Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
06-20-2009, 11:09 PM
#74
Soren
Posts: 5,763 Sorry but you're the one using ridiculous Clmax figures VG-33, not me.
Or are you to suggest that you know more than the guys at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics??
Also I suggest you leave this argument until you start accepting the reality of things
06-15-2009, 04:55 AM #13
Soren
Senior Member
Like I've said before I'd take the Soviet data above with a large handful salt. But that's just my advice to you guys, you are free to believe in what you want ofcourse. I will however note that the Hurricance was in general considered a better turnfighter than both the Spitfire Bf-109.
If you want to know the true turn performance of these fighter aircraft then I suggest you take a look at the physics, in my experience it never lies, ever.
__________________
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about VG-33, not me.
I can show you the physics no problem, which part are you looking for ? The interesting thing though is that it's very simple really, cause the a/c with the highest amount of lift power pr. amount of weight, and an acceptable amount of drag, will turn the best.
Oh! no...You see that!Did you find it alone by yourself, or daddy helped?
No seriously, stop taking the others for idiots and get going in more advanced calculations.
That's simple physics for you, now are you gonna try and deny it ? Good luck!
Here's some of the formulas you'll need.
Thank you, but i have already used them previously as you can see in my posts.
06-19-2009, 09:09 PM #71
VG-33
Member
Quote:
BTW - Thanks for the turn test data -....
No problem. For 73,8%, n(y) = 3.6g; n(z) = 1; n(t) = 3.736
n(t).m.g = 1/2 .(rhô) .V².S.Cz
Cz*= 2mg/(rhô) V²S
Cz = 2 x 3.73 x 1700 x 9.81 / ( 0.971x 1.225) ** x 70² x 22.15
Cz = 124 410,4 / 131 139,5
Cz = 0.95***
Ok? more?
06-20-2009, 11:06 PM #73
VG-33
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 45 Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren
Now regarding the Clmax of the P-51, I would agree on ~1.5, eventhough I remember NACA saying 1.35 (Report 829). By comparison the Spitfire's was 1.36, Bf-109F/G/K was 1.7 and FW-190's was 1.61. All three a/c also have lower landing stall speeds, the Spitfire Bf-109 considerably so, and the Fw-190 being very close and pretty much the same as the P-51.
So my assessment has largely derived from the standpoint of lift generated vs the weight of the aircraft plus the amount of power available.
.
Your assessments will be less ridiculous the day you would use realistic Cl values.
So on ToT(mini):
P-51's Cl = 1.095
Spit's Cl = 1.08- 1.14
Me 109 G2 Cl = 1.1-1.15
FW 190 Cl = 1.44
Is it enough, or do you want more?
L = Lift = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2
D = Drag = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2
Cl = Lift Coefficient = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
Cdi = Induced drag = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
Cd0 = Zero lift drag coefficient (Determined experimentally)
Cd = drag coefficient = Cd = Cdo + Cdi = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
Use them and you can determine the amount G forces an a/c can pull at specific speeds, the stall speed, the L/D ratio etc etc...
IT's your turn to use them as you just said now, so apply your famous forulas in order to establish the best climb , the best sustainted turn and radius of a Me-109, a Spit, or a La-5...at 1000m or SL for instance.
I'm waiting 8)
Regards, VG-33
VG-33 said:Oh! no...You see that! Did you find it alone by yourself, or daddy helped?
No seriously, stop taking the others for idiots and get going in more advanced calculations.
VG-33 said:IT's your turn to use them as you just said now, so apply your famous forulas in order to establish the best climb , the best sustainted turn and radius of a Me-109, a Spit, or a La-5...at 1000m or SL for instance.
I'm waiting
to acknowledge the simple importance of weight, lift power
Anyway on with the physics!
Lets take the Bf-109F-4 for a spin:
Bf-109 F-4 specifications:
Weight: 2,890 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing Clmax: 1.70
Cd0: 0.023
Engine power: 1,325 HP at 1.42 ata
OK. Apply this data in order to build a flight model, for climb, turn rate, radius...A have already done mine, so make your realistic proposal!
And the methods for calculating drag lift, all of which can be used to determine G loads, L/D ratios stalling speeds etc etc: and Methods for calculating turn radius etc:...
I never asked you for that, obviously you don't pay the bandpass to fullfil it with your flood that way...
So come on, spit it on now!
VG-33
VG-33 I'm sorry but you haven't provided anything, so until you do please stop claiming you have.
Ok, i might have done some mistakes, nobody's perfect. I will try to do the calculations for Me-109F with your values, by my side.Furthermore you have clearly demonstrated that you're completely unaware of the fact that the smallest radius of turn and highest turn rate is achieved when flying at Clmax.
For this time, and the other ones, don't give me things i don't need and/or already have...So about your tools, why don't you use them, instead of giving them to the others?Now I've already given you the tools to calculate the turn radius turn rate of both a/c,
But i need some more elements, should i take a NACA 2R1, 2312 or 2412 wing profile?you on the other hand have provided nothing, you haven't even yourself attempted to calculate turn radius or rate for crying out loud!
Listen, you shout loud first that soviet, british, finish test were false or erroneous. So prove it!So how about you do the math so you can see for yourself that the Bf-109 featured both a better turn radius and rate.
A least, i did some simple calculations on I-15, 109G2, SpitIX... You, did nothing, except flooding and breeding as hell. I suppose even simple calculations are far above your geat intellectual abilities?In short all you have done so far VG-33 is ridiculing yourself and demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject, nothing else. Your ridicously simple little calculation based on Finnish trials is worthless.
It's very impolite to do not answer to the questionsThis is getting out of hand, I've tried being polite towards you VG-33
I will try to do the calculations for Me-109F with your values, by my side.
And for best climb rate? Should i take your Clmax = 1.7 too?
But i need some more elements, should i take a NACA 2R1, 2312 or 2412 wing profile?
but you've refused to have ...
... in your next post then I'll do the calculations for everybody to see.
Yes thak you...let's everybody see.
VG-33
VG-33 let me remind you that you have NOT provided the following:
1.) Formula for or Calculations of turn radius
2.) Formula for or Calculations of turn rate
3.) Formula for or Calculations of stall speed
4.) Formula for or Calculations of accessable G forces at specific speeds
I on the other hand have already provided all of the above, so how about you provide just ONE, esp. before you start claiming you have provided them all? So far you've done exactly squat VG-33, and your childish behavior hasn't helped you one bit either except for making you look completely ignorant and foolish.
It's time to cut your losses and leave the matter now VG-33..