Yes, that is true for early Oscars, Japanese needed to reinforce the main spar of the early Oscars.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A pilot who was at Java described a Hurricane coming in to land when some Oscars suddenly appeared and set the Hurricane on fire. The pilot pulled up to about 800 ft and bailed out successfully. The Oscar then pulled up sharply and broke up.
That is not the only case in which Oscars were seen to break up in a dive.
At least they were scoring victories.In fact Soviet pilots were not very fond of Hurri and at least over Artic it was an underdog against 109Fs or even against FiAF's Brewster B-239s. Of course the skills of pilots had marked effects on the results of the air combats. And the armament of 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 12,7 mm was effective.
Juha
That's a name from the past. Not a big fan of the Spit, or anything else that wasn't a 109IMHO that was Kurfürst's opinion on Spitfire not on the 45 Impgal slipper tank.
Juha
That's a name from the past. Not a big fan of the Spit, or anything else that wasn't a 109
Thanks for the source, even if I knew the docu beforehand. But who hell would use 5 lb stick force, except maybe badly wounded pilot, in a life and dead situation? The 30 lb or more is much more realistic for real life combat situation.
Juha
I agree that low stick forces was a plus in any fighter.When you look at gun camera footage, roll rates are typically not extreme, and the responsive roll rate with low stick forces was a nice feature. Extreme dogfighting is actually pretty rare.
My main point was that Spitfire and Hurricane roll rates were nearly identical, which is true, so on the NACA868 chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
The Spitfire (normal wing) is going to be nearly identical to the HurrIcane.
The Hurricane was also shown to have excellent (comparatively) rolls rates in Flying to the Limit, data from which was posted earlier in the thread [post 129].
Yes when also Hurri had metal ailerons, Mk Is had fabric covered and at least the late Mk IICs seems to have had metal covered ailerons. Weight distribution along the span also had its effects on how fast the roll began.
Have you source for that? because following graph says something different.
Wow that didn't come out right let me try again,
Hawk/Hurricane/Spitfire/Buffalo
asi/ time to 45 degrees/force
200/2.2 sec , 8lb /1.3sec,10 lb/1.8sec,10lb/1.7sec,10.5lb
250/2.3sec,14lb/1.4sec,15lb/1.8sec,18lb/1.7sec, 14lb
300/2.sec7, 20lb/1.5sec ,21lb/2.1sec, 35lb/1.7sec, 17lb
350/4.0sec, 27lb/1.6sec, 38lb/2.6sec, 55lb/1.8sec ,20lb
390/5.5sec ,33lb/1.9sec, 34lb/3.5sec, 80lb/1.6sec, 24lb
It sounds like the hurri had relatively light control forces, which is not the same thing as saying that roll rate was good. This also doesn't match the claim that the Spit and Hurri had similar roll rates.
I guess roll rate is not as simple as one might think.
For sure. There are potentially a lot of 'ifs', 'buts' and fine print when an aircraft's roll characteristics are described in a single word.
Thanks to Juha for jogging my memory and getting me on the right track re: NACA Spit/Hurrie testing ...
The ailerons of the Spitfire and the Hurricane airplanes were less effective than the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speeds because the large control forces limited the obtainable aileron deflections. For small deflections, however, the ailerons of the British fighter airplanes were very light and responsive. Many pilots were very favorably impressed with the aileron characteristics because of this fact. A true picture of aileron characteristics was obtained only after tests were conducted under simulated combat conditions where large aileron deflections are required. - NACA
The British were light at low speed but became so heavy at high speeds that they were nearly useless?The ailerons of the Spitfire and the Hurricane airplanes were less effective than the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speeds because the large control forces limited the obtainable aileron deflections. For small deflections, however, the ailerons of the British fighter airplanes were very light and responsive. Many pilots were very favorably impressed with the aileron characteristics because of this fact. A true picture of aileron characteristics was obtained only after tests were conducted under simulated combat conditions where large aileron deflections are required. - NACA
Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?Ok .. new chart with the new data:
View attachment 499436
Roll velocity in degrees per second, speeds in IAS. All stick forces 30 pounds.
A6M3 Type 32 (RAAF data)
Spitfire (RAAF data)
Spitfire V (NACA)
Hurricane II (NACA)
F4F-3 (NACA)
The two Spitfire curves are there to illustrate the inconsistency of roll performance on similar aircraft. Something I've run into many many times looking at roll performance.
Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?
The British were light at low speed but became so heavy at high speeds that they were nearly useless?
Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?
I don't think the Hurricane ever had metal ailerons. It was tried briefly when it was also experimented with on the Spitfire, but unlike the Spitfire, it was found there was no benefit.