Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Possibly, I think a little more reading is required.Am I onto something?
Zipper your endless quest for a simple almost one word answer never stops. Ask yourself if the turning performance was high on the list of priorities for the Valiant Victor Vulcan and Canberra.You know, sometimes it's nice to know where to go to be told where to get information: However, if a person has information, it's preferable to just give the person the information rather than relaying a person in circles.
I wouldn't say a one word answer. I figure a few sentences, a paragraph or so is fine.Zipper your endless quest for a simple almost one word answer never stops.
Well, they were designed to maneuver well at high altitude. The Canberra was designed to be a jet-mosquito...Ask yourself if the turning performance was high on the list of priorities for the Valiant Victor Vulcan and Canberra.
It wasn't exactly a theory... it was more a personal observation that seemed to have a touch of fact to it.You cannot take one out of the hundreds of different parameters of air plane design and then choose WW2 piston engined fighters and bombers plus post war jet fighters and bombers to prove or disprove your theory.
To discuss all different parts of the f104 design and its positives and negatives would be a very long essay at least.I wouldn't say a one word answer. I figure a few sentences, a paragraph or so is fine.
Well, they were designed to maneuver well at high altitude. The Canberra was designed to be a jet-mosquito...
It wasn't exactly a theory... it was more a personal observation that seemed to have a touch of fact to it.
I was basically curious on why aspect ratio's benefit on low speed performance tapers off with altitude most of the time (the B-47 and U-2 are an exception to this).
I didn't say anything about the F-104...To discuss all different parts of the f104 design and its positives and negatives would be a very long essay at least.
It was simplistic, but the fact is the Canberra was kind of designed to do the high altitude bomber/reconnaissance role that the DH Mosquito was designed for: Presumably this would include a good g-load and good turning rate at altitudesJet Mosquito is a simplistic handle
That's trueThe U2 was so specialized it is was barely a practical aircraft
My bad (tired eyes) but same for f102 and f106 delta wings solve some problems and uncover othersI didn't say anything about the F-104...
The defence of both the Mosquito and Canberra was based on height and speed you cannot bet on out turning a fighter he can just keep you turning until his mates turn up or you run out of fuel. By the time the Canberra was in service SAMs had entered the game too. I have read of a Mosquito being able to avoid an Fw190 by going into a shallow but high speed dive, at those speeds the Mosquito had slightly better control and was able to survive until the FW 190 ran out of fuel or ammo. That is desperation stuff though.It was simplistic, but the fact is the Canberra was kind of designed to do the high altitude bomber/reconnaissance role that the DH Mosquito was designed for: Presumably this would include a good g-load and good turning rate at altitudes
That's true
Getting into a protracted turning match with a fighter would be foolish, but a few quick moves would sometimes shake a plane lose high altitudes particularly when aircraft were still subsonic. The Mosquito could not only pick up speed faster, it actually could turn better at altitudes of 22,000 feet or better. As for dive performance, in a book on the Mosquito, there was a statement about traversing a remarkable distance while descending (if I did my math right I think it was over Mach 0.86, but they could have had a stiff tailwind).The defence of both the Mosquito and Canberra was based on height and speed you cannot bet on out turning a fighter he can just keep you turning until his mates turn up or you run out of fuel. By the time the Canberra was in service SAMs had entered the game too. I have read of a Mosquito being able to avoid an Fw190 by going into a shallow but high speed dive, at those speeds the Mosquito had slightly better control and was able to survive until the FW 190 ran out of fuel or ammo.
The first thing that happens when you turn is that you slow down and lose altitude. The second thing is that you start going back where you came from.Getting into a protracted turning match with a fighter would be foolish, but a few quick moves would sometimes shake a plane lose high altitudes particularly when aircraft were still subsonic. The Mosquito could not only pick up speed faster, it actually could turn better at altitudes of 22,000 feet or better. As for dive performance, in a book on the Mosquito, there was a statement about traversing a remarkable distance while descending (if I did my math right I think it was over Mach 0.86, but they could have had a stiff tailwind).
As for SAMs: The USSR didn't seem to have a SAM until 1956, and the SA-2 until 1959
I wouldn't say a one word answer. I figure a few sentences, a paragraph or so is fine.
Our airline had a pair of Shorts SD30s, big brother of the Skyvan, and I rode in them occaisonaly, even getting an hour of stick time on a ferry flight. What a pig! Waddled like an obese goose, and had to replenish barf bag supplies after every leg. To make matters worse, the fuel tank vents were upstream of the cabin intakes, so there was the everpresent aroma of kerosene to add to the residual hint of stomach acid. I thought I had an iron stomach, but I almost lost it a couple times.I flew one time on a similar plane the Short Skyvan.
Hardly the same as an all-wing lifting body with very low aspect ratio. We'll never know what those Sikorsky discoids might have done.
As I understand it, they generally produce high-drag at low speed, and work well at high speed.It seems to be a myth at least for very low aspect ratio (below 3-1) that they produce very high drag due to wing-tip vortices.
From what I read, admittedly all of it on wikipedia (I'm not fond of quoting wikipedia, but it's a source that's easily available) their glide ratio is was 3:1 which is the same as L/D. It seems more a testament to the propeller having enough power to push such a design with such little horsepowerSee the Arup S-2 and S-4 of the early-mid 1930s. Very near 1-1 aspect ratio, all-wing little round things with a bulge for the pilot and a tailfin (S-4 had a tail-plane up on the fin)
. . .
Both planes flew for several seasons on airshow circuits (see youtubes of them). Several pilot,. No accidents. A couple of versions each.
They did not exhibit high drag at "low-A" cruise.
That usually depends on a highly swept wing, that, or specially designed flaps.See NASA studies of the '90s Wainfan "Facetmobile". Low aspect ratio unitary wing-body.
Low aspect ratio planes can stay aloft at such low speeds at very high "A", because of the enormous wing-tip vortices that develop at high-A. They wrap around and keep airflow from the leading edge over the top of the wing from detaching. Called "vortex lift", it is not present at normal flight.
Yeah, and that became the basis for the V-173. The V-173 had some advantages in theory with the propeller right at the tip, it would negate the vortices by spinning in the opposite direction of the vortex.Charles Zimmerman worked for NACA and was with the team that saw the S-2 perform an impresssive showing.
Because the S-2/S-4 had L/D of 3:1 which is quite poor. The Spitfire was around 13:1.For some reason, they were under the misapprehension that it would suffer high drag from the wing-tips
I've never heard anything about that...Later tests with simple 2-blade normal props rotating the opposite direction (*with* the wing-tip vortices) showed almost no change in performance.
R-4360...See also the Boeing model 396 proposal for a Navy flapjack fighter test plane. . . it would have led to their phenomenal fighter with the 28 cylinder 4-row radial engine
Have you any performance data?For the second thing, Vought had a design for a jet powered version that would have been awesome -better than the P-80 or maybe even better than the F-86
That picture is one of the attachments you posted: It's a nice looking design, though I'm curious as to how it was projected to perform.Sergei Sikorsky also worked on such a thing.