Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
source?One thing that made the Zero so manuverable was that the tip wasn't a flat edge. It swept upwards, towards the leading edge.
This made the tip act like a little wedge and it helped the plane roll just a little faster.
The wing tip doesn't sweep upward toward anything. It follows the leading edge's washout seamlessly. The edge of the wingtip is rounded, just like the leading edge. In the A6M5 Model 52, it rolls slightly better due to slightly reduced span. The span was slightly reduced just to eliminate the small folding wingtip in the earlier models. The A6M5 Model 52 also has slightly thicker wing skin and, as a result, a slightly higher dive speed limit than earlier models. Add ejector exhaust and you also get a slight top speed increase.One thing that made the Zero so manuverable was that the tip wasn't a flat edge. It swept upwards, towards the leading edge.
This made the tip act like a little wedge and it helped the plane roll just a little faster.
I remember seeing that on a tv show. They showed the wing tip of a Zero fighter and you could see the edge swept upwards, towards the leading edge and mentioned that was part of why the plane was so maneuverable.source?
ADDENDUM: It appears that was incorrect information. Apologies to the board....One thing that made the Zero so manuverable was that the tip wasn't a flat edge. It swept upwards, towards the leading edge.
This made the tip act like a little wedge and it helped the plane roll just a little faster.
The problem I now have is that my wing is at an angle and all my faces are unequal, as I moved vertices to get a better wing shape and extending from the mesh as in the tutorial. I think I may have to resort to getting help on this issue elsewhere. I've just about given up.My instant idea to create the wingtip -
Ctrl + R to create a loop cut in the center.
G to extend and form a wingtip.
I think that modelling along the frames structure is the best way to shorten working time.The problem I now have is that my wing is at an angle and all my faces are unequal, as I moved vertices to get a better wing shape and extending from the mesh as in the tutorial. I think I may have to resort to getting help on this issue elsewhere. I've just about given up.
View attachment 730817
To add, I may have to consider referring to another tutorial instead...
Thanks Rob.Not that I understood your post, Shinpachi, but it's like reading a master craftsman sharing his art.
... or Dachau ...
View attachment 731001
As you can see the scientists went back to work. Hitler was not like Stalin in that regard, although he certainly murdered or imprisoned a lot of people who would have been valuable to the war effort because they were the wrong ethnicity.
The Zero's range might be considered one of the reasons Japan went to war.Remember that the Zero, which was considered in 1942 to be an amazing plane that outclassed its "inferior" opponents, did not actually do all that well in the real world. The Zero was always a "one trick pony" that had extraordinary maneuverability, but little else (except range, which didn't matter during actual combat). Even though our American pilots were initially impressed by the Zero's aerobatic capabilities, they did figure out ways to shoot it down, and those ways leaned heavily on teamwork, training, and the Wildcat's superior speed in a dive. Those "inferior" Wildcats actually gave better than they got, and the ratio became more and more in favor of the Wildcat with the passage of time, approaching 6:1 toward the end of the Guadalcanal campaign.
Kind of makes me wonder what it could do at the higher boost levels approved later in the war (72", 75" and 80") in similar conditions. We know what the H could do thinks to reports at World War II Aircraft Performance (mostly SAC documents), but it seems that the D wasn't a slouch either when set up properly.Greg - contrary to popular belief the P-51D was faster than the P-51B for same loadout and external conditions. GW=9700 for D-15, 9335 and 9600 for B-15
P-51D-15 With Racks, at Military Power 61"/3000RPM = 438mph at 28000. At Max Continuous Power 46"/2700RPM =420mph @. At 67" = 442mph at 26,000 feet.
Contrast the P-51B-15 with same engine (1650-7) at same MP and WER of 61" and 67" respectively and with racks.
With Racks, at WER 67"/3000RPM =426mph at 24,000
For No fuse tank, no wing racks and a 1650-3 in P-51B-5. GW@takeoff = 9335
at 67"MP/3000RPM, top speed =420 at 24K, 442@29K
Summary - in combat condition with external racks and 60gal Fuse tank burned, but full wing fuel - the P-51D is faster in Military Power than the P-51B at WER.
The two major drag differences are a.) the wing racks (Delta = 6-8mph) and b.) canopy/windshield design for the D (~4-5mph)
I have one flight test for D-10 at Fighter condition takeoff GW of 8900 pounds (100gal ful), light oil, P-51B ammo loadout) where top speed at 67" and 25K is 452mph w/o racks and max ROC at 4200fpm - wich would have been best interceptor until P-47M in similar light condition.