A-1 Skyraider vs A-26

[XBe02Drvr]

Punching political officers (probably the same one as the intelligence officer) in the nose is probably a good idea, but also likely to be a career (or life) limiting move. Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.

True enough, but if you've just allowed one of Chairman Mao's precious airplanes to be destroyed and didn't go down with your ship, your courage (and your political reliability) are suspect, your nine lives are all expended, and you almost certainly have an appointment with a firing squad. Might as well go down swinging! Failure in combat is a crime against the people, a crime against the state, and a crime against your comrades.
As for straight wing vs swept wing, the Skyraider is a nastier customer than most due to its ability to slow down abruptly then re-accelerate quickly, and its agility at all speeds. Plus, those 20MMs can do a lot of damage.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[wuzak]

Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.

Along those lines

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g


Camel flying at max speed, Spitfire just over stall speed.

 

[Zipper730]

Zipper730, i'm the one who brought up the fact that A1's had shot down some Lavochkins AFTER the Korean war, exactly what model Lavochkin nobody knew at the time. La5, 7, 9 11, ?

Oh, I thought it was during...

I'm the one that brought La? verses A1 up

Ok

I suspect Zipper equates a kill with getting inside your victim.

Not at all, there were many cases where aircraft used the vertical plane or some combination of the vertical and horizontal, as well as exploited a lucky opportunity.

However considering the A-26 was said to turn inside an Me-109: I just wanted to know how they compared in that parameter. It is an interesting question: Which turns better a dive-bomber or a two-engine light bomber that replaced a medium or two.

At least one of the A-26's was designed as a prototype to be a night-fighter and I'm curious if strength was built in somehow to allow it to be a competitor with the P-61.

Zipper has earned the callsign "McNamara" for his obsession with mathematizing everything.

Actually, my questions start out with "which could turn better" and then it turns into a discussion about mathematics, at which point I press the issue further and get called McNamara, or told I need to learn a thing or two *rolls eyes* -- well duh! If I knew why the hell would I ask the question?

As for the Skyraider's Mig victims, they should go punch their intelligence officer in the nose for not warning them of the rattlesnake nature of their opponent. "Know thine enemy!"

Well with the MiG-17 or two that got bagged, I should point out that the North Vietnamese were not the most skilled pilots early on. Some of them would try and turn with it rather than use the vertical, and make slashing attacks.

Plus the slower the airspeed the more angle of attack it takes to stay up, so the more the thrust line diverges from the flight path. Only the flight path component of the thrust vector is useful propulsion.

So the angle of thrust reduces effective thrust compared to flying straight at low speed at 1g; and the increase in AoA producing greater drag?

I remember being told that the Spitfire at 350 mph producing around 1,000 pounds of thrust, probably a great degree more at lower speeds owing to net thrust variation. My question is does net thrust go up at all during initial acceleration before going down? It might sound silly but it's an honest question.

Also, the greater the angle of the prop shaft to the relative wind, the more variation there is in propeller blade AOA around the propeller disc. Thus at only two positions in the propeller disc are the blades operating at the optimum AOA that the governor is seeking. Everywhere else around the disc the AOA is greater or less than optimum.

So, the blades are sort of in a position that is progressively less ideal as the AoA increases? Is there any connection with this and p-factor (I ask because they both revolve around propeller blades at AoA that vary).

Jees, man, get a clue! DrGondog knows his stuff and explained it in plain English, then you turn it around and get it back-to-front!

I misunderstood, I figured as AoA increased the CL goes up, so I figured he somehow wrote it backwards. My question was intended to clarify.

The greatest CLmax occurs in straight-and-level flight, 1G, minimum airspeed: your basic power-off stall. In an accelerated stall such as you might encounter in a combat turn the aircraft's lift vector is near 90 degrees to the force of gravity

So you're producing lift sideways and upwards? Is coefficient of lift related to pressure differential?

for all the reasons quoted by DrGondog, the (rather violent) stall break occurs long before the straight-and-level power-off CLmax is reached.

So accelerated stalls occur at lower AoA too?

If there's the slightest assymetry in airflow, one wing stalls a split second before the other, and the plane stalls with a neck-wrenching helmet-bashing corkscrew motion.

Snap roll...

Those PROC pilots weren't undertrained, they were underproficient due to their degraded physical condition and insufficient monthly flying time to stay sharp.

Okay

Drgondog (Bill) stated the facts. He is correct. No use trying to turn it around somehow and getting it wrong in other words.

I didn't intend to get it wrong.

People have been shot down because they were weary and sleepy.

I screwed up that one

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hey Zipper,
Do you know how to draw a vector diagram? Look it up if you don't, then draw a side view of an airplane in a fifteen degrees nose up attitude. Assume it's flight path is horizontal. Now draw the vector diagram of its thrust with its horizontal and vertical components. You'll see what I mean. The steeper the pitch attitude the smaller the portion of the total effective thrust there is acting along the flight path.
Now draw a head-on view of a plane in an eighty degree bank and draw in the lift vector. That skinny little vertical component is all that's holding you up. Now if you make that vertical component equal to the weight of the plane, the horizontal component is turning force ACCELERATING the plane away from its original straight course, and the lift vector (hypotenuse) is the G load on the plane. Got it? Good. Now go read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and "Fly the Wing". Both are old standbys and the technowonks will say they're outdated and over simplified, but they'll give you a good start.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Hey Zipper,
Do you know how to draw a vector diagram?

No, but I'm taking a look at it

Look it up if you don't, then draw a side view of an airplane in a fifteen degrees nose up attitude.

I can actually visualize that in my head...

Assume it's flight path is horizontal. Now draw the vector diagram of its thrust with its horizontal and vertical components. You'll see what I mean. The steeper the pitch attitude the smaller the portion of the total effective thrust there is acting along the flight path.

Yeah the thrust is pointing 15-degrees down so basically 5/6 of it is pushing forward and the other 1/6 is pushing down at an angle.

Now draw a head-on view of a plane in an eighty degree bank and draw in the lift vector. That skinny little vertical component is all that's holding you up. Now if you make that vertical component equal to the weight of the plane, the horizontal component is turning force ACCELERATING the plane away from its original straight course, and the lift vector (hypotenuse) is the G load on the plane.

So could I put in a hypothetical bank angle that corresponds to a g-load I know (i.e. 60-degrees) for the purpose of getting the hang of the diagram, and make up a specified weight (15,000 pounds sounds good for now)? If so, I got 33,541 for the hypoteneuse, and for weight that gives me a g-load of 2.2361 rounded off. Is that the point, that you'll stall earlier than expected in level flight because the g-load is higher than it "should" be?

Now go read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and "Fly the Wing". Both are old standbys and the technowonks will say they're outdated and over simplified, but they'll give you a good start.

Neither seems exceedingly expensive...[/quote][/quote]

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hey Zipper,
This may sound pedantic, but draw it on paper, don't try to do it in your head. It's basic ninth grade trigonometry, but better to have it graphically depicted in black and white than imagined in the abstract. You went adrift somewhere along the line, as a 60 degree bank is your classic 2G turn, so your 15K airplane should have a 30K lift vector.
When your student gets a little too cocky for his own good because he's mastered 45 degree 720s, on airspeed, on altitude, rolling out on heading, you humble him up a little by having him do it at 60 degrees. A prolonged 2 Gs is daunting to most low-time students. If he/she can pull that off first try, you have another Dick Bong on your hands; send him or her to Annapolis or the Air Force Academy.
Enough of this kindergarten stuff. Come back when you've done your homework.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GregP]

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...

It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there. If you want to stray, it would help to start a new thread on it. That said, I am guilty of it, too, at times. I think we all are, but not almost every time we post.

Just as an excuse for ME only, coming up with a decent reply sometimes takes thinking and time. For myself, I don't usually have the time or inclination to address 5 - 10 things when looking one ething takes awhile. I have no kids, but wouldn't for them, either. It's like talking with someone who asks, "did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" There's no good reply ...

Maybe slow down, take your time, fit in while staying on-subject and staying reasonably short, and you might find out everything you want to know within a reasonable time, and create some good discussion, all at the same time. That's a good thing. Just saying .... you have some interesting questions, but you choose to throw them all out at the same time in a thread about a narrow subject not related to most of them.

Maybe I am seeing it wrong. If so, I am sorry and apologize.

Cheers to you and keep coming back, maybe a bit more focused on the thread topic. Discussion is a good thing, as I mentioned in a PM. If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits. You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books) and is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs). So, while he isn't exactly the resident teacher of aerodynamics, he provides many explanations that satisfy a lot of folks in here. If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative. Saves time, too. Bill answers regularly, but not all the time. He has a life away from the internet and research to do as well as writing. Can't publish without writing ... and reviewing. I bet that takes as long as writing or longer!

He almost absolutely WILL give textbook names and authors, for you to buy, read, and absorb. But he'll also know right away that you didn't if you keep asking questions covered in the text. Then, answers get less frequent. Many people SAY they'll get it and don't. In my case, I HAVE often gotten it, and haven't read it yet due to ongoing teaching activities. Makes no difference, but I don't argue about it much anymore. Every time I challenge Drgondog on aeroidynamics, he turns out to be right in the end. I am very glad he isn't a gunfighter. I'd be dead.

FYI, our chief moderator, DerAdler ... etc. was and maybe still IS in military heliicopters. FlyboyJ both flies and is also in aircraft maintenance, including warbirds and Reno race planes (regular race crew). Biff15, not a moderator, was an F-15 pilot until recently. And that's just three guys plus our aeronautical engineer/author/P-51 pilot, Drgondog. You know XBe02Drvr flies , too. There are many others as well as guys so well versed in engines and engine technology as to be scary. You know who they are. They are the ones who reply with meaningful information , and at length. It's hard to stump Wuzak, Shortround5, SwampYankee, MikeWint, and Kutscha, too. Apologies if I missed some, but I AM time-limited, too! A LOT of names, and all good people with good knowledge. Nobody in there wants to answer 20 questions all at once ...

You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread. But that can easily change, if you will. I hope you try it. We need some good discussion, a bit at a time, since a single subject opens up into others at an alarming rate ... I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...

Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind! They may wonder what it has to DO with anything, but some may at least try it, if it sounds good ...

Hope it is conveyed above, but no insult intended. Trying to help out a little.

Wait! This post is as long yours above! And covers too many off-topic (A-1 Skyraider vs. A-26) subjects, too. OK, I'll shut up now.

Sorry ... rambling. D'oohhhhhhh ....... it's LATE!


View: https://youtu.be/0bceCDG0lXk

 

[wuzak]

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper.
....

Wait! This post is as long yours above!

Irony?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)

 

[tyrodtom]

Zipper730 you keep saying the A-26 could turn inside a Bf109, but when you're ask for proof all you can tell us is you saw it on a TV program, one of the individuals involved a well known aviation expert, and a fire bomber pilot. Other than that no details.

It's a meaningless claim without details.

I'm beginning to suspect it's like your claim that a A1 could turn inside a La-5, or La-7. When I asked for proof, you replied it was posted earlier in this thread. But that was not true, it had not been posted earlier, nor implied, nor suggested.

 

[fubar57]

Last time I try and quote something from the pit

 

[fubar57]

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...

It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there.

This is why I blocked him. Plus it makes the thread only 3 pages long(JK)

 

[Zipper730]

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone

So you'd rather I post ten replies on the same thread than one that covers everything?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a curious person with a lot of interests.

If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits.

My knowledge of calculus and trig is very little, I can learn like anybody else.

You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books)

I had no idea

is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs)

The raw numbers are staggering

If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative.

As I said, I'm willing to learn.

You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread.

That sounds about right, the obsession with figures, facts, details, concepts.

I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...

I try to avoid bringing politics into the equation unless it is absolutely necessary to the discussion, as for religion, I'm not really religious, so that's not an issue, and I don't recall ever talking about probiotics.

Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind!

Good to know, plus I'm a fan of salsa

 

[GregP]

C'mon Zipper, you're doing the same thing above. There EIGHT quotes there! If I were to answer everything above, it would take a lot of time I do NOT want to dedicate to that.

But reading it, nice replies to a criticism. Cool. So ... OK, The tread topic is usually fairly narrow.

If you want to stray into areas other than the thread, the best bet is to start a thread yourself about the new topic (one topic). If you get no replies, then nobody wants to talk about it. If you DO get replies, it will go somewhere.

Saying that, I need to heed that, too! You are the first guy in here I can remember who could take criticism and still be civil, and that's a good thing! So, good on you! It's a tough thing to do, and it shows a willingness to talk. Tough for ANY of us, me included.

Offhand, I'd say 10 questions won't get answered because that is asking for a lot a dedicated time from someone who is basically in here to browse and maybe come across something interesting. They might address 1 to 3, if they answer, and then lose interest / time. Sometimes the wife / kids lets you have maybe a half hour before demanding attention.

It's like giving a presentation to management. Stay on topic and short and you have a chance. Long-winded guys and gals never get asked back for an encore. I live alone and have no "moderators," but also have things to do.

The most important aspect of WWII aerial combat was the pilot. You have already read it here, but a great pilot in a mediocre plane is better than a mediocre pilot in a great plane. Look what the Finns did early in the war with the Brewster Buffalo! That deserves an honorable mention in ANY discussion of pilot vs. aircraft quality. If we had sent them P-51Ds (not available at the time, so not possible), they might have won the war all by themselves!

Well, not really, but they were damned good at employing their planes to the best of the aircraft's capabilities. I'd say they were among the top pilots of the day, Germans included. Memo to posterity:
NEVER piss off a Finnish pilot if he is flying an armed aircraft. You may not have a nice day!

Good luck, Zipper.

 

[soulezoo]

Well, I learned a lot (reading the meat and potatoes while discarding the fluff).

 

[bobbysocks]

Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)

there is always ultralights and sport aviation ( if you didn't fail your last med exam )....its all well and good if you can handle low, slow and no fancy maneuvers.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

there is always ultralights and sport aviation ( if you didn't fail your last med exam )....its all well and good if you can handle low, slow and no fancy maneuvers.

Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...

It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there. If you want to stray, it would help to start a new thread on it. That said, I am guilty of it, too, at times. I think we all are, but not almost every time we post.

Just as an excuse for ME only, coming up with a decent reply sometimes takes thinking and time. For myself, I don't usually have the time or inclination to address 5 - 10 things when looking one ething takes awhile. I have no kids, but wouldn't for them, either. It's like talking with someone who asks, "did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" There's no good reply ...

Maybe slow down, take your time, fit in while staying on-subject and staying reasonably short, and you might find out everything you want to know within a reasonable time, and create some good discussion, all at the same time. That's a good thing. Just saying .... you have some interesting questions, but you choose to throw them all out at the same time in a thread about a narrow subject not related to most of them.

Maybe I am seeing it wrong. If so, I am sorry and apologize.

Cheers to you and keep coming back, maybe a bit more focused on the thread topic. Discussion is a good thing, as I mentioned in a PM. If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits. You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books) and is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs). So, while he isn't exactly the resident teacher of aerodynamics, he provides many explanations that satisfy a lot of folks in here. If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative. Saves time, too. Bill answers regularly, but not all the time. He has a life away from the internet and research to do as well as writing. Can't publish without writing ... and reviewing. I bet that takes as long as writing or longer!

He almost absolutely WILL give textbook names and authors, for you to buy, read, and absorb. But he'll also know right away that you didn't if you keep asking questions covered in the text. Then, answers get less frequent. Many people SAY they'll get it and don't. In my case, I HAVE often gotten it, and haven't read it yet due to ongoing teaching activities. Makes no difference, but I don't argue about it much anymore. Every time I challenge Drgondog on aeroidynamics, he turns out to be right in the end. I am very glad he isn't a gunfighter. I'd be dead.

FYI, our chief moderator, DerAdler ... etc. was and maybe still IS in military heliicopters. FlyboyJ both flies and is also in aircraft maintenance, including warbirds and Reno race planes (regular race crew). Biff15, not a moderator, was an F-15 pilot until recently. And that's just three guys plus our aeronautical engineer/author/P-51 pilot, Drgondog. You know XBe02Drvr flies , too. There are many others as well as guys so well versed in engines and engine technology as to be scary. You know who they are. They are the ones who reply with meaningful information , and at length. It's hard to stump Wuzak, Shortround5, SwampYankee, MikeWint, and Kutscha, too. Apologies if I missed some, but I AM time-limited, too! A LOT of names, and all good people with good knowledge. Nobody in there wants to answer 20 questions all at once ...

You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread. But that can easily change, if you will. I hope you try it. We need some good discussion, a bit at a time, since a single subject opens up into others at an alarming rate ... I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...

Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind! They may wonder what it has to DO with anything, but some may at least try it, if it sounds good ...

Hope it is conveyed above, but no insult intended. Trying to help out a little.

Wait! This post is as long yours above! And covers too many off-topic (A-1 Skyraider vs. A-26) subjects, too. OK, I'll shut up now.

Sorry ... rambling. D'oohhhhhhh ....... it's LATE!


View: https://youtu.be/0bceCDG0lXk

No longer in military helos here. Now I work on private and business acft. Mostly King Airs. Outside of maint., I fly small single engine acft.

Agreed with your post though. Cheers...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)

Good old 1900C?

Got two 1900D's in my hangar tight now.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.
Cheers,
Wes

It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.