# Leading Edge Slats



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Here is a post from Shortround in the other thread:



Shortround6 said:


> Yep, the British should have persevered with this design instead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was wondering how many aircraft of that era had powered leading edge slats?

And how the slats would work/deploy on take-off in cases like the Bf 109 where the slats were deployed aerodynamically.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

I am not sure that any did, Or perhaps a few STOL aircraft with full span slats had manually operated ones? 









The part span slats, like on the 109 and the 3 planes I posted photos of, don't do a darn thing for lift/airflow until the angle of attack exceeds 13-14 degrees and nobody tries take-off with that angle of attack on the wing. Even the Ryan Dragonfly in the photos here is going to make it's take-off ground run at an angle of attack at which the slats are pretty much useless. If the tail wheel comes up the angle of attack is really far from the slats useful angle. 
What happens after the wheels leave the ground is a different story but the large angles of attack the slats work at are also very high in drag to lift, making gaining airspeed difficult. Useful for clearing obstacles (trees, hills, buildings) near the runway but not so good otherwise. 
I hope that makes sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2016)

You don't happen to know the wing area of the YO-51, do you?

Been looking for that one for years.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure that any did, Or perhaps a few STOL aircraft with full span slats had manually operated ones?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that makes sense.

Thanks SR.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

I think most of the 'STOL' aircraft of that era had fixed slats/slots, like the 'Storch'.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2016)

I thought the Lysander had automatic slots, certainly could be wrong on that


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

Glider said:


> I thought the Lysander had automatic slots, certainly could be wrong on that



They were automatic, but quite sophisticated in operation.
The Lysander had two sets of slats (inner and outer) which both operated automatically. Furthermore the inner set were interlinked, and linked to the flaps, all operating automatically.
Here's part of an article from a 1938 'Flight' magazine article.

_"The best and most recent example of a machine in which
slots and flaps have been utilised to the very best advantage
is the Westland Lysander. This machine has a top speed
of nearly 230 m.p.h., yet, with the slots open, the flaps
down and the use of a fair amount of throttle, it will fly
under full control at a speed probably lower than 55 m.p.h.
In this machine the slotted flaps are interconnected with,
and controlled by, the slots along the leading edge of the
inner section of the wing. Consequently, the pilot does
not need to worry about the operation of the flaps and is
freed of a good deal of responsibility. He simply flies the
machine as he wishes to fly it, and the slots and flaps do
the rest, while the wing-tip slots serve throughout to provide
adequate lateral control and stability at large angles
of incidence, and, of course, at low speeds.
Both sets of slots in the Lysander are entirely automatic,
but those at the root, which are used to operate the flaps,
are designed to open at a rather lower speed, and to close
again when an adequate margin has been obtained above
the highest normal approach speed. With varying speeds
the root slots and flaps open in such a way that, at the
Qorrect speeds for take-off, climb, glide-in, or landing, the
flaps are pulled down to their most effective setting. As the
machine is flown more slowly its characteristics change so
that, within reason, it can fly even more slowly."
_
Petter obviously liked slats as they were fitted, rather less successfully, to the Whirlwind too.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2016)

Thank you for that, much appreciated


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 26, 2016)

Are you talking AoA or deck angle?
With the slats as they are fitted to the 109, you will have the outboard section of the wings not stalled (due to the slats) but the inboard section of the wing will be stalled, so you won't be able to make use of that extra angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Absolutely correct, and not in dispute!!!
> What is in question is what happens to the 109 after it has gone past 13-14, or even 15 Degrees Angle of Attack?
> Can it make use of that extra 10-12 Degrees AoA that the Leading edge slats give it in combat, not necessarily to evade, but to pull extra G to make the pointing adjustment to fire his guns at a target that other planes with AoA's in the 12-15 Degree range can not even shoot at?


It has been pointed out here that many German LW aces said getting in a turning fight with a Spitfire was very unwise even when the Spitfire MK V was outclassed in all other fields of performance. Those were lucky men to even see a Spitfire because most crashed on takeoff,, where is my $1000. You seem to confuse normal pilots with Joachim Marseille who certainly did shoot across the chord and definitely shot down planes he could not see. That is life there are occasionally people appear who can do something with a piece of machinery that others cannot, I have two arms and ten fingers but that doesnt mean I will ever play a guitar like Clapton.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Absolutely correct, and not in dispute!!!
> What is in question is what happens to the 109 after it has gone past 13-14, or even 15 Degrees Angle of Attack?
> Can it make use of that extra 10-12 Degrees AoA that the Leading edge slats give it in combat, not necessarily to evade, but to pull extra G to make the pointing adjustment to fire his guns at a target that other planes with AoA's in the 12-15 Degree range can not even shoot at?


 




The inner 593.4mm appears to be the "area" of the wing "inside" the fuselage, or inside the wing root fairing. 
In any case the "area" of the wing affected by the slats is going to be about 37-40% of the area from the radiator flaps outwards. With the inboard section/area of the wing stalled (and the tips stalled) the ability of the 109 (or any plane with partial span slats ) to sustain an angle of attack beyond 13-15 degrees is going to be minimal to nonexistent. Think roughly triple the "normal" wing loading _while_
having 16 sq m of wing at angle of 13-15 degrees (or more) to the direction of travel of the aircraft. Basically a massive airbrake. 
You cannot pull _extra Gs. _Even if you can hold the "attitude" of the aircraft the aircraft will be "mushing" out of the turn even if the pilot can maintain enough control not to "drop" a wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 27, 2016)

A Bf 109 could never turn with a Spitfire, both flown to the limit, as I've explained before. I will try in simpler terms. The Spitfire wing gave cleaner and more efficient lift, with lower induced and parasitic drag and the lift stayed attached long after the Bf 109 wing had stalled. The Bf 109's wing also bled off energy faster than the Spitfire's.There was nothing that leading edge slats could do to overcome these essential differences in design. The slats were never designed as an aid to turning in combat, they were designed to make the aircraft more manageable for landing, the same applies to just about every other aircraft fitted with the devices, with the addition of take off to landing, depending on how the slats were fitted and operated.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 27, 2016)

Gents,

Having flown the Eagle against both the F-16 and F/A-18 (slat equipped planes), it's been my experience that they help in some regimes and hurt in others. My first sortie against the Viper had us merge in such a place that his slats hindered his performance and the end result was my being able to employ the gun against him (my IP railed on me in the debrief because I shot him with both a radar and heat missile prior to our merge, but hey I wanted to turn with him...). The Hornet has the exact same weakness and a much lower thrust to weight ratio. 

Slats out mean a large increase in drag. Tomcat had slats and variable sweep wings and was the least capable threat I trained against.

Sun Tzu said know your enemy and know yourself and you will know the outcome of every battle. Translation know your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and apply your strengths against his weaknesses without allowing him to do that to you.

I will not put any info on this forum that might be exploited, but realize I would fight a Me-109 in the same manner / considerations I use with more modern threats until I became more familiar with the nuances of such an endeavor. 

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

I am wondering, If slats/slots worked the way Shooter claims, why slot equipped TBF Avengers didn't turn inside Zeros and shoot them down??


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I am wondering, If slats/slots worked the way Shooter claims, why slot equipped TBF Avengers didn't turn inside Zeros and shoot them down??



Because they were turret equipped and didn't need to.

The main USAAF turret fighters (the B-17 and B-24) accounted for more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire, P-38 and P-51 you see....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I am wondering, If slats/slots worked the way Shooter claims, why slot equipped TBF Avengers didn't turn inside Zeros and shoot them down??


Because the TBF guys didn't want to make the SBD guys look bad!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter, you are the one with the theory. So you should do the diagram.

But, if both the attacking and target aircraft are in level turns, the position where the attacker's shells hit the target will be below his sight line.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You have seen the light! If you take the top 100 to 150 Me-109 Ace pilots who scored over 100 kills, and add up their scores, they shot down more planes than the Entire RAF, ALL of the USAAF Fighter commands, the Russians, or any other single Air Force. Maybe the second and third scoring AFs above combined?
> As to the second point about the bit in Yellow above, you are terribly uninformed. Why would you shoot at a plane you can not see?


Because in a tight turn, you're adversary will disappear below your cowling, that's why.

Several aces, particularly Marsailles, knew EXACTLY where his high-deflection shots would be landing as he entered into into his high-degree turn.

It's alot like trap shooting, knowing how much lead to put on the target...and he did that exceptionally well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> As to the second point about the bit in Yellow above, you are terribly uninformed. Why would you shoot at a plane you can not see? The simple fact is that the inverted engine gave the 109 pilot's a better view over the nose than a Mustang, or Spit. But that is not even remotely relevant!
> When the Ace pulls the extra Gs to make the shot, he still has a clear LoS to the target.
> Make the diagram I explained before and the see how far ahead the target has to be to still fall under the 109's guns which are pointed some 7 Degrees above the lowest possible Line of Sight.


Marseille could fly into a Lufberry circle and shoot planes out of it, this sometimes involved flying with flaps lowered, no one knew how he hit the target but he did. Maybe he had a three dimensional picture in his mind or estimated from the plane in front, what is certin he shot at such massive deflection the target was below the nose of his plane.

Look at the front windscreen of a 109, now tell me about the pilots massive field of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

Oh, yeah. I can see how looking down past the side of inverted V engine gave the German pilots such a good view that they could aim their guns without using the gunsight. ...........NOT.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

Hard to see out the front without looking through the sight 





Things never got better, maybe worse for the last in the line






Cheers

Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jun 28, 2016)

Frontal visibility from a 109 was terrible, they had to offset the gunsight for that reason!

Do you play computer games Shooter?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Kryten said:


> Frontal visibility from a 109 was terrible, they had to offset the gunsight for that reason!
> 
> Do you play computer games Shooter?


He probably does...one of two modes, most likely.

Either "chase view" or "no cockpit" with or without reticle.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> Hard to see out the front without looking through the sight
> View attachment 347190
> 
> Things never got better, maybe worse for the last in the line


The point of my post was that the 109 did not have the downward view to make these deflection shots.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> The entire idea is that during the early part of the BoB, the Germans used a tactic called Frei Jagdt, ( Sp?) where the escorts were free to hunt the RAF at will. The 109s sat on the "Perch" above the bombers and waited for the RAF to come up and play. Then they zoomed down, killed their single target and used the speed gained to zoom climb back up to the perch to look for a second victim. The dicta involved four or five steps; Look for the right target, look for impediments to killing that target, look for your escape route, then zoom down and ambush the hapless target and leave before his Wingman, or fiends could do anything about it. Because the RAF was required to attack the bombers, the 109s could use positional advantage to kill them at will and RAF losses were very heavy, for little return.
> The the German bomber crew, who were being taken to the cleaners complained that they were not getting good escort services and the 109s were required to stay close to the bombers and they lost their advantage. That caused the K/L Ratio to flip and the RAF started doing much better. But the 109s were not killing as many RAF as before and the BoB was lost, or won depending on which side you were on.
> One Strategy gave you the long term victory and the other gave the Bomber crews instant gratification.



Are we talking about the same BoB that happened over Europe in 1940? Admittedly, my knowledge is not up to snuff the way I want it to be on the subject, but at what point were the hapless Spitfires and Hurricanes being blown from the sky and not returning in kind? Um, even wikipedia isn't that... flawed.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Are we talking about the same BoB that happened over Europe in 1940? Admittedly, my knowledge is not up to snuff the way I want it to be on the subject, but at what point were the hapless Spitfires and Hurricanes being blown from the sky and not returning in kind? Um, even wikipedia isn't that... flawed.


To summarise, the LW shot down more SE fighters than the RAF, the RAF shot down more German aircraft in total, thats why it ended.

The LW fighters on their perch saw the last 50 fighters come and go then another last 50 and then another, finally over London another 50 appeared and the game was up.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter * also doesn't know what 'freijagd' entailed. It did not involve sitting above the bombers waiting for the RAF to come up and play, that would have been an escort. A 'freijagd' was a fighter sweep in our terms, just over half of all Bf 109 sorties throughout the BoB period were 'freijagd'.
The British simply tried to ignore them, they couldn't do any real damage. Late in the battle, to avoid scrambling fighters to intercept fighter sweeps, indistinguishable on radar from any other raid, Fighter Command flew patrols over the Channel to report the compositon of incoming raids, enabling the filter room/controllers to simply ignore a formation of Bf 109s on a 'freijagd'.

My grand mother recalled waving brightly at what she thought was a low flying British aircraft only to see it open fire on a local railway station, probably a Bf 109 on a 'freijagd'. The station would have been one near Canterbury, but she was never sure which one.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 28, 2016)

Some of the stuff posted here by our shooter-expert-on-all things BoB is very like a fairy tale - bl**dy Grimm !
I've seen some ill-informed b*ll*cks spouted before, but this one takes first prize - it's straight out of the offices of Marvel Comics, composed and edited by Mr. W. Mitty !!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

I believe there is a song that may be familiar to our Australian members that describes him. 

The Man from Humpty-Doo by Ted Egan.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

I should mention that my dear old grandma always said that the station strafing incident took place during the BoB period. I remember asking if it might have been later, because a little known series of raids by solitary fighters did take place later, in 1942. These were known as 'Stacheldraht' (barbed wire) operations and did specifically seek targets of opportunity, like a railway station. My grandmother was still in the Canterbury area at this time and human memory is, as we all know, fallible.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You have seen the light! If you take the top 100 to 150 Me-109 Ace pilots who scored over 100 kills, and add up their scores, they shot down more planes than the Entire RAF, ALL of the USAAF Fighter commands, the Russians, or any other single Air Force. Maybe the second and third scoring AFs above combined?


If you exclude the fighting in Russia here the Luftwaffe aircraft and training were so superior to the Russian airforce whose aircraft were slaughtered the whole argument falls apart. 
I would be interested to see what scores the Luftwaffe pilots achieved against the Spitfire. An aircraft most similar to the Me109/Fw190 during the war from beginning to the end.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 7, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You have seen the light! If you take the top 100 to 150 Me-109 Ace pilots who scored over 100 kills, and add up their scores, they shot down more planes than the Entire RAF, ALL of the USAAF Fighter commands, the Russians, or any other single Air Force. Maybe the second and third scoring AFs above combined?
> As to the second point about the bit in Yellow above, you are terribly uninformed. Why would you shoot at a plane you can not see? The simple fact is that the inverted engine gave the 109 pilot's a better view over the nose than a Mustang, or Spit. But that is not even remotely relevant!
> When the Ace pulls the extra Gs to make the shot, he still has a clear LoS to the target.
> Make the diagram I explained before and the see how far ahead the target has to be to still fall under the 109's guns which are pointed some 7 Degrees above the lowest possible Line of Sight.


Of the 103 German Aces with 100 kills, all but six achieved the majority of their success against Russian opponents on the Eastern or Arctic fronts.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 7, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The simple fact is that the inverted engine gave the 109 pilot's a better view over the nose than a Mustang, or Spit.



This goes against data I have - do you have any figures available?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2016)

The origin of the inverted V adopted by the Germans goes back to 1928 and a sort of 'think tank' meeting on the future of aero engines. There were very many features deemed desirable. Tender documents were sent to Daimler-Benz, Junkers and B.M.W., all of which eventually produced a V-12 engine model in response although none was able to incorporate all of the required features immediately.
In 1980 Wolfram Eisenlohr, present at that meeting, was interviewed about the 1928 requirement for inverted V-12s and he cited three reasons for the decision, none of which were included in the tenders and none of which are technical specifications pertaining to the engine. These were
- more compact installation,
- better pilot view for single engined aircraft,
- less exhaust flame dazzle during night flying.
Whether the pilot view from a Bf 109 is in fact any better I doubt very much. Engines were a lot bigger and consequently the length in front of the pilot longer, but in 1928 it was a consideration.
Eisenlohr was a brilliant man, but his background was in naval aviation and in the 1920s this meant air ships.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2016)

Better view for landing or better view through gunsight????
Two very different things.
Sticking DB engine in an airframe designed for Jumo 210 (or BMW 116?) is going to screw up the planed sight lines anyway.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 8, 2016)

One could take a drawing of the 109 and Spit put in some line of sight lines > one straight ahead and one over the cowling.


----------



## Ascent (Jul 8, 2016)

I don't suppose there are photos looking out of the cockpit for any of these aircraft?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2016)

I'll post some "3-view" layouts that may help give an idea of the line of sight forward of the cockpit on the various types.

The Spitfire's later types have a broader cowling that's difficult to see in the line drawings, that reduces the view "ahead and to the side" over the earlier types.

Click on the image to see the full resolution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 8, 2016)

The Hurricane appears to have a better over the nose sight line than the Spitfire or 109. The cowl mounted machine guns offset any advantage of the inverted V.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I don't suppose there are photos looking out of the cockpit for any of these aircraft?


Most cockpit photos are of the instrument panel and so give a somewhat distorted view through the windscreen. Camera often being behind and above where the pilots eyes would be and aimed downward to capture the lower part of the panels/stick and perhaps rudder pedals. There may be photos take through the gun sight but they seem to be rare and that is the important view. View through windscreen side/corner panels and down the side of the engine being rather useless for aiming the guns.


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2016)

Well, today I went into the museum and took my camera. Here is our almost-completed Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon from the side:






So ... I got into the cockpit and snapped a pic looking forward. As you can see from above, the cowling was off right in front of the windscreen, but you can get an idea:





Below is looking out left and forward:





You can see from above that piece of the instrument panel is out and you can see some connections behind it. Below is looking right and forward:





There's no use taking a shot off 90° to the side or straight up, but the view is just fine in those directions. You can decide for yourself about the view forward and forward-left or forward-right.

As you can see above, Voodoo is there for some personal attention from Steve Hinton Jr. So, I might as well throw in a pic of Voodoo:





All for now. - Greg

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
8 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2016)

You're welcome. 

Hope you can all come to your own conclusion about visibility. The canopy framing is rather massive, and the cockpit is narrow, with almost no room for leverage on the stick. But to the left, right, up and down, the visibility is great. Can't have EVERYTHING, but you can have most of it. 

The overall visibility is NOT as bad as I would have thought from looking at pictures, but is definitely less than from a P-51, Spitfire, or Corsair. I have been in all the cockpits at one time or another and they were a bit better forward, and about equal to the left, right or down. I would NOT say it is bad as some, including me, have speculated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

Thanks Greg.

Got any Spitfires? If you could jump in a few others and give us a comparison that would be great. Thanks.


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2016)

Well, Wayne, we don't happen to have a spitfire just now, but I can get a Douglas Dauntless next weekend, and perhaps a P-51 and the F4U-1a. Depends on what is happening next week. I am not supposed show the panels (not supposed to show things a visitor cannot see), but looking out without showing the panels may prove to be not objectionable to the museum.

I'll see what I can do.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

Thanks Greg, much appreciated.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2016)

British wartime data I have on aircraft 'fighting views' (the number of degrees from the sight line to the obstruction line):

Bf 109F - 3.0 degrees
Spitfire (merlin) - 3.5 degrees
Mustang (merlin) - 4.5 degrees
Hurricane - 8.5 degrees

The figures all seem to be rounded to the nearest basic fraction (1/2, 2/3, etc.). For example, they listed 4.5 degrees for the Typhoon, and measuring the view in this photo I get 4.40 degrees.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2016)

GregP said:


> Well, Wayne, we don't happen to have a spitfire just now, but I can get a Douglas Dauntless next weekend, and perhaps a P-51 and the F4U-1a. Depends on what is happening next week. I am not supposed show the panels (not supposed to show things a visitor cannot see), but looking out without showing the panels may prove to be not objectionable to the museum.
> 
> I'll see what I can do.



What is the issue with showing panels?
(Just curious)


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2016)

Greyman said:


> British wartime data I have on aircraft 'fighting views' (the number of degrees from the sight line to the obstruction line):
> 
> Bf 109F - 3.0 degrees
> Spitfire (merlin) - 3.5 degrees
> ...



How do the F4F and F6F compare?
I seem to remember a thread here discussing how conducive the F4F was to deflection shooting.


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2016)

We operate a museum and when people want special access, they usually come and ask for special permission to take photos. This usually means money for the museum, which is chronically short of money. Usually it is for a magazine article or a book and the museum gets a cut. After all, without the airplanes, the articles lose some impact.

As a volunteer, I can have access almost anytime I need it, not necessarily when I want it. That puts us in the position of being able to take money away from the museum when we post pics that normally require special permission. We have been asked not to do that. What I did above was to make sure no interior details were showing. The museum still may not like it. If not, there will be no more shots. Depends on who you ask and when.

My enthusiasm sort of got the better of me above and I'll make sure before posting another pic like that. I HAVE plenty of pics that would normally require special permission, but do not post them for these reasons.

However, whether or not I can post any more, you should be able to decide if the visibility from the basic Bf 109 is as bad as has been speculated. The Ha.1112 Buchon is basically Bf 109 G-2 ariframe, so you have that for comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> How do the F4F and F6F compare?
> I seem to remember a thread here discussing how conducive the F4F was to deflection shooting.



7.0 degrees listed for the Martlet. No information for the Hellcat unfortunately.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2016)

The Hellcat is the only conventional gear fighter I know of in which you can almost see the ground in front of the aircraft in the normal ground attitude. That is, only an occasional S-turn for forward visibility is required most of the time since the over-the-nose visibility is so good. If something like a small dog jumped in front of you, then you might not see it. But if an aircraft or vehicle is there, you definitely will see it in the normal ground attitude. In an airshow, you might still want a wing sitter, but in most normal circumstances, no.

Everyone I've met who has ever flow a Hellcat comes away impressed with it. The handling is viceless and forgiving, which is rare in a piston WW2 fighter. It has no trouble out-turning most opponents. Of course, they aren't exactly trying to kill each other, either. Contrary to what you might think, many of the owners of WW2 fighters get together and dogfight at least once every other year in private gatherings. Talking with them is like talking with a WW2 vet, his plane is the best, and they never met another they couldn't beat!

If I win a lottery, I'll join them! If not, well at least we get to work on some of them. I'm not as amazed by them as I was 10 years ago, and if i came back in WW2 reincarnated, it would NOT be as the crew chief of a radial-powered fighter! Way too damned many spark plugs to change! Also, if you're not 20 years old, it's hard to get into a Corsair! Getting out of one without coming away with large oil stains on your flight suit is also not easy. Simple in a P-51. I also strongly believe that no radial fighter that runs will ever rust anywhere near the engine since it throws massive quantities of oil all over the plane just about there. You could fill up a small block Chevy just from the drip pans ...

Let's see, the reason the A-1 Skyraider has such a large oil tank is because the job of the engine is to put 5 gallons down each side and 10 gallons on the belly of the aircraft each and every time you are impudent enough to actually start it and fly it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 10, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.


----------



## GregP (Jul 17, 2016)

I think no more internet cockpit pics ... not my choice, but I respect the choice.

Keep 'em flying and cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Jul 17, 2016)

Interesting photographs Greg, bit difficult to draw conclusions without the cowling and gunsight however, even without them the over the nose is very limited?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 17, 2016)

The Buchon might have a little different view from the cockpit than a Bf109, same cockpit, more or less, but the upright V12 verses a inverted V12. Much more of a distance from the top of the heads and intake manifold, than the distance to the furthest extent of the oil pan. 
Then there's the reduction gearbox on the front of the engine, how's it's prop centerline lines up with the crankcase centerline. It's probably different DB V12 verses Merlin V12.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 18, 2016)

Fixed slats on a ULM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

Want to torture an Aircraft Engineer?

Tell him to put leading-edge slats on this!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 18, 2016)

Slats and vortex generators

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 14, 2016)

Greyman said:


> 7.0 degrees listed for the Martlet. No information for the Hellcat unfortunately.



Came across some new info. 

8 degrees for the Hellcat.


----------



## mexchiwa (Sep 17, 2016)

That pic of the jet wing - is that an A-4?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 18, 2016)




----------



## mexchiwa (Sep 18, 2016)

So that's a yes?


----------



## Elmas (Sep 18, 2016)




----------

