Jump to content

VO101Kurfurst

Members
  • Content Count

    785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

615 Excellent

About VO101Kurfurst

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1885 profile views
  1. IIRC more like in the range of 800, but I would have to check NACA docs. Even the Spit was in the 550-600 range.
  2. Poor choice of words on my part indeed, however as you say changes in lift may induce twist (aileron deflection does in fact nothing else then decreasing the lift on one wing and increasing it on another), and that includes effects of turbalance and local, momentary lift separation. The effect is not great and to induce significant enough twist effect you have to increase the pressure difference, meaning you either travel in high speed or in some kind of superstorm.
  3. Shoulder room is fine IMO. You have a couple of inches / centimeters on both sides, probably tight if you have airmen's suit etc on you but still just sufficient. Really the only size issue is with the cabin roof touching your head if you are very tall - but the 30s people were generally of smaller stature (many coming from worker families, and with the great depression, many people were insufficient nutrition, leading to smaller stature, especially in Germany / hey, look at Hartmann, he was a skinny guy). Hence why early 109K protos had a raised (blown) upper plexi in the cabin, or Czech post-war 109 'mules'. The seat had adjustable height for this (early 109s had a seat lever, later ones just different screw positions for fixing the seat's height), but even tall guys like Tobak who was iirc something like 195 cm cramped themselves into the cocpit somehow. IMO if turning is impaired its more due to the slightly reclined seating position, and also because you are strapped into the seat. Then there is natural human limitations - even in a comfy office chair or in a car I can't turn my head back 180 degrees like an owl.
  4. Having sat in a 109, I can tell you there is probably more room in it for the pilot than in a car. The impression was how low and far I was sitting to the dashboard. The cocpit is really long and you are sitting there with your legs streched almost horizontal (helps g resistance). The second is that the 109 may be a relatively small aircraft, but its still a big 10 meter brute attached to a 35 liter engine which is huge by itself, so all the talk about how small it is gets really weird when you are standing right next it (or on its wings 😛 ) . The cannon is of course in between your feet, but its not particularly in the way. The pedals are there and they are surprisingly ergonomic for the time period. The whole sitting position is quite natural, like in a sportcar. A bit like the Mazda MX 5, but there is way more room in the 109. Headroom might be the only challange if you are very tall.
  5. Like wind, turbulance..? Have you ever flown an airliner in bad wheater? All wings flex. All wings are designed to be flexible to a high degree. All wings are subject to aileron induced twists when the ailerons are applied, albeit to a different degree, depending on design and resistance to torsional flexing - multi spar designs, box spars are usually (but not neccesarily) offer more torsion resistance. I fear it is you who has confused aileron reversal and wing twist; but it is wing twist that can - at least in theory, since the reversal speeds are usually waaay above Vne - eventually leads that the counter force becoming so severe that rolling stops and with higher speed, even reverses. But this effect is not bineary, the counter force and thus the increasing loss of aileron roll is present at all airspeeds, and in practice leads to a loss of some % of the maximum theoretical roll rate at all times.
  6. The issue with the P-38 roll is its basic design: its a twin engine fighter. Like all twin engine fighters, it has literally about ton of large metal chunk in the wings, and those wings were pretty long too. From there on, its a simply an issue that you have to overcome that initial intertia resistance the weight and drag of that engine installation. Boosted ailerons only fixed the issue with stick force, but not issue with geometry and weight distribution. It may start to roll very fast at high speed, but the initial rate of roll (and that is what counts the most in quick paced manaouvres) will be still sluggish, because the roll force first has to overcome that rather large resistance from the weight of the engines. Its the same for all twin engines, its a simple consequence of such a design. Hence why SE radials also tend to roll better than SE inlines - weight distubution is not only closer to the pivot point, weight disztribution is almost perfectly even.
  7. 100% agree on the Sound aspect. BTW Post Scriptum also has excellent sounds and its but a small team developing something that started out as a WW2 mod. There is little valid excuse for poor sound design but unfortunately for 95% of the developers it is waaay too low priority. Even if the hardware is there. It was there even in the late 90s. We are progressing backwards in this respect.
  8. The Italian engine is a licence of the DB 601Aa, which had slightly different (higher) boost ratings than the DB 601A-1: 5 minute rating is 1.35ata vs 1.30 for example. The 601A-1 is mounted in our Luftwaffe Emil. IIRC it was just a matter of choice from the devs, historically the Luftwaffe's 109E-7s also had the DB 601Aa (or 601N), as well as all /B fighter bomber conversions, but AFAIK some crashed Emils bearing the E-7s manufacturer plate found after the war in Russia had the 601A-1 mounted, so they modelled this instead of the Aa model. So there is that. This could have been an older E models that were upgraded to E-7s (E-7 designation simply means the aircraft have fittings for droptanks, and some other small things like fixable tail) from older E-1s or E-3s. In any case, both are correct and valid.
  9. Kwiatek will be missed. He was one of the 'old hands' and one with true passion for flying. May he rest in peace.
  10. Sound engine could use a massive overhaul indeed. There is not much positioning, which is most annoying, considering modern harware can take care of that very easily. most engine sounds are not very immersive. DBs and Merlins are okay, Klimovs are just very generic, but the Jumo in the Dora is probably worst, it sounds like a broken sawing machine. Gun sounds are mixed issue as well. Some are good, some are just generic ratata a samples.
  11. As of 18th May 1944, Spitfires with Sqn's: MkV 531 MKVII 62 MK VIII 209 MK IX 996 Mk XII 22 MK XIV 61. Spitfire XIV totals as of 14 December 1944: Operationally fit sqns = 120 In A.S.U = 127 Total = 247 As of 27 December 1944, the units concerned were: in 125 Wing : 41 sqn, 130 sqn, 350 sqn, 610 sqn, all XIVs in 126 Wing: 402 sqn with XIVs, plus a mix of IX Sqns. Recce Squadrons 430 sqn (XIV) 2 sqn. (mix of Mustang II and XIVs) RAF Sqn at the time is IIRC 12 flying plus 8 reserve aircraft. So assuming full 12 plane Squadrons for operations (reserve aircraft did not fly), the five XIV fighter Squadrons could theoretically put up 60 planes in the air at a time.
  12. Its perfectly the norm that most aircraft sit in storage, ready to be issued to the troops. You can’t just dump heaps of unconfigured new aircraft to frontline airfields without building proper organisation to maintain, support and fly them. Re-arming and retraining existing units also takes time and required the unit to be pulled back from operations for a while.
  13. He needs to get his head around some facts first to do that. Excellent, I am looking very much forward to see the numbers. Seeing the exact deliveres of XIVs by month, heck even per week was very interesting and educational on the extent and timing of operational deployment. I did similar reasearch work myself, but not quite as detailed as yours. Edit. Forum engine went loco it seems. Oh well.
  14. It does not mean that. Reversal speed is just a calculated number and it doesn't mean the speed is attainable from the structural standpoint. Aileron reversal speed is almost all cases well above the Vne of the aircraft, often in the vicinity of Mach 1.
  15. Timely and most original request, as the last of the numerous threads on the same subject is already on page 2 and half the aircraft orignally intended for development is already released for beta. People must hear of this injustice.
×
×
  • Create New...