- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While it might sound stupid, but I'd rather sound a little stupid and be informed than stay ignorant: This figure includes or does not include the overload/ultimate load?All prewar US bombers - were designed to +3/-1.5G Limit loading at design combat loads.
Where would you find one?I have not seen a spec.
YesAn empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.
No...I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but
At a given altitude, the Spitfire could perform a level turn with a smaller radius and a higher speed than the Bf 109.
Okay, so I guess the slats would simply make it close but not superior. I had been curious about that.
Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.An empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.
At 15,800 lbs, it was about an 8g airplane (bottom of a dive) and could climb about 3,500 fpm. By the time it was at 22,500 lbs, it was down to a 5.9 - 6.0 g airplane or so. It could haul 6,000 to 8,000 lbs of ordnance and could loiter on-station for hours. I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but, if it did, the airframe could take it easily.
I've never seen a flight envlope drawing for a Skyraider, but also never really looked for one, either. I suspect it could be quite deadly if configured for air combat, but that was never the Skyraider's primary mission, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty.
I doubt seriously if anyone ever flew air-to-air missions in a Skyraider, so getting documented evidence of the performance in that mission would be rather unlikely, to say the least. If anyone out there has it, please share!
It wouldn't add any performance at low altitude far as I know, but the plane was both a heavy-attack and light-bomber in one, so it would be useful with the level-bombing variants I guess. A lot of design changes would have had to been made.GregP said:Maybe they need to fit it with a multi-stage supercharger?
I didn't realize it was still that different even at lower-speeds. All I knew was that the turn-rates were closer at lower speeds than at higher ones.No, not that close in reality.
Actually yeahWell, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.
I didn't realize it was still that different even at lower-speeds. All I knew was that the turn-rates were closer at lower speeds than at higher ones.
What it says moreWell, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.
What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a a wingtip almost in the treetops.Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.
What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude, and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a wingtip almost in the tree tops.Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.
I've never seen a real turn comparison between equivalent Spitfire and Bf 109 models. All I have seen is people fropm both sides making claims. If would be good to see a test from both the German and the British side of equivalent aircraft versions!................
No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!
Cheers.