Vampire vs Me 262

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

drgondog said:
Induced drag decreases with AR increases all things equal on the airfoil.
Click to expand...

Yes induced drag is decreased and CLmax in increased, increasing the L/D ratio, that is the effect an increase in AR has.


The tests refer to wings with an AR of 6.
 
With similar CLmax figures let me demonstrate just how important wing AR is;

L/D ratio = Cl / Cd

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd0 = {Negligable as it always lies in the 0.02 -0.025 area}

Cdi = (Cl^2)/(pi*AR*e)

So for the comparison we assume a Clmax of 1.3 for both and Cd0 of 0.02 for both, now note the difference wing AR alone has on the L/D ratio one of the most crucial factors to high turn performance. (The higher the L/D ratio the better)

Wing with AR of 8

(1.3^2)/(pi*8*.85) = 0.0791093688

0.0791093688 + 0.02

Cd = 0.0991093688

1.3 / 0.0991093688 = 13.1168225

L/D ratio = 13.11

Wing with AR of 6

(1.3^2)/(pi*6*.85) = 0.105479158

0.105479158 + 0.02

Cd = 0.125479158

1.3 / 0.125479158 = 10.3602863

L/D ratio = 10.36
_______________________________

L/D ratio Differential: 35.9 %

Additionally two graphs showing the difference in L/Dmax between a wing with an AR of 4 vs a wing with an AR of 9:

AR 4


AR 9
 
The chart is easy to read, you just later added report on the EC1240 without me noticing it, and from it you can also see that the NACA 0012 EC1240 have VERY similar CL figures at the different Reynolds numbers.
Click to expand...
Sorry for doing so but it took time to fully compile this post. However, there is not the information You seem to get from the charts. NACA 0012 and EC1240 have comparable Cl-max figures. But not at different reynold numbers (tests are for same reynold numbers) instead they show similar Clmax at different Mach fractions. Key aspect is that the NACA 0012 has better Cl-max than the Me-262´s basic airfoil at lower speeds (US&german tests. at RE= 5.000.000 and Mach = 0.1, the Cl-max is 1.40 for the NACA 0012 and 1.26 for the NACA 0009). The EC 1240 is comparable to the NACA 0012 and thus better than the Me-262´s airfoil at low speeds. It appears that the influence of the reynolds number is largest at low speeds and lowers towards Mach= 0.5. So the RAF test is reasonable for higher speeds.


Also keep in mind that these tests were done with a wing of different planform and with a considerably lower AR, and as we all know CLmax increases with increased AR. The AR of ME-262's wing is 7.23.
Click to expand...

aspect ratio= span^2 / wingarea (for tapered wings)

..and the aspect ratio of the tapered Vampire I wing is 7.08, not much different from the Me-262´s wing (actually 7.21). Note that the computations I use for Cl-approximation is three dimensional (lattice vortex method) and include planform, aspect ratio and other variables, already. This method is not two dimensional! The difference in aspect ratio between Vampire and Me-262 is tiny (ca. 1.9%).


To bring the discussion back on track, our early dispute was whether or not the Me-262 turns as good or better than the Vampire MK I. Soren´s thesis that the LE-slats help to turn the tide for the Me-262 has been questioned by myselfe. It appears that the Me-262´s wing has a lower Cl-max than the Vampire´s wing at maneuvering speeds. This is partly offsetted by the use of LE-slats. It also appears that the wingload for the Me-262 is much higher at combat weight and thrust to weight ratio are in the same ballpark for both planes (slight advantage for the Vampire at combat weight).
 
When I was a kid, I had a model of the Mistral, the French built version of the Vampire. I vaguely recall on the assembly sheet, the short aircraft history mentioning something about the Vampire/Mistral being capable of carrier takeoff/landing (or could be easily modified to do so). Anyone else heard of this? If it were true, that would be an advantage over the 262.
 
Delcyros,

Why do you keep talking about the Me-262's wing tip ?? What does that have to do with anything ??

The wing tip always has the lowest Clmax critical AoA, hence the use of wing twist (Wash out) and slats on outer wing sections.

The Me-262's wing root thickness ratio is 11% from where it gradually decreases along the span to 9% at the wing tip. The Vampire's wing thickness ratio decreases more sharply starting at 14% and ending at 9%.

The automatic LE slats on the Me-262 help increase the lift critical AoA by 25%.

Furthermore I completely understand the charts and it is clearly illustrated that the CL figures are VERY similar between both airfoils at the different Reynolds numbers and speeds.


As to the Aspect Ratio of the wings, well you totally blew it there Delcyros!

The Aspect Ratio of a wing is calculated likewise: (Span * Span) / Wing Area, very true.


Me-262: A = 21.7 m^2 Span = 12.51 m
DH Vampire. A = 24.34 m^2 Span = 11.58 m

So the Me-262's wing's AR is 7.23, and the Vampire's is 5.5 !

Actually I'm quite surprised you could ever screw that up Delcyros as just by looking at the two wings it should've been very clear to you that the ARs are VERY different!
 

Any meaningful discussion HAS to include the outer wings, not just the wingtips. You don´t want to have a stall there (...and the plane would enter a spin) so the reynolds number for the outer wing sections are non neglectable factors for lattice vortex analysis. The Me-262´s reynolds numbers for each section are ranging from 1.48 mill (wingroots) to about 0.8 mill., resulting in a mean, actual Cl-max in the range of in between 1.03 and 1.05 for Mach 0.1. without and around CL-max=1.29 with LE slats deployed (note that the actual Cl-max is lower as the maneuvering speed is higher than Mach=0.1 and thus the Cl-max is lower, too). In comparison the Cl-max of the EC 1240 under it´s re limitations is 1.19. THIS HAS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE FOR THE DISCUSSION. THE LE-SLATS DO NOT GIVE A 25% ADVANTAGE TO THE ME-262 (for each m^2 wingarea) BUT ONLY AN 8.2% ADVANTAGE. At 6.400 Kg combat weight, the Me-262´s wingload is 295 Kg/m^2 (adjusted for Cl-max of 1.29 at fully deployed LE-slats = 228 Kg/m^2) opposed to 259 Kg/m^2 at 5.430 Kg combat weight of the Vampire MK I (adjusted for Cl-max of 1.19 = 217 Kg/m^2). So despite LE-slats, the Me-262 has a higher, lift adjusted wingload. These results are derived from FORTRAN, Profill 2.20, Xwing and Mr. Ranis vortex software and adjusted for EC 1240/0640 (14% wingroot, 9 % wingtips) and NACA 0009 (11% wingroot and 9% wingtips) and their respective planforms.

span^2 is the mathematical expression of span * span. Your ar calculation of the Vampire I is based on wrong facts.

RCAF.com : The Aircraft : deHavilland VAMPIRE

Vampire MK I:
span: 12.19m; wing area: 20.99m^2
aspect ratio: 7.08 (12,19^2 = 148,5961 / 20,99 = 7.07937...)
 
I believe you're the one relying on incorrect data Delcyros. Just from looking at the a/c it's exceedingly clear that the AR of the Vampire's wing isn't even close to 7, the wing would be ALLOT more slender if that were the case.

All the sources I have indicate a Span of 11.58m and a wing area of 24.34 m^2.

Vampire

Now as to your CL estimates, well they're just as screwed up. You're simply not correctly reading the charts you yourself presented Delcyros, cause they clearly illustrate the high similarity in Cl between both airfoils at all speeds Reynolds numbers.
 

Bottom line is that Your source relate to the Vampire FB V, not our Vampire F MK I. I quote from Your link:

Applies to:


de Havilland Vampire FB.5

Type:


Single seat jet propelled twin boom fighter

(...)

Wing Area:


262 sq ft
Click to expand...

For the F MK I use the reference, I listed above.


No, they don´t.
 

I'm unaware of the Mistral being carrier capable, but as you know the Aquilon (Venom) certainly was, but now we're talking early 50's. However the FAA produced the Sea Vampire (F 20 and F 21) at the end of the war. The F 21 was used in trials on HMS Warrior involving undercarriageless landings on rubber matting. Eric Brown landed a modified Vampire on HMS Ocean on 3 December 1945...

 
For crying out loud !

Delcyros, the only difference between the FB.5 and FB.1's wing is that one has square wing tips and the other has rounded wing tips, span and wing area is similar!

The site you reference simply by mistake misplaced the numbers 2 6 in the wing area specification, writing 226 sq.ft. instead of the true 262 sq.ft. and then converted that into metric getting 20.99 m^2 instead of the true 24.34 m^2.

The real specs for the Mk.I and onwards are:

Wing span: 11.58 m
Wing area: 24.34 m^2

Look at every other site for this, and if you're still not convinced then look at the profile of the different Vampire marks and compare them, and furthermore try comparing them to the Me-262's profile. That should be more than enough for anyone to realize that the AR's of both a/c are VERY different!

Bottom line, the Vampire's wing is not even close to having an AR of 7!
 
Vampire Mk.I top profile:


Me-262 top profile:


Should be endlessly simple and easy to note the big difference in AR between the two a/c's wings!
 
Soren said:
Delcyros, the only difference between the FB.5 and FB.1's wing is that one has square wing tips and the other has rounded wing tips, span and wing area is similar!
Click to expand...



No. The FB V has basically a F MK III wing with clipped wingtips, which has different properties with regards to planform in order to allow a larger internal fuel capacity. This new wing (originally with rounded tips in the Vampire F MK III) was first tested on a modified Vampire MK I in june 1945. Altough I have little geometric datas on the differences between old new wing, I am not in the position to proof them. Since You have casted them in doubt, it´s Your task. Note that IF the planforms were identic between FB V and F I wing, than the clipped wingtips would have made a LARGER wingarea for the unclipped FI wing necessary (in between 272 and 274 ft^2, ca. 25.2-25.3m^2). 226 ft^2 therefore hardly is a typo from 27x ft^2, my friend. It is not credible to use the shorter wingspan of the clipped MK V wings for MK I performance estimations, too.

de Havilland D.H. 100 Vampire I — Canada Aviation Museum
RCAF.com : The Aircraft : deHavilland VAMPIRE
Comox Air Force Museum Vampire

Btw, the max. overloaded fighter weight seems to be only 4.754 Kg without external stores! So even if You are right with the wingarea -from what I have been not convinced- the aspect ratio would be more like 5.8 to 5.9, but the wingload at overloaded fighter configuration drops from 259 Kg/m^2 of my original estimation (20.99m^2 wingarea and 5430 Kg MTOW) to only 188 Kg/m^2 (25.26 m^2 wingarea and 4.754 Kg MTOW). My lattice vortex computations would need to be redone for such a wing and I expect a Cl-max in the range of in between 1.13 and 1.16 for such a wing, which would end up the adjusted lift corrected wingload to only 165 Kg/m^2. Congratulations, Soren! You have found a way to show that the lift adjusted wingload of "Your" Vampire is even far lower than that of mine! It will turn rings around a Me-262 anytime!

BTW, comparing pictures from swept and unswept planes with regards to aspect ratio is given false impressions. although the aspect ratio as such is only a secondary indicator. The wingspan is the crucial component of the performance. This is because an airplane derives its lift from a roughly cylindrical tube of air that is affected by the craft as it moves, and the diameter of that cylindrical tube is equal to the wingspan. A swept back wing with thin chord has a notably lower aspect ratio than would the same wing have if it would be unswept.
 
Nope, you don't fool me mr. spin doctor.

I don't buy your Cl estmations either, as the Cl of both wings are very similar as both have similar LE sweep Cl figures for the airfoils under similar conditions.

Also you can choose to ignore the facts about wing span and area if you like but then you're just making stuff up from then on.

Finally let me ask you; Do you have any idea how the wing on the Vampire would look like if it had an AR of 7 ??!

Please play a little more with that program of yours to get an idea of how AR affects the shape of a wing and then compare the profile you get with the real thing, that should open your eyes.

Still can't believe you can't even see it with your own eyes from just looking and comparing shapes, geeez... even the FW190 Bf-109 have more slender wings!
 
Yeah and a few were shot down by prop fighters as-well, so your point is ?

The P-80A was clearly inferior to the Me-262.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
65
Aeroweanie
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register