Great logo Greg!
I worked on large aircraft in the RAF (VC10) and a large airline ( 747, 777, 767, 787 and A380) for 40 years. Aircraft damage was taken very seriously and if you caused damage the policy was put your hand up and tell someone in authority. After all safety and airworthiness were...
Performance reduction from pre production calculations to aircraft in service were usually the norm.
Best to ask Mike Williams of WWII Aircraft Performance if any one knows he will.
Neil
Combat performance is estimated, normal and military are from flight tests. The date of the chart is from February 1949, I would have thought combat power results would have been available by then.
Neil.
No.
Vought originally intended that the F4U-4 was to run its -18W at 70 "hg with 115/145 octane fuel, however, the -18W was limited to 60"hg with either 100/130 or 115/145 octane. During late 1946 the -42W was fitted to around 60 F4U-4 Corsairs and this could be run at 70"hg, however, the USN...
Firefly performance. Speed in KTS.
IMG_0524.JPG
IMG_0525.JPG
IMG_0526.JPG
IMG_0527.JPG
IMG_0528.JPG
Neil
Sorry wrong thread and F up posting the links. Info is here Fairey Firefly Performance - Sea Level vs at altitude.
Intended http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf and would of required 150 grade fuel. The Aeroplane magazine of 1946 gives 2,780hp at 3,000ft with this performance. No it doesn't give power in F.S.
Post war http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf...
Hi Kryten you can get a copy here, but you will have to pay.
Search results: British Performance Reduction Methods for Modern Aircraft | The National Archives
Another file that contains many charts and calculations.
Search results: aircraft performance data book | The National Archives
Neil.
Hi Jeff, regarding the 109F I think the higher speeds are not reduced to standard.
This is interesting Me 109 G-1 Flight Test
Basically it shows there was very little difference in performance between the 601E and 605A
Neil.
Dawncaster,
ps. but excuse me, if I did not read wrong british performance cards, the range in stated conditions of Mustang IV seems 2190 miles instead of 2690 miles.
Look at the bottom of the page, 2690 miles is including the rear tank.