Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
S/R I was just referring to peoples "intuition" the 750 turbo had more power and torque than a normally aspirated 900cc. It should have been quicker but was actually about 2 seconds a lap slower. The turbo lag was actually short but enough to make a telling difference regardless of what the charts and graphs said. In aircraft terms there is a difference between what an aircraft should do and what it actually does in practice because the pilot cannot get the best out of itIt is very hard to compare aircraft and motorcycles. Granted an aircraft engine has massive amounts of torque but they also have that big propeller that acts like a huge flywheel. An aircraft engine, regardless of type of supercharger, is going to take a while to gain hundreds of RPM compared to a motorcycle or car ( which often used lighter flywheels for racing). Also propellers grip on the air is a lot less firm than the ground vehicles grip though it's tires.
Whoa! Didn't these planes have constant speed props? If they're cruising at any power setting within the prop's governing range (which is from a little above idle all the way to max power), it's the prop governor, not the throttle controlling the RPM. If a sudden acceleration is needed, both prop and throttle get pushed to the stops. As soon as the governor sees the demand for max RPM, it flattens the propeller pitch, sharply reducing its rotational resistance. At the same time, the engine is being fed gobs more fuel, increasing its power output. Admittedly the propeller is heavy, but by reducing its rotational drag, it's helping the engine accelerate its RPM. I have a difficult time envisioning 2000+ HP being much impeded by flywheel effect, especially with the "flywheel" helping the engine accelerate.they also have that big propeller that acts like a huge flywheel. An aircraft engine, regardless of type of supercharger, is going to take a while to gain hundreds of RPM
S/R I was only talking about human perception. The guy concerned was an old schoolmate of mine and was a top rider at club level. He is still (as far as I know) a motorcycle journalist. Everybody including me thought it would be a class winner, harmony of controls beat brute horsepower every time.I guess it depends on the time span we are talking about. Compared to a motorcycle/race car accelerating out of a corner an aircraft can take quite a while to get up to speed, yes a large part is aerodynamic drag.
Yes, the inertial reaction of accelerating a heavy prop is a contributor to the infamous "torque roll", but it's only a minor player in what amounts to a veritable "perfect storm" of forces at work. The major players are "P" factor and gyroscopic precession, both resulting from the fact that at speeds down in the "danger zone" the aircraft is at a relatively high angle of attack and the thrust line is at an acute angle to the relative wind and the direction of flight. In addition the air flow over the stabilizers and control surfaces is slow and "soft", reducing their effectiveness in keeping the pointy end forward and the oily side down. It starts with a P factor driven yawing moment which through differential lift and gyroscopic precession quickly induces a rolling moment. The pilot's startled reaction of full opposite aileron only serves to stall the downward-traveling wing, accelerating the roll. What you have here is a classic snap roll, initiated by a surge of "P" factor and gyroscopic precession rather than a pilot's rudder stomp, and aided by torque reaction.Obviously the engine will pick up speed quicker in fine pitch vs coarse pitch but it isn't this "flywheel" effect that causes problems at low speeds and large throttle changes? sudden increase in throttle has the plane rolling the opposite way the prop turns ?
Except Corsair had way more non combat losses than the Mustang.In Korea, both were providing CAS. Both had near identical loss/sortie ratios
Except Corsair had way more non combat losses than the Mustang.
The F4U5 was grounded replaced by the -4 because the plane used electrical relays that failed due to corrosion.
Corsair operated better from airstrips.
Mustang has a much longer loitering period exposing them to small arms fire.
Corsair could become a flame trap because the oil cooler was not shielded.
I wonder what the loss rate for the Corsair would be if it had to fight the far more deadly and dangerous pilots and aircraft of the LW?
I'll take a P-51H...given the choice, I'd rather be in a P-47N
I'll take a P-51H...
The P47 was not used in Korea for a few reasons.given the choice, I'd rather be in a P-47N