Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Looking forward to you adding the Bf-109 Spitfire
Bill, Sorry for my misleading post about P51D deployment. I should have looked further. I am glad to see that Dav has what I consider as a thorough and comprehensive reference on US WW2 fighters, "America's One Hundred Thousand" and it states the June 1944 date as to when P51Ds began to reach the 8th AF in quantity.
As for the graphs, Im havin trouble actually understanding what they are interpeting for me....
I will work on adding the Bf-109. I hope the charts are useful in helping people to gain insight into the nature of aircraft turn performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
Crumpp - I forgot to ask whether you have have curves presented several power available/altitude profiles of say the Fw 190A8 vs the P-51D? At first observation it seems like these are normalized to Sea Level??
Of course it! How silly of me, I knew that.
Hi Bill,
Both aircraft have curves for different configurations.
Agreed and understood... but it did occur to me that in real life a hard turning manuever with a full fuel tank would be very dangerous in the 51B/C/D
The speeds are listed in Knots Equivalent Airspeed. Altitude will change the velocity specific performance occurs but not the conclusion or shape of the curve. It is standard to use KEAS in these kind of estimates. All you have to do to convert to TAS is multiply the KEAS by SMOE found on the Atmospheric Table. This corrects for density at altitude.
KEAS is Indicated airspeed with the aircrafts Instrument Position Error Correction and a correction for the compressibility of air.
Also agreed and makes sense to develop comparative load factor curves - up to a point. What made me ponder the 'universal' factor is the nagging (for me) question of Power Available in your model.
The thrust of my earlier question is the Power Available for both aircraft is not only not linear (of course) but not the same curve for both fighters at point where for example Low Blower is operating and High blower kicks in - both would likely operate at an advantage/disadvantage from each other in the Power Available/Power required would they not?
So my question "SL under assumption of say Max TO Power available to each Fighter" would be a one curve (each) plot, but is it as you move up each power curve as Function of altitude and use the altitude equivalent max power available in your load factor equations wouldn't you get some interesting results?
Did you go to the trouble of plotting Power Available for the 1650-7, for example and take it up through say 35K? and same for Fw 190A8?
As you know, there is not nor was there ever a universal or standard method for application of compressibility. By converting the airspeed from IAS, we eliminate this as a factor in our performance estimate.
Perfect for modelling or analytical comparisons
Even today engineering firms set their own standards for the point we move from treating air as an incompressible liquid to a compressible gas. So once the Position Error Correction is accounted for I applied a universal standard for compressibility error onset at 200KTS. This way the playing field is leveled and we are not inducing error due to different firms standards for compressibility.
Thanks for taking the time - I've been out of flight mechanics for too long.
According to your chart the Dora-9 holds a clear advantage over the P-51D at all speeds, which is entirely correct according to most sources.
Certainly if we are flying a Dora-9 using C3 fuel and MW50. The more common B4 with the Oldenburg system was a much closer match.
I caution you not to read into these charts. They are not predicting specfic performance. For example all we can conclude is that at 300KEAS the FW-190D9 clean configuration overload fighter variant with C3 and MW50 had a turn advantage over the P51D clean configuration overloaded fighter. We cannot say that it was could pull .74g's more than the P51. All we can say is in the realm of significant digits, the FW190D9 C3 was advantaged but not by a large margin.
Consider too just how many pilots could take advantage of this level of superiority.
All the best,
Crumpp
However considering the lift-loading of the FW-190 was lower
here's a good link that might be interesting:
The analysis works up to 1st gear FTH. It does not include second gear effects although given a good engine chart it would be entirely possible to do an analysis.
I felt this to be true - which is why I asked the question earlier.. what was running through my mind was a.) Hp/Thrust as function of altitude - each fighter with a different profile , .b) prop efficiency at recommended versus max rpm, c.) relative energy losses beteen the two ships in high G level turn at different altitudes - not only as function of induced drag but the overall airframe wing/body combination - your profile does an excellent job of consolidating relative merits w/o going throug a full blown performance analysis
Although we use power available, the prediction actually uses thrust production as a function of Thrust Horsepower and velocity with an assumed propeller efficiency of 85%.
Specific performance is far beyond the scope of one man who has to feed a family. It would take an engineering team with mounds of data and computer time to do that.
and of course the inevitable flight tests with pilot skill and knowledge of the airplane as another set of variables
We can accurately say that the P51 series and the FW190 series are close enough that pilot skill makes all the difference and that aircraft configuration is a major contributing factor.
That's basically what the 8th AF directives said about the two in air to air combat - particularly at or below medium altitudes, low to medium speed.
Two clean aircraft in similar loading configuration at or below FTH gives the FW190A8/D9 series a slight advantage at low to mid velocity. At high velocity the P51 series holds a slight advantage. Roll rate would be more important between these two aircraft as the aircraft which establishes the turn first will widen its advantage. Here again, at low velocity the FW190 wins out and the P51 series wins out at high velocity with the mid range leaving the two aircraft equal.
If the configurations were dissimilar, then the clean fighter would hold the advantage.
We cannot make a blanket statement that either aircraft design is superior to the other in horizontal maneuvering.
Offhand, At 35K the V-1650-3 equipped P51 series would hold a wider advantage but the V-1650-7 equipped P51 series would be very close.
I could run an analysis for you but will have to add it to my list of "things to do" after the Bf-109/Spitfire analysis..
Thanks, Crump - you've given me what I need - except to pose one question about 109G-6 versus 51D in context of a.) relative disadvantage of high control forces of 109 at high speed versus better flight control at or near stall for experienced 109 pilot with slats working? Would your methodolgy attempt to analyze such inputs? .
Crumpp