Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (6 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

Why wasn't the rudder just made bigger ? Was it impossinble afterwards ?

View attachment 902503

Just looking at the image, it appears that the fuselage is too short and the CoG is too far forward, so the outboard vertical stabilizers were there to help stabilize the aircraft's flight characteristics.

Plus, it's French...

 

[topspeed]

Just looking at the image, it appears that the fuselage is too short and the CoG is too far forward, so the outboard vertical stabilizers were there to help stabilize the aircraft's flight characteristics.

Plus, it's French...

Of course, but is not what I asked...I asked if the existing rudder...were they unable to increase the size of that ? Those little finns added 4 intersection poins...thus increase the interference drag dramatically thus lessening the top speed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Of course, but is not what I asked...I asked if the existing rudder...were they unable to increase the size of that ? Those little finns added 4 intersection poins...thus increase the interference drag dramatically thus lessening the top speed.

ok, yeah...so tell me you have zero clues about aerodynamics without actually saying you have zero clues about aerodynamics.

 

[topspeed]

ok, yeah...so tell me you have zero clues about aerodynamics without actually saying you have zero clues about aerodynamics.

I am a fluid dynamics teacher at the university...soon. You have no clue....right ?

 

[bf109xxl]

I am a fluid dynamics teacher at the university...soon. You have no clue....right ?

And I am the dictator of the universe...soon. But no one has a clue...

 

[Elan Vital]

A friend of mine summed up what was in the text of Philippe RICCO's article on CAO 200:

First flight of the CAO 200 on January 30th 1939, flown by Pierre Nadot.
It reached 489 km/h after February 8 (unknown date) with a 860 PS Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31.
Towards July (unknown date) 545 km/h at 6.000 m with exhaust thrust giving an extra 16 km/h, indicating that the aircraft had been fine-tuned and possibly improved aerodynamically (new propeller?) and reached 530 kph without exhaust thrust.

The "spec sheet" gave the following details

446 km/h at SL (500 km/h with 1200 PS 12Y-51)
490 km/h at 2.000 m
535 km/h at 4.000 m
550 km/h at 4.500 m (resp. 610 km/h)
540 km/h at 6.000 m
500 km/h at 8.000 m
367 km/h at 9.300 m

2.000 m in 2 min 27 s
4.000 m in 4 min 50 s
4.500 m in 5 min 35 (5 min with 12Y-51)
6.000 m in 7 min 50 s
8.000 m in 13 min 45 s
9.300 m in 20 min 45 s

The accuracy of the figures given would indicate that they were genuinely measured, but possibly not with the armament as the pictures don't seem to show the cannon until the last trimester of 1939. The estimates given with the 12Y-51 are misleading as 1200 PS was only a takeoff setting which was actually reduced to 1100 PS in the end, while the actual altitude power was 1000 PS, giving a theoretical max of about 578 kph.

Note the 4500m critical altitude. It seems that the 6000 m value was probably with a different propeller, as French trials with different propellers often showed considerable changes in the critical altitude as seen on MS-405 and Bloch 150. The higher critical altitude was probably achieved at the expense of climb rate and is thus not representative of the configuration of the production design.

People who described CAO-1000's wind tunnel model say that it no longer had the small rudders, which were originally added because the main rudder had been found insufficient. This shows that CAO understood the issue and fixed the main rudder at some point.

In any case, I don't think this aircraft is worth discussing here as it was not a light fighter by any means.