Author Topic: WWII Fighter Performance Comparisons (Read 1185 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2004, 07:19:02 PM »

XJazz,

It may not be possible to bring the Buffalo to Aces High. If memory serves, most of the performance data is lost. What a shame.

Regards, Shuckins

bozon · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2004, 01:44:27 AM »

the acceleration figures, both level and diving are problematic. acceleration at what speed?
for very low speeds this is based more on power loading, for higher speeds aerodynamics becomes more important.

Bozon

GScholz · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2004, 02:39:03 AM »

Shuckins, use the (code) (/code) tags to make tables. Excange the () with [].

Shuckins · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2004, 08:05:37 AM »

Bozon,

The acceleration figures are based on the aircraft starting from an initial flight condition of 250mph at sea level, using Combat power, and with propeller efficiency assumed constant at 80 percent in all cases.

For the relative vertical diving acceleration the aircraft start at 25,000 feet in both 30 degree and 90 degree (vertical) dives. The rankings pertain only to the initial portion of the dives.

After a few thousand feet in the vertical dive the aircraft would be reaching their one g dive speeds that I listed in the table entitled "Dive Limit Speed."

Regards, Shuckins

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2004, 10:17:08 AM »

The trouble of these overall comparisions is always how to weight the characteristics... ie. best speed should count 1.5 time as best armor protection, or should they be equally counted ? How much should firepower count? It always roots in preference, and the task.

Good job, BTW.

VooDoo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2004, 11:54:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
The acceleration figures are based on the aircraft starting from an initial flight condition of 250mph at sea level, using Combat power, and with propeller efficiency assumed constant at 80 percent in all cases.

Stop. Are these figures calculated ??? If yes what means "propeller efficiency assumed" ??? Why need to asume if u have ability to test real aircrafts ?

F4UDOA · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:11:36 PM »

Shuckins,

Some of Dean's data was wrong. Take a look at the loaded weight for the F4U-1 and F6F-3/5. The F6F was 200LBS heavier empty than the F4U. For power loading empty weights are more telling.

Also the dive speed limitations are based on 3G pull outs not actual dive speed limits.

Take a look at the NAVAIR charts for more accurate weights, HTC actually has a very good account of fighter weights.

Shuckins · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2004, 09:59:21 PM »

F4UDOA,

Good to hear from you. Glad you responded.

I respectfully disagree. Using gross combat weight as a starting point yields a more realistic power loading figure. With full internal fuel and ammo and no external stores, the F4U-1D had a gross weight of 11,962 pounds. The F6F-5 had a gross weight of 11,693 pounds. Gross weight for each aircraft would, of course, vary considerably, depending on the weapons and fuel demanded for specific missions.

Regards, Shuckins