Discrepancies in Standard Aircraft Characteristics Charts

[Zipper730]

Most of the WWII stuff is quite accurate, and some of the Post War stuff seems to be, but not all of it.

Some examples would include the following...

1. F-86: Stressed to 12G Ultimate Load (mentioned on this forum), the figures cited in SAC sheets (admittedly only for the F-86F) were 7.33g at design weight
2. B-70: Listed g-load figures don't seem to even vary with weight. There was a book written about the B-70 by Landis & Jenkins which made a statement that, during testing, they had evaluated the effects of vibration on the crew at (presumably) low altitudes. The tests went up to 7g and the vibrations produced ill effects in the crew (pressure and discomfort in chest). The SAC entries for the B-70 (the assumed production model) listed figures that, provided 554609 were assumed to yield a maximum load of 2.0g x 1.5: It would be logical that, at combat weight, should these numbers follow (in proportion), we would see a g-load of 4.07/6.1, at combat weight; at design weight: 4.6/6.91 should come out, which is close to 7.
3. F-111: Considering the F-111B's figures are 6.5 x 1.5, I find it very bizarre that the limits are 3.0 x 1.5 for the F-111's...

Provided it's not classified, some accurate figures could be useful.

 

[Zipper730]

W wuzak

 

[RCAFson]

Most of the WWII stuff is quite accurate, and some of the Post War stuff seems to be, but not all of it.

Some examples would include the following...

1. F-86: Stressed to 12G Ultimate Load (mentioned on this forum), the figures cited in SAC sheets (admittedly only for the F-86F) were 7.33g at design weight
2. B-70: Listed g-load figures don't seem to even vary with weight. There was a book written about the B-70 by Landis & Jenkins which made a statement that, during testing, they had evaluated the effects of vibration on the crew at (presumably) low altitudes. The tests went up to 7g and the vibrations produced ill effects in the crew (pressure and discomfort in chest). The SAC entries for the B-70 (the assumed production model) listed figures that, provided 554609 were assumed to yield a maximum load of 2.0g x 1.5: It would be logical that, at combat weight, should these numbers follow (in proportion), we would see a g-load of 4.07/6.1, at combat weight; at design weight: 4.6/6.91 should come out, which is close to 7.
3. F-111: Considering the F-111B's figures are 6.5 x 1.5, I find it very bizarre that the limits are 3.0 x 1.5 for the F-111's...

Provided it's not classified, some accurate figures could be useful.

SAC data for early WW2 aircraft are suspect. Climb rate figures especially are often wildly inaccurate.

 

[Zipper730]

Really? I didn't know that.

 

[RCAFson]

Really? I didn't know that.

WW2 testing showed a max climb rate of 1820fps (using military power) at SL for a fully loaded F4F-4. SAC data states ~2470fps at SL and ~2200fps average to 12K ft, which is just complete fiction and not at all in accord with actual test data @ 7975lb or with pilot's combat experiences.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

normal power ~7400lb:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-5262.pdf

The climb data on the TBD (and performance in general) and SBD-3 are also very suspect.