MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I just looked at the Mk II Hurricane maintenance manual. The ailerons are aluminum and steel with fabric covering.
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The cut out portions of the aileron leading-edge where the hinge-brackets are mounted weren't completely sealed. Were specific factories and nations better at building and fixing them?Greyman said:
Was this lubrication standard maintained in different allied countries after 1941?
Such as?
Why would you want to alter the condition to that outside what the real plane would have?
How do you factor in the altitude differences?
I can't speak to the Hurricane aileron situation, but it's something you often come across with aircraft (and tanks, guns, uniforms, cigarettes, everything). These things aren't built by precision robots and there are a million things that can slightly differ during manufacture. This can be consistent enough to lead to pilots--for example--distinctly preferring Seafires built at Cunliffe-Owen as opposed to Westland-built ones.
For a blindingly obvious situation look no further than the 20-mm Hispano in British manufacture vs. US manufacture.
No idea. I would assume english-speaking countries were able to just get the latest manuals/amendments but I've occasionally seen gaps, shall we say, in support with regard to equipment to the Soviets. British negligence, Soviet stubbornness, U-boat deprivations, language barriers, all of the above ... I'm not sure. Not an area I've delved into.
- what altitudes
- which direction in rolling
- both directions averaged?
- how fast is the force applied to the stick
- is the rudder used to assist the roll
- is the nose kept level
- how large of a roll is to be measured, 45, 90, 360
- does the measurement begin as soon as the force is applied or when maximum roll rate is achieved
- what apparatus is used to measure stick forces
What a 'real plane' is evolves over time. A Spitfire Mk.V in spring 1944 is a very different thing than a Spitfire V in spring 1941.
One of the things about these tests which seems odd to us today is that sometimes major national Defense decisions were being made on the basis of just a few hours of testing on one plane (or two or three) which might just be a dud or having problems that day. As Greyman said manufacturing wasn't always consistent back then - and aircraft made in one factory could be twice as reliable or even 20 or 30 mph faster than the theoretically same aircraft made in another.Quite a few of these tests where they took 5 or 6 aircraft, one of the planes either wasn't running at all or was running at 3/4 power or something and they just went with the results they had anyway.
Today for say, auto safety tests (let alone military kit) we would do multiple tests over and over and get an average.
Back then, and through the cold war and to some extent even today, a single prototype crashing due to a freak accident or some kind of maintenance goof can cancel or seriously delay a major new aircraft design.
S
Today for say, auto safety tests (let alone military kit) we would do multiple tests over and over and get an average.
Back then, and through the cold war and to some extent even today, a single prototype crashing due to a freak accident or some kind of maintenance goof can cancel or seriously delay a major new aircraft design.
S
Ok
We took a perfectly good gun, and fixed it until it was broke...
So certain things weren't exported with all the bells and whistles, there were limits in resources due to merchant raiding and things of that sort, linguistic barriers, and each nation doing things their own way?
You'd figure that indicated airspeed would cover that, though if you're having issues with indicated airspeed vs altitude you'd be dealing with issues like IAS/TAS or IAS/Mach?
So in some cases they'd pick the best side, other times the worst? Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just list both.
Simpler, but less accurate
The faster would be theoretically closer to the absolute minimum, and would get the quickest deflection and get the fastest roll-acceleration from 0 dos to maximum, allowing one to gauge how quickly it'd initiate a roll and also stop the roll...
I thought almost all straight-winged planes used some rudder for this purpose?
Higher AoA would usually increase roll-rate, so I guess one could also factor in weight and g-load...
The larger the closer the average roll rate is to the peak roll-rate...
I'd probably have been inclined to do both so as to tell pilots that as a rule you'll build up roll a certain number of degrees a second, then peaking at this amount maximum.
What did they use?
I know that but if you're doing tests, you want to know what it can do *now* so pilots have hard figures they can use. For test purposes you'd do different stuff.
Really? I'd have figured they were both Mk.V's...
That's not what I meant: If altitude and IAS don't work out perfectly, what would you have used?
Yeah, that's what I'm kind of used to.
I don't know, test at 3 or 4 altitudes instead of just at 10,000 ft?
All I know is that i was told in a similar discussion to this years ago on another forum that P-47s had excellent roll and overall handling at 25,000 ft and they quoted some numbers and sources. Don't remember details though.
Down near Sea Level P-47 is kind of a dud though in many respects.
S
In terms of measuring devices I know almost nothing. The RAE was using a 'Henschel stick force indicator' for a certain period in 1940.
They certainly are both Spitfire Vs, but the one in 1944 incorporates hundreds of official modifications -- introduced incrementally over the years.
Makes sense, I was curious about some kind of graphing idea which covers altitude and IAS. I figured it'd have to be some kind of 3D chart lol.
I remember being told that it was the best in the USAAF inventory.
Frankly, it's my opinion that we should have built a larger attack replacement for the A-36 like an Army AD actually.
What's that?
Ok
Last edited:
Unfortunately the entirety of my knowledge about the device is derived from its name.
I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.
To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes.
To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #374
Kevin J
Banned
The P40's weren't free. We paid for all the Tomahawks (1180) and the first Kittyhawks (560) with hard cash. The rest were on Lend-Lease which we finally paid off in 2006.
- Thread starter
- #376
Kevin J
Banned
fubar57
General
Good stuff Kevin
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You have to also take into consideration that Britain was in a precarious position not only in Europe but her Commonwealth territories across the globe when war broke out.
The Hurricane was Britain's most advanced fighter in the late 30's but there were only so many to go around. Taking advantage of the P-40, which the U.S. had on hand and could mass produce, was a logical step to bolster the RAF's numbers.
The Hurricane served in nearly every theater of the war, but again, it's numbers were limited to a certain degree, so it could only be spread so far.
As a note, IAS notwithstanding aircraft handle quite differently with altitude change. Not only does the Reynolds Number of the fluid (Air) change there is a huge difference in aerodynamic dampening. At altitude this is often exemplified to the pilot as a reduction in stability, especially in roll. Hand flying a Herk say at 31,000' has very light controls in roll as compared to on the deck at very low temperatures with a density altitude approaching -5,000' or greater where the air feels like you are flying through cream cheese.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
