I'm not sure what to call this, but...

[Zipper730]

I was thinking about a kind of a thread based on aircraft designs (particularly combat planes) known statements by pilots (and crew), coupled with performance data as well as known actual capability to create a sort of description of what the plane was built for, how it performed what pilots thought of it, how it was perceived and so on.

For example I remember reading the following

• The Me-109 when flown by allied pilots, they found it a bit difficult to trim the aircraft's elevators
  • The German pilots had little issue: They basically used the stab-trim and elevator trim at the same time
• The Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me-109, and was shown to be able to in tests; in real life you'd think it wasn't the case...
  • The reason had to do with the fact that many Spitfire pilots were unwilling to push the plane right to the edge and risk a stall (not to criticize aircrew, as some of it was inexperienced and a stall could make you an easy target)
  • The Me-109's slats coming out would indicate to the pilots that the aircraft is often reaching the tightest turning point on the envelope, which indicated that this was the time to tighten it up real good...
• The F4F Wildcat could actually turn inside the A6M under some conditions: The problem was the conditions were basically at 300 mph and above, which was only 30 mph off the maximum speed of the plane
• Many Chance Vought aircraft had really huge cockpits because they somehow had hired almost every single tall pilot it seems
• The USAAF/USN had all sorts of trouble with it's 20mm cannon, which the RAF had none
  • The gun wasn't perfect, but it had no fundamental flaws that would be a deal-breaker: The USAAF essentially fixed it until it was broke.
• The La-5 had certain issues in combat with the Me-109 and Fw-190 not just because of performance but because
  • The engines had several controls needed to employ the engine correctly whereas the Me-109 and Fw-190 didn't have this issue
  • It was difficult to open the canopy at high speed, which could be necessary for bailing-out; the quality of perspex was at least sometimes poor (there was also some variants that had Carbon Monoxide build-up), so they often kept them open in flight.
• The B-29 was had a critical altitude of 33,000 feet: Most aircraft often cruise somewhat above the critical altitude, though the B-29 usually didn't, because
  • The amount of energy to get up there was so extreme it would only apply for very short flights, or very very long flights with very light to nonexistent loads.
  • Typical cruising altitudes were around 31,500 to 33,000 feet, and later more like 14,000-25,000 feet because the climb rate was so slow, it was more efficient to waste less fuel in the climb, and burn a little more in the flight.

 

[Juha2]

I was thinking about a kind of a thread based on fighter-design, known statements by pilots, coupled with performance data as well as known actual capability to create a sort of description of what the plane was built for, how it performed what pilots thought of it, how it was perceived and so on.

For example I remember reading the following

• The Me-109 when flown by allied pilots, they found it a bit difficult to trim the aircraft's elevators
  • The German pilots had little issue: They basically used the stab-trim and elevator trim at the same time
• The Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me-109, and was shown to be able to in tests; in real life you'd think it wasn't the case...
  • The reason had to do with the fact that many Spitfire pilots were unwilling to push the plane right to the edge and risk a stall (this is not to criticize aircrew, part of it was inexperience, part of it had to do with the fact that stalling would mean death)
  • Meanwhile the Me-109's slats would come out and act like a stall-warning.
• The F4F Wildcat could actually turn inside the A6M under some conditions: The problem was the conditions were basically at 300 mph and above, which was only 30 mph off the maximum speed of the plane
• Many Chance Vought aircraft had really huge cockpits because they somehow had hired almost every single tall pilot at the time
• The USAAF/USN had all sorts of trouble with it's 20mm cannon, which the RAF had none
  • The gun had no real inherent flaws, but the USAAF essentially fixed it until it was broke
• The La-5 had certain issues in combat with the Me-109 and Fw-190 not just because of performance but because
  • The engines had several controls needed to employ the engine correctly whereas the Me-109 and Fw-190 didn't have this issue
  • There was also a problem with carbon monoxide build-up in the cockpit, leading many pilots to fly with the canopy open
• The B-29 was had a critical altitude of 33,000 feet: It couldn't really cruise above this, as one would expect because
  • The amount of energy to get up there was so extreme you'd either need a light load a long distance or a very short flight
  • Typical cruising altitudes were around 31,500 to 33,000 feet, and later more like 14,000-25,000 feet because the climb rate was so slow, it was more efficient to waste less fuel in the climb, and burn a little more in the flight.

A couple points, when the slats of 109 came out there is still some room to tighten the curve. Some LW aces said that the real flying began after the slats opened.
La-5, La-5F and La-5FN all had different variant of the Shvetsov M/ASh-82 engine. Many pilots in many Soviet fighter types flew the canopy open because the poor quality of perspex and in some types there was problems to open the canopy at higher speeds, so many pilots played safe and flew combat ops with open canopies.

 

[Zipper730]

A couple points, when the slats of 109 came out there is still some room to tighten the curve. Some LW aces said that the real flying began after the slats opened.
La-5, La-5F and La-5FN all had different variant of the Shvetsov M/ASh-82 engine. Many pilots in many Soviet fighter types flew the canopy open because the poor quality of perspex and in some types there was problems to open the canopy at higher speeds, so many pilots played safe and flew combat ops with open canopies.

I amended the post, tell me what you think

 

[Zipper730]

Another detail worth mentioning here was that the roll-rates of the Hurricane and possibly other fighters varied substantially due to the way the ailerons were rigged.

 

[Zipper730]

Would any of the following be a good title?

Aircraft & Human Factors
Aircraft & Trivia
Other