Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kind of depends on when and why.Was the preference of German aircraft designers for small wings/high wing loading a virtue or a drawback for a fighter in combat?
Kind of depends on when and why.
Trying to design a big wing airplane with an under 700hp engine was a problem. The 109 wasn't "designed" that way, or it was compared to biplanes but it evolved that way.
doubling the engine power by 1942 and more than doubling the weight of guns/ammo, more fuel, protected fuel and pilot protection on nearly the same wing?
109B had wing loading of about 25.5lbs/sq/ft which was high for 1935/36 but not by much.
'European' fighters were usually with small wings, though.But the US and British designed fighters with big wings from the get-go....
But the US and British designed fighters with big wings from the get-go....
'European' fighters were usually with small wings, though.
British and US fighters designed around the 2000+- HP engines were with similar wing loading as the 'European' fighters.
Now by the time the Fw 190 came along things were a bit different.
However there limits to even what the Germans were willing to accept. The 190 gained over 20% in wing area from the first prototype to early production models and the early production versions were not carrying very heavy gun armament (4 machine guns?)
The Rotol company was founded and the prop shaft of the Merlin changed specifically to have CS props. If all UK fighters had be fitted with CS props before 1940 they would need new ones when engines were allowed operate to 100 octane fuel.The Americans in 1935-37 were designing planes that held 600 liters or more of internal fuel (and 900 hp engines) and not the under 300 liters of fuel of an early 109. The American .50 cal gun also meant that the P-35/P-36 were tasked with carrying almost 1.5-2.0 times the weight of guns and ammo.
British believed that even two pitch propellers were the work of Beelzebub and the adoption would condemn the air ministry officials to the 7th layer of Hell for all of eternity. They were willing to do it for big bombers but not for fighters.
They were also trying to carry 4 times the amount of guns and abut 2 twice the ammo and use a larger, heavier, higher powered engine and get the plane to fly out of the size airfield as that Hawker Fury Biplane.
Now by the time the Fw 190 came along things were a bit different.
However there limits to even what the Germans were willing to accept. The 190 gained over 20% in wing area from the first prototype to early production models and the early production versions were not carrying very heavy gun armament (4 machine guns?)
Who is 'you'?Okay, but how do you explain that late-war the Germans still went with high wing load and their developments and new designs had smaller wings than the rest.
Who is 'you'?
It was timing, Fedden and RR knew that the CS props worked, they knew there would soon be a demand for them, despite what the Air Ministry was saying/doing. Fedden and RR both knew that it would take time to set up mass production and when the Air Ministry finally figured out that the CS propeller was not a passing fad and they needed them by the thousands it would be too late.The Rotol company was founded and the prop shaft of the Merlin changed specifically to have CS props. If all UK fighters had be fitted with CS props before 1940 they would need new ones when engines were allowed operate to 100 octane fuel.
It was indeed timing, almost all of your post is written with the knowledge of what happened when it happened in the way it happened and nothing that was planned to happen but didnt actually did. In 1940 at the start of the Battle of Britain the RAF had two monoplane fighters with CS props capable of combatting the the BF 109 at all altitudes from 0-30,000ft. Who else had? Did the Bf 109 have a CS prop in 1940? By far the greatest cause of losses in the Battle of France was the decision to send the BEF to Belgium and France in the first place, CS props would not have halted the German advance through the Ardennes forest. What were HS fitting their CS props to in 1935 to 1940? Talk of "what did those colonials know" is beneath your normal level of discussion, the British had to make their own props for their own aircraft.It was timing, Fedden and RR knew that the CS props worked, they knew there would soon be a demand for them, despite what the Air Ministry was saying/doing. Fedden and RR both knew that it would take time to set up mass production and when the Air Ministry finally figured out that the CS propeller was not a passing fad and they needed them by the thousands it would be too late.
And for some strange reason, they were able to refit almost 500 DH two speed props with CS pump and governor at the service fields making the story of needed new propellers sound a bit off. Granted perhaps the converted DH props didn't give quite the performance that the Rotol props did but they were very close.
Now in 1938 or very early 1939 perhaps there were budget constraints that limited the ability to order better propellers but that should have gone away in 1940. Except that there was a lack of factory capacity due to the Air Ministry not ordering up to date propellers in 1936-37-38. Which meant many British air crews were lost due to crappy propellers.
It is not just the CS props on fighters, it was better props on single and twin engine fighters. It was the lack of fully feathering props on multi engine planes.
HS had been awarded the Collier trophy in May 1934 for the controllable pitch prop being the greatest advance in aviation in 1933 but what did those colonials know.
HS introduced the constant speed prop in 1935.
HS announced the Hydromantic prop in 1937 that was fully feathering. It was adopted by 21 foreign and domestic commercial airlines in 1938-39 It was also being licensed by a bunch of countries. It was demonstrated by a DC-3 flying over NY City (Central Park) April 6th 1938. Now perhaps safety regulations were a more lax in 1938 but flying a DC-3 on one engine over central park takes a lot of confidence.
That is HS. Curtiss was building their own electric propeller instead of hydraulic.
Okay, but how do you explain that late-war the Germans still went with high wing load and their developments and new designs had smaller wings than the rest.
Only the Russian planes featured even smaller wings, but they were also a lot lighter.
Smaller wing is one way to cut the drag. Lower the drag = increase the speed.
That design philosophy was also used several times in decades after the ww2.
Three contemporary fighter wingspans of the mid-30's:But the US and British designed fighters with big wings from the get-go....