Me110G-2, Me410 and Mosquito Mk.VI maximum speeds.

[Krusty]

Drag increases the TAS loss as you go up. This from comparing drag on 109 gondolas and DT racks, the value always increases as you go up simply because TAS increases.

For IAS maybe it stays the same?

[moot]

I can't say I speak from experience or even with much knowledge...take it what it's worth...but...

...if the numbers that come out from the CFD-analysis are within 20-30% of the calculated numbers you really haven't solved much IMO. Numbers from the theoretic, smooth 3D-model will always be better than reality. Although I'm sure that just like in any mechanical engineering field there's plethora of multipliers/coefficients that can be used to account for manufacturing imperfections and to create safety marginals between normal stresses and failure of a structure. Ie. I'm sure there are surface roughness multiplyers etc. to account for how a real manufactured aircraft would perform but setting these multiplyers is obviously kind of "guess work" in this situation. Obviously there aren't any "black and white" answers to be found as every aircraft is an individual...especially 60 odd years ago.

What goes without saying is that it would be an awesome learning experience and you would come out of it knowing helluva lot more than you know now. For that alone it would be more than worth it but IMO you shoudn't be doing it for the results alone as you might be dissapointed with the lack of conclusive results.

I'd love to fail at trying to put it all together, but it sounds like I won't have enough time for it.  I'm think I'm gonna find an aerospace professor and ask some questions in person..

[FLS]

Morfiend since drag force is airspeed and air density I'm guessing it's about the same at various altitudes for a given IAS until you get into compressibility and wave drag which is more likely at higher altitudes.

[morfiend]

 Thx FLS,


  In my simple mind I assumed the drag would be higher in the "thicker" air down low and therefore have it's greatest effect at SL. Again to my simple mind I thought this might have something to do with the lower speeds attributed to the 410 vs the Mossie.

 I know it's much more complex than that,drag squaring with speed and such but I wasnt sure how much if any the alt would effect this.


     

[FLS]

The drag is certainly greater at low altitude when you compare it with high altitude at the same true air speeds.  That's why the maximum speed of aircraft is not at sea level. But air density affects drag similarly on all aircraft. So all aircraft fly faster as the air gets thinner. Then engine performance starts to suffer from the thinner air, so unless the aircraft have the same engine, their relative speed difference will not be the same at all altitudes, because the drag vs thrust will not stay the same when the engines are not affected the same way by the thinner air. So it's likely engine differences that you see at altitude and not drag differences from the thinner air. 

One you get into compressibility it gets more complicated and beyond my understanding.

[Tupac]

Parasite drag is the real killer for the 410

[Karnak]

Another possible explanation is simply the same problem as the RAE's initial tests on an undampered Merlin 25 Mosquito VI.  It is possible the RLM was given a lemon to test.

In the case of the Mossie, said lemon was shaving 15-20+mph off of what it should have been doing.

[moot]

There's mention of the Me 410D (with DB 603 JZ) having a reworked cockpit/nose shape.  Anyone have any idea what that reshaping looked like?

[Krusty]

I don't think it ever was built?

Plus any refernces I've read so far just showed it as an engine upgrade. Not sure on the nose change.

[moot]

No but a look at the projected shape could be some clue of how "Bad" the production nose is for aerodynamics.
I didn't write down where I read it about it.. damn

... Warplanes of the Luftwaffe Hitler something something: p.249, halfway down the right text column:
<<  The Me 410D, with the new twin-wheel gears, annular-cowled 603 JZ engines and revised forward fuselage (which was expected to give better pilot view and lower drag). >>

[moot]

... I should have posted this here.  A service 410A with no turrets and no antenna mast only gained 20kph "at altitude".  So the turrets should count for at most 10-12 mph.  This aircraft was supposed to have GM1 boost but it's not clear if GM1 was used on the flight +20kph was recorded; the turrets' and antenna mast's drag would only be smaller with it. 

[moot]

Found both pictures of it.

[moot]

From Generalluftzeugmeister meeting notes, dated 6/15/43

"In the area of the Angriffsfuhrer England [Generalmajor Dietrich Peltz?], an Me 410 is said to have increased its speed by 40 kph [25 mph] through the use of filler paste, something which possibly indicates the potential of this measure, or the poor build quality."

[RTHolmes]

there ya go - the key factor is parasistic drag.

[Scherf]

piccies no workies