speed i know is 204 km/h or 127mph for 1G, and 164km/h or 100mph at 1G in landing config) and the D9 is modelled right in this parts. I have tested it out and in landing config 100 mph is a real minimum and in flight u wont get below 127mph.
Its not the stall speeds i complain about, its only the E-retention/substained turn rate i find to weak.
The D9 should not lose E in a turn "as if u fly it into a wall" and this is my argument about.
I know the D9 would never turn with a Spit, Niki or ZEKE but from what i read it should be quite capable of turning with a P51 a P47 a tempest and tiffie.
The situation in AH we have for a D9 pilot is that everyplane will get seperation in a 180 degree turn from a D9, but in the books i read the D9 pilots did no high-yo-yo or other ACM to follow such a break, they simply flew too a flat turn.
And this is due to the good e-retention the D9 had. It could not match the circle of a Spit turn but it was not far of in the speed of turn. And this is my argument all about.
Btw does anyone know the stall speed (1G) of a P51, i read that the P51 wasnt able to fly at such low speeds like the FW190 due to the laminar wing foil (or how u call) wing construction.
-
Remember that induced drag increases with the square of lift. If you make the plane heavier, it needs more lift for a turn at a given g level, which means higher angle of attack and a lot more drag.
Wells has done a lot of number crunching on this subject (and posted it on this forum), and I'm sure HTC have done the calculations too. For the Fw 190, high wingloading + low aspect ratio = high induced drag = lots of decceleration in high g turns.
I'm sure the Jumo helped the Dora as compared to the Fw 190A-8, but I'm not sure if the power increase is enough to offset the weight gain from the lighter models A-1 through A-5.
[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
funked the big wing s are not the best thing for high speeds and especialy at high speed turns
-
Naudet,
The stalls for the P-51D power off from the pilots handbook.
Clean no flaps.
10,000lbs= 106MPH With full flaps=101MPH
9,000MPH= 101MPH With Flaps= 94MPH
8,000MPH= 94MPH With Flaps= 87MPH
I have some 190 docs too but they are in German.
-
Minus there is some truth to your statement for straight and level flight. But even at high speeds, once you start pulling a lot of g's, induced drag can quickly become the main source of drag on the airplane. And high aspect ratio and low wingloading will give the least induced drag.
-
My pet monkey said the D-9 was designed while Kurt Tank was having a few cognacs and that the P51 came to the designers of North American while tripping on South American hemp cigarrets mmm.
That's where I take their huge performance came from I believe it so because I said so .
Now I am just pulling your legs and being annoying.
After Flying the Dora in WB lemme tell you this the Dora in AH is a dream to fly, a LWobble's wet dream.
-
you aint just whistling dixie there glasses .......... all the 190s there are bad very very very bad
-
funked:-)) do no but puling lotof G in dora :-)) i pull around 4 and i call that hard pull wehn goin G5 or 6 that is the deseperate extreme and surely not at 420 tas i puling so are 3 g pull much or not at 400 tas ? when puling 3 g it take a eternity to turn anyway