Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Crumpp]

Slipball says
Crumpp..Nice barn! but too small

LOL, Yes it is and now I need a bigger one!

NzTyphoon says:

they have everything to do with WW2 military aviation

I don't have everything to do with WWII Aviation Nztyphoon.

Never claimed too but I do sit on the Board of Directors for a warbird restoration company.

Try spending a month looking for a waffengeber for a month and see if you don't learn something.

JtD says:
both planes are turning too fast and I also think that the high speed relation is a bit off.

The airplanes are at sea level. Of course they are turning too fast....

Density effects will increase velocity, widen the radius, and increase the rate of turn. The engine power will also change with supercharger characteristics.

As for the high speed relation, anytime the aircraft has more excess thrust it will have a better turn rate as it can sustain more angle of bank at velocity.

The relationship is correct.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

LOL, Yes it is and now I need a bigger one!

Considering the shape of the building and the powers of Google earth, it's for the best that you removed it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The airplanes are at sea level. Of course they are turning too fast....

Planes at sea level still turn as physics determine, not "of course too fast". If you posted your input data as requested, I could easily check if there's anything I'd disagree with.

As for the high speed relation, anytime the aircraft has more excess thrust it will have a better turn rate as it can sustain more angle of bank at velocity.

The relationship is correct.

I could easily see that if you posted requested input data. The way it looks from here, you chose 285 mph for the Spitfire and 500 km/h for the 109 - which leaves me to wonder: Do you know of a lower sea level top speed for the Spitfire and do you know of a higher sea level top speed for the 109? Just asking, because I don't.

[Crumpp]

Planes at sea level still turn as physics determine

Yes they do and the formula's are all standard BGS for calculating aircraft performance.

They are same ones found in Perkins & Hage, Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, Flight Mechanics, and Flight Theory and Aerodynamics.

You can argue with the authors of these books....

http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Flig.../dp/0470539755

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Theory-...d+aerodynamics

http://www.amazon.com/Airplane-Perfo...ty+and+control

http://www.amazon.com/Aerodynamics-N...naval+aviators

The formulas are correct and the performance agrees with generic turn performance charts used in aircraft flight planning.

Input the correct parameters for wing area, power, aspect ratio, CLmax, and the formulas produce the results.

It is that simple.

[Crumpp]

"of course too fast"

They don't turn too fast. The performance aligns perfectly with a standard turn performance chart.

[JtD]

I'd like to know what data you used, a request couldn't be more straightforward and simple. I didn't ask for adverts, standard turn performance charts or other rubbish.

[Crumpp]

other rubbish

Hold on a second. You attacked the effort and claimed it did not conform to physics.

When I explain it is all standard formulation commonly found in aerodynamic text using the BGS system and present a General Turn Performance table the results agree with perfectly, you claim it is all rubbish.

So what is not "rubbish" to you??

Before I present you with the data, should we agree on what we are looking at???

[Glider]

I admit that my problem is a simple basic one. I believe a huge amount of time and effort is going into trying to hide one clear and obvious truth. That all the pilots and all the test pilots of all the test establishments, in all the nations that compared the 109 and the Spitfire, all agreed that the SPit turned better than the 109.

None of the above mentioned said that there was any difference when in a turning climb and the RAE clearly documented the advantage to the Spitfire. No advice was given to German pilots to go into a climbing turn to escape attack and as far as I am aware, no pilot of the time has said that they used this tactic in combat.

I frankly don't care what a theoretical calculation shows when compared to the tests that were done at the time. Why, because anything done today is just that, a theory unable to be tested in real life, a pricless advantage which occurred in the war years.

Its also worth remembering that the calculations being done today are being done without that 12lb thrust which increased performance of the engine by approx 30%

I invite those who believe that the 109 had the advantage to find any test from any establishment of any nation to support their view.
It shouldn't be difficult if the results are so clear and obvious mathmatically.

[Crumpp]

all agreed that the SPit turned better than the 109.

It does turn better. Look at the calculations I posted.

It just does not do it under all conditions or speeds. That is important, Glider.

If the two airplanes were to have a turning battle to the stall point, the Bf-109E-3 would loose.

Here is the acceleration rates of the two aircraft. The Bf-109E-3 out accelerates the Spitfire Mk I due to its being lighter with more excess thrust.




Of course, the Spitfire can fly at a slower speed were the Bf-109E3 cannot fly at all.

If the Bf-109E3 maintains his trim speed of 400 kph, he is tough customer for a Spitfire to deal with. At that speed, the Bf-109 can sustain better performance and accelerates better. The Spitfire needs to take the fight to the low speed realm where it has all the advantages.

[Crumpp]

Typo on the chart axis....

Acceleration is in fps^2