Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The speeds when 25lb boost and 150pn fuel is ________?I have 364 mph for the 51B/1650-7/67", and 354 mph for the 51D/1650-7/67".
This translates to about 1630 HP at SL.
IMHO it`s rather futile to speculate how good 'British testpilots' were, when the facts are quite clearly there.
And what experience they had with the aircraft BTW?
The AFDU also tested a 109F in 1941 for example. The pilot had the opportunity to gain precisely 25 minutes worth of flying 'experience' in the 109 before he attemped to fly comperative trials against a Spitfire pilot with what - hundreds of flying hours in a Spitfire? Even an 1944/45 Luftwaffe rookie in the 109 had at least a dozen or two flying hours in a 109 before entering combat.. you`re telling me that after just 25 minutes of familiarisation, the pilot was capable to push the aircraft to it`s final limits..?!
Attempted because the aircraft was in such a poor shape they had to cancel the trials to make some makeshift repairs, despite which oil pressure was still abnormal in the 109.
The battle damaged 109G-2/trop they tested vs the P-51B was hardly in any better shape. It`s condition is detailed in the Middle East report that can be found on my site.
I mean, you can keep ignoring and denying these circumstances, but to what end, I cannot imagine. Any reasonable man would see that ill-maintained aircraft in which the pilot has nil experience ain`t gonna shine in any comparison when flown against well maintained aircraft flown by a pilot who has extensive knowledge of flying the type.
BINGO!!!! And I would think that loudly deploying L/E slats (In any aircraft) weren't going to be a deterrent from any of these folks from performing their mission...I think its worth remembering that in 1943 the British set up the Empire Test Pilot Training school so that all test pilots were trained to the highest degree and used common standards.
It was the first school of its kind and is still recognised as a leading establishment of its kind.
Its also worth noting that one of the reasons it was set up, was because of the loss ratio of pilots untertaking test pilot duties. From this its safe to work on the premise, that the test pilots were not afraid of pushing the boundry to the limit, quite the opposite.
Exactly how big a climb rate are you under the illusion that the F4U-4 possesses Davparlr ???
Kurfurst said:I have 364 mph for the 51B/1650-7/67", and 354 mph for the 51D/1650-7/67".
This translates to about 1630 HP at SL.
The 109G/K performance figures depend on the type you speak of.
All of these are for 1800 PS at SL, or a bit below 1800 HP.
Bf 109G-14 : 352 mph
Bf 109G-14/AS : 348 mph
Bf 109G-10 : 349 mph
Bf 109K-4 : 370 mph
I don`t see breathtaking differences here. The Mustang D is slightly better than the 109G, and apprx. the same aerodynamic effiency as the 109K.
I have no problems with your numbers.
Airspeed vs. HP at SL where "q" is max is probably the best method of judging the propulsive efficiency of an aircraft. At this condition, where every mph comes at the biggest HP cost, the 23 – 27 mph advantage of the P-51D is not a "slight" difference but a significant difference and an operational advantage at any altitude.
The Bf-109K-4 is a much later version and is more comparable to the P-51H.
But in any event, it is interesting to note that the P-51D is still slightly faster at SL (insignificant) and the P-51B is noticeably faster.
Curious, it seems the manufacturer North American`s performance figures are always much higher than all the figures obtained elsewhere. I wonder why.
I did not know thatCurious, it seems the manufacturer North American`s performance figures are always much higher than all the figures obtained elsewhere. I wonder why.
1.) The British test-pilot makes the comment: "The 109 being embarrased by the opening of its slots", this alone being a clear enough sign that he wasn't pushing past slat deployment.
Flying Black 6 by Dave Southwood
The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.
If you are flying in a tight turn on the edge of the stall then one wing is going more slowly than the other. As a result the slats will not open evenly, one will open before the other causing the aircraft to 'stagger' or 'lurch' to one side for a second.
There is nothing bad aerodynamically about properly designed LE devices. They are mainstay of modern wing design.
Handley Page automatic slats deploy at a specific coefficient of lift. The wing deploys them "as needed". Handley Page automatic slats represent both a camber change and energize the boundry layer.
The pilots reaction to this is much more important to flight performance than the slat itself. My aircraft has them and yes, they took some getting used too. Once I conditioned my reactions though, the low speed performance with them deployed is fantastic. The effect is very noticable.
Yes the plane will lurch if the pilot does not react properly with appropriate inputs. That is not to say the slats are at fault. The pilot is at fault for not having the experience to use them. The slats definately will improve low speed performance. That is why most modern fighters have LE devices.
All the best,
Crumpp
I think you can see where I am coming from, if you are in a tight turning battle with an enemy close behind then any loss of momentum, no matter how slight could explain the comments in the reports.
What I would like to ask when the plane deploys one slat due to being in a tight high banked turn does it lose speed in that period before the second slat deploys?