Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting, thank you for the additional clarification.But it was not the only one captured and tested
IIRC from the factory a 3% performance variance was the requirement, I'm not 100% sure about this. (US manufacturers)Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.
I believe (and contracts could be different) around 3% was the usual tolerance. If the plane doesn't meet that figure on an acceptance flight it needs to be reworked and test again.Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.
I think so but a few things to consider...Thank you, Shortround6 and FlyboyJ.
If 3% from the manufacturer would you expect this variance to increase after some time spent in the field, or do you think this could be maintained throughout the aircrafts expected life?
Roll rate is difficult to test. The biggest cause of variance in roll rate on planes of the same type is the size, build and strength of the pilots themselves, especially on planes like the Bf109, the cockpit is so cramped a big guy cant exert the same leverage as a small but stocky guy.Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.
Not is all as it may seem. The aircraft with the one tank option had a tank in each wing carrying 63USG each, 237USG in the main, 170USG in the single drop tank, making for a total 533USG.Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this
Then what am I going to do with this box of Purina Groundhog Chow?
Although that makes sense but wouldn't that have been built into the charts found in the flight manual? How did you come up with 44 USG for parasitic drag?Not is all as it may seem. The aircraft with the one tank option had a tank in each wing carrying 63USG each, 237USG in the main, 170USG in the single drop tank, making for a total 533USG.
Aircraft that could carry two drop tanks had the wing tanks deleted, so they carried 237USG in the main and 170USG in each drop tank, total 577USG. A unknown portion of that extra 44USG would have been burnt overcoming the extra parasitic drag of the extra drop tank.
Make sure you use lots of cream of mushroom soup.
However, of the 875 aircraft involved, 348 delivered to USAAF, 30 USN, 20 Australia, 454 Britain, 23 New Zealand, slightly different to acceptances.
18 B-37 (January to April 1943),
1,600 PV-1 (December 1942 to May 1944)
Interesting, thank you for the additional clarification.
My suggestion about the Faber 109A-3 was based on the fact that it was the only fighter varient Fw 190 to be captured and evaluated by the western allies, the rest being configured as fighter-bombers. Or so Wikipedia would have me believe.
Are you aware if the NAFDU ever tested the Faber aircraft against FAA Hellcats or Corsairs?
Although that makes sense but wouldn't that have been built into the charts found in the flight manual? How did you come up with 44 USG for parasitic drag?
I get that, I want to know how it was calculated. Was it based on the difference between the two configurations or is there a way this was actually calculated AND attributed to parasite drag?
I get that, I want to know how it was calculated. Was it based on the difference between the two configurations or is there a way this was actually calculated AND attributed to parasite drag?
Well that is not a way to calculate that 44 gallon difference was entirely from parasitic drag. I'll agree it could be a contributing factor.Seems to have just been the difference between the two configurations.
Configuration 1: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 63 USG outer wing tanks, 1 x 170 USG drop tank = 533 USG
Configuration 2: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 170 USG drop tank = 577 USG (no wing tanks available)
Well that is not a way to calculate that 44 gallon difference was entirely from parasitic drag. I'll agree it could be a contributing factor.