WWII Rate of Turns

[Greyman]

Do you even know anything about combat training aside what you might have read or seen on youtube? So in your worldly aviation experience, tell us what is effective training?

I've listened to an F-16 pilot complain about the altitude of the USN safety 'hard deck' and how it impaired their training.

I'm sure there are a million things like this in all services. Surely we can use our imaginations and heap on safety regulations until training becomes unrealistic and almost pointless. There's a sweet spot between man/materiel losses and training value, everyone could have a different opinion on where that is.

Group A would point to Group B's appalling training accidents - Group B would claim Group A is just training a bunch of wussies.

 

[swampyankee]

Do you have any proof at all for this? Fighting is inherently dangerous but I can put forward a very good argument that proves the top aces in two world wars were cowards, "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong", they were as much, if not more concerned with their own survival as they were with a "kill". If the USAF is in the position of losing football games by two goals to one they can try to score more or concede less, constructing strategies to concede less is not being "far too obsessed with safety" in fact the strategy worked.

"Coward" is not a synonym for intelligent, nor is "brave" one for stupid. One wants the pilots, who have been trained through a very rigorous and expensive process, to operate very expensive machinery to make intelligent risk-benefit assessments, not just throw themselves into stupid fights to get themselves killed and the country defeated.

The WW2-era veterans I knew were fighting for a specific purpose, which was the defeat of either Japan or nazism. They weren't fighting for glory or out of some stupid chivalric ethic; they were fighting to win.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've listened to an F-16 pilot complain about the altitude of the USN safety 'hard deck' and how it impaired their training.

And it also saved some lives along the way.

I'm sure there are a million things like this in all services. Surely we can use our imaginations and heap on safety regulations until training becomes unrealistic and almost pointless. There's a sweet spot between man/materiel losses and training value, everyone could have a different opinion on where that is.

Group A would point to Group B's appalling training accidents - Group B would claim Group A is just training a bunch of wussies.

And you also have Group C - "It's better to die than look bad."

 

[Greyman]

And it also saved some lives along the way.

They'd save more lives if they never flew in peacetime at all and stuck to simulators. Ridiculous extreme to make a point - but you get my drift.

 

[pbehn]

They'd save more lives if they never flew in peacetime at all and stuck to simulators. Ridiculous extreme to make a point - but you get my drift.

I believe you are close to the mark there with the F 35.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There needs to be some sought of realistic combat training balanced with a margin of safety. Over the years risk mitigation has evolved almost into a fine art. During the Vietnam War era (from the OP) there was mention of how the safety margin was becoming unrealistic. For one to really understand this, there needs to be a level of knowledge or experience to justify said comments. The safety card is never too great, especially for those who have to take the risks and hopefully return to their families at the end of the day. As the old saying goes "There is never a need to fly directly into a thunderstorm during peacetime."

 

[pbehn]

And it also saved some lives along the way.

And you also have Group C - "It's better to die than look bad."

That is a mentality that sounds ridiculous but for many reasons does exist. I am not a great viewer of on line videos but this had me hooked, at the time of the Vietnam conflict an instructor and trainee or pilot were less likely to eject from a doomed aircraft over the USA than a pilot shot down in combat.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyjYp6WT7ww


from the text intro

The film starts with footage of an F-4 Phantom in a deadly spin, forcing the air crew to eject from the plane. An officer from the Air Force Inspection and Safety Center explains at mark 01:50 that the decision when to eject from an out-of-control aircraft could mean the difference between life and death. From 1949 to 1980, we are informed via a pie chart that there were 4,626 ejections — 82% of them success. Yet from 1976 to 1980 the survival rate had fallen (mark 02:25) due to delayed ejection. A horrific accident involving an F-100 fighter jet careening out of control is seen at 2:40. At 3:30, POV footage from inside an aircraft as an ejection occurs is shown. The ACES II Ejection Seat is seen at 3:48. As the film continues we see numerous crashes, look at the design of an ejection seat, and review statistics on fatality rate by altitude (mark 04:42). The training film continues with detailed narratives on ejection scenarios and archived combat footage from the Vietnam War (07:15) followed by a look at statistics on 1967-1973 combat and mishap ejection survival rates. In peacetime, we are told at mark 07:50, that there seems to be an increase in delayed ejections including failed attempts to gain altitude and lack of confidence in the ejection system. At mark 09:15, a pilot offers a first-hand look at what it's like to eject from an aircraft as his F-4 lost all hydraulics and started taking an uncontrolled bank. At 11:00, a female pilot who was flying as a student recounts having to eject from a T-38 Talon with her instructor, followed by images of T-38 Talon wreckage. Several more pilots share their experiences starting at mark 11:05 with those interviews accompanied by scenes of aircraft in flight and in crisis. Stressing that time is everything, an officer concludes at mark 21:33, "Wasting those few precious seconds can not only be critical; in the ejection world it can be fatal."

 

[pbehn]

"Coward" is not a synonym for intelligent, nor is "brave" one for stupid. One wants the pilots, who have been trained through a very rigorous and expensive process, to operate very expensive machinery to make intelligent risk-benefit assessments, not just throw themselves into stupid fights to get themselves killed and the country defeated.

The WW2-era veterans I knew were fighting for a specific purpose, which was the defeat of either Japan or nazism. They weren't fighting for glory or out of some stupid chivalric ethic; they were fighting to win.

That was pretty much what I was trying to say (maybe a bad choice of words). During the Battle of France and Britain the ideal was to be up sun and shoot down the enemy before you were seen. Mass dogfights between groups of fighters rarely achieved anything conclusive, where planes were disabled by a single bullet it was quite possible that bullet came from a friend or foe aiming at someone else.
One of my favourite quotes was from Bob Doe. "I wasn't fighting for King and Country, I was fighting for my mum, I didn't hate Germans, I just didn't want 'em over here"

 

[Zipper730]

I've listened to an F-16 pilot complain about the altitude of the USN safety 'hard deck' and how it impaired their training.

I'm sure there are a million things like this in all services. Surely we can use our imaginations and heap on safety regulations until training becomes unrealistic and almost pointless. There's a sweet spot between man/materiel losses and training value, everyone could have a different opinion on where that is.

That's a good point

 

[swampyankee]

There needs to be some sought of realistic combat training balanced with a margin of safety. Over the years risk mitigation has evolved almost into a fine art. During the Vietnam War era (from the OP) there was mention of how the safety margin was becoming unrealistic. For one to really understand this, there needs to be a level of knowledge or experience to justify said comments. The safety card is never too great, especially for those who have to take the risks and hopefully return to their families at the end of the day.

Sometimes, I feel that there are people whose comments have an underlying tenor of "safety is stupid." Obviously, flying has some risks -- the in the US the category "commercial pilot" has a greater rate of work-related fatalities than does police or firefighter (for reference, the greatest fatality rate is for commercial fisherman correction: timber industry workers) --but losing pilots and aircraft because of non-combat losses is a gift to the enemy.

As the old saying goes "There is never a need to fly directly into a thunderstorm during peacetime."

....although there are pilots who have deliberately done exactly that.

Sometimes it seems that NASA has some pilots who not only push the envelope but take a match to it.

 

[Shortround6]

Back in the 70s when I joined the fire service it was the most dangerous job in America (depending on who you believed) however, better equipment, better training and better safety standards have brought the numbers down. Some of the stuff firefighters did back then was just plain stupid even if "macho".
A nearby big city had a 'tradition' of the first in engine company (pumper) NOT putting on air packs and advancing the hose as far as they could into the heat/smoke. 2nd in engine took care of water supply to the 1st engine, put on air packs, and went in and took over the hose. Where upon the first-in crew came back out, puked up their guts on the sidewalk and were useless for the rest of the incident, not to mention long term health problems.
Our smaller dept didn't have the luxury of 3rd and 4th engines showing up so we put on air packs before going in and remained more effective for a longer period of time. It was also common to ride on the rear step (bumper) of the truck. A bit thrilling (unless it was winter) and while we never lost anybody plenty of other depts did. Somebody did a study and found an almost unbelievable number of deaths/injuries due to crashes while responding!!!
some years it was higher than the losses actually on the fireground.
Crashed truck and injured crew puts out NO fires and saves NO victims.

Injuring (or worse) firefighters on the training ground is really stupid but it took a long time to change.

"What do you mean you don't want to train in the rain? You think fires only happen when it's not raining!!!"

SO out we would go to climb aluminium ladders to 2nd and 3rd floor heights with wet rungs and wet boots.
Then we would sit in a classroom the next day while the sun shown outside.

You need some degree of realism while training with more realism introduced after basic skills are mastered.
However any training officer that bragged about melting a helmet visor in training is a training officer I don't want to train with.

I started with rubber covered canvas coats and some metal helmets, rubber covered gloves and ended up with nomex coats, pants, hoods and gloves and fiberglass/composite helmets. Air packs went from demand to positive pressure. Radios went from officer only to every man in the crew.

This took well over 20 years and things were still improving in the last last 10 years after that and hopefully are still improving.

Brave and skilled shouldn't have to equal stupid.

 

[swampyankee]

Back in the 70s when I joined the fire service it was the most dangerous job in America (depending on who you believed)


Brave and skilled shouldn't have to equal stupid.

Brave never equaled stupid; poorly trained and dead does -- or at least did -- cost less than well-trained and alive, leading to rewards for managers


For reference regarding job dangers see 25 most dangerous jobs in America and The Most Dangerous Jobs in America

 

[fubar57]

I made #1 on both lists, same as Canadian lists

 

[swampyankee]

Right now, I'm way down on that list, although that may change: I teach in a suburb.

 

[Zipper730]

Okay, let's get back onto rate of turn

 

[fubar57]

....said he who often heads off in wild tangents

 

[Zipper730]

Yes, but at least I turned back onto track...

 

[Laurelix97]

You can calculate the turn rates

For example:
Ki-84
Loaded Weight: 3600kg
Wing Area: 21m2
Air density at sea level: 1.225kg/m3
Flap Area: 2.436m2
Wing Lift Coefficient: (according to its manual)
Flaps at 0 degrees: 1.46 CL_Max
Flaps at 15 degrees: 1.70 CL_Max
Flaps at 30 degrees 1.92 CL_Max

Step 1:
Find out the Lift Force:
Weight (kg) X Gravity
3600 X 9.81 = 35,316 Newtons

Step 2:
Look at the formula and fill in the numbers

V= Stall Speed
2L = 2x Liftforce (2x 35316)
CL = wing lift coefficient
p = Air density (kg/m3)
a = Wing Area (m2)

Note:
If you are looking for stall speed without using flaps (0 degrees) you do not add the flap area to the wing area in the calculation. It's only when you start calculating the stall speed with flaps deployed, that's when you add the 2.436m2 to the 21.0m2
So the wing area that will be used for calculating flaps 15 and 30 degrees is (23.436m2)

Step 3:
Do the working out, use scientific calculator which lets you write the entire format. Top is just 2x L, bottom is CL X p X a
The top is divided by the bottom and everything is square rooted.
The answer you will get is the stall speed in m/s, you need to multiply it by 3.6 to convert it to Km/h.

If you're struggling with the math, here's the easiest way.
Airplane Aircraft Wing Lift Design Equations Formulas Calculator - Velocity

Ki-84
At 3600kg weight , Sea level
Stall speed is:
Flaps at 0 degrees: 156km/h
Flaps at 15 degrees (Combat): 137km/h
Flaps at 30 degrees (Landing): 129km/h

Step 4:
Work out the Power to weight ratio
Weight (Kg) / Power (HP)
3600 / 1990 = 1.81kg/HP

Step 5:
Now you can compare the turn rate against other planes.
Yak-3
2692kg loaded weight
1300hp engine
That's 2.07kg/HP power to weight ratio

Yak-3 stall speed at 2692kg, sea level, No flaps (0 degrees)
163km/h

Which ever plane has lower stall speed, that plane has smaller turn radius and sharper turns. This is the initial turn.
Ki-84 not only has lower stall speed (better initial turn) than Yak-3, it has better power to weight ratio than Yak-3 (carries less weight per horsepower). This means the Ki-84 sustains it's speed better than Yak-3.

There are instances where planes have very good initial turn (they turn very well with energy) but their engine is underpowered and as soon as they get into prolonged turns, they turn into whales that do small turn radius but they take long time to complete one because the plane is fighting stall thus the plane isn't turning efficiently because it doesn't have enough energy to perform manuevers. One example would be the F6F-3.

Yak-3 sustained turn (no flaps, 1000m altitude)
18 seconds to complete 360 horizontal turn
-
Ki-84 is rated at 17 seconds
La-7 is rated at 19 seconds

 

[Greyman]

If I told you how far that all went over my head you wouldn't believe me.

If it were up to me to invent things we wouldn't even have scissors yet.

 

[Zipper730]

You can calculate the turn rates

Just to be clear, does the coefficient of lift figure include the downforce of the tail? As for g-load, I would just multiply 9.81 x (g-load) right?

Ki-84
Loaded Weight: 3600kg
Wing Area: 21m2
Air density at sea level: 1.225kg/m3
Flap Area: 2.436m2
Wing Lift Coefficient: (according to its manual)
Flaps at 0 degrees: 1.46 CL_Max
Flaps at 15 degrees: 1.70 CL_Max
Flaps at 30 degrees 1.92 CL_Max

And for this I got...

Flaps 0: 43.3657270825 m/s, or 97.01 mph
Flaps 15: 38.2035146891 m/s, or 85.46 mph
Flaps 30: 35.7964821077 m/s, or 80.07 mph

I'm not sure how you factor in indicated airspeed with true airspeed, and mach number with temp

I was looking at a graph and found something interesting: Gravity varies with altitude...

• 0 m = 9.807 (listed, actually 9.80665) m/s
• 1000m = 9.804 m/s
• 2000m = 9.801
• 3000m = 9.797
• 4000m = 9.794
• 5000m = 9.788
• 6000m = 9.785
• 7000m = 9.792
• 8000m = 9.779
• 9000m = 9.776

I didn't go any further: Will this factor in stall speed and g-loads?