The Zero's Maneuverability

[special ed]

Don't forget about our MiGs and Su's at Tonapah. We had MiG-15s,-17s, and at least one -19, plus -21s not only for evaluation, but for dissimilar combat training.

 

[GregP]

We even flew some Mirage F.1's.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

That article is about aviation hardware and the industry used bolt stretch for a long while in certain applications and then came up with special washers that indicated that the bolt had reached the point of plastic deformity. Such hardware is always single use.

That is the case today but such was not always the case as my Dad chose to point out when we did our first rebuilds back in the 1980s.

 

[GregP]

I thought the correct torque was usually 20 foot-pounds before it snaps ...

 

[GrauGeist]

Then again, I am NOT a pilot, but I have crashed just about everything that can be found on simulators.

I am a pilot and have flown both conventional and tricycle types, plus stick-time in the right seat of additional types.

My family owned a Cherokee Warrior (Piper PA-28), too.

My instructors were former WWII fighter pilots, by the way: USAAF, USMC and a former JG27 pilot.

 

[MIflyer]

We even flew some Mirage F.1's.

And some F-21A's.

 

[BiffF15]

And some F-21A's.

View attachment 796820

I heard those were fast down low, but never fought with them. Also of note is the ACMI pod under the right (starboard) wing.

 

[GrauGeist]

We even flew some Mirage F.1's.

And some MiG-28s, too.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I am a pilot and have flown both conventional and tricycle types, plus stick-time in the right seat of additional types.

My family owned a Cherokee Warrior (Piper PA-28), too.

My instructors were former WWII fighter pilots, by the way: USAAF, USMC and a former JG27 pilot.

There is a really good discussion on the subject here:

Wheel landing vs. Three point?

I've just had my first flight in a taildragger yesterday, and I am HOOKED on the way this aircraft flies! So, I wanna know more. Is there a reason for landing differently? Is it personal preference? Are there weather/wind conditions that would dictate which type of landing would be more...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

 

[GregP]

If I'm arrogant and wrong why did no one else build their aircraft to the same standard as the A6M, and if the A6M design was so good why did they change it to be like everyone else?. The A6M was successful and able to reach out over vast area's of the Pacific because of the situation it fought not because it was a revolutionary aircraft.

Hi Pat. I didn't call YOU arrogant. I said not flying their aircraft was militarily arrogant.

Again, flying their airplane to see what challenges it may present does not mean you want an Air Force of enemy-built airplanes and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the "design philosophy" or philosophy at all. It means you are looking to find out how their equipment flies so you can tell if your guys are in some trouble, are evenly-matched, or are over matched. The ONLY way to find out in WWII was to fly the enemy aircraft with pilots who had some test-flying experience and see.

Despite the sophistication of computer simulation today, the only way today to REALLY find out is still to fly it. You can get close with a sim, but you need the flight data points to program the sim. Gotta' fly it to get the data points, and you have to get points all over the flight envelope to do it justice. Just try flying the MS Flight Simulator P-51 to verify that part. It doesn't fly much like real P-51, which is strange. The C-172 is decently close except for the ability to fly inverted.

 

[MiTasol]

And got to tear them apart to see what they are doing that is better than what you are doing.

 

[GrauGeist]

There is a really good discussion on the subject here:

Wheel landing vs. Three point?

I've just had my first flight in a taildragger yesterday, and I am HOOKED on the way this aircraft flies! So, I wanna know more. Is there a reason for landing differently? Is it personal preference? Are there weather/wind conditions that would dictate which type of landing would be more...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.

The men that trained me were veteran high-hour combat pilots who were themselves trained by experienced pilots.

Not sure how many people in that discussion were trained by a USAAF P-40/P-51 pilot, a USMC F4F/F4U pilot or a JG27 Bf109 pilot, but ok.

 

[MiTasol]

I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.

The men that trained me were veteran high-hour combat pilots who were themselves trained by experienced pilots.

Not sure how many people in that discussion were trained by a USAAF P-40/P-51 pilot, a USMC F4F/F4U pilot or a JG27 Bf109 pilot, but ok.

I am not knocking your skills or the skills of your instructors but as I said before I was taught to treat aircraft like women - what one likes another does not.

The good thing is, unlike with a woman, you can and should learn each type of aircraft's likes and dislikes before you first fly it. For that reason I will land a 220hp Stearman three point, just like they taught in WW2, and I will fly a 450hp Stearman on to the runway with the tail reasonably high.

 

[GrauGeist]

I am not knocking your skills or the skills of your instructors but as I said before I was taught to treat aircraft like women - what one likes another does not.

The good thing is, unlike with a woman, you can and should learn each type of aircraft's likes and dislikes before you first fly it. For that reason I will land a 220hp Stearman three point, just like they taught in WW2, and I will fly a 450hp Stearman on to the runway with the tail reasonably high.

If you set the Stearman down with the tail "reasonably high", then how is it you have done a "three point" landing?

To do a three-pointer in a conventional type, you are setting down nose--high, with contact with main gear and tail simotaniously.

I was taught that touching down with contact with the main gear first and then the tail as foreward speed bled off allowed for better control and a reduction of a chance for ground loops, but then again, these were experienced combat pilots who were imparting their knowledge - I suppose they were wrong?

 

[MiTasol]

I said I do not do three point landings in a 450 Stearman. I said I would fly it on to the runway. That is not a three pointer.

I three pointed 220hp Stearman's and wheel landed (tail up) 450hp Stearman's because the 450 will gobble up runway almost floating in ground effect. Its potentially "fun" because the longer prop reduces just how high the tail can be. Some owners reduced the engine idle speed well below the Pratt specs but my boss did not do that. As he said - if you do that and then suddenly need a bit of power that is when you can guarantee that Murphy will say Gotcha and place the engine in autoquiet..

 

[marathag]

place the engine in autoquiet

I like that term

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Hi Pat. I didn't call YOU arrogant. I said not flying their aircraft was militarily arrogant.

Again, flying their airplane to see what challenges it may present does not mean you want an Air Force of enemy-built airplanes and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the "design philosophy" or philosophy at all. It means you are looking to find out how their equipment flies so you can tell if your guys are in some trouble, are evenly-matched, or are over matched. The ONLY way to find out in WWII was to fly the enemy aircraft with pilots who had some test-flying experience and see.

Despite the sophistication of computer simulation today, the only way today to REALLY find out is still to fly it. You can get close with a sim, but you need the flight data points to program the sim. Gotta' fly it to get the data points, and you have to get points all over the flight envelope to do it justice. Just try flying the MS Flight Simulator P-51 to verify that part. It doesn't fly much like real P-51, which is strange. The C-172 is decently close except for the ability to fly inverted.

The RAF established the Air Fighting Development Unit before WWII. During the war they flew all the enemy aircraft they could to find out their strengths and weaknesses. Eric Browns books are largely based on his experiences at the AFDU.
Also pilots like DH Clarke were doing the same thing in the field. Knowing your enemy is one of the basic tenets of war.

 

[Holtzauge]

When it comes to evaluating the oppositions airplanes, seems like the Germans in WW2 had a two-step process:

First they tested them at their test center (Rechlin) to collect as much technical data as possible, and then as step two, added them to the fleet in the Zirkus Rosarius which toured operational units and where operational pilots could fly them and get a feel for what the opposition was using and how those aircraft handled.

Seems like quite a sensible set-up? First, wring out all you can from it for intelligence purposes, and then let your "boys" fly it to get a better understanding of what you are up against.

Below is an excerpt from the book "Luftwaffe test pilot" by Hans-Werner Lerche, who was stationed as a test pilot at Rechlin in WW2.

 

[PAT303]

The RAF established the Air Fighting Development Unit before WWII. During the war they flew all the enemy aircraft they could to find out their strengths and weaknesses. Eric Browns books are largely based on his experiences at the AFDU.
Also pilots like DH Clarke were doing the same thing in the field. Knowing your enemy is one of the basic tenets of war.

I think the argument is being lost, I'm talking about why aircraft were designed the way they were compared to everyone test flying captured aircraft, two different things

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.

The men that trained me were veteran high-hour combat pilots who were themselves trained by experienced pilots.

Not sure how many people in that discussion were trained by a USAAF P-40/P-51 pilot, a USMC F4F/F4U pilot or a JG27 Bf109 pilot, but ok.

You really should read the thread. There is plenty of disagreement and explanations and optimal technique seems to vary with type.
Are you actually flying a P-51 or P-40, Corsair, Wildcat or 109?