Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is so, but even with the single stage charger, Pratt's altitude performance was better.
Cheers,
Wes
Supposedly being able to travel more than 20 miles marked the end of the village idiot.
No, he becomes the Member of Parliament.....Because the fellow now becomes the regional idiot?
For what it's worth, my Saxon ancestors were against the Normans and more particularly, my ancestor Henry Lilley fought alongside King Harold at Hastings.I don't know much about the earlier invasion of Saxons and Angles but the followup to the Norman invasion was quite brutal, thorough and harsh - more so than tends to be discussed in the popular versions of the history. The Normans were not nearly as 'easy going' as the Norse settlers had been by comparison. And the courts (legal and courtier) were still largely speaking French 200 years later...
The Internet and Twitter have facilitated the creation of the Global Idiot.....Because the fellow now becomes the regional idiot?
Under the criteria, you listed -- there would be no traits that would not be listed.tyrodtom said:The topic is Qualities that make for a great aircraft that doesn't show up in performance stats, not useful traits in a aircraft.
That's a pretty good description.I thought docile handling was the ease at which a plane could be flown especially in adverse conditions.
Or the ocean...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 know I might get into splitting hairs, but to be clear -- with dynamic behavior -- you mean how quickly it takes for a plane to build up a pitch-rate/g-load; a roll-rate, and yaw-rate?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
Some aircraft have more of a shift in the center of pressure during stalls?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.
These two kind of go hand in hand and has to do with both predictable inputs to maneuvers, and muscle memory...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.
From what I remember there was roll/yaw coupling and that occurred at higher AoA with aircraft that had short wings, a long fuselage, and a lot of mass in the middle right?Control coupling also tends to result in less than predictable behaviour but only tends to get mentioned with more modern high performance aircraft.
Agreed"predictable behaviour" must surely count as an intangible when you're fatigued and or wounded.
Good point, and I'd also put the ability to recover quickly from a stall...Handling around stall (F6F and Bf 109 excelled at this, ailerons remained effective through the stall)
I'm confused -- thought that was a good trait in the Fw-190?Sensitivity in trim to speed changes (most WWII fighters were VERY speed sensitive, not the Fw 190)
The P-51 was very good in that regard -- the cockpit was laid out in an intuitive manner that was easy to use. The F-15 was also well regarded in this role (though one that flew a great deal later), the F-105 had some areas that left a lot to be desired (though also a design well after WWII, though before the F-15), when it came to switching the gunsight from air-to-ground to air-to-air.5) Ergonomics of cockpit (how easy is it to get to and use the various gauges and switches)
Yeah the LaGG-5 had a whole bunch of levers that were needed to fine tune the engine. The Fw-190 used some kind of electro-mechanical computer. On a more simple level, some aircraft had automatic boost control, and others didn't.Ease of handling the powerplant (easy to set for good power without much thought or time)
Actually there were many types of gunsights. The ring-n-bead, the reflector, and there was the lead-computing optical sight. I'm not sure if any fighters had (early on) a gunsight that was like a scope...Gunsight (+ or -)
That gave the P-38 a great advantage at range.Convergent or nonconvergent armament (guns in nose or wings)
Fresh-air inlets avoid recycling the air, right? I'd also think variables such as raising the pilots feet to increase g-tolerance as a useful trait.Cockpit comfort (heater at high altitudes, fresh air inlets, seat ergonomics)
Wheelbarrowing...11) Landing gear issues (tippy or rolley on ground … see Bf 109: very rolley, will NOT nose over, and Spitfire, not very rolley, but noses over easily ... Griffon unit)
It can be an advantage and disadvantage. No ram-air reduces the odds of ice-forming in the intake, but high ram-compression also provides you with a greatly increased aircraft critical altitude.Ram air or not (Hellcat did not have it, Corsair did. MANY Corsairs went in around carrier from carb ice in cooler weather, no Hellcats did)
I'd have placed that up with the ease of handling the powerplant.Reliable powerplant or not
At higher altitudes the limit is often that of mach number and compressibility effects; at lower altitudes the airspeed limit becomes more serious of a matter. I would also consider dive-acceleration to be a trait that could be good or bad.CORSNING said:dive speed. That one is going
to be a rough one because maximum allowable indicated
changed with altitude.
Is this connected to corner-velocity?Combat Speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
The plane was stressed for extremely high g-loads (13.5 ultimate) and had maneuvering flaps that allowed a wide range of extension to help tighten the turning arc (it could stay with a A6M all the way down to 205 mph, instead of around 240-300 like the F4F owing to this)
Grumman set out to build a "baby buggy" easy to fly, hard to break fighter, and possibly they rated it for a greater safety margin than the customary "limit x 1.5 = ultimate"? Perhaps as a concession to the inevitable combat weight "inflation" that seems to beset all military aircraft. Between limit G and destruction G there's an intermediate value which is deflection or deformation G beyond which a structure bent or deflected under load doesn't return to its original form when load is removed. (Think "bent" Sabres returning from Migfights in Korea.) Do you suppose Grumman selected this value to apply their 2/3 safety margin to?According to the pilot's manual the F6F's airframe is rated for +7.0G/-3.0G below 320 knots IAS
Which model Hellcat are you talking about here? I remember reading in my younger days of the Hellcat having a "Combat" position for its flaps between "Up" and "Landing". Perhaps on the second (-5?) model?Now, the flaps on the Hellcat were either up or down so there was no intermediate settings like with the Corsair.
Do you suppose Grumman selected this value to apply their 2/3 safety margin to?
Which model Hellcat are you talking about here? I remember reading in my younger days of the Hellcat having a "Combat" position for its flaps between "Up" and "Landing". Perhaps on the second (-5?) model?
Cheers,
Wes
+10.5g/-4.5g ultimate below 320; +8.25g/-3.75g above 320DarrenW said:Great stuff Zipper but I have to tweak your comments a bit regarding the Hellcat's Max G-loading and flap usage. According to the pilot's manual the F6F's airframe is rated for +7.0G/-3.0G below 320 knots IAS and +5.5G/-2.5G above this airspeed.
+7.5/-3 ultimate, which is might actually be quite good..For "unlimited use of ailerons" and use of "Maneuver Flaps" the aircraft was rated for +5.0G/2.0G.
Oh, I thought they both had it?Now, the flaps on the Hellcat were either up or down so there was no intermediate settings like with the Corsair.
Possible...Grumman set out to build a "baby buggy" easy to fly, hard to break fighter, and possibly they rated it for a greater safety margin than the customary "limit x 1.5 = ultimate"?
I thought they had a maneuvering setting too...I remember reading in my younger days of the Hellcat having a "Combat" position for its flaps between "Up" and "Landing". Perhaps on the second (-5?) model?
Both the -3 and -5 had similar flaps, very simple to use with an "Flaps Up/Flaps Down" switch next to the power plant controls and there was also a hand pump that the pilot could use to raise/lower them in an emergency situation as well, such as with an hydraulic pump failure. Now maybe the pilot could partially extend/retract the flaps with this procedure (35 double strokes were required for extension and 25 for retraction) but it obviously wasn't something a pilot would use in a normal flight situation and certainly not in the heat of combat if the system was operating properly.
Maybe you are confusing it with the Corsair????
VERY interesting. Thinking from a mechanic's perspective, did it have some sort of an "overload shutoff" that would turn off the actuating system when flap extension stalled due to aerodynamic overload? That would make sense to save wear and tear on a critical system that's already subject to hard usage.Thus if the pilot were to select "Flaps Down", if the airspeed were high enough, the flaps would not deploy completely and perhaps that might still be useful in combat.
...
The "Ensign Eliminator," (F4U) did well, too, but the F6F decided the contest outcome in the Pacific, at least coupled with a lucky Naval engagement or two.
They COULD have done without the Corsair, but the converse is not true. In the end, the Corsair was a great fighter, too, possibly better than the Hellcat. But not so in the beginning. It almost got cancelled, and the Hellcat would have won anyway had that happened. We MIGHT have had the F6F-6 and follow-ons but they decided to develop the F8F instead. So, it was limited to two prototypes. We KNOW they would have fitted a more powerful engine because they did in production aircraft. I suspect they would also have fixed the roll rate and made more improvements, but the war was winding down anyway by then.