michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 haveGood 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.
"predictable behaviour" must surely count as an intangible when you're fatigued and or wounded.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.
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".
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.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.
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//
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.
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.
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.