Comparison of Fighter Roll Rates at 10kft

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Had some time to kill tonight, so thought, what the heck
 

 

Enjoy

[Willy__]

So..... why the russian planes are missing on the chart ?

Edited February 9, 2015 by istruba

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Simple, because you have not provided me with any roll rate data from USSR planes.. That and the NACA 868 reports does not contain any roll rate data for USSR planes. So, post your roll rate data for USSR planes and I add it in, as long as it is real world data and not ingame data.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

P-40 has the fastest roll rate beyond 340 IAS?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Had some time to kill tonight, so thought, what the heck

 

COMPRR.png

 

Enjoy

where you got this dubious P40 roll rate from? In the Naca report you can see a clear decline from the P40 at around ~280

I would say the original Naca report is a better source here

[Dakpilot]

Ask anyone what the most manoeuvrable and nimblest fighter of WWII was and at least 8 out of ten will say the Japanese Zero

 

and yet it has the worst roll rate by a fair margin

 

goes to show what popular opinion and stereotypes give, how on earth were they able to ever shoot down an allied aircraft, ever...when Widcats, P-39's and P-40's had such an "FW190" like superior roll rate    

 

Fairly tongue in cheek but I think there is a point

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

Roll rate is only a small part of being maneuvrable. At low speeds Zero could stay on your tail never mind the roll rate (unless you fly 109F-4 from BoS with those stabs and godlike engine).

[Crump]

Roll rate is only a small part of being maneuvrable. At low speeds Zero could stay on your tail never mind the roll rate (unless you fly 109F-4 from BoS with those stabs and godlike engine).

 

 

It is the other way around Shifty.

 

Constant altitude level turn performance is a small part of maneuverability.  Otherwise, the Japanese Zero would have won the pacific air war.   

Agility.pdf

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

P-40 has the fastest roll rate beyond 340 IAS?

And

 

where you got this dubious P40 roll rate from?

I got the P-38 and the P-40 RR data from the book Americas Hundred Thousand, graph 81 near the end of the book.

 

In the Naca report you can see a clear decline from the P40 at around ~280

That is correct, but that is a P40F (maybe E hard to see on the 868 graph).. As for why they are so different.. Not sure really, but the P40 did have alot of revision versions

 

I would say the original Naca report is a better source here

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, just as I am welcome to ignore it, but if you have some actualy proof that proves Americas Hundred Thousand is in error, please provide it for review.

 

Roll rate is only a small part of being maneuvrable.

Small part? Depends really, but it is definitely 'a' part of maneuverability.

 

At low speeds Zero could stay on your tail never mind the roll rate (unless you fly 109F-4 from BoS with those stabs and godlike engine).

Which is why WWI low speed turn (TnB) tactics were not the norm in WWII IMHO.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Roll rate is only a small part of being maneuvrable.

Manouvrebility = Ability to change direction quickly. A manouvreable car can change it's direction only along 1 axis (left right) quickly while and airplane has 3 axis (pitch, roll, yaw - later one has great restrictions though). You also need to consider the dependency on airspeed, which is anothe rimportant factor. At low speed the Zero laughted at the Corsair while at higher airspeeds the Corsair clearly regains the upperhand.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[voncrapenhauser]

 

 

Ask anyone what the most manoeuvrable and nimblest fighter of WWII was and at least 8 out of ten will say the Japanese Zero

 

+1

[Brano]

Ask anyone what the most manoeuvrable and nimblest fighter of WWII was and at least 8 out of ten will say the Japanese Zero

And the remaing 2 will say Yak-3

[JtD]

Attached a British report showing the P-40 roll rate. It used lower stick force limits than the above chart, but up to 280mph agrees very well with the figure from "Americas 100000" (a book I'd highly recommend to anyone somewhat interested in US fighters). The P-40 was one of the best rolling aircraft at high speed in WW2.

 

Also attached the original page from the P-40F wartime report showing roll rate for that version, it agrees pretty well with the roll rate given by the OP, but differentiates between left and right and shows that lower stick force limits were applied, high speed rolling would therefore be better than depicted in OP's charts.

[Dakpilot]

It would have been interesting to see how many people would have  been convinced of the rolling capabilities of a P40 Vs a FW190 if it had been part of the planeset....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

And the remaing 2 will say Yak-3

 

Which is a horrible low speed turning aircraft.....do the math! 

[Brano]

Which is a horrible low speed turning aircraft.....do the math! 

Yes sirrrr

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

shows that lower stick force limits were applied, high speed rolling would therefore be better than depicted in OP's charts.

Thanks JtD..

 

I saw that, but am working on a way to have the legend reflect the stick forces, without it getting too messy. Also want to capture the source, so I may need to add separate legend, Ill have to play with it, just don't want it to get too messy. On the note of stick forces, as far as I know all the planes in the NACA 868 were done at 40, except the zero which it notes is unknown.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, just as I am welcome to ignore it, but if you have some actualy proof that proves Americas Hundred Thousand is in error, please provide it for review.

 

-snip-

 

Hi, just curious...

 

Did you have any proof that America's 100K is a more credible source than NACA?   

 

Here is a great article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Hi, just curious...

Ok, shoot..

 

Did you have any proof that America's 100K is a more credible source than NACA? 

Better yet, do you have any proof that Americas Hundred Thousand (AHT) is a less credible sournce than the NACA?

 

Before you answer, note that there is NO CONFLICT between the NACA report and AHT, the data in the NACA 868 is for a P-40F and the data in AHT is from a RAF test that JtD already posted. As to the version of the P-40 in the RAF test, I am not sure, only thing I am sure of if there were about as many versions of the P-40 as there were Bf109s.. Well, maybe not that many. But more than most US planes, thus the fact that there are two different roll rates does not suprise me in the least.

 

Here is a great article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

Did you post the correct link? In that I don't see what the definition of double standard has to do with anything.

 

In summary, if you have proof showing the RAF and thus AHT P-40 data is wrong, by all means please provide it! Just know that being upset about an allied plane rolling faster than the Fw190 is not what I or others would consider as proof.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Hi, just curious...

 

Did you have any proof that America's 100K is a more credible source than NACA?   

 

Here is a great article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

 

 

-snip-

 

I see that you do not. 

 

EDIT: And for the record, nobody is upset about anything. Perhaps it is you who should cool your jets. 

Edited February 10, 2015 by FalkeEins

[Crump]

 

 

where you got this dubious P40 roll rate from?

 

Frise Ailerons have a wide variation and you can tell from the shape of the curve that overuse of the rudder occurred.  Sideslip will contribute to roll rate.  It will also put the brakes on airspeed!

 

I would go with the NACA data.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I see that you do not. 

And I see that you are confused..

 

Apparently you don't understand the very definition you linked too..

 

Because I don't have multiple standards that I pick and choose from at will..

 

I only have one..

 

Documented Real World Data.

 

The clue should have been in the fact that I provided both the P-40 and P-40F roll rate data..

 

Had I 'picked' one over the other, and only displayed 'one'..

 

Than and only than could you have suggested that I am applying a double standard.

 

But before you even did that, you would have to ask me what my criteria (read standard) was for picking one over the other..

 

Hope that helps!

 

Frise Ailerons have a wide variation and you can tell from the shape of the curve that overuse of the rudder occurred.  Sideslip will contribute to roll rate.  It will also put the brakes on airspeed!

 

I would go with the NACA data.

ROTFL

[messermeister]

Ok, shoot..

 

Better yet, do you have any proof that Americas Hundred Thousand (AHT) is a less credible sournce than the NACA?

 

Before you answer, note that there is NO CONFLICT between the NACA report and AHT, the data in the NACA 868 is for a P-40F and the data in AHT is from a RAF test that JtD already posted. As to the version of the P-40 in the RAF test, I am not sure, only thing I am sure of if there were about as many versions of the P-40 as there were Bf109s.. Well, maybe not that many. But more than most US planes, thus the fact that there are two different roll rates does not suprise me in the least.

 

Did you post the correct link? In that I don't see what the definition of double standard has to do with anything.

 

In summary, if you have proof showing the RAF and thus AHT P-40 data is wrong, by all means please provide it! Just know that being upset about an allied plane rolling faster than the Fw190 is not what I or others would consider as proof.

 

Just to correct that, the extract showed in this post is a copy from RAE, but the original report is a NACA one: Confidential Bulletin Aug. 1942 Comparison of Aileron Control Characteristics as determined in flight tests of P-36, P-40, Spitfire, and Hurricane airplanes, by William H. Phillips.

[Crump]

Here is the report.  This was way Gilruth pushed so hard for a Stability and Control standard.

 

The report is pretty weak.

 

Frise ailerons have a rather wide natural variation and the curve shows signs of over use of the rudder.

Allied AC rollrate.pdf

[Crump]

 

 

Documented Real World Data.

 

But you have to understand that data first before you can extract anything meaningful, Ace of Aces. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

But you have to understand that data first before you can extract anything meaningful, Ace of Aces. 

 

I agree.

 

Herr Ace is the one who is misunderstanding the nature of his self-determined double standard.

 

When asked to provide a reason, citation or some other form of validation about his documentation and why it is being labled as "more accurate" than the sources he is refuting, his standard response is the same smug self-assurance we've all read in many of his other posts on these forums.

 

That's okay, though... Because before he reaccuses me of being upset... I'm not upset. 

 

-snip-

 

But before you even did that, you would have to ask me what my criteria (read standard) was for picking one over the other..

 

-snip-

-snip-

 

Did you have any proof that America's 100K is a more credible source than NACA?    

 

-snip-

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by FalkeEins

[Finkeren]

So..... why the russian planes are missing on the chart ?

 

Hard data on Soviet WW2 aircraft performance is hard to come by, but it's safe to assume, that the 3 main modern fighter designs (Yakolev, Lavochkin and Mikoyan/Gurevich) would be in the higher end of the chart. The short stubby wings and generous aileron authority of Soviet WW2 era fighters facilitated high roll rates (though it's very unlikely that any of them rivaled the Fw 190)

 

You can still witness the impressive roll rates on surviving Soviet airframes, though since they're seldom in their original configuration, you can't really extract any exact data from them, but we can get a general idea.

 

Here's an Alison-powered MiG-3 at a Moscow air show in 2011. If you look at 1:17, you can see him roll at ~120dps without even trying.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHwfb9LtZX4

 

Of course a random Youtube clip of a plane in non-original configuration doing a single aileron roll does not constitute 'data', but it can give us a very general idea. I have seen similar videos of airworthy Yaks rolling better than I've ever seen for instance a non-CW Spitfire do, but again: No hard data. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Herr Ace is the one who is misunderstanding the nature of his self-determined double standard.

Nice try, but no sale, as I already proved above, your the one who is confused, sad part is that even after that, your still confused.

 

When asked to provide a reason, citation or some other form of validation about his documentation and why it is being labled as "more accurate" than the sources he is refuting,

And here is further proof of your confusion..

 

Here you are saying that I said one is more accurate than the other..

 

When in fact I never said that..

 

Which is easy to prove, I challenge you to quote me where I said anything of the sort!

 

I know you will not take up the challenge, because you cant quote me saying anything of the sort, thus all I have to look forward from you is more weak attempts on your part to try and put words into my mouth, like you did above.

 

his standard response is the same smug self-assurance we've all read in many of his other posts on these forums.

Now that is funny!

 

Coming from the guy who's first post on this topic contained the 'smug' link to the definition of double standards.

 

That's okay, though... Because before he reaccuses me of being upset... I'm not upset. 

There is only two ways you could make the mistakes you have made thus far, 1) you intentonaly did it to try and derail this thread; 2) your so upset about an allied plane rolling better than the Fw190 that you are seeing 'red' and thus 'think' you saw me say one was "more accurate" than tht other.

 

Gold Troll Star for effort, but no sale here!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Hard data on Soviet WW2 aircraft performance is hard to come by

Sad, but true

 

but it's safe to assume, that the 3 main modern fighter designs (Yakolev, Lavochkin and Mikoyan/Gurevich) would be in the higher end of the chart. The short stubby wings and generous aileron authority of Soviet WW2 era fighters facilitated high roll rates (though it's very unlikely that any of them rivaled the Fw 190)

Well.. it is never safe to assume, but, I do agree with your analogy.

 

You can still witness the impressive roll rates on surviving Soviet airframes, though since they're seldom in their original configuration, you can't really extract any exact data from them, but we can get a general idea.

True, that and the owners tend to NOT push them to their limits

 

Here's an Alison-powered MiG-3 at a Moscow air show in 2011. If you look at 1:17, you can see him roll at ~120dps without even trying.

Well, here is an example of an assumption gone wrong.. without even trying? Do you have any idea how much force the pilot is applying while watching the plane from the ground? Answer is no you don't.

 

Of course a random Youtube clip of a plane in non-original configuration doing a single aileron roll does not constitute 'data', but it can give us a very general idea.

Very General with a capital V and G!

 

I for one would not want a flight sim based on such a video, I would trust hand calculations over this highly modified bird.

 

I have seen similar videos of airworthy Yaks rolling better than I've ever seen for instance a non-CW Spitfire do, but again: No hard data.

Agreed No hard data.. NEAT! But nothing you can use to base and FM on IMHO

[Finkeren]

Just to be clear: No, ofc we can't or shouldn't use YT videos, or even data collected on surviving machines far removed from their wartime configurations to base a flight sim on. That's why it's good that the devs went and payed up for the original test data from Russian archives.

 

As for the 'without even trying'-thing, I ofc could be wrong about this, but I base that asumption on the way the aircraft behaves through the maneuver. The pilot is clearly easing both into and out of the maneuver, no stick-yanking, which tells me, that he (or she?) could've rolled it even faster.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Just to be clear: No, ofc we can't or shouldn't use YT videos, or even data collected on surviving machines far removed from their wartime configurations to base a flight sim on. That's why it's good that the devs went and payed up for the original test data from Russian archives.

Agreed 100%

 

Allot can be learned from surviving machines.. but there are limits.. I think the funniest.. no, maybe sadist example of using an 'existing' (note not surviving) plane data for a sim was when Microsoft went out to sample the engine sounds of one of the Strombird's reproduction Me262.. Out of all the things on these planes that were NOT like the orginals it was the motors! Yet Microsoft wanted to capture the 'sounds' to use in game! Too Funny!

 

As for the 'without even trying'-thing, I ofc could be wrong about this, but I base that asumption on the way the aircraft behaves through the maneuver. The pilot is clearly easing both into and out of the maneuver, no stick-yanking, which tells me, that he (or she?) could've rolled it even faster.

Was the pilots shirt off so you could see if he had arms like Pee Wee Herman, or Arnold?

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Frise ailerons have a rather wide natural variation and the curve shows signs of over use of the rudder.

And

 

But you have to understand that data first before you can extract anything meaningful, Ace of Aces.

ROTFL!

 

Ah, thanks Crump, those two brought a tear to my eye I laughed so hard, Keep em coming! Thanks in advance!

[Finkeren]

Was the pilots shirt off so you could see if he had arms like Pee Wee Herman, or Arnold?

It's not so much about the stick forces involved. The plane doesn't look to be going that fast in the first place so stick forces were propably manageable.

 

The point is, that since the pilot appears to be 'easing' into and out of the maneuver, it's likely that even faster roll rate could be achieved simply by doing it more violent.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It's not so much about the stick forces involved. The plane doesn't look to be going that fast in the first place so stick forces were propably manageable.

 

The point is, that since the pilot appears to be 'easing' into and out of the maneuver, it's likely that even faster roll rate could be achieved simply by doing it more violent.

I know, I was just trying to be funny..

 

With regards to required force, as you can see in many of the (typical) RR graphs, the linear lines show where the applied force was more than enough to fully deflect the ailerons at the given speed, where you see the RR graphs start dropping off, that is typically where the applied force is not enough to fully deflect the ailerons. Than take a look at the not so typical P-38L boosted ailerons curve, it does not have the abrupt point, because due to the boosted ailerons, they can always be fully deflected.

 

So, I am sure the plane you were watching at the air show, or what ever, was flying at speed well below the 'point' where the applied force was not enough to fully deflect the ailerons, mater of fact I would not be surprised if the applied force was such that they didn't fully deflect the, which goes back to the fact that the owners typically don't push these 70 our air-frames that hard. I guess what I am saying is allot of planes would look effortless at those types of displays speeds

[69th_chuter]

Here is the report.  This was way Gilruth pushed so hard for a Stability and Control standard.

 

The report is pretty weak.

 

Frise ailerons have a rather wide natural variation and the curve shows signs of over use of the rudder.

 

 

After going through the report, I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion it's inaccurate other than you simply don't think it's right?  You mention the shape of the curve but wouldn't you have to have data from other tests with known control inputs to make this claim.  Since NACA was doing this test strictly on the ailerons, knowing that rudder (and elevator) inputs would confuse the results, wouldn't they do what they could to minimize error?  If they didn't, or couldn't, wouldn't it then be difficult to take any NACA test at  face value?

[Finkeren]

So, I am sure the plane you were watching at the air show, or what ever, was flying at speed well below the 'point' where the applied force was not enough to fully deflect the ailerons, mater of fact I would not be surprised if the applied force was such that they didn't fully deflect the, which goes back to the fact that the owners typically don't push these 70 our air-frames that hard. I guess what I am saying is allot of planes would look effortless at those types of displays speeds

Sure, but they wouldn't all achieve 120dps in a roll regardless of level of deflection.

 

Again, what I thought made it look effortless (other than the fact that it's a 70 year old machine at an air show which, as you said, won't be stressed to the limit) is, that the pilots initiates and exits the maneuver in a quite fluid motion which, all other things being equal, should be slower than simply yanking the stick and throwing the aircraft into the roll more violently.

 

Anyway, it's a long discussion about semantics, and I think we both agree, that videos like this can give us a general idea, that Soviet fighters of the era were quite strong rollers, but nothing useful beyond that.

[Crump]

 

 

Since NACA was doing this test strictly on the ailerons, knowing that rudder (and elevator) inputs would confuse the results, wouldn't they do what they could to minimize error? 

 

Rudder has a huge effect on roll performance as the lateral and directional axis are closely coupled.  You cannot yaw without roll. 

 

That is why rudder position is important EVEN if it is defined as just a coordinated roll.  That has a specific meaning to the engineer.

 

Overuse of the rudder Shifts the curve up and extends the curve out and greatly increases the roll rate because side-force is contributing to the roll rate.  It will roll faster and at a high speed on the curve.

 

Rolling is an energy neutral maneuver if coordinated.  Uncoordinated...side force is also acting as an aerodynamic brake.

 

 

 

If they didn't, or couldn't, wouldn't it then be difficult to take any NACA test at  face value?

 

 

Not really, you just have to put the report in the context of history in the timeline it occurred.  The NACA was in a transitional period until late 1942 when stability and control standards were adopted.  They adopted those standards because everyone was on a different page and not everyone understood what was important to measure or define and what wasn't.

 

The RAE reports are the same way.  Because the RAE never adopted a standard, their reports are more mixed in terms of usefulness.  The NACA reports after 1943 become much more consistent and useful on average.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

You cannot yaw without roll.

No no no no!

 

Don't switch it up yet!

 

Stick with what works for you!

 

Jokes!

 

Tell us the one again..

 

About HOW STUPID the NACA test pilots must have been to to use RUDDER during a dedicated AILERON effects on ROLL RATE test!

 

That is your strong suit right now so stick with it a bit longer!

 

But, may I make a few suggestions?

 

Expand the joke to include more types of people!

 

For example, make more references to how 'the curves' show the use of 'rudder'..

 

Because in doing so you can also show HOW STUPID the NACA test engineers are, in that they surly must have reviewed the data and curves and did not notice the obvious use of rudder (like you did)! Otherwise they would have gone back to the test pilots and tell them to redo the tests, and this time don't use rudder!

 

Let me guess?

 

At this point your thinking, THIS IS SO MONEY! Right?

 

No need to add any more to this joke, right?

 

Oh, no, we are just getting started!

 

Next point out HOW STUPID the British test engineers must have been because they used the data from this report in their reports, and how they must have surly reviewed the data and curves and did NOT notice the obvious use of rudder (like you did)!

 

Let me guess?

 

At this point your thinking, TOO SEXY! Right?

 

No need to add any more to this joke, right?

 

Oh, no, your not done riding this tricycle yet!

 

Next point out HOW STUPID the dozens if not hundreds of pilots, engineers, etc., from both sides of the pond who read these two reports, and how they must have surly reviewed the data and curves and did NOT notice the obvious use of rudder (like you did)! Otherwise they would have contacted the writer of the document to inform them of their mistake so they can attached an addendum to the report and/or make the necessary corrections.

 

Let me guess?

 

At this point your thinking, STOP BEFORE I PEE MY PANTS! Right?

 

No need to add any more to this joke, right?

 

Oh, no, there is allot of meat left on this bone!

 

Next point out HOW STUPID the authors, historians, and publishers of the book Americas Hundred Thousand must be who read these two reports, some 50+ years later, and how they must have surly reviewed the data and curves and did NOT notice the obvious use of rudder (like you did)!

 

Let me guess?

 

At this point your thinking, THIS IS COMEDY GOLD! Right?

 

No need to add any more to this joke, right?

 

Oh, no, we need a punch line to tie it all up in a nice bow!

 

Next repeat how none of these thousands of test pilots, test engineers, historians, publishers noticed the obvious use of rudder..

 

Except for you!

 

Because IMHO that is the funniest part of the Joke!

 

Unless?

 

Well, now I only mention this to make sure you cover all the bases.. So feel free to ignore the following..

 

But..

 

What if those thousands of test pilots, test engineers, historians, publishers are right, and you are wrong?

 

Than the Joke would be on you! Right?

 

Ah, but that is crazy talk! Forget I even mentioned it!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Sure, but they wouldn't all achieve 120dps in a roll regardless of level of deflection.

True

 

Again, what I thought made it look effortless (other than the fact that it's a 70 year old machine at an air show which, as you said, won't be stressed to the limit) is, that the pilots initiates and exits the maneuver in a quite fluid motion which, all other things being equal, should be slower than simply yanking the stick and throwing the aircraft into the roll more violently.

True, but to be honest, I could say that about all the planes I have seen at air shows that did rolls, all of them looked fluid in motion, no jerking around that is

 

Anyway, it's a long discussion about semantics, and I think we both agree, that videos like this can give us a general idea, that Soviet fighters of the era were quite strong rollers, but nothing useful beyond that.

Amen brother!

 

After going through the report, I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion it's inaccurate other than you simply don't think it's right?  You mention the shape of the curve but wouldn't you have to have data from other tests with known control inputs to make this claim.  Since NACA was doing this test strictly on the ailerons, knowing that rudder (and elevator) inputs would confuse the results, wouldn't they do what they could to minimize error?  If they didn't, or couldn't, wouldn't it then be difficult to take any NACA test at  face value?

Bingo!

[Brano]

One soviet design could outroll Fw for sure.I-16.Comparing this little devil to any plane make them "sluggish" and "unresponsive"