Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
. While most of the aircraft I looked at that are known as great fighters (American, since the only source on this was the Joint Fighter Conference), all had light and effective controls, it seems to me that the big effort in aircraft design was for more powerful and faster aircraft than the enemy, and not one with lighter controls and stronger airframe. The effort on the P-51H, for example, was to lighten the structure (lower g limits) for speed and maneuverability. Higher speed and more power allow better use of energy management, which, without a doubt, is one of the major factors in successful air-to-air combat. Due to its much higher power, it was much easier for an F6F to maintain airspeed in a turn than an F4F in the same situation.By 1942 the speeds at which most dogfights were taking place were so high that the lightness harmony of the controls plus the structural integrity of the a/c became the two dominant if not the only factors for achieving success.
Great post Soren! Very informative, I never really thought of this.
I am a bit uncertain regarding your comment . While most of the aircraft I looked at that are known as great fighters (American, since the only source on this was the Joint Fighter Conference), all had light and effective controls, it seems to me that the big effort in aircraft design was for more powerful and faster aircraft than the enemy, and not one with lighter controls and stronger airframe. The effort on the P-51H, for example, was to lighten the structure (lower g limits) for speed and maneuverability. Higher speed and more power allow better use of energy management, which, without a doubt, is one of the major factors in successful air-to-air combat. Due to its much higher power, it was much easier for an F6F to maintain airspeed in a turn than an F4F in the same situation.
Dave, the reduction in limit loads on the 51H from D was from 12g to 11g on Ultimate and 8g to 7.4 on Limit Load, which in a turning high G fight was still below the Berger poopy suit capability in 44 and 45.
Your point about power loading is a good one re: energy as the H was nearly 900 pounds lighter and had the more powerful -9 Merlin. It had better acceleration, roll, turn and climb than the D
Indeed. From what I understand the reduction in load factor was to make it similar to the Spitfire. Apparently, the British thought that the P-51 was overdesigned in regards to stress levels.
And the German pilots had tilted seats plus heightened footrests, in the end this probably cancelled out the difference with the early G-suit.
And the German pilots had tilted seats plus heightened footrests, in the end this probably cancelled out the difference with the early G-suit.
Davparlr,
Regarding my comment on the lightness harmony of the controls and the structural integrity of the airframe being the dominant factors for succes, well usually this was a feature of the faster more powerful a/c over the previous lighter but less powerful a/c. When the FW190 arrived on the scene the Spitfire pilots were at a complete loss as the FW190 ws not only much faster, it also climbed much faster and was unbelievably agile at all speeds, esp. at speeds of 400 km/h and above where pulling lead on one was near impossible without blacking out.
Bill,
The FW190 BF109 were both designed to withstand 13 G's fully loaded, this was the ultimate load limit no doubt, but it is still pretty staggering.
The load limit for the P-51D is 6.59 G fully loaded, now as to the ultimate I don't know but.
The load limit for the Dora-9 fully loaded is 6.9 G.
100% YES - there were extensive tests done at Wright Patterson AFB around 1943 or early 1944 if I remember right. I think the museum there has a whole display of these test and the first implementation of the G suit.FLYBOYJ,
Is there any proof that these early G-suits helped much in any way ?
It didn't matter, again if it was a matter of just reclining the seat and using foot rest a lot of extra "junk" could of been omitted from fighters over the past 60 years...From what I've heard the heightened footrests and tilted seats did just as much good as these early G-suits. Remember the US pilots were just sitting in what resembled a straight chair by comparison.
The physical training (especially leg muscle weight training) is a big part of it. the inclined seat will help but in the end the guy wearing the g suit has a BIG advantage.Anyway the best way to survive high G's between the early G-suit and the heightened footrest tilted seat is with lots of practice with muscle straining. The G-suits are of course the no.1 reason pilots aren't blacking out above 7 G's. The G-suits helps allot.
And the German pilots had tilted seats plus heightened footrests, in the end this probably cancelled out the difference with the early G-suit.
Davparlr,
The FW190 BF109 were both designed to withstand 13 G's fully loaded, this was the ultimate load limit no doubt, but it is still pretty staggering.
The load limit for the P-51D is 6.59 G fully loaded, now as to the ultimate I don't know but.
The load limit for the Dora-9 fully loaded is 6.9 G.
Bill,
What is your source for the 11 G ultimate load limit for the -51 ?