Seriously though, there's a little test proposed by bozon, which was posted in DaLadyzMon's thread named
"Fighting that D*mn N1K".
* Up a N1K, 100% fuel
* Accelerated to about 250mph after getting up 1000 feet.
* Gently pull on the stick until the speed drops under 100mph
* Hold the pitch angle manually so the speed ranges steadily between 80~95mph.
With the stall warnings kicking in the N1K holds it's yaw, pitch and roll axis super steady and climbs that way in 80~95mph at 2700~3000fpm indefinately.
I tried the test with a Spit9, A6M5, Bf109G-10 and La-7.
The Spit9 encountered shaking in the roll/yaw axis when it prolonged that super-low speed climb for too long, and soon, had to let the nose down a little to get some more speed over 100mph to regain stable control.
The A6M5 was very stable, much the same as the N1K2.
The Bf109G-10, once the speed hits under 100mph, couldn't hold that angle of climb manually and stalled.
Ditto with the La-7.
No wonder the N1K2 seemed to follow zooms like a helicopter. Anything short of a direct 90 degrees zoom, the N1K2 can follow. Even a Bf109G-10 stalls before the N1K2 does.
I'm a layman at aerodynamics. So here's my question.
If there's a plane that has massive torque, which is flying at high AoA at 80~100mph, shpuldn't it eventually stall out(like the Spitfires did?)?
.......
I understand planes with low wing loading have lower stall speeds and are usually much more stable near stall conditions.... but is what the N1K2 is capable of doing normal?
