Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In regards to the Spit one of the biggest causes of drag is the one thing never mentioned, the angle of the windscreen.
I have read on here that the windscreen on the Spitfire is the first to "shock", I have no idea whether that means it causes high drag at lower speeds, as compared to the buckets they call radiator scoops on the Mk XIV Spitfire, for example.Lednicer focused on the windscreen drag of the Spit IX and showed a stagnation region at the base of the P-51B windscreen in his CFD pressure distribution plots form VSAERO. IIRC he also speculated that the first indication of a Mcrit transition occurred there,
You can't climb like a rocket without good cooling, she still did 450mph so they couldn't have been that bad.I have read on here that the windscreen on the Spitfire is the first to "shock", I have no idea whether that means it causes high drag at lower speeds, as compared to the buckets they call radiator scoops on the Mk XIV Spitfire, for example.
It's interesting that you aren't able to understand that they were trying to achieve, they tested at low level to increase the level of bug debris which is the purpose of the testing, they wanted real world data, likewise how do P51's get to 25,000ft?, are they just magically get there or do they take off from the ground and fly at low altitude, say 500ft first?.
With the Mustang Mk I and II 500 ft and lower was where they frequently did their work.Of course, the P-51 (and literally every other aircraft made) would see flight at 500 feet, but how long did the P-51 operate at this height as opposed to standard operations?
Landing and taking off as well as ground attack involved a small portion of a typical P-51's mission and even then, insect contact would primarily occur during certain times during spring into summer, weather permitting.
Laminar flow 'exists' at approximately RN 500,000 - or just about taxi speed out of the chocks. Laminar Flow per se, never existed in any wing including P-51 45-100 series. That said, the Mustang wing did achieve 'Laminar Flow like' results in comparison to conventional NACA 23xxx wings - namely in delayed boundary layer separation. The region behind the BL separation is extremely turbulent, low energy flow which is a factor to increase friction drag.That's true but from what I've read Laminar flow wings need to be perfect to work, and I mean perfect, dirt dust grass is enough to effect the laminar flow. I've never read anything other than a poor finish such as chipped paint causing issue's with elliptical wings which is true for every other type also.
+6mph for the screen.In regards to the Spit one of the biggest causes of drag is the one thing never mentioned, the angle of the windscreen.
Seriously mate you have totally lost what I said, the P51's laminar flow wings weren't the be all to end all, like the Spitfires drag, windscreen angle, cannon's, blisters, undercarriage it all added up, the Mustangs speed came from a combination of many small details too, flush riveting, radiator, wings etc added together, there was no silver bullet.I weight his words more that I do yours.
With the external bullet proof windscreen and mirror it was even worse.
Seriously mate you have totally lost what I said, the P51's laminar flow wings weren't the be all to end all, like the Spitfires drag, windscreen angle, cannon's, blisters, undercarriage it all added up, the Mustangs speed came from a combination of many small details too, flush riveting, radiator, wings etc added together, there was no silver bullet.
Of course, the P-51 (and literally every other aircraft made) would see flight at 500 feet, but how long did the P-51 operate at this height as opposed to standard operations?
Landing and taking off as well as ground attack involved a small portion of a typical P-51's mission and even then, insect contact would primarily occur during certain times during spring into summer, weather permitting.
I'd be more concerned about Cosmic Dust and Negative Waves...There's also that washing and waxing for best-performance thing. Like bugs couldn't be washed away.
Second degree conics is another I learned recently.Seriously mate you have totally lost what I said, the P51's laminar flow wings weren't the be all to end all, like the Spitfires drag, windscreen angle, cannon's, blisters, undercarriage it all added up, the Mustangs speed came from a combination of many small details too, flush riveting, radiator, wings etc added together, there was no silver bullet.
Supermarine were of course aware, PR Spitfires had a curved windscreen. The problem being that even if you can make a curved screen from BP glass it becomes a lens.With the external bullet proof windscreen and mirror it was even worse. View attachment 735841
With the external bullet proof windscreen and mirror it was even worse. View attachment 735841
From what I have read it caused optical distortion so it wasn't followed through.Supermarine were of course aware, PR Spitfires had a curved windscreen. The problem being that even if you can make a curved screen from BP glass it becomes a lens.
With the laws of physics being what they are it is very hard not to.From what I have read it caused optical distortion so it wasn't followed through.
I`ll dig out info on wing cleaning up of the p-51 and the effect compared to other aircraft, they did a lot of that for V1 chasing.
Reading the report they wanted to fit the curved windscreen to V1 chasers also.With the laws of physics being what they are it is very hard not to.
A V1 didnt change direction or fire back.Reading the report they wanted to fit the curved windscreen to V1 chasers also.