Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.

[michael rauls]

I thought a discussion of some of the less tangible qualities of an aircraft that made it effective in general or perhaps great just for a specific mission might be interesting.
The example of this that comes to my mind is the F6F. If you look at the performance stats, while certainly not bad, were not spectacular. Top speed 375, rate of climb about 3000 ft per minute if I recall. Reasonably maneuverable but not astoundingly so( at least as is my impression from what I have read). All descent stats but not outstanding in any one area.
So it seems its marked success must have come from less tangible qualities. In the case of the Hellcat I have read quotes from many pilots citing" docile handling characteristics"( or some variation of that) as a main reason the loved the plane. I believe it was Cambell who said" i love this plane so much if I could I would marry it".
I'm left to conclude( I hope rightfully so) that " docile handling characteristics" which I'm assuming means a plane that for example you can push a little more because you don't have to worry so much about getting it into a spin for example while not showing up in performance stats are worth quite a bit in actual combat.
Would love to here everyones thoughts on this.
Also certainly didn't intend for this thread to be limited to the F6F.

 

[pbehn]

I thought docile handling was the ease at which a plane could be flown especially in adverse conditions. With regard to a carrier borne aircraft it may or may not be in combat with the enemy, it always has to be landed back on the carrier. Over the course of naval combat with carriers I believe more planes have been destroyed by the ship that carried them than the enemy in carrier operations, I don't know if it is the same with lives lost in carrier landings versus enemy action.

 

[swampyankee]

In general three things aren't readily found in performance statistics:

• Control harmonization. An aircraft with disparate forces required for pitch, yaw, and roll will be less pleasant and more tiring to fly
• Departure characteristics. An aircraft that gives a predictable warning near stall and can be recovered quickly will be easier to fly in combat.
• Dynamic behavior, that is how quickly the aircraft accelerates in roll (especially), pitch, and yaw

An aircraft that can be described as "sweet-handling" will permit a pilot, especially one inexperienced in type, to use more of the aircraft's performance.

 

[pbehn]

"Being there" The Hurricane was not a high performance design in 1940, but it was readily available and easy to produce, in a war of attrition numbers matter, a lot of "not bad" is better than a handful of "very good". By contrast the Me 262 was a high performance design but one of many issues it faced was that its engine needed metals that Germany didn't have. It is of no importance at all whether 30 aircraft produced in 1945 were or were not slightly better than the potentially 600 opponents they faced over their home airfield, the battle had been lost long before.

 

[michael rauls]

I thought docile handling was the ease at which a plane could be flown especially in adverse conditions. With regard to a carrier borne aircraft it may or may not be in combat with the enemy, it always has to be landed back on the carrier. Over the course of naval combat with carriers I believe more planes have been destroyed by the ship that carried them than the enemy in carrier operations, I don't know if it is the same with lives lost in carrier landings versus enemy action.

Yes I thought docile handling would include the ease with which a plane could be flown but also logically thought it would include things like good stall warning and not having a tendency to spin etc. Seems if you have a plane with " vicious stall characteristics" as I have read say the p40 for example discribed by many pilots that ( no dig against the p40 I love that plane)wouldn't qualify as docile handling characteristics. I am not a pilot( though i hope to be when time permits) so I realize i may be all wet here in my understanding of what docile handling characteristics means but even if that is the case I think the topic of qualities that make a great plane that don't nescesarily show up in performance stats should be interesting.
Another example might be resistance to battle damage as in the p47 for example. Doesn't show up in performance stats but very important. I would say even decisive at times.

 

[pbehn]

Yes I thought docile handling would include the ease with which a plane could be flown but also logically thought it would include things like good stall warning and not having a tendency to spin etc. Seems if you have a plane with " vicious stall characteristics" as I have read say the p40 for example discribed by many pilots that ( no dig against the p40 I love that plane)wouldn't qualify as docile handling characteristics. I am not a pilot( though i hope to be when time permits) so I realize i may be all wet here in my understanding of what docile handling characteristics means but even if that is the case I think the topic of qualities that make a great plane that don't nescesarily show up in performance stats should be interesting.
Another example might be resistance to battle damage as in the p47 for example. Doesn't show up in performance stats but very important. I would say even decisive at times.

I briefly (very briefly) rode my race bike on the road, it was a road bike modified for racing, and was a complete dog on the road after modification. I take "docile handling" to mean the ease at which a top performing vehicle can be used for a mundane task like landing on a carrier, you will never be able to drive an F1 car from your house to the supermarket and park it. The F6F as I understand it had top performance when required but was also like a family saloon (perhaps an exaggeration) also, when required.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I believe Swampyankee touched on this with his mention of departure characteristics but more specifically, it help if the slope of the Coefficient of Lift versus AoA curve has a gradual slope past the stall so that loss of lift is not a sudden thing.
Along the same lines, ideally, one would want a very high peak Coefficient of Lift for lower stall speeds, and very little migration of the center of lift so that the aeroplane behaves in a predictable fashion.

I believe also that "control modulation" or the relationship of aircraft response to control inputs is a factor that is very important but also not often mentioned. Certain aircraft can be held at a certain G-Load without difficulty while others are much less precise and will constantly overshoot or undershoot the target.

Along with control forces, there is also the relationship of the movement of the stick to the response of the aircraft. A specific case where this was not ideal was the P-39 Airacobra which seems to have gotten a lot of attention lately. From straight and level flight in cruise condition with a CL of about 0.2 to maximum CL of 1.4 only took about 1 inch of travel of the control stick. (NACA L-602).

Control coupling also tends to result in less than predictable behaviour but only tends to get mentioned with more modern high performance aircraft.

- Ivan.

 

[pbehn]

Throughout the war, the view offered to pilots improved, almost all late war designs had bubble type canopies, this despite the pilots view not being severely criticised previously. The Spitfire started the war with a Malcolm hood and it was fitted to P-51s as a modification 4 years later.

 

[michael rauls]

Throughout the war, the view offered to pilots improved, almost all late war designs had bubble type canopies, this despite the pilots view not being severely criticised previously. The Spitfire started the war with a Malcolm hood and it was fitted to P-51s as a modification 4 years later.

Good point. That's another good example of things that affect how " good" an aircraft is that don't show up in performance stats that had not imediatly occurred to me.

 

[pbehn]

Good point. That's another good example of things that affect how " good" an aircraft is that don't show up in performance stats that had not imediatly occurred to me.

Some things defy explanation, years after the introduction of the Spitfire into frontline service Hawkers produced the design for its replacement where such a simple thing as the pilots ability to see around him was seemingly not considered. The Typhoon and almost all US "bird cage" designs were a step backwards and I have
never seen any explanation why apart from "that's how it was".

 

[jetcal1]

I believe Swampyankee touched on this with his mention of departure characteristics but more specifically, it help if the slope of the Coefficient of Lift versus AoA curve has a gradual slope past the stall so that loss of lift is not a sudden thing.
Along the same lines, ideally, one would want a very high peak Coefficient of Lift for lower stall speeds, and very little migration of the center of lift so that the aeroplane behaves in a predictable fashion.

I believe also that "control modulation" or the relationship of aircraft response to control inputs is a factor that is very important but also not often mentioned. Certain aircraft can be held at a certain G-Load without difficulty while others are much less precise and will constantly overshoot or undershoot the target.

Along with control forces, there is also the relationship of the movement of the stick to the response of the aircraft. A specific case where this was not ideal was the P-39 Airacobra which seems to have gotten a lot of attention lately. From straight and level flight in cruise condition with a CL of about 0.2 to maximum CL of 1.4 only took about 1 inch of travel of the control stick. (NACA L-602).

Control coupling also tends to result in less than predictable behaviour but only tends to get mentioned with more modern high performance aircraft.

- Ivan.

"predictable behaviour" must surely count as an intangible when you're fatigued and or wounded.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Some things defy explanation, years after the introduction of the Spitfire into frontline service Hawkers produced the design for its replacement where such a simple thing as the pilots ability to see around him was seemingly not considered. The Typhoon and almost all US "bird cage" designs were a step backwards and I have
never seen any explanation why apart from "that's how it was".

One explanation might be that in general, the change from a razorback to a bubble top design was a detriment to the aerodynamic qualities. The gain was better visibility from the cockpit, but there was typically more drag and less keel area for stability which often had to be addressed by adding a fin fillet and even then stability may have still been less than the original design.

- Ivan.

 

[michael rauls]

Not to Bogart the thread but another example of this may be the SBD.
( hey look at that. I was able to shoehorn the SBD into another conversation ).
In all seriousness, on paper looking at the performance stats there doesn't seem to be anything that would indicate it would have a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters( about 100 of the 138 total as I recall) but none the less it did.
Have read that it had great handling characteristics and was very tough so I'm
assuming that these two factors had a great deal to do with its success in this department.

 

[pbehn]

One explanation might be that in general, the change from a razorback to a bubble top design was a detriment to the aerodynamic qualities. The gain was better visibility from the cockpit, but there was typically more drag and less keel area for stability which often had to be addressed by adding a fin fillet and even then stability may have still been less than the original design.

- Ivan.

True but that is one example and the results of a quick fix, the P-51 and F4U just had the Malcolm hood put on them, bubble canopies came later. This survived into the post war era, look at an early hawker hunter or Mig 21 for example. It is as if designers had the idea that if you go fast enough you don't have to look behind.

 

[Shortround6]

Early Mig 21 wasn't too bad, but like the A-4 Skyhawk, there wasn't much room in the fuselage to put things so the dorsal area behind the cockpit just got bigger and bigger.

 

[jetcal1]

Some things defy explanation, years after the introduction of the Spitfire into frontline service Hawkers produced the design for its replacement where such a simple thing as the pilots ability to see around him was seemingly not considered. The Typhoon and almost all US "bird cage" designs were a step backwards and I have
never seen any explanation why apart from "that's how it was".
/QUOTE]

It may have been something as simple as not having the engineering staff available or deciding to wait until a new production line was opened. Even as simple as, "Gee boss, we have 2,000 old style canopies either on hand or on order and they're all paid for." Can we use them until they're exhausted?"
There's always a bit of friction between engineering, the floor, and the customer.
//S// Everything in the UK should have had a bubble canopy after the Whirlwind flew in 1938. Including the Hurricane and the Spitfire.//S//

 

[jetcal1]

Early Mig 21 wasn't too bad, but like the A-4 Skyhawk, there wasn't much room in the fuselage to put things so the dorsal area behind the cockpit just got bigger and bigger.

It was fun folding my 73" frame into an A-4 to do an engine run.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

True but that is one example and the results of a quick fix, the P-51 and F4U just had the Malcolm hood put on them, bubble canopies came later. This survived into the post war era, look at an early hawker hunter or Mig 21 for example. It is as if designers had the idea that if you go fast enough you don't have to look behind.

Hello Pbehn,
I am not sure what you mean by just one example or a quick fix. The Mustang and Thunderbolt both went through the same transformation in canopies. The redesign for the Mustang was actually much greater than it appeared at first glance. Both aircraft still ended up with some directional stability issues. The F4U / F2G never really had a bubble canopy if you consider that the only examples with bubble canopies were a couple prototypes and not production aircraft. It is sort of like saying that the P-40 series eventually got a bubble canopy with the Q model but does a single example really count?

Eeeek! Jets!
The Hawker Hunter had a canopy close enough to a bubble that I would give it that credit.
I believe the MiG 21 and others of that era were designed with the idea that maneuvering combat was obsolete and that aircraft were just launch platforms to be vectored in by radar and weapons would be launched beyond visual range anyway.
If you think about it, they were not alone. The Jaguar, Tornado, Mirage, English Electric Lightning, and most of the century series had canopies that were not so good for rear vision.

- Ivan.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-36 was considered by many pilots to be a wonderful handling aircraft and it has the distinction of being the first U.S. fighter to bring down a Japanese fighter (A6M2) of the Pacific war.

This brings me to a point to consider - what were the qualifications of the pilots who made the fighter (any fighter) what it was?

When the U.S. went to war, their pilots were inexperienced, trained in old tactics that hadn't been proven since WWI and often times, these un-tried pilots were pitted against combat experienced adversaries.

 

[jetcal1]

The P-36 was considered by many pilots to be a wonderful handling aircraft and it has the distinction of being the first U.S. fighter to bring down a Japanese fighter (A6M2) of the Pacific war.

This brings me to a point to consider - what were the qualifications of the pilots who made the fighter (any fighter) what it was?

When the U.S. went to war, their pilots were inexperienced, trained in old tactics that hadn't been proven since WWI and often times, these un-tried pilots were pitted against combat experienced adversaries.

"This brings me to a point to consider - what were the qualifications of the pilots who made the fighter (any fighter) what it was?"
- At the risk of sounding trite, I consider one of the leading "qualifications" would be the ability to innovate.
Against the A6M2, you had Chennault who basically called for energy combat against the A6M and you had Flatley and Thach calling for maneuvering combat with the Thach Weave. Different tactics, but sound innovations. Some times it's technical innovation like Galland and his Battering Ram 190's.
It's the ability to do the OODA thing without making it look like you're doing the OODA thing.