Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
.
Why? It had one of the best power to wight ratios, wing loading, best oswald number ~ 1
Not likely (e ~1). There is a significant difference between an elliptical plan form and a true elliptical LIFT Distribution - particularly when the wing body effect is taken into account
23-25s for the P-51A in 42
27-28s for the P-47 in 1945
The Mustang 'e' was closer to .85 and its wing/wing body had much less total drag than the spit.
Power doesn't seem to have much influence in the Soviet tests...
.
Thank you for the link. In high attack angles fuselage give some extra-lift, of course. And side lift could be considerable too, if in step banking turns if pilot manage to use rudder. For planes like Gee-Bee, or I-16 if used fuselage side lift was considerable and so for a lot of aerobatical planes ower days.
True about some lift in high AoA. More important is that the trim drag and asymmetric/spanwise flow in steeply banked turn has negative effects to the wing body system in a steeply banked turn
But AFAIK, the championship was the Polikarpov I-15 Tchaîka.Inclinated at 90% it could gave some 300-400 kgf extra force and fly or even climb (only with it's fuselage side lift) without any use of it's wings !
I would have to see some serious wind tunnel data to believe that it could maintain and sustain altitude in even a 60 degree bank angle,
Back to our Spitfire, have you got it's "e" value from real experiment's or wing tunnel results?
Regards
It mainly seems you don't know what you're talking about.
Why thank you VG-33!
So much for keeping it friendly
Oh well I tried.. I'm outta here, believe in what ya want pal..
The weight of the K-4 was 3,364 kg, and the weight of the Bf-109G-10 was 3,148 kg IIRC. Which is abit heavier than the 3,050 kg of the G-2, that's true. Anyway a 18.8 sec turn time for the K-4 seems very reasonable for a 525 hp increase in power while weight increased only by 286 kg.
IIRC Gene (Crumpp) arrived at a similar result, the K-4 being very close to the Spitfire IX in sustained turn rate on his charts.
Got the original docs on the K-4, and the weight is exactly 3,364 kg fully loaded (3,400 kg must be a rounded value from somewhere else), that is stated on Kurfursts site as-well. And an increase in power of 525 hp for an increase in weight of just 280 kg would definitely cut more than a second off the turn the time, so I think it reasonable to be in the area of 18.8 to 19 secs. (The K-4 featured some important aerodynamic touch ups compared to earlier 109's as-well, reducing drag a lot)
Bill,
Maybe at high altitude the P-51B D were close to the P-40N P-39Q in turn performance, but at low alt I'm quite sure both the P-39 P-40 were a good deal superior. We need only look at the lift to weight ratio here to get a clue on that.