Jump to content

WrathofAtlantis

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About WrathofAtlantis

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 1-The absolute was from the actual German quote. I think we understand that an aircraft never catching fire on crashing is a bit of a hyperbole... A-You misunderstand both the physics and the quote. Yes the 190 pilot can suffer terrible Gs pulling up while still going down, because his elevator action is just changing his attitude, not his trajectory: The more he pulls the more cross to the wind he is, so his Gs are deceleration Gs, from his speed decelerating while going down at 40 degrees. This is how Kurt Tank could boast 1G per two pounds of stick force up to 7Gs, making every
  2. Interesting about the Whirlwind... A difference of 2 mm in prop thickness seriously affected the high altitude performance... Amazing... The mention of the P-factor reminded me to add where this other effect might fit into my theory: The P-factor is also an angle of attack prop effect, and it explains why a right turning prop (from the rear) will turn better to the left. (The spiral hitting on the tail planes at high speeds will also usually make rolls to left slower. The Me-109 had an offset fin and no rudder trimmer for most variants, so the nose drifted right with speed, and r
  3. Well the Russians test pilots have the P-47D Razorback at 27 seconds, and that is clearly absurd... From memory, they had the Me-109G-2 at 21 seconds, which was the same as the FW-190A-5 which they also had at 21 seconds as well: Just in terms terms of wingloading, that is already inexplicable by current physics... But as to to test pilots getting the empirical data wrong, you have to factor in what I said about the negative effects of power (not recognized at all by science, even today!): They assume more power will turn you faster (which is true if your thrust is
  4. In USAAF tests the P-51B was considered to have a faster sustained turn rate than the P-47D Razorback. Russian tests have the Razorback even far slower, at a ridiculous 27 seconds per 360! Yet the Russians have, plausibly, the Me-109G at around 22-23 seconds. In 800 combat reports I’ve read (several times, including all of those on the Mike Williams “WWII Aircraft Performance” site) the P-51 emerges as roughly similar-turning to the Me-109G, and only slightly better in multiple consecutive 360s, at low speed, if reducing power with flaps at 20 degrees (Presumably while the Me-109
  5. A-Bad FW-190A high speed handling: Red Fleet November 1943 article: “When diving at 40 degrees for 1500 m of height, the FW-190A will fall an extra 220 m after pulling up past nose level” That’s extraordinarily bad behaviour: It not only makes vertical maneuvers wide at all speeds above 250 mph, it also crushes the pilot with cross-wind deceleration, hence US reports saying “tendency to black out the pilot” ... This while not really maneuvering! This is a fundamental Anton characteristic, noted by Eric Brown as “tendency to kill speed by sinking”, yet E. Brown still said; Should
  6. The thing to understand about the fuselage correction is that the real P-47 fuselage had sides that were absolutely dead straight, looking down from above, all the way from the front cowling main vertical panel line, just behind the front radius, all the way to the square turbo exhaust doors on the middle rear fuselage sides. The whole Tamiya fuselage has an elongated tear drop shape seen from above. It is only obvious from directly above, but it really is a massive error. (The Eduard Hellcat has a similar plan view error, except the rear tapers too early: I think the Hasegawa a
  7. A-Spitfires escorting bombers, with their short ranges, seems to be a rare thing. As far as 190 encounters are concerned, I cannot recall a case. Any examples of Spifires out turning FW-190As at sustained low speeds? In 25 years of researching this very topic for my book, I found none. The Spitfire did make reasonably fast turn times at high speeds in a broad turn, but with no mid-position flaps it could not slow down. A broad turn, even if fast, will usually not give a lead on a smaller radius. One pilot described turn fighting as “a race where the slowest won.”: It gives perspective...
  8. The FW-190A out-turned the Spitfire at low speeds, and that was the main tactic that it used against it. An experienced pilot never used it in vertical hit and run type combat: RCAF John Weir: “The Hurricane was much more maneuverable than the Spit. The Spit was a higher wingloading. We could turn tighter than a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up.” Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace): “I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the 190 hung behind like a leech: It was only a question of time and he
  9. The Mach number only had a real “bite” above 20 000 feet, because Mach speed was lower there: Below 20.000 the main limitation was airframe buffeting, individual to each design. As far as I know, the FW-190A had a higher Mach number than the Me-109G, and was around 0.84, similar to US fighters. Despite this , it was rarely used in true prolonged vertical fighting, because it had among the worst high speed elevator handling of WWII... Namely sinking behaviour with massive tail down deceleration. The FW-190A was almost exclusively used for low speed turn fighting, wher
  10. Great! I realize now I was muddling up the B-29A with the B... I do vaguely remember that the B was derived only from the A, which is why I conflated both variants.. As to the wingroot difference, the wing root fairing is visible in the Squadron Signal Walk Around, with the difference in wing construction explained; B-29As and B-29s were in no way identical... (the wing root fairing looked at least 15 foot long, so it was not small)
  11. Getting back to ammo consumption, a Luftwaffe study of air combat showed that the average air to air burst of gunfire placed only 1% of shots on target, anywhere on the target... This weakness of air to air firepower had a major effect on air tactics; It meant the pre-war assumption that dogfighting was dead, to be replaced by high speed high angle approaches (the going assumption ever since monoplanes were introduced in the 1930s) was wrong, and an entire class of fast twin engine day fighters, which were to rely on hit and run from higher altitudes, were in fact useless, as the
  12. No! The large underwing fairing is a wingroot fairing, to smooth over the airflow from the B variant wing stubs. The B-29B, not the B-29, had different wing attachments that made it 1 foot wider in wingspan, and this was from 6 inch wing root stubs at each wing root. I presume the huge underwing wing root fairing, which is described in the Squadron Walk Around, and shown in one photo, is to smooth over the wing root stubs: No kit ever attempted the depiction of this massive feature, afaik, but curiously enough, the Monogram does have the wing stubs as attachment points(!), but w
  13. Was the large underwing fairing common to all Bs, or just a silverplate feature? How does a production of 183 adds up to 311 turretless B-29Bs? Where the rest post war production?
  14. Amazing that after 30 years of kit bashing, this on an absolutely massive scale (including in printed media), it is still down to kitbashing to get the most advanced WWII Spitfire... And after ALL that, Airfix comes out with.... Drum roll.... Basically a post-war variant. These people are more clueless than Mr Bean.
  15. It is absolutely brilliant. Almost beyond belief. And top quality too, except for the PE chains... Wish tamiya showed this kind of imagination 15 years ago when they re-booted the scale (since Bandai left it in 1972)... I always wished for more common scales, if only 1/32 had won for armor, instead of Tamiya ruining everything by sizing hulls to batteries... As if that makes sense...
×
×
  • Create New...