GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Nope, it was "Winkle"
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nope, it was "Winkle"Biggles!
What's your point? At the end of the day Brown had more hours in the air and flown more aircraft than his boss ever could. Give it up mate, you put your foot in you mouth when you made your initial comments about Brown with little or nothing to backup your claims.Everyone goes on about Brown, but his boss was a far better known pilot during his tenure at the RAE
That's funny since the Merlin is a 37L engine of some 744 kg dry weight. The Griffon was 36.7 L and 900 kg.
The Bf 109's DB 601 engine was 33.9L and 600kg while the DB 605 was 35.7L and 756 kg. The Bf 109 could at least take the weight of a Merlin, since it did.
The DB 603 was 44.52L and 920 kg. It didn't go into the Bf 109, but was used in the Me 410.
You can probably find a list of drag coefficients online somewhere (maybe even this forum). However the later G`s and K`s had utterly appauling build quality and were a good 5% down on top speed due to this. The later very high boosts allowed on the K were in fact just about enough to get it back up to the factory figures.View attachment 692329View attachment 692330
Which airframe is aerodynamically better, do you think, and why? Me 109K or Spitfire XIV?
But they look cool.... and the radiators were monstrous, ....
From what I have read the Bf 109 was poor in its aerodynamics, although it is small and looks sleek.I always wondered if the bunter nose of the Me 109K was more draggy than the Spitfire's. One would assume that the latter's more pointed spinner would pierce through the air better.
Agreed.From what I have read the Bf 109 was poor in its aerodynamics, although it is small and looks sleek.
I googled 'flat plane area' and saw the dreaded words 'calculus'. 'Fraid I chickened out!It was poor, small size is not a sign of cleverness.
One chart gives the following "equivalent flat plane area for 3 US fighters"
Brewster F2A-3......................................6.27 sq, ft
Republic P-47B......................................6.39 sq ft
Grumman F4F-3....................................6.58 sq ft.
Considering the size and weight of the P-47B, maybe there is a typo but when you have a large airplane showing about the same total drag as a much smaller airplane you have figure the small plane is screwed up somewhere,
I googled 'flat plane area' and saw the dreaded words 'calculus'. 'Fraid I chickened out!
Is there a layman's simple way of understanding what these figure mean and how they relate to aerodynamics?
Perfect! Many thanks!!View attachment 692381
I found this, which I believe is originally from a member of this forum called Dave, but as I understand it, the FPA represents all the ins and outs of drag in terms of a flat plate which can easilt be compared to others flat plate areas.
The concept of "equivalent flate plate area" comes from noting
that while:
Drag Where: Drag = resistance force
CD = ------------------ rho = density
.5 rho Vel^2 Sref Vel = Velocity
Sref = Ref Area
is nondimensional, the Sref is awkward, as how the reference area is
chosen can differ. So if we instead define:
Drag
f = -------------
.5 rho Vel^2
the Sref no longer appears, but f has the units of length squared. If
English units are used, you get the equivalent flate plate area (f) in
units of square feet. Note, this does not mean that a flate plate of
the same area as f would have the same drag - a flate plate has a CD of
roughly 1.17 (in 3-D flow, according to Hoerner and 1.98 in 2-D flow),
not 1 as implied in the equation! We can see this from:
Drag = CD .5 rho Vel^2 Sref
where Sref is the frontal area of the plate. Hence, the equivalent
flate plate area is:
CD .5 rho Vel^2 Sref
f = ----------------------
.5 rho Vel^2
So you can see that the flate plate of area Sref has an equivalent flat
plate area 1.17 times its true area (in 3-D flow)!
S = Cd0 x wing_areaI googled 'flat plane area' and saw the dreaded words 'calculus'. 'Fraid I chickened out!
Is there a layman's simple way of understanding what these figure mean and how they relate to aerodynamics?
Hey SG, has you ever done any research on the Spits radiators or know of any work in regards to improving their efficiency?.The Spitfire by then was also a pretty bulbous thing with loads of bumps and the like, and the radiators were monstrous, with fairly poor ducts as they had no room
to put in ideally proportioned ducting anymore (proximity to the wheel-wells).
The biggest step was probably the boundary layer splitter of the Mk-III, but as you know that Mark was cancelled, and the boundary layer splitter was never reinstated. The main (or at least one major) problem is that these things are quite hard to retrofit into an existing design, having the splitter reduced the space available for the cooling matrix, so it was quite difficult to realise the gain as you then either have to fit a deeper core or stick the radiator out into the breeze more.Hey SG, has you ever done any research on the Spits radiators or know of any work in regards to improving their efficiency?.