- Thread starter
-
- #61
So how did the F4U end up as a gull design wouldnt they be straight
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So how did the F4U end up as a gull design wouldnt they be straightGood observation, as that's usually that's the case. Realize planes are built to some specification, and are a series of concessions (all designed to meet the requirement). The nose wheels are easier planes today to fly, but back then they would have gone where the motor was sitting. The P-38 has a yoke (steering wheel looking control) that comes up out of the right floorboard, then bends towards the middle where the "wheel" is finally located. At the time conventional design had the "stick" coming up out of the middle of the floor between the pilots legs. However, on the P-38 the nose wheel / gear was occupying that space.
Back to the series of concessions. Want your plane faster, it needs a more powerful motor. More power means greater fuel consumption, which in turn usually means shorter range. Think P-47 early versus late models. The early models were fuel limited, but as time went on more and more was added, as well as power to keep the performance up.
Want longer range, you need more fuel storage, which generally means a bigger wing, which means greater drag, which cuts down on top speed.
The Zero was long ranged, as fast (or almost) as it's contemporaries, could turn better but it gave up something for that. Protection in the form of armor and self sealing fuel tanks. It also didn't have the growth (more power, for better performance) that the Spit, Me 109, Fw 190, Mustang did.
As you become more aware of the different planes, and the countries they were made in you will notice each had a design influence that permeated their products. The Germans and Brits made aircraft that were lighter than their US contemporaries, but heavier than the Japanese products. Likewise, the German / Brit equipment climbed better (for the most part) than the US stuff but were a bit shorter ranged. Power being close, usually the lighter plane climbs faster. Once again, if you want one thing in particular, you generally give up something somewhere else to get it.
These are all generalities, and as usual there are exceptions to almost every rule.
Cheers,
Biff
Good observation, as that's usually that's the case. Realize planes are built to some specification, and are a series of concessions (all designed to meet the requirement). The nose wheels are easier planes today to fly, but back then they would have gone where the motor was sitting. The P-38 has a yoke (steering wheel looking control) that comes up out of the right floorboard, then bends towards the middle where the "wheel" is finally located. At the time conventional design had the "stick" coming up out of the middle of the floor between the pilots legs. However, on the P-38 the nose wheel / gear was occupying that space.
Back to the series of concessions. Want your plane faster, it needs a more powerful motor. More power means greater fuel consumption, which in turn usually means shorter range. Think P-47 early versus late models. The early models were fuel limited, but as time went on more and more was added, as well as power to keep the performance up.
Want longer range, you need more fuel storage, which generally means a bigger wing, which means greater drag, which cuts down on top speed.
The Zero was long ranged, as fast (or almost) as it's contemporaries, could turn better but it gave up something for that. Protection in the form of armor and self sealing fuel tanks. It also didn't have the growth (more power, for better performance) that the Spit, Me 109, Fw 190, Mustang did.
As you become more aware of the different planes, and the countries they were made in you will notice each had a design influence that permeated their products. The Germans and Brits made aircraft that were lighter than their US contemporaries, but heavier than the Japanese products. Likewise, the German / Brit equipment climbed better (for the most part) than the US stuff but were a bit shorter ranged. Power being close, usually the lighter plane climbs faster. Once again, if you want one thing in particular, you generally give up something somewhere else to get it.
These are all generalities, and as usual there are exceptions to almost every rule.
Cheers,
Biff
So how did the F4U end up as a gull design wouldnt they be straight
So use a big wing and a big engineExactly, it is a carefully played game of balancing your specifications to give you the best performance as possible. Improving one aspect will likely have an opposite effect elsewhere.
Also V VA5124 remember that the 4 forces of flight counteract each other. Lift works opposite of weight. Thrust works opposite of drag.
Oh didnt know thatThe gull wings design was so the landing gear could be shorter and sturdier while still allowing sufficient ground clearance for the large propellor.
So use a big wing and a big engine
So how do you make big turn wellSure, but then you increase weight.
Take the Bf 109 as an an example. As they put larger engines into it, weight increased. The aircraft became faster, but it suffered in maneuverability.
From a WW2 timeframe perspective you could do several things. You could make a larger wing square footage wise, but this increases weight and drag. You can add leading edge slats (like the Me 109) but when they extend it increases drag. Or you could push weight towards the tail (move the center of gravity (CG) aft) but this causes the plane to spin easier and be more difficult to recover from said spin as well as it will require more pilot skill to fly it.So how do you make big turn well
I give up i dont how to bulid a perfect planeFrom a WW2 timeframe perspective you could do several things. You could make a larger wing square footage wise, but this increases weight and drag. You can add leading edge slats (like the Me 109) but when they extend it increases drag. Or you could push weight towards the tail (move the center of gravity (CG) aft) but this causes the plane to spin easier and be more difficult to recover from said spin as well as it will require more pilot skill to fly it.
Into todays world they use fly by wire (FBW is a computer between the pilots stick and the flight controls) which gives the pilot a vote but not the final say in what the plane does. With FBW you can have a CG so far aft that a human couldn't fly it (F-16) which in turn makes the plane turn extremely well. There are other things that the FBW flight controls can do to the ailerons / elevators that increase turning ability with a smaller drag penalty that just wasn't possible in the 30s-70s.
That's funny (and no I'm not laughing at you but at the mastery of the obvious you exhibited)! The guys with large brains in WW2 didn't know either. A lot of folks died along the way as the "best they could do", design wise got better.I give up i dont how to bulid a perfect plane
But from a common sense view bigger guns are usually better unless your a hurricane mk 2 trop with 12 ,30 calsVA5124
Consider the machinegun application in Japan's aircraft, in particular the Ki-27 which they used in China. Because of it's maneuverability the Japanese didn't see any reason to upgun their planes. If you were were lucky enough to find yourself behind a Ki-27 in combat the instant you fired he would pull full up and loop onto your six and at very close range open fire on you so the twin rifle caliber guns were enough. The AVG discovered this when they ignored Chennault's advise. While the AVG pilot pulled full up to follow, his P-40 slowed allowing the much lighter Ki-27 with it's tighter loop to position itself for the shootdown.. The followon Ki-43 did the same thing only faster, therefor from the Japanese point of view, there was no reason to change what they were doing.
But from a common sense view bigger guns are usually better unless your a hurricane mk 2 trop with 12 ,30 cals
I just prefer cannons on my fighters always have although i will admit the best hurricane ever made had 12 rifle calbier mgsDepends on your primary target. Two wings with eight .50s is more than good enough to take down fighters. Now if your primary target is a formation of B-17s, then cannons are better suited.
But from a common sense view bigger guns are usually better unless your a hurricane mk 2 trop with 12 ,30 cals
Ok maybe my love for cannon is flawed but can we all admit the the mk2 trop with 12 x 30 cals is the best hurricane everAgainst a Ki-43, the problem is getting those big guns on target; it's an incredibly maneuverable plane, at least as much as the Zero.
And because they the opponent's guns are big, they weigh more, meaning your plane is probably not going to be as agile as a -43.
And with a bigger gun layout, you'll be getting fewer shots in and won't be at six o'clock (or so) very long, which means that the pilot's gunnery has to be damned good against a butterfly like the Oscar.
I just prefer cannons on my fighters always have although i will admit the best hurricane ever made had 12 rifle calbier mgs
Ok maybe my love for cannon is flawed but can we all admit the the mk2 trop with 12 x 30 cals is the best hurricane ever