Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Like all general comparisons. it depends.Does a laminar flow profile generate less lift than a conventional profile for the same wing, i.e. would the aircraft have a worse climb rate?
The Fw 190 had a high-lift wing profile, IIRC, which generates much lift so that wing area could be kept small.
First, the ROC is dependent on wing loading and Avail HP versus Hp Required.
I assumed the Fw 190 was a light fighter. Swastika aside, it's almost cute for being so tiny.How could a Focke Wulf light(er) fighter (based on the 190 or not) have looked like?
- it is already bigger and draggier A/C than the 190; scaling it up increases bulk and drag
It dependsDoes that mean that - everything else being equal - the plane with the higher wing loading climbs worse?
Rate of climb at 20,000 ft: ..................The rate of climb varies according to type of reduction gear fitted. ..................With an 0.42 reduction gear (at + 15 lb. per sq.inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,540 per minute. ..................With the same reduction gear, but at + 18 lb. per sq. inch, the rate of climb is 2,750 ft. per minute. ..................With an 0.477 reduction gear (at + 15 per sq. inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,950 ft. per minute and increases to 3,230 ft. per minute at + 18 lb. per sq. inch boost. |
I love this graphic popping up every now and again. It's a Hoot. Thanks!View attachment 755578
My goto for fast size comparisons.
The 15% is to scale to the larger diameter of the 14R. Wing doesn't really need to change, other than the strengthening the A6M5c had received
-109 was already small. Really small.
Too small, leading to all the lumps and bumps of the later models, putting 8 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
The Russians could be diminutive as well.I love this graphic popping up every now and again. It's a Hoot. Thanks!
Sure, why not.The Russians could be diminutive as well.
View attachment 755593
Can we consider the Fw 159 to be Focke-Wulf's attempt at a light fighter?
View attachment 755594
That looks like a baby Stuka.Sure, why not.
so was the
View attachment 755595
trouble was that it was about a dead heat with a Gladiator biplane
We can take a look at the A6M8, and it's 1500 HP Kinsei as a passable equivalent to the 14R. It was supposed to do 360 mph.The 15% is to scale to the larger diameter of the 14R. Wing doesn't really need to change, other than the strengthening the A6M5c had received
One of reasons I like the '190 lite' better-109 was already small. Really small.
Too small, leading to all the lumps and bumps of the later models, putting 8 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
Not sure if I get your point.It depends
Assuming you have everything else being equal like power and weight (power to weight being equal) then we are left with drag and wing area. IF you can get the drag to be the same then wing loading becomes dominate. If drag is not equal then the wing loading might not be the dominate factor.
Now did the Spit IX out climb the 109G-6 because of it's big wing or because had more power and less drag?
Or is there something else going on??????
.."Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost.
..................When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service."
If you can not turn the engine power into thrust????
From Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials
Rate of climb at 20,000 ft:
..................The rate of climb varies according to type of reduction gear fitted.
..................With an 0.42 reduction gear (at + 15 lb. per sq.inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,540 per minute.
..................With the same reduction gear, but at + 18 lb. per sq. inch, the rate of climb is 2,750 ft. per minute.
..................With an 0.477 reduction gear (at + 15 per sq. inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,950 ft. per minute and increases to 3,230 ft. per minute at + 18 lb. per sq. inch boost.
You are right in theory.Not sure if I get your point.
If I take two of the same airframe (same engine) just with differently sized wings, the one with the smaller wing has less drag so "wing loading might not be the dominate factor". I came that far...
With everything else being equal I also meant engine and its settings.
I guess something's eluding me?
You are right in theory.
Problem for us armchair aircraft designers (crayon and paper napkin) is that there is a lot of hidden stuff that doesn't show up in a lot of spec sheets.
Find the specs the explain which Spitfire MK IX was using which reduction gear and especially, what were the differences in the propellers being used?
The other thing is that the Spitfires with different wings could swap places in climb ratings depending on altitude. The clip wing planes climbed better at low altitudes. They were about the same at the middle altitudes and the extended wing planes did better at high altitude.
Spitfires are interesting and yet confusing. The change in wing span was all done it the wing tips, only from the end of the alerions. the change in area itself is minor 231sq ft clipped, 242sq ft normal, 248.5sq ft extended.
What changed was the aspect ratio and flow of air over the wing in the span-wise direction. This changed the overall lift co-efficient of the entire wing (or at least a large part of it).
Now try to compare different wings on different airplanes. Once we get beyond square footage (gross square footage or net square footage) we need the advice/help of a trained aerodynamicist. Of which I am not one
When you say Bf109X, are you referring to the Bf109F project (Wk.Nmr 5608) fitted with the BMW801A or the earlier Bf109E test project (V21, WkNmr 1770) fitted with a P&W R-1830 engine?One of reasons I like the '190 lite' better
OTOH, the 14R would've been a good match to the Bf 109X.
The 14R was the equivalent of modern day "vaporware".OTOH, the 14R would've been a good match to the Bf 109X.
Bf 109X was, IMO, a bespoke project. New fuselage, cockpit, canopy, fuel tank and new wing are sorta giveaways.When you say Bf109X, are you referring to the Bf109F project (Wk.Nmr 5608) fitted with the BMW801A or the earlier Bf109E test project (V21, WkNmr 1770) fitted with a P&W R-1830 engine?
The 14R was the equivalent of modern day "vaporware".
In 1946 it was listed as an 1805lb engine, with truly impressive altitude performance (one wonders where the turbocharger was hiding).
It was 91.6% the size of the BMW 801 and it ran about 100rpm slower (96%)
Not sure what a 1415hp (take-off?) radial that is the size/diameter of the BMW 801 gets you? Yes it is lighter than BMW 801 but what does it do over the DB 605 engine?
Misspoke above -The simple equation for ROC is (T*V - D*V)/WDoes that mean that - everything else being equal - the plane with the higher wing loading climbs worse?
I mean if you compare two planes of the same type just with different wing areas. e.g. Fw 190 V1 k and Fw 190 V1 g.
Pls excuse my laymanship.
The history of the GR 14R is rather sketchy and contradictory.I was going with the table that Germans compiled during the ww2.