Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

For a single incident on a one time maintenance flight to be repaired. Maybe...

As for continuing normal operations, no way.

Nothing you have shown has any aircraft continuing to operate normally.

From an earlier post - ironically it was another Westland Product..



Page 47 of 'Whirlwind' by Victor Bingham-1987

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Do you know for a fact the LE slats were disabled on these?

Yes, ferry flights out of Mojave Ca on aircraft removed from storage. Not the norm however.....

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are pilot correct? Have you made many frontside curve approaches?

If you want to include short field landings in a Super Cub!?!?

[Soren]

Crumpp,

What would the sustained load factor be for the Fw-190 A-5 by comparison to the A-8 ?

[Crumpp]

If you want to include short field landings in a Super Cub!?!?

You can't be on the frontside of the curve in a Super Cub and make a short flield landing. You would be dead.

You are probably confusing terms here as I do not doubt your experience in a Cub.

Page 47 of 'Whirlwind' by Victor Bingham-1987

That would be a first. As it is this second hand information and not a primary source, I would be interested in seeing the Boscume Down reports. It would not be the first time a secondary source is wrong in it's conclusions.

All the best,

Crumpp

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You can't be on the frontside of the curve in a Super Cub and make a short flield landing. You would be dead.

You are probably confusing terms here as I do not doubt your experience in a Cub.

I take your term as being on the front side of the curve as having both power and airspeed in a landing configuration....

[Crumpp]

What would the sustained load factor be for the Fw-190 A-5 by comparison to the A-8 ?

It is worse than the FW-190A8's.

The P51D has a slight advantage over the FW-190A5 throughout the envelope.

Nzmax is a direct reflection of Power Available to Power Required. The FW-190A8 has a better P/W ratio than the FW-190A5.

FW-190A5 Take Off Weight as per Ladeplan for an overloaded clean configuration fighter:

I take your term as being on the front side of the curve as having both power and airspeed in a landing configuration....

We are confusing terms here.

The front side of the power curve refers to the portion of the flight envelope where throttle controls airspeed and elevator controls altitude. We can only use the term "power curve" when referring to propeller aircraft.

This is also called the region of normal command. In this portion if we go slower, it requires less thrust and to go faster requires more thrust. Think of operating the aircraft at speeds at or faster than maximum range cruise or L/Dmax.

You can see why landing of the front side of the power curve is not normal or safe. You can also see why the C-17 manual calls for maximum braking and reverse thrust ASAP.

The backside of the power curve is the portion where throttle controls altitude and elevator controls airspeed such as landing.

This is also called the Region of reversed command. If for any reason, the aircraft is slowed down, more thrust is required to maintain altitude. Here going slower requires more thrust and going faster less thrust. Notice on landing that reducing thrust causes our sink rate to increase. Sink rate is velocity. The airplane needs this speed to remain aloft. However it takes a large amount of power to maintain level flight at approach speeds.

Because propeller aircraft are not thrust limited at low velocity, they can lead pilots to the wrong conclusions about what is going on with aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

[delcyros]

I think this has been a good discussion so far. And my estimation is that we all have learned a bit.

Good work Crumpp for providing us with an approach to sustained turning rates free from personal objection. I hope You stay with us.

I think Glider, Kurfürst and others have pointed us to a very important constraint: typical performance vs. best (or for that matter...worst) aircraft performance.
There are a lot of first hand sources in those webpages, and selective perception may happen on all sides.

Thanks also to Drdondog, You are a wealth of information!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

We are confusing terms here.

The front side of the power curve refers to the portion of the flight envelope where throttle controls airspeed and elevator controls altitude. We can only use the term "power curve" when referring to propeller aircraft.

This is also called the region of normal command. In this portion if we go slower, it requires less thrust and to go faster requires more thrust. Think of operating the aircraft at speeds at or faster than maximum range cruise or L/Dmax.

You can see why landing of the front side of the power curve is not normal or safe. You can also see why the C-17 manual calls for maximum braking and reverse thrust ASAP.

The backside of the power curve is the portion where throttle controls altitude and elevator controls airspeed such as landing.

This is also called the Region of reversed command. If for any reason, the aircraft is slowed down, more thrust is required to maintain altitude. Here going slower requires more thrust and going faster less thrust. Notice on landing that reducing thrust causes our sink rate to increase. Sink rate is velocity. The airplane needs this speed to remain aloft. However it takes a large amount of power to maintain level flight at approach speeds.

Because propeller aircraft are not thrust limited at low velocity, they can lead pilots to the wrong conclusions about what is going on with aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ok - I think I Gotcha - you're on final (say in a cub, no wind) nose high and using power to control pitch - if you lack the airspeed, you drop, if you lack the power you drop BUT if you had altitude you could lower the nose to pick up that precious airspeed without increasing power - am I understanding?

[Soren]

Thank you Crumpp, but is that with the A-5 running at 1.65ata ?

The A-5 weighed in at 4,100 kg and the A-8 4,300 kg, correct ?

PS: The LW deployed a light version of the A-7 with MW-50, how would that compare ?

[Crumpp]

Ok - I think I Gotcha - you're on final (say in a cub, no wind) nose high and using power to control pitch - if you lack the airspeed, you drop, if you lack the power you drop BUT if you had altitude you could lower the nose to pick up that precious airspeed without increasing power - am I understanding?

Hi FlyboyJ,

In this example you are on the backside of the power curve. You are using elevator to control airspeed and throttle to control sink rate.

That is a clear indicator you are on the backside.

Thank you Crumpp, but is that with the A-5 running at 1.65ata ?

Hi Soren,

No it is normal fighter variant. There were not any fighter variants that used 1.65ata in any form for the FW-190A5.

The A-5 weighed in at 4,100 kg and the A-8 4,300 kg, correct ?

FW-190A8 - 4272Kg
FW-190A5 - 4106Kg

The LW deployed a light version of the A-7 with MW-50, how would that compare ?
Today 04:49 PM

I am not aware of this variant and none of Focke Wulfs documentation show such a variant.

MW-50 was used in the H and S series engines. Very late in the war it possibly was used in the BMW801D2 series. Alkohol-Einsptrizung systems produced less power and required the additional weight of the tank over other systems used by BMW.

All the best,

Crumpp

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Hi FlyboyJ,

In this example you are on the backside of the power curve. You are using elevator to control airspeed and throttle to control sink rate.

That is a clear indicator you are on the backside.

Now I gotcha!

Sorry to go off topic guys......

[Crumpp]

I think Glider, Kurfürst and others have pointed us to a very important constraint: typical performance vs. best (or for that matter...worst) aircraft performance.

Thank you, delcyros. I enjoy these discussions with mature individuals.

I agree that typical performance is very important.

All the best,

Crumpp

[renrich]

My reference show the P51 D with a sea level vmax of 367 mph, the P51B was slightly faster at SL. The F4U 4 was fastest of all at SL(US fighters) with Vmax of 380 mph. Same reference shows the P51D is introduced into the 8th AF in March of 1944. Same reference shows F4U4 could climb to 20000 ft in 6.8 minutes. Another reference shows the FW190D9 took 7min 6sec to climb to 19685 ft. The F4U4 was a significantly better climber.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Hi FlyboyJ,

In this example you are on the backside of the power curve. You are using elevator to control airspeed and throttle to control sink rate.

That is a clear indicator you are on the backside.

Hey Crumpp;

In answering your original question about this - I've flown L-29s and on landing you are controlling sink rate with elevator because of the spool-up time of the engine and because of a very long flare if you do come in with power at that point you rely on the speed brake providing you're not on a short field...

OK guys, again sorry for going off topic....

[Glider]

Personally I enjoyed it and continue to learn something in most threads

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

OK guys, again sorry for going off topic....

Hey Joe you know you dont have to apologize. It is a good and informative side discussion. I think everyone can gain from it as well.