Spitfire MK.XIV and La-7

[lesofprimus]

An aircraft performing a snap roll in front of an opponent is simply doing aerobatics by rotating his machine on the horizontal axis. After all, the crate ends up in the same attitude as when the maneuver began. IE., he's gonna get his *** shot off if he thinks it's an evasion maneuver.

If the pilot is using the roll as a defensive manuever, he's gonna kick full rudder, slam the stick foward upon 75% of the roll, drop power ect ect....

As many gun camera footages show, many a -190 used this same move to get an Allied fighter off his ***...

 

[zipo]

Didnt the XIV have 4x 20mm hispano cannons (config C) maybe i missed someone mentioning it ? also im sure the max speed is 447mph not 437mph

 

[Chingachgook]

My 2cents... late war aircraft leave me cold. Too much torque effect. I don't think I'd like to fly a Spit 14, La7 or late 109s - sort of over developed pigs if you ask me... (ok, ok, you didn't ask me!) US airframes seemed to fit their engines better at this timeframe (?) Ta-152 seems like it might be ok too (big wingspan) (?)

 

[Soren]

That makes no sense Chingachgook, and you can be sure that no right-minded fighter-pilot will agree with you.

You're making torque sound like a huge problem, yet in reality it isn't. The speed of the rotating prop is what creates the gyro effect, however the speed of the prop didn't change significantly from type to type, only the ability to keep up the RPM's when drag/resistance increased or prop efficiency decreased.

Remember the prop isn't spinning at engine RPM's.

PS: Talking about torque, think about what WWI pilots had to deal with !

 

[Chingachgook]

I am just going on what I have read. Hinton also backed this up (is he right minded?). He said planes like XIV had serious torque effect and were very difficult to fly - said doing a tail chase was near impossible. He did say Bearcat was not bad (not sure why - big vert stab?). He said Buchon was hopeless too.
I have read of many combat pilots who complained of late war aircraft having issues with torque effect, many P-38 pilots said they like their plane for exactly this reason (no torque effect).
I thought that it was just an issue at take-off - Hinton said no - he said was always a problem on some planes.
Wasn't ww1 plane issue with rotory engines? Entire engine rotates...

 

[Glider]

I think you will find that torque was mainly a problem on take off. If you are not ready for it the plane had a tendancy to swing which had to be controlled by rudder. Once in the air it wasn't a serious problem as the airflow over the fin and fuselage would control it. On take off of course the speed isn't sufficient for these to have effect.

Feel free to comment on this as Gliders don't have these problems, so I lack hands on experience.

 

[Matt308]

I think Chingachook is one to something. Everything that I have read indicates that on some airframes torque was either a help or a hindrance. I specifically recall reading fighter tactics indicating roll tactics to be expected by Japanese Zeros since roll rate was so severely limited in the direction counter to torque.

Torque being a serious issue in the more powerful airplanes was personally confirmed on numerous occasions by an older gent in the office who flew Spads. And that was a BIG plane!

 

[Chingachgook]

Hey Soren...

PPPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFT!!!

 

[twoeagles]

You guys are right. I can tell you from personal experience that torque
is most noticed with big power advances, but it is also an issue when
rolling...You can always roll easiest away from the prop and you can really
feel rolling into the prop. Those Griffon powered Spits, with the exception
of the contra-rotating Sea Fires, required hard over aileron on takeoff
roll, too, because as power was advanced, the oleo would almost completely
compress. The only time torque is not an issue is when you are cleaned
up, trimmed, and in a comfortable cruise.


I turned away a chance to fly a Buchon because when I tried high speed
taxiing, it was an out of control monster - there was not sufficient rudder
available to make me feel comfortable. It scared me, I shut down and got
out. And that was all about torque and insufficient surfaces to control it.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Incorrect adjustments of the FW-190s alierons could have a dramatic effect on roll rate though. Hence you get some screw tesing results, like the USN test of the FW-190A5 which has the Corsair outrolling the Wurger, something that wouldn't be possible with a properly maintained FW-190.

With this in mind, I was wondering if the Corsair could outturn the Spitfire IX (and/or XIV which turns almost identically according to RAF tests) or La-7 in a flat turn - when using flaps, of course. In Aces High II, that apparently can be done, but I don't understand as to why. Both power loading and wing loading seem to aid the Spitfire IX, but, somehow, those Hog flaps still do it.

Some say it's the bent wing (that is, if it really was possible) that allowed the F4U-(1A, 1D, 4)to outturn the Spitfire IX. Others don't buy that, and most, if not, many AHII players find that the Corsair is overmodelled - even those who are great at flying it and like it alot.

 

[Soren]

As stated the Torque is most noticed on take off, as the more powerful the engine the more quickly you'll be able to throttle up. (Quickly building up momentum) However mid-air the difference in the gyro effects on early war to late war planes wasn't that pronounced.

Now that a plane rolls faster to the left than right is another issue, and depends fully upon the direction of the spinning prop - all WWII fighters suffered from this.

Sgt.Pappy,

The Corsair wouldn't be able to outturn the Spitfire, its simply to heavy and draggy by comparison.

And about the gull wing, well the only reason for it was to gain clearence for the larger prop, it had a slightly negative effect on lift though because of the angle.

Still the Corsair was an amazing airplane though.

 

[twoeagles]

Oddly enough (well maybe not odd) even when I had access to fly
some old aircraft like the FG-1, P-51D, P40N, etc. it never occurred to me
to see just how tightly I could turn. For one thing, you always worry about
load factors on old airframes, and I don't like doing anything beyond five
g's anymore. So it is really fun reading these threads - I am learning
a awful lot about WW2 aircraft. Thanks, guys!!! Keep up the great
arguments!!!

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

I know, Soren, that the Corsair's heavy frame and draggy shape could not allow it to turn tighter than a Spitfire VIII,IX,XIV (all of which turn almost identically according to RAF test)... but how about with FLAPS deployed?

According to Aces High II, the all F4U's will turn tighter than the Spitfire when they drop at least 20 degrees of flaps (which can only be dine under 250 mph in the game). Even when both a/c fly under full flap, the Hog will STILL turn tighter, but will have a worse turn rate (meaning that it will turn tighter, but not fast enough to circle behind the Spit). I'm assuming that the Hog is therefore overmodeled.

 

[banderson]

Youre right. It is an La-9

Wrong, Sir. The picture unfortunately is of an la-5, the la-7 being an improved version of the la-5FN (e.,. metal spars). The stats below the picture are for an la-7. la-5 and la-7 wings were made of laminated birch. The la-9 was all metal, did not see service in WWII but did see service in Korea.