Glider
Major
I've pulled approx. 6G in a glider at around 150 knots on a number of occasions when doing aerobatics and the most just above 8G when on a course. Speed has almost nothing to do with G forces. Where did you get that idea from?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've pulled approx. 6G in a glider at around 150 knots on a number of occasions when doing aerobatics and the most just above 8G when on a course. Speed has almost nothing to do with G forces. Where did you get that idea from?P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with.
I've pulled approx. 6G in a glider at around 150 knots on a number of occasions when doing aerobatics and the most just above 8G when on a course. Speed has almost nothing to do with G forces. Where did you get that idea from?
The question is what has that got to do with the relationship between G forces and speed. By the way stalling speed also has nothing to do with it and I am confident that every fighter could pull over 4G. It's nothing special.I'm no aeronautical engineer but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say gliders have a much lower stall speed than a 7,000 lb fighter...
The question is what has that got to do with the relationship between G forces and speed. By the way stalling speed also has nothing to do with it and I am confident that every fighter could pull over 4G. It's nothing special.
So just to repeat myself where did you get the idea that the following statement has anything to do with reality?
P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/FL220.pdf
Heres the actual performance of fully loaded combat ready P-40 F, not a dyno tuned stripped down factory ringer for the sales brochure.
I was about to post the same question.
View attachment 524646
Centripetal acceleration is directly proportional of the square of the speed and inversely proportional of the radius of turn.
But that is an overloaded P-40F, and much more importantly, flown at cruising power to max continuous power, not combat power settings.
The Merlin XX (the type used in the P-40F/L) is a pretty well known engine, and it's normal boost settings are also well established. 48" Hg (American) is just under 9 lbs boost under the British system (see here for a helpful conversion chart). My understanding is that the normal allowed boost was up to +14, with WEP at +16 lbs. That is considerably more horsepower.
I would be amazed if any single engine fighter hit by an 88mm AA gun didn't find difficulties in getting home.
I also find it interesting that you are happy to quote test pilots who exceeded 500 mph on a regular basis, (a claim I do not deny) as I am confident British test pilots exceeded 525mph in Typhoons because that is what test pilots do, they test aircraft.
But when a test pilot makes the comments they put in writing about the P40N its ignored. not mentioned and the question I put to you:-
So which of these is closer to handling like an overloaded bus?
Remains unanswered
Another question I would put to you is. Where is your evidence that the Typhoon wasn't maneuverable I ask this as clearly the American test pilots disagree with you. Remember that roll rates is only part of the maneuverability question and even here they said if rolled well.
It does not state that the P40-f is in overload state
but it does have full fuel, ammo, radios, 6 x.50 mgs and armour ect. The merlin XX was, as you say, a pretty well known engine as it was first seen in action with Hurricane IIs in 1940. That being said I have not seen any engine rating for it higher than 9lbs that was not the 5 min WEP rating. Typical settings for the XX were just that 9lbs @ 3000rpm and 12 lbs at WEP using the emergency boost over ride cutout. 12 lbs was limited to the low speed supercharger gear. In late 42 the settings were inxcreased to 14 lbs WEP in low and then very shortly later to 14 in low and 16lbs in high, these were all WEP 5 minute ratings. Check here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-18nov42.jpg and here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-21nov42.jpg
After having read the whole report it is interesting to note that the limitations stated for the Merlin XX in the P-40F, for all out level were 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost with a 5 minute limit. 12lbs boost was only allowed for take off. I wonder why that would be as 12lbs boost had been used by Hurricanes for years, were there problems with the proper operation of the merlin XX in the P-40F?
After having read the whole report it is interesting to note that the limitations stated for the Merlin XX in the P-40F, for all out level were 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost with a 5 minute limit. 12lbs boost was only allowed for take off. I wonder why that would be as 12lbs boost had been used by Hurricanes for years, were there problems with the proper operation of the merlin XX in the P-40F?
The revised June of 1943 manual for the P-40F says 61in of MAP in both low and high gear for WEP.
The chart also says 1300hp which is absurd.
Very interesting, thanks. Do you have a source for that? Is the manual online somewhere?
Well, lets be precise, that guy wasn't just a test pilot he did the checkout flights for ~ 2,400 P-40s, in other words he put them through their paces to make sure they were capable of the normal combat performance expected of the aircraft and engine. P-40s were incidentally rated for 10Gs which is of course far more than a WW2 pilot could normally endure in the types of seats they had and without a G suit and so on. It's also why P-40s were so tough they were a little bit overbuilt.
I brought this up because it shows not merely that one or two guys dove the P-40 at 500+ mph, (or 600+ mph as was done in at least two other individual tests by Curtiss) but that a dive of 500+ mph was part of the normal routine checkout flight for the aircraft. Also Shortround had brought up the question of how many feet did you have to descend to reach high enough speed to intercept a Fw 190 and I thought that example gave us some insight into that question though it does not answer it definitively.
No, I answered it. I am basing that on the previously posted (not by me) turn radius chart and the NACA roll chart that everyone has seen. I also pointed out that per the memo you yourself reported the pilots said there was extreme vibration any time they tried to enter more than a 4G turn, which as you noted is not that much of a turn for a fighter, and that turning left at 4G caused the plane to go into a snap roll and stall. They did overall say favorable things about it though anyway I agree, and tended to say less than favorable things about the P-40N in some similar tests.
Finally, I also pointed out a couple of times the video in which one Typhoon pilot noted that "if the trim tab goes on a Typhoon your a finished". One of the other Typhoon pilots in another interview I posted upthread said "the Typhoon was not a good fighter" (but that it was an ideal rocket platform).
I didn't go cherry picking through Typhoon pilot interviews to find negative comments about the plane. I just googled "Typhoon Pilot interview" - for all I knew I was going to get pilot after pilot praising the Tiffy and describing how great it was at shooting down enemy fighters, but that is not what they said. You try it yourself and see what comes up.
See above for the answer. But that is just my opinion, I'm not claiming it's definitive. You said the NACA chart is an estimate? That is the only real hard data I know of. If it turns out that the Typhoon turned and rolled very well then I definitely agree it was a better fighter than a P-40. I don't think that was the case but I'm ready to be surprised. There must be some more concrete data somewhere that we can compare.
I know from previous discussions about the Hurricane roll can be tricky to test because sometimes they test with moderate stick force vs. heavy, there is a difference between maximum roll rate and roll acceleration and so on.
To summarize based on what I've seen so far, the Typhoon rolled slowly and had a limited turn rate. Maybe they only lost 20 or 30 to tails falling off but I suspect if you were a pilot that knew some were lost that way, and started a turn and felt "severe vibration of the airframe " he might hesitate to turn more. However that doesn't mean they were necessarily a bad fighter - that was a very fast plane especially down low and hit and run tactics do work very well. I think a good rate of roll is helpful but it isn't required.
If a Viper / Hornet guy jumped into an Eagle he would hate it at first since it flies nowhere near as nice however it's a much better war machine at heart. I have flown with these guys and they came around but it took a while. I flew it initially and had no reservations as it was what I knew. Earlier I mentioned the Spit, which has a wonderful reputation as a great, easy, responsive plane. If that's your first, you measure all others that follow by that yardstick if you will.
So the Hornet is more responsive/agile, but the Eagle has greater all round capability?