Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats. (5 Viewers)

[fliger747]

An example of some aircraft with both full and clipped wing versions, the clipped wing aircraft have a slightly higher speed and usually a better roll rate. The down side is a higher stall speed and reduced turning maneuverability at a given weight. For a given lift requirement at a given speed the heavier loaded wing will require a higher AOA and resulting increased induced drag.

Take the same basic plane with X wing area and a given weight Y, it will have a defined wing loading. Do nothing but increase of decrease the wing area, and at the same weight, the wing loading will change in proportion to the change in area.

Certainly in maneuvering flight the lightly loaded wing can develop more maneuvering lift, at the expense of greatly increased drag. How useful this is is somewhat dependent on power loading.

Wings have a large surface area and even at very low (cruising) AOA values still retain a large degree of friction drag and some form drag. More "wetted area" yields more resistance (drag) at high speeds. Of course things are a bit more complicated as wing planform (aspect ratio etc), profile thickness, airfoil section etc all come into play as they differ amongst aircraft.

 

[michael rauls]

I don't know a huge amount about aerodynamics but it makes sense to me that all other things being equal that a plane with lower wing loading( more lift) would be slower than one with a higher wing loading as lift is pushing upward as the propulsion of the aircraft is pushing forward thus creating more of an opposing force to the forward movement of the aircraft not to mention the extra drag of the front surface of the extra wing area ( wich would varry with wing design of course but all other things being equal).
Not sure this is whats at play but would be interested to hear the opinions of those with more aerodynamic knowledge than myself on this.

 

[fliger747]

Maximum speed is only one of the parameters for which an aircraft might be optimized. Change one thing and it changes another. Depending on the mission profile, a low landing speed or being able to operate off of short unimproved strips might assume some importance, Rate of climb and maneuverability might be important, structural strength and "toughness" might be important, heavy firepower, great range, a high service ceiling, speed at Sl and whatnot. Almost all of these items work at some contradiction.

Any aircraft is a compromise of many of the above factors. The great ones were good enough at enough criteria to be tactically employed to some advantage. Add another factor, ultimately numbers, the producibility and maintainability count for points as well.

As far as maximum speed and wing area goes, airfoil section and planform enter in, but think in this way, the wing will create drag in two basic ways, from induced drag which is a function of generating lift. The other is via form and surface friction drag. At a zero lift AOA, the wing still created a great deal of drag. The bigger the wing the more drag. At max speed a very small AOA will be employed, much more lift is potentially available than is being utilized. The wing will have some crossover point where the drag from generating lift will be smaller than the form/friction drag. Above this point a smaller wing would be optimal for max speed.

Of course the smaller winged aircraft might not be good at all at other tasks that might be found in a fighter mission...

 

[Zipper730]

Okay, rather than bickering over the finer details of the F6F's cowling, can we get back to the primary topic at hand: Qualities that are not often listed but nonetheless give an aircraft advantages?

 

[fliger747]

Strategic and tactical application. Pilot training and experience, none of these items show up in specs. The Roman short sword was only a great weapon in how it was used en mass. Being able to utilize an aircraft such that takes advantage of it's strengths and minimizing exposure to it's weaknesses. Example, use of the less obvious energy tactics against the more apparent angles tactics.

 

[DarrenW]

Okay, rather than bickering over the finer details of the F6F's cowling, can we get back to the primary topic at hand: Qualities that are not often listed but nonetheless give an aircraft advantages?

...but do we really have too?


Probably mentioned before but I'll say it again. An aircraft's ability to absorb punishment and still remain in the fight is something that's harder to quantify but most assuredly an ingredient that makes for a great combat machine.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Probably mentioned before but I'll say it again. An aircraft's ability to absorb punishment and still remain in the fight is something that's harder to quantify

And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.

 

[DarrenW]

And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.

You totally missed my point Mr. bigglesworth, but that's nothing new. There are just as many reasons to remain in the fight as there are to leave it. Sometimes it's not your choice due to tactical reasons (safety in numbers), and other times you may be unaware that your aircraft has sustained damage in the first place (because it's handling as expected). Then there are those that are trying to escape and would love to have the added insurance of extra armor plating surrounding them to get them safely home from perusing fighters (case in point, Robert S. Johnson).

When would you tuck tail and run, as soon as you sustain a grazing shot and your aircraft is no longer factory fresh and smelling clean? Please....

No one is suggesting to fly an aircraft till it's wings fall off, but if you cannot see any intrinsic value in structural integrity than I suggest you take another look at the IJN/IJAAF and how lightly constructed/poorly protected aircraft became their proverbial Achilles' heel.

 

[Zipper730]

Strategic and tactical application. Pilot training and experience, none of these items show up in specs. The Roman short sword was only a great weapon in how it was used en mass. Being able to utilize an aircraft such that takes advantage of it's strengths and minimizing exposure to it's weaknesses. Example, use of the less obvious energy tactics against the more apparent angles tactics.

Pilot training is a crucial factor, but I think this was more of an aircraft issue.

 

[GrauGeist]

And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.

And how many pilots were injured in a brawl and stayed with their aircraft?

I personally knew an SBD pilot (the Sheriff of a local county) who was seriously injured by an A6M's 7.7mm and still held his line, delivering a bomb strike on a Japanese carrier at Midway.

This is just one of countless examples of pilots who took damage or injuries and yet stayed in the fight - I can't think of any orders or dispatches that insisted they do it. It was their own choice and some survived the decision and some did not - but it was their to make.

 

[Shortround6]

Kind of depends on the situation.
naval battles are weird compared to land battles because they happen so rarely, months (many of them) could go by without a major battle between opposing carrier groups.
Sinking (or just damaging) an enemy carrier could affect the balance of power for months/years to come.
Even a destroyer takes hundreds if not thousands of workers (counting engines & weapons) 1 1/2 to 2 years to build. Large ships took 3-4 years.

Taking out one of a hundred pillboxes, tanks, gun pits or even a single enemy aircraft is NOT going to affect much in the way of the overall scheme of things even if important to the people/troops involved.

 

[fliger747]

One can for instance read specs for armor, such as that behind the pilot and draw some sort of idea about it's effectiveness. However many US aircraft placed the radio gear behind this plate. As it turns out the radio gear was quite important in the performance of the armor as a round going through the radio equipment would tumble, completely destroying it's armor piercing capabilities.

Ok, bit in the weeds...

 

[jetcal1]

One can for instance read specs for armor, such as that behind the pilot and draw some sort of idea about it's effectiveness. However many US aircraft placed the radio gear behind this plate. As it turns out the radio gear was quite important in the performance of the armor as a round going through the radio equipment would tumble, completely destroying it's armor piercing capabilities.

Ok, bit in the weeds...

To me, if that was intentional it was excellent engineering and should be included as an example of out of the box engineering. The same effectiveness as thicker armor without the weight penalty?

 

[Zipper730]

One can for instance read specs for armor, such as that behind the pilot and draw some sort of idea about it's effectiveness. However many US aircraft placed the radio gear behind this plate. As it turns out the radio gear was quite important in the performance of the armor as a round going through the radio equipment would tumble, completely destroying it's armor piercing capabilities.

So in some cases the armor wasn't the only thing protecting the pilot -- other objects that happened to be in the path of the projectile...

 

[Laurelix]

Ki-100
580km/h at 6000m at military power, you're looking at 595km/h with war emergency power.

It had 17 seconds turn time which made it better turner than Yak-3 and it could keep up with Spitfire IX in turn.

It's climb rate was also pretty decent.
One of the biggest strengths was its maximum dive rate. It's airframe could withstand higher dive speeds than P-51D

 

[Elmas]

An efficient Radar chain and Ground Control...

 

[Elmas]

... abundance of avgas, spare parts, trained mechanics... and, of course, planes and pilots...

 

[fliger747]

As a pilot, the interaction between the controls and the aircraft maneuverability can assume significant importance. Generally it was found that about 10 lbs/G generated by the elevators was about optimal. Similar effort for aileron and rudder through the speed range would also be beneficial. Trimability would also be a boon for longer missions, as well as smaller need for trim changes with speed. However some of these items may be in opposition to each other.

Being able to fly the plane well, having a good feel to it with sufficient buffet before the stall and the presence of it being a stable gun platform are all helpful qualities. Some planes such as the F9F Panther had a tendency to snake at high speed and also had a fairly strong "breakout" force on the controls. Not fatal flaws but the kind of thing that pilots had to learn to "manage".

 

[Frankenerd]

The Apache was not a Mustang I, the British got few, if any, A-36s.



You don't have suspect, it was more than 8%, as has already been mentioned it was 22% between the P-36A (much like the Mohawk in your first photo and the early P-40 like in the 2nd photo. But that difference had nothing to do with the wings or from the firewall back and everything to do with the engine installation. There may be some confusion as to amount of exhaust thrust was counted or not counted in each plane. But nobodies radial engine installations were very good in 1938-39-40. A lot of work was being done and the Germans were first with a significant change with the fw 190. P & W got the difference down to 8% with that P-40 test hack. From then on many radials got much closer to the liquid cooled engines in terms of drag.





Even sticking a V-12 on the nose of the P-36 wasn't enough to keep it competitive in Europe as the available V-12 didn't have enough power at altitude for the weight of the P-40.
Please note that in the fall of 1940 the DB 601 didn't offer much more power, it just had a much lighter airplane to haul around, you could have swapped engines and gotten pretty much the same results.

Curtiss was in the business of building airplanes. The more planes you could build to the same basic design the more profit you could make. Many designs were adapted to take different engines to suit the customers preference.
View attachment 514901
XP-31 as originally built and as modified.
View attachment 514902
note full span leading edge slats.
Curtiss could also go the other way, A-8 Shrike
View attachment 514903
A-12 Shrike
View attachment 514904
Some earlier Curtiss biplane fighters were sometimes fitted with radials for overseas customers instead of the water cooled V-12 engines.

This was done by a lot more companies than Curtiss. Hawker in England built both V-12 powered Fury biplanes and radial engined versions as well as Hart light bombers and variants with both types of engine.

Boeing tried the B-9 bomber with both types of engine.Changing engines doesn't change the design of the airframe.

Well actually, the small engined GeeBee Racers of the mid '30s had significantly better CD than other radial engined planes of the time and even later into the early 40s.

 

[BiffF15]

Well actually, the small engined GeeBee Racers of the mid '30s had significantly better CD than other radial engined planes of the time and even later into the early 40s.

Gorgeous planes they were! However they were built for racing, not for war. All the go to war equipment adds weight and drag (a constant battle still fought today).

Cheers,
Biff