Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
An additional note:
In many Pilot's manual only one IAS speed is given (e.g. for Typhoon).
Tempest limiting speed is given as 540mph below 10,000ft.
P47N:
564 mph at sea level
522 mph at 5,000ft
482mph at 10,000ft
So there are many caveats in this graph.
Btw. very big thanks to Micdrow for most of the pilot's manuals.
Hi Bill:
Girbig puts German casualties at 87 for November 26, 1944 and notes a loss of at least 90 machines. US claims were what, about 98 – 100 destroyed? Do you have a LW loss list in detail for 26 November 1944? Fwiw here's the 361st Fighter Group's Mission Summary Report of 26 November 1944. Interestingly their claims were adjusted up from 19 to 23 destroyed after review.
Mike - I do not, but Erich has compiled a detailed list of the JG 301 losses which include 355/361 and 339 clashes from ene Celle to Dummer Lake.
I'm having a hard time getting to JG 1 and JG 6 losses for the same area.
Mike - That definitely is one I would like translated!
...could I ask for a copy of this as well, better still load it onto your site and put a link on.
I made a graph of allowed dive speeds [mph, IAS]. Iin case of German and Russian fighters the limits are probably minimum requirements rather than their actual limits, because the speeds are the same (750 and 650km/h respectively).
The sources are mainly "America's Hundred Thousand" and Pilots manuals.
In case of F4F and Fokker the speeds are actually their terminal speeds.
Hop - From the Dive tests at Wright Pat - I'll try to find the Boscomb Down report but it is similar. The Spit had a slightly higher M for recommended maximum but your P-51 figures are understated and out of context from the actual USAAF and RAF dive test results and reports.
Additionally the 51 did not have much of a 'tuck effect' in dive, or high stick forces, with test noting that the biggest danger was over controlling the stick in a dive or entering a tuve from a roll or steep turn at high altitude and airspeed.
Summary
Manual - limit Dive = .75M recommended
Test - limit Dive = .8 M recommended as maximum
Test Summary
Compressibility effects noted at .76
Ultimate Dive = .81 to .83 (attain at high risk)
.84 to .85 actual achieved and with significant damage and very high risk - maximum dive attained in the Tests
Porpoising effects believed to be initated by 'ballooning' of fabric elevators (true - and fixed with metal elevator modifications in production P-51D-10 and retro fit kits for all prior models.
Actual Report
TSCHEP 5R/RLB/MEM/2-6258
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
Date:- 9th October, 1944
url
Note on Dive Tests on 'Mustang IV'
Details/summary
1. Reference is made to Inter-Office Memorandum, P.W. Nosker:ffc: 51 dated 27 June, 1944 and Lt. D. B. ParkerC:51 dated 10 July, 1944 from Chief, Aircraft Laboratory to Chief, Flight Section requesting that compressibility dive tests be conducted on the P-51D airplane.
2. A series of thirty-one dives was conducted by the Flight Research Branch between 3 August, 1944 and 16 September, 1944. These dives included high and low altitude tests and limited stability tests at high Mach numbers. A complete report of these tests is in the process of preparation at the present: however, the necessary information is forwarded so that it may be made available immediately for operating instructions.
3. The results indicate that the airplane should be restricted to a Mach number of 0.80 due to compressibility difficulties which become increasingly dangerous beyond that point. It is recommended that the airplane be placarded with the following limit diving speeds:-
Pressure Altitude (Ft.) Pilot's IAS (m.p.h.)
40,000 275
35,000 310
30,000 345
25,000 385
20,000 425
15,000 470
10,000 505
5,000 505
4. Porpoising.- The P-51D airplane, at high speeds, is subject to the longitudinal instability commonly referred to as porpoising. The results to date indicate that the condition may be induced at a Mach number of 0.70 and above, but may be encountered at somewhat lower Mach numbers at low altitude. It is known that the fabric bulge in the elevator surfaces is more critical at low altitudes and may be related to the airplane's increased tendency to porpoise at lower Mach numbers in that range.
The porpoising is not a severe condition and can be controlled. In the first place, the condition is usually induced by the pilot, since any ununiform elevator stick force will result in the porpoising at high Mach numbers. Any effort on the part of the pilot to counteract this effect will result in increasing amplitude. It may actually be stopped by holding the stick firmly in one position or, in fact, eliminated by trimming forward gradually to near zero stick forces as the dive is entered, thus reducing the amount of forward stick forces necessary to maintain the dive angle.
5. Rolling.- As a Mach number of 0.75 is approached , a slight amount of rolling may become apparent with a simultaneous reduction in aileron sensitivity. This rolling does not become severe, and may be easily controlled.
6. Vibration.- At a Mach number of 0.76 a true effect of compressibility becomes evident in the form of a complete vibration of the airplane. This vibration is caused by a combination of compressibility effects on the wing and the horizontal stabilizer. The condition becomes increasingly severe as the Mach number increases and could eventually cause a primary structural failure.
7. Maximum Limit of Combat.- The airplane has been dived to a maximum Mach number of 0.85 and on several occasions to 0.84. In each case the pilots reported that the vibration became extremely heavy beyond 0.80. In each dive to 0.84 or above the vibration became so severe that the airplane was damaged. The leading edge skin of the wing flap was buckled between rivets, a coolant radiator cracked and hydraulic line broken due to vibration on various dives to 0.84 and above. In extreme war emergency the airplane can be dived to a Mach number of 0.83 (400 m.p.h. Indicated Airspeed at 25,000 ft.), if a very gradual pull-out is made.
From the P-51D Manual ( same as P-51-B)
P-51 Mustang Pilot's Flight Manual - Google Books
I think you would find interesting the findings of A&AEE at Boscombe down a fully armed Spitfire Mk IX, ie. the fighter variant tested in dive trials.
As you probably know the often referenced Mach 0,89 dives with were performed with an unarmed photo-recce Mk XI variant. As I recall however this report does not describe the behaviour of the aircraft during the dive, only records the speeds measured with a pitot (which as you noted was not a particularly accurate device at those speeds).
This variant had no cannon stubs or gun ports in the wings, neither it did have the armored windscreen of the fighter variants, ie. it was considerably different aerdynamically than the normal fighter variants. Personally it strikes me as illogical to compare a fully armed fighter such as the P-51 with the additional burden of armament with an unarmed photo recce.
Below you will find the details of the dive with the said Spitfire Mk IX fighter variant. It strikes me that the general behaviour was not at all different from the results with the Mustang in the test you quoted - normal in operation up to Mach 0.70, clear danger signs at around Mach .75, and begun to loose control at anywhere above Mach 0.80+.
If the Spitfire manual said Mach .85 as a limit, it was certainly a very bold suggestion for the pilots.
Kurfurst - you may recall the spirited debates about Drag last year and in particular Lednicer's VSAERO modelling results. It demonstrated the stagnation pressure region in front of and on the windscreen of the Spit IX - at only ~ 300kts model speed.
Your report points to the possibility that as the 'Q" pressures built up over another 120 kts there should be quite a bit of turbulence at the forward portion of the Malcolm Hood before it re-attaches
Personally, I am simply amazed that today, with a reasonable accurate 3d model of the aircraft, it is possible to get a fairly accurate picture of the flow behaviour that was, 70 years ago, unpredictable for the very best of the aircraft industry ! Indeed the actual flight test results from the 40s demonstrate that the VSAERO analysis was fairly accurate.
Hello Drgondog
I'm not sure that the problem of Spit IX was the slope of the windscreen because IIRC it was the same in Spit PR XI, and its critical Mach number was very high for a prop plane. IMHO the "bullet proof" windscreen, long cannon barrels, gun blisters and the mirror were the main culprits that the max dive speed flown by Spit IX was 0,6M lower than that of Spit XI. Spit IX and P-51B/D seemed to have had more or less same critical Mach number and only info I recall for Fw190 is that Vanir gave, namely that it had trim changes at 0.78 Mach.
Juha
From what I understand the exterior bullet proof wind screen on the Spitfires was worth about a 6mph loss.
I am not saying changing the slope wouldn't have helped but that much drag from such a small item seems to indicate it was doing something to the airflow in the region.