Author Topic: Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect  (Read 4969 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2007, 12:58:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Pilot manual contradict this so who's right ?

Btw what is the Naca profile used by the Spitfire a know good diver ?

this issue is also not related to the Typhoon.


Straffo, I doubt that you could be objective in this discussion as you have long since been known as a "Tiffie dweeb" in Aces High. You like fast planes with cannons, best for cherry picking, I suppose.

Nonetheless, the fact is indisputable that the Typhoon and the Tempest have virtually identical dive characteristics in the game. They should not.

The Spitfire wing is a NACA 2213 at the root (12% thick) and a 2209.4 at the tip (6% thick).

The Tempest wing is a H/1414/37.5 at the root (14% thick) and a H/1410/37.5 at the tip (10% thick).

The Typhoon wing is a NACA 2219 at the root (18% thick) and a NACA 2213 at the tip (12% thick).

Critical Mach limits for the above aircraft should be in the order presented, as indicated by the chord to thickness ratios.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: June 22, 2007, 01:00:53 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2007, 01:25:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Straffo, I doubt that you could be objective in this discussion as you have long since been known as a "Tiffie dweeb" in Aces High.


I try to be objective , please note that I didn't jump on you screaming and drolling and I just made you notice (and I was not alone) that your comment was in conflict with pilot manual.

Quote
 You like fast planes with cannons, best for cherry picking, I suppose.[/B]


I'm  a tiffie dweeb for a lot of reason all historical ,nothing related to the capabilities of the tiffie ,I'm just a 2ndTAF fan living in Normandie where it  operated and where a lot of 2ndTAF pilots are buried.

See my love for the typhoon as a tribute to the young man who lost their lives  helping my country to be free again.

Also as we never met online I think you can stuff your comment about my cherry picking abilities in your favorite place (see when I'm pissed I start easily to be incorrect).


Quote
Nonetheless, the fact is indisputable that the Typhoon and the Tempest have virtually identical dive characteristics in the game. They should not. [/B]


I've not the Tempest pilot notes (well it should be buried in some unknown place)  I can't invalidate or confirm your opinion.

But as far as I remember the change made to build the Tempest where not because of the inabilities to dive of the Typhoon ,I'll try to make a list later.

Quote
The Spitfire wing is a NACA 2213 at the root (12% thick) and a 2209.4 at the tip (6% thick).

The Tempest wing is a H/1414/37.5 at the root (14% thick) and a H/1410/37.5 at the tip (10% thick).

The Typhoon wing is a NACA 2219 at the root (18% thick) and a NACA 2213 at the tip (12% thick).

Critical Mach limits for the above aircraft should be in the order presented, as indicated by the chord to thickness ratios.[/B]


That narrow it , on (and last question) what profile is used on the P47 ?

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2007, 02:34:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
I try to be objective , please note that I didn't jump on you screaming and drolling and I just made you notice (and I was not alone) that your comment was in conflict with pilot manual.

I'm  a tiffie dweeb for a lot of reason all historical ,nothing related to the capabilities of the tiffie ,I'm just a 2ndTAF fan living in Normandie where it  operated and where a lot of 2ndTAF pilots are buried.

See my love for the typhoon as a tribute to the young man who lost their lives  helping my country to be free again.

Also as we never met online I think you can stuff your comment about my cherry picking abilities in your favorite place (see when I'm pissed I start easily to be incorrect).

I've not the Tempest pilot notes (well it should be buried in some unknown place)  I can't invalidate or confirm your opinion.

But as far as I remember the change made to build the Tempest where not because of the inabilities to dive of the Typhoon ,I'll try to make a list later.

That narrow it , on (and last question) what profile is used on the P47 ?


I'm not presenting an opinion. It is a fact that the critical Mach of the Typhoon was substantially less than that of the Tempest. The relative chord to thickness ratios makes that evident.

As to the P-47, it used a Seversky/Republic S3 wing at the root (15% thick) and the tip (8% thick).

Edit: Added comparison of S-3 profile with NACA 2219 overlay for comparison.



My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: June 22, 2007, 02:53:55 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline TimRas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2007, 02:39:35 PM »
To summarize:

Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Placarded maximum permitted dive speeds at 10k are as follows:

P-47D: 500 mph IAS
P-51D: 500 mph IAS
P-38L: 440 mph IAS
F4U-1D 443 mph IAS
F6F-5: 449 mph IAS


Typhoon: 525 mph ( no altitude given)
Tempest : 540 mph (10k)

and:

Quote
Originally posted by dtango
Don't mistake compressibility effects with critical mach number.  Critical mach number is the point that supersonic flow occurs on the wing at some point.  This doesn't mean that shockwaves have formed and are strong enough to cause significant separation of flow which leads to compressibility effects on control.

For stability and control issues to occur the shockwaves have to reach a point that causes enough premature flow separation behind them that impacts the tail.  This flow separation creates the compressibility effects we are aware of e.g. a) buffeting - because the downwash from the wing on the tail subjects the tail to extremely turbulent flow due to the separated flow, b) tuck under - because the downwash from the wing is reduced which increases the angle of attack on the tail, c) loss of pitch authority - because of elastic deformation on the tail boom which reduces the effectiveness of the elevator.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2007, 04:20:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Kev the issue has nothing to do with the flight model, we can set critical mach where ever it should be.

The issue is simply about conflicting data sets, and where the critical mach should be. And that is not a simple question to answer.

HiTech


I guess that settle it.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2007, 04:47:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hazzer
Naca ruined the P39,this was a 400mph aeroplane all be it without armour or Guns,till NACA made them remove the draggy turbo charger air intakes,and the Turbocharger with it!..P39 Naca'erd..lol


  Thank God they didn't get hold of the P38,almost identical air intakes...Less draggy..I don't think so.;)


You're perhaps confusing the radiators on the P-38 with air intakes for the engine, since they look somewhat similar to the air intake on the side of the XP-39. The P-38 does not have large air scoops to take in air for the engines anywhere. The scoops under the propeller cowls are for the oil coolers, and on the late models, for the oil coolers and the chin mounted core type intercoolers. Those large scoops on the sides of the tail booms at the back are for the radiators.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2007, 04:51:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
I believe they were the ones responsible for those useless tail weights on the 38


Actually, although I'd have to look it up, I think it was actually a general who forced the installation of the goofy counter weights on the elevators, because he was convinced the compression effects were actually "tail flutter" (I could be wrong, going off memory here). The elevators actually have counter weights built into them internally, in the form of structural bracing and thicker skin. Kelly Johnson said the only thing the external weights did was possibly injure or kill pilots who bailed out.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2007, 04:57:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hazzer
Bell were outraged by  what NACA and the AAF did to their aeroplane at wright field,but on the verge of financial collapse,their was nothing the company could do,they needed the Orders.

  The prototype climbed to 20k,in 5 min's!

due too NACA's obsession with streamlining - due largley to underpowered radial engined Aircraft,they were used to dealing with-the P39 became a missed opportunity,or the Iron "DOG":)


While NACA provided the drag data and the streamlining data, it was the USAAC that decided the turbo inlet scoop probably caused more drag than the turbo made up for in horsepower. POSSIBLY at altitudes BELOW 12,000 feet, that was true, or at least close to a toss up. Now, ABOVE 15,000 feet things were VERY different. But remember, it wasn't until the original P-39 orders were taken that it was discovered that a lot of fighting was starting to happen ABOVE 15,000 feet.

Also, it must be stated that turbochargers were in short supply, and between the P-38 and the P-47, and other planes using them, it was all GE could do to make enough of them. Further, as power went up later in the war, even the P-38 had to be modified to make room for a big enough intercooler to make the turbocharger effective and reliable at higher power levels. By 1943, they'd have been looking for a place to put a much bigger intercooler on the P-39.

At altitudes of 12,000 or less, the P-39 isn't so much of a dog as many would believe.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect
« Reply #68 on: June 22, 2007, 06:47:57 PM »
There were indeed supply problems with the turbochargers, GE was making them as fast as they could, and the Army had to decide which combat a/c to give priority too, and that ended up being the bombers, like the B-17, and some fighters like the P-38 (intended as a high alt fighter from the start). By the time the problem started being addressed the war had already begun in the Pacific, and the P-39Ds went as they were. Hindsight is always 20/20 I guess.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24