Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Seriously, Delcyros, that is incorrect. The automatic LE slats start to deploy already at low AoA's, that's fact.
The LE slats work by delaying boundary layer seperation, increasing the critical AoA CLmax of the airfoil by approx. 25% in the covered areas. The slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is.
Bf-109, Me-262 F-86 pilots generally all loved this device because of its very positive effect on the turn rate stalling speed of the aircraft.
Incorrect. The airframe is the limit, which means 8.5 - 9 G's.
What the slats do is allow the Me-262 to reach its limit earlier in the speed range than the Meteor. At very high speeds it all becomes equal as a max performance turn will either rip the wings off the a/c or make the pilot unconcious.
And that is downright wrong. Automatic LE slats do NOT increase drag at all Delcyros. What you're thinking about is fixed LE slots.
Automatic LE slats function by means of airpressure, extending gradually as the pressure on the top of the wing gradually decreases as AoA is increased. There will NOT be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall, this is at the critical AoA, but that goes for all wings, with or without slats. When the critical AoA is reached drag is suddenly and violently increased and now overcomes lift, creating a stall.
But, the tighter your turn the more the drag, and that is universal. So when the Me-262 turns tighter than the Meteor it is whilst generating more lift also generating more drag.
Again you're incorrect, by virtue of its clean design the Me-262 has much better energy retention in maneuvers than piston engined a/c. Furthermore energy retention is NOT acceleration, it refers to the rate of energy loss in maneuvers, and here the ME-262 retains its energy much longer than any piston engined fighter.
LuftWaffe test-pilot technical inspector Hans Fay:
"The Me-262 will turn much better at high than at low speeds, and due to its clean design, will keep its speed in tight turns much longer than the conventional type aircraft"
Me-262 POH, Flight characteristics:
"(2) The airplane holds its speed in tight turns much longer than conventional types"
True.Like I said with higher lift comes higher drag, that is inevitable, simple law of physics. So like I said, the tighter your turn the higher the drag, and that is universal. So when the Me-262 turns tighter than the Meteor it is whilst generating more lift also generating more drag.
...and in return will find itselfe beeing outaccelerated by the Meteor....And yes the Me-262 does have poor low speed accelleration, however as speed reaches ~400 to 450 km/h the Me-262 starts to out-accelerate propeller a/c fast!
While AR-ratios beeing a case for importance, Your statement in context of our comparison is pure speculation, Soren. AR-ratio differences -the way You used them- are only true for wings with identic properties as to AIRFOIL, REYNOLDS-NUMBER and basic planform (except chord-span relation). Are You going to say that Meteor and Me-262 have the same airfoil, same chordlength, same planform? In orcer to support Your claim You need the EXACT aerodynamic properties of each wing, respectively.Also remember that we're comparing the Me-262 Meteor here, not the Me-262 and piston engined fighters, thus the energy loss in a tight turn will not be any higher than that of the Meteor, actually it will be lower because of the higher AR wing.
Indeed but nontheless important, too. I a going to stress the opinion that the Me-262 is no turnfighter. Turning at such high aoa´s will bleed off the remaining energy quickly. And the Me-262 has a harder time to get the ernergy back...And about energy retention, well like I said it refers to rate of which energy is lost in maneuvers, nothing else. What you're talking about Delcyros is the rate of which energy is regained AFTER maneuvering - two completely different things!
Nor did I ever spoke of a "stepped" increase in drag. The slats do NOT increase CL-max per se, they just allow a higher angle of attack to happen due to delying of boundary layer seperation. higher angle of attack = more Cl-max = more drag. BTW, there is additional drag due to the increased surface of deployed slats and related friction resistance.As explained the slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is. There will NOT be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall, this is at the critical AoA, but that goes for all wings, with or without slats. When the critical AoA is reached drag is suddenly and violently increased and now overcomes lift, creating a stall.
Slats are dependent on air pressure, correct. However, THEY DO NOT INCREASE CL-MAX AT LOW AOA´s , deployed or not. You have Your own charts to proove this. If You doubt this, feel free to submit Cl-max-aoa charts, which say the opposite. I have provided such charts above. You won´t find any supporting lift increase at low aoa´s. Therefore, it´s pretty irrelevant if LE-slats deploy at low aoa´s, if they deploy, they do add only friction drag, not lift. LE-slats are useful at high (better say extreme) aoa´s, when the wing -in other conditions- would have been long stalled. They do DELAY boundary layer seperation, they don´t make the boundery layer thicker or so. THE 25% CL-max INCREASE IS ONLY AVAIABLE AT HIGH AOA´s.And yes the slats start to deploy early on in the AoA range, they're dependant on air-pressure and thus the speed level of they're deployment is dependant on this pressure. Try flying a real a/c equipped with this device, you'll see that the slats start deploying very early on.
...and in return will find itselfe beeing outaccelerated by the Meteor....
While AR-ratios beeing a case for importance, Your statement in context of our comparison is pure speculation, Soren. AR-ratio differences -the way You used them- are only true for wings with identic properties as to AIRFOIL, REYNOLDS-NUMBER and basic planform (except chord-span relation). Are You going to say that Meteor and Me-262 have the same airfoil, same chordlength, same planform? In orcer to support Your claim You need the EXACT aerodynamic properties of each wing, respectively.
BTW, there is additional drag due to the increased surface of deployed slats and related friction resistance.