Chances of survival.......fighters.

[mad_max]

Ah yes Flyboy....used the wrong term for glide angle. I stand corrected. As for
radial engined planes atleast in R/C flying they drop quickly when the engine is out.

I figured it's from the drag of the large frontal area, but I'm no aerospace engineer!
My round engined models all do this even the bi-plane.

I'd swear my brother who flies a 172 said the 747 and it has the same glide angle.
I could be wrong though. You are more studied and have more experience
in this than me. So I'd like to learn more about this any links on the web you
can suggest?

Thanks <S>

Best,

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah yes Flyboy....used the wrong term for glide angle. I stand corrected. As for
radial engined planes atleast in R/C flying they drop quickly when the engine is out.

I figured it's from the drag of the large frontal area, but I'm no aerospace engineer!
My round engined models all do this even the bi-plane.

I'd swear my brother who flies a 172 said the 747 and it has the same glide angle.
I could be wrong though. You are more studied and have more experience
in this than me. So I'd like to learn more about this any links on the web you
can suggest?

Thanks <S>

Best,

No problem Max and your brother is probably right about the 172 and the 747 - the only difference is the 747 is flying higher so it has some room to glide...

Your models with the blunt noses seem to have no glide ration because the have a low drag to lift coefficient - but if you were to do some math there power to weight ratio is enormous - that's why you model airplanes stand on their tail so easily. Here's one link that's real good....

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Applying the Lift Equation

 

[Civettone]

I show JG 400 with only 9 confirmed kills while losing 14 Komets.

Well, I read they had more than a dozen confirmed kills, and mainly B-17s. Up to December 1944 - after which they were practically grounded - they lost 15 aircraft of which 6 were a result of enemy actions. Hardly the disaster you usually read about.

I think Erich might have more information regarding 163 operations.

In fact I'm still waiting for Erich's information from my last discussion on the Me 163 with him...

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, I read they had more than a dozen confirmed kills, and mainly B-17s. Up to December 1944 - after which they were practically grounded - they lost 15 aircraft of which 6 were a result of enemy actions. Hardly the disaster you usually read about.


In fact I'm still waiting for Erich's information from my last discussion on the Me 163 with him...

Kris

And there were only 90 deployed out of which half were operational - not an impressive record. I have seen the article you posted before. The aircraft had some great attributes but did require a skilled pilot to fly her.

 

[Civettone]

How many were deployed says nothing about the survivability of this fighter, what this thread is about. And did its contemporary, the Me 262 fare any better?

The aircraft had some great attributes but did require a skilled pilot to fly her.

I'm sure you read the article but you must have forgotten about those points where Rudolf says that the Komet was a joy to fly, designed for a novice, couldn't be stalled and handled like a glider.

Kris