F6F, FG-1, P-51, P-47 comparison

[colmbo]

Are you talking about power-off stalls, or deliberate accelerated stalls? I'm certain that no P-51 owner will let a back seater fly very far into a stall before he tells them to release back pressure on the stick.

I've never heard anything good about the P-51's stall behavior, especially when the pilot lets the stall fully develop. Power-on spins were prohibited as they were and still are considered very high risk. Recovery could take as much as 10,000 feet. More than a few pilots have managed to kill themselves spinning P-51s.

Normal, straight ahead stall, low cruise power setting.  There is no doubt that the Mustang is nasty post-stall (Hoover said he wouldn't do any snaproll/stall stuff because of the Mustangs post stall behavior), my reply was to the statement that  "Anytime you start testing stalls in these WW2 aircraft below 10k you risk the airframe.  That's a fact. "  Now if he was meaning actual flight test of stall behavior perhaps, but stalls aren't a huge deal when done properly.  That being said there is certainly nothing wrong with getting some extra altitude, altitude = insurance.  The problem comes up if you pooch the stall recovery and allow a spin to develop.  Any airplane, even the lowly Cessna 150, will bite if you don't fly it properly.

I'd have no problem doing stalls in a Mustang but I would never intentionally stall a B-24...it's stall makes the Mustang look like a trainer. <G>

[BnZs]

Tried that awhile and FINALLY got enough gap in the deployment times to see it happening. Still didn't skew the plane to any noticeable extent when it did happen. Considering how hard it was even get the effect, I don't think asymmetrical deployment constitutes much of a handling problem for the 109 in AH.

I figured out how to get one slat to open and the other remain closed.  109k, 50% fuel, at about 200mph do a lazy barrel roll with a bit of back pressure on the stick and rudder in the direction of the roll.  Do it right, and the outside wing slat will open while the inside wing slat remains closed.  Still, this doesn't happen much during combat.

[Golfer]

I've run into it numerous times in the eXtreme Racing League.  The worst that sticks in my mind was the Me-262 in various turns at very low altitudes.  It is exciting to be in a steep bank coming around a turn marker only to have one slat deploy wanting to throw you over on your back when you're not expecting it.  We spend a lot of time riding the edge of slat deployment and trying to hang on to every last bit of energy on race nights which gets us familiar with the edges of the flight envelopes of many of the airplanes.

[Bodhi]

Oh BS!  Geez, I've done stalls in a Mustang as a 500 hour Cessna pilot.   We were never higher than 7500', plenty of warning, no drama.

You have no idea what you are talking about if you don't believe testing on the edge of any flight envelope does not cause inherent risk to the airframe and pilot. 

BTW, sitting in the back seat while the aircraft is doing stalls hardly qualifies you as having "done stalls in a Mustang."  Further, power on and off stalls are a part of training for all Warbird pilots as they teach the recognition of the buffet (if any) and subsequent recovery to prevent departure. 

Last thing, being proud that you are doing stalls in a Mustang "never above 7500' " does not endear you to anyone here, it just shows recklessness and lack of understanding of the departure characteristics of the Mustang and the true danger risked being that low trying to get out of a spin.

[AWwrgwy]

From Air and Space magazine, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/mustang.html:

One of the grave dangers posed by the Mustang is its behavior during an accelerated stall--a loss of lift caused by disturbed airflow over the wing in a high-G maneuver like a tight turn. The Mustang can react violently, snapping into a roll and sometimes flipping over on its back. "It virtually gives you no warning," says Saether.

wrongway

[colmbo]

BTW, sitting in the back seat while the aircraft is doing stalls hardly qualifies you as having "done stalls in a Mustang."  Further, power on and off stalls are a part of training for all Warbird pilots as they teach the recognition of the buffet (if any) and subsequent recovery to prevent departure. 

Last thing, being proud that you are doing stalls in a Mustang "never above 7500' " does not endear you to anyone here, it just shows recklessness and lack of understanding of the departure characteristics of the Mustang and the true danger risked being that low trying to get out of a spin.

And I stated that doing flight test stall stuff is risky.  The post I replied to just made a blanket statement that doing stalls below 10K was risking the airframe...that's a BS statement.

I wasn't "sitting in the back seat", I was flying the Mustang.  I was doing as instructed by Lee Lauderbach..he happens to be the highest time Mustang pilot in the world and is considered by the Warbird community as one of the best so tell him how reckless it was...I can assure you he knows a heck of a lot more about it than you do. <G>

How much high performance aircraft time do you have?  What do you base your opinion on?

[Widewing]

And I stated that doing flight test stall stuff is risky.  The post I replied to just made a blanket statement that doing stalls below 10K was risking the airframe...that's a BS statement.

I wasn't "sitting in the back seat", I was flying the Mustang.  I was doing as instructed by Lee Lauderbach..he happens to be the highest time Mustang pilot in the world and is considered by the Warbird community as one of the best so tell him how reckless it was...I can assure you he knows a heck of a lot more about it than you do. <G>

How much high performance aircraft time do you have?  What do you base your opinion on?

Of course, stalls and accelerated stalled are completely different.

I practiced stalls in a Grumman C-1A back in the 70s. Nose up a bit, pull off power until the stall shaker begins to raise hell. Then, ease the yoke forward and gently feed in some throttle. The C-1A had an airflow sensor on the upper side of the left wing's leading edge. Stall onset was sudden and there was almost no buffet to warn the pilot. Thus, the stall shaker was employed on the yoke itself. Recovery wasn't difficult and altitude loss wasn't great. Nonetheless, since the parent aircraft (S2F) performed its mission at low level, a fully developed stall could find one running out of altitude before recovery was completed. Thus, the stall shaker carried over to the C-1A. These aircraft were also equipped with a G Limiting valve that gradually added resistance to the yoke as G increased.

By the way, Bodhi restores Warbirds for a living.


My regards,

Widewing

[Die Hard]

Tried that awhile and FINALLY got enough gap in the deployment times to see it happening. Still didn't skew the plane to any noticeable extent when it did happen. Considering how hard it was even get the effect, I don't think asymmetrical deployment constitutes much of a handling problem for the 109 in AH.

The 109E suffered from aileron snatching during asymmetrical slat deployment. The airflow over the wing was momentarily disrupted, resulting in reduced pressure on the top of the aileron pulling it swiftly upward. The aileron snatch problem was fixed with the F version. Asymmetrical, or even symmetrical slat deployment in the F/G/K series 109 would still make a loud bang and might throw the pilot off his aim at a critical moment, but nothing more.

A lot of severe quirks and handling problems are not modelled in AH; Spitfire aileron reversals (due to wing flexing) at high speed for example. Such extreme and very individual effects are perhaps beyond the scope of a game like AH.

[Cthulhu]

The 109E suffered from aileron snatching during asymmetrical slat deployment. The airflow over the wing was momentarily disrupted, resulting in reduced pressure on the top of the aileron pulling it swiftly upward. The aileron snatch problem was fixed with the F version. Asymmetrical, or even symmetrical slat deployment in the F/G/K series 109 would still make a loud bang and might throw the pilot off his aim at a critical moment, but nothing more.

A lot of severe quirks and handling problems are not modelled in AH; Spitfire aileron reversals (due to wing flexing) at high speed for example. Such extreme and very individual effects are perhaps beyond the scope of a game like AH.

I'd love to see aileron reversal in the game just to hear all the WTF's on VOX .  I believe the Jug had an aileron reversal problem as well. Maybe Widewing can set me straight.

[moot]

We also have perfectly still air in the game. No fluctuations whatsoever.

[BnZs]

The 109E suffered from aileron snatching during asymmetrical slat deployment. The airflow over the wing was momentarily disrupted, resulting in reduced pressure on the top of the aileron pulling it swiftly upward. The aileron snatch problem was fixed with the F version. Asymmetrical, or even symmetrical slat deployment in the F/G/K series 109 would still make a loud bang and might throw the pilot off his aim at a critical moment, but nothing more.

A lot of severe quirks and handling problems are not modelled in AH; Spitfire aileron reversals (due to wing flexing) at high speed for example. Such extreme and very individual effects are perhaps beyond the scope of a game like AH.

Yeah, CFSIII is the only sim I've ever seen that modeled the Spitfire reversal effect  . I don't feel any particular need for these effects to be modeled...the whole issue came up kind of in response to Krusty's idea that one of the most mediocre planes in the game also needs to be singular in having all of its warts accurately modeled. 

[Die Hard]

That's not how I see it. The P-51 had a lot of vices that are not modelled, not only bad departure characteristics. The P-51's heavy elevator forces at high speeds are particularly under modelled. In my opinion the P-51 and Fw 190 should have bad stall characteristics and the P-51 and 109 should have bad elevator response at high speed. A little known nugget of information is that the 109's were actually known to be able to pull out of dives earlier than Mustangs. If the fuselage tank is full on the D-Pony and the pilot stalls it nose-high, the plane should enter a nose-high spin like the Ta 152 does due to CG issues. But that's it; modelling anything worse is going too far for a game like AH.

[BnZs]

That's not how I see it. The P-51 had a lot of vices that are not modelled, not only bad departure characteristics. The P-51's heavy elevator forces at high speeds are particularly under modelled. In my opinion the P-51 and Fw 190 should have bad stall characteristics and the P-51 and 109 should have bad elevator response at high speed. A little known nugget of information is that the 109's were actually known to be able to pull out of dives earlier than Mustangs. If the fuselage tank is full on the D-Pony and the pilot stalls it nose-high, the plane should enter a nose-high spin like the Ta 152 does due to CG issues. But that's it; modelling anything worse is going too far for a game like AH.

Everything, and I mean everything, in this game arguably has under-modeled control forces. Both Zekes are still *somewhat* rolling and turning at 350mph IAS!

[Stoney]

...A little known nugget of information is that the 109's were actually known to be able to pull out of dives earlier than Mustangs...If the fuselage tank is full on the D-Pony and the pilot stalls it nose-high, the plane should enter a nose-high spin like the Ta 152 does due to CG issues.

 

I'd like to see references that describe the exact conditions you mention here.

[MiloMorai]

I'd like to see references that describe the exact conditions you mention here.

Read the P-51 pilot manual where it says not to use trim to pull out of a dive. The 109 could use its elevator trim to pull out of the dive.