Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

JonJGoldberg · 02-05-2006, 03:25 PM

...As for other things:

I didn't even know about 'Kommandogerat' before I became a member here. So far as I can tell, I would have to agree with the postings that tell of it's outstanding ability, as opposed to it having a fatal flaw; as I agree about not having ever read about it's failure. Great postings by the way.

Indeed under certain conditions, the installation of the radiator on the P-51 provided positive thrust, not enough to wright a letter home to mama, but it signifies that its installation caused little, very little drag.

FLYBOYJ · 02-05-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJGoldberg

Flyboy... I gotta love ya! Your one line questions during my table construction were great; you have not lost your 'touch'. You beat me to the punch. Bank angle is one question, tail distance from CG is another; I have more but, let’s look at bank angle.
paul.kachurak answered you by saying (wrap-up) it has nothing to do with turn rate. paul.kachurak I'm surprised at you, & Flyboy I'm disappointed in your acceptance of paul's answer.

Thanks John, but I quickly accepted his answer becuase for the most part he was correct and showed that bank angle table...

What I was looking for was the statement "at a load factor of 2 the bank angle is 60 degress. Every single airplane from a B-52 to an F-16 to a Cessna 182." Now with that 60 degree 2G bank, start discussing the actual turn radius for the given aircraft - that I haven't seen here....

The site also showed "the formula"

I think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...

JonJGoldberg · 02-05-2006, 04:07 PM

...To put it much much more simply, a desired turn (turn rate) has a load factor that affixes a bank angle. I've not seen anyone approach turning by looking at a load factor as the turn solutions point of origin, nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance. For example the FW-190 is stressed to, memory now, I'm not looking it up right at the moment, 9 g, where the P-51 is rated for 8 g. We should be able to conclude that the FW-190 easily outperforms the 51, as it is able to maintain higher bank angles, load factors, and now from here turn performance (data) can be assessed based on airframe stress values alone. I do not agree with this approach.

syscom3 · 02-05-2006, 04:11 PM

So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?

wmaxt · 02-05-2006, 04:43 PM

[quote="FLYBOYJI think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...[/quote]

Here is a site that has a table showing turn rates and times. I think some parameters were assumed (such as a 9g limit) so that all aircraft would be compared on an equal basis.
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/corner
There are other charts to but I'm not sure if these were derived to incorporate into a sim or taken, at least partialy, from a sim.

wmaxt

lesofprimus · 02-05-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?

Without a G-Suit, yes, he will be out before 9G's...

FLYBOYJ · 02-05-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJGoldberg

...To put it much much more simply, a desired turn (turn rate) has a load factor that affixes a bank angle. I've not seen anyone approach turning by looking at a load factor as the turn solutions point of origin, nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance.

Well it is - you'll know by looking at some of the charts for the aircraft that if you enter a 30 degree bank turn at 400 knots Indicated for example, you'll load up the plane and start benting it. For aircraft I've flown it bolis down to slowing down or lessening the bank angle.

[quote=wmaxt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "FLYBOYJI think we're all saying the same thing, but the real "mea"t here is to show 30-45 degree bank angles turns at say 10,000 feet at say 300 knots, I'd like to see a chart like that comparing these aircraft...[/quote

Here is a site that has a table showing turn rates and times. I think some parameters were assumed (such as a 9g limit) so that all aircraft would be compared on an equal basis.
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/corner
There are other charts to but I'm not sure if these were derived to incorporate into a sim or taken, at least partialy, from a sim.

wmaxt

My point....

You go beyond that you'll bend the airplane...

FLYBOYJ · 02-05-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Quote:

So youre saying the FW190 can handle 9G turns? Wouldnt the pilot black out before then?

Without a G-Suit, yes, he will be out before 9G's...

YEP!!!

wmaxt · 02-05-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Several years ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine about the P51's radiator arrangement. It produced quite some "free thrust" from its design. Wouldnt that boost its speed at a seemingly lower power rating?

What it really did was by slowing the air before passing it through the radiators allowing it to absorbe a greater percentage of the heat from the radiator. The Only thrust generated, or can be generated, was by the heat expansion caused by the transfer of heat from the radiator. This helped reduce the drag of the cooling system but never came close to a positive thrust situation.

Heres a site that deals with both the "Merideth effect" (again a British therory) but the laminar flow and high speed tests of the P-51.
http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html
This summs up what I've learned about the P-51s main atributes.

wmaxt

JonJGoldberg · 02-05-2006, 06:25 PM

Flyboy... 1st I'm sorry I used a double negitive... "nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance." so I probably screwed up what I was saying, bank angle is very relevant in the comparison of two aircraft.

The charts you lead me to belong to a sim; regardless all the aircraft were rated at 9 g why; to make the table easier to create, or the sim easier on your computer? Either way this aids my point most clearly. If it is so darn easy to base turn performance on airframe loading, why choose to distort that loading, then create a table based on that distortion.

Or I might ask which you would choose, in a turn fight, the Zero or a T-bolt. Remember the T-bolt has a higher g rating...

syscom3 · 02-05-2006, 06:48 PM

I didnt think the gee suits available in the 40's were rated for those high G turns.

It seems to be an academic question about what aircraft can handle the higher gee's......... if the pilot is blacked out, then hes going to be shot down even by a pilot in a sopwith camel thats conscience and and coherant. And if his airplane falls apart in midair because of the Gee stress's, it doesnt matter cause hes already blacked out and/or unconscience.

lesofprimus · 02-05-2006, 08:17 PM

Its like the same thing with the F-22... That bird could pull 12 G's or more, but the human sitting in the cockpit cant pull em with the plane....

paul.kachurak · 02-05-2006, 09:32 PM

Jon,

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Honestly I can't follow it.

So what I'll do is write down the formulae, I'll scan it and I'll post it here. This really isn't that hard from an aero performance standpoint. What are you not understanding so I can help? The forumlae I used are standard aero performance stuff straight out of text books.

FLYBOYJ · 02-05-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJGoldberg

Flyboy... 1st I'm sorry I used a double negitive... "nor is it a number that is not relevant in the comparison of two aircraft's turning performance." so I probably screwed up what I was saying, bank angle is very relevant in the comparison of two aircraft.

The charts you lead me to belong to a sim; regardless all the aircraft were rated at 9 g why; to make the table easier to create, or the sim easier on your computer? Either way this aids my point most clearly. If it is so darn easy to base turn performance on airframe loading, why choose to distort that loading, then create a table based on that distortion.

Sometimes as a dumb pilot (like myself) its easier to remember

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJGoldberg

Or I might ask which you would choose, in a turn fight, the Zero or a T-bolt. Remember the T-bolt has a higher g rating...

At what speed?

JonJGoldberg · 02-05-2006, 10:46 PM

...I know, I know, what the plane can handle exceeds what the man can. But the on assembly line of 'man' no two molds are the same, each pilot blacks out within a similar range, but at different times. Part of your 'skill' as a pilot is that you must be able to gage your own individual capabilities, or tolerances if you will, against those of your piers and adversaries, & learn how to apply them.

Of the many flaws in current sims, this to me is the biggest one; that their can be no pilot differences such as mentioned, as the screen blacks out at the same time for each player, if indeed the feature is available & used. So the teenager, as he observes this grandpa show him how he used to fly his FW-190D9 back in the day, will experience the screen darkening at the same point as his mentor, even though this obviously would not be the case. Therefore, for this reason more than any other, no matter how many hours I spend at the computer as pilot of my pixilated aircraft, I can only get so close. Missing sensations, such as wind, or gravity are not nearly as critical, to me, as the fact that a sim knows nothing of the 'machine' that operates it, and therefore can not reproduce the world as if it were being seen though the operators 'eyes'.

Back to the thread; given what was said above, about the fact that the machine can handle more than the man... Today, once again, we build cars that exceed the 'limits' imposed by law & or reason. Drivers of these machines routinely & 'comfortably' exceed these limits. We all enjoy exercising controlled excursions into the realm of the forbidden. We relish the fact that our car can allow us to do this sometimes, those times being times of our choosing... The fighter pilot in his F-22, or P-51, having flown this bird for a while, should have a trick or two, or a series of 'moves' that if he his lucky, or diligent, or both, that he has learned how & when to apply, that others can not usually implement or counter as well as he. For example, maybe he has learned that he recovers faster than most after being 'blacked out', and has 'honed' a maneuver that takes him to his personal limit. This can not be done in in aircraft that does not exceed the operators limits.

Obviously there are serious risks involved, and at times, even the best of the best do not recover from their mistakes made during the exploration of the limit of man & machine.

So I guess we are all standing on line at Burger King, as we are all ordering our Woppers, some with cheese, some no onions, our way; as the friendly clerk takes our money, & issues our own personal snadwich of satisfaction.

I Love This Place!!! ...oh no that's a McDonalds slogan, I think. Is a Whopper better than a (actually two) Big Mac (s)?