Comparison of Fighter Roll Rates at 10kft

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

What with 1C/777 announcing BoM and the possibility of the P-40 being part of it.. I thought I would do a little more reading up on the differences between the P-40s. I knew the P-40 went through alot of changes over the span of production, but I didn't realize just how many until reading AHT.

With regards to the topic at hand and the difference in the roll rates of the early P-40 and the later P-40F, I figured I would see would focus on the changes between the P-40 to P-40F.

Note that AHT graph 29 states the reason for the difference is un-known, but looking at all the differences between the P-40 and P-40F I must say I am not surprised in the least that they flew differently! Here is a summary of some of the differences between the P-40 and P-40F with the focus on the mass, wings and controls.

• P-40 had 2 x 0.30 cals in the wings; P-40F had 6 x 0.50 cals.
• P-40 had 2 x 0.30 cals in the fuselage; P-40F had none.
• P-40 had shorter landing gear than the P-40F.
• P-40 had no wing racks; P-40F had wing racks.
• P-40 had a longer fuselage than the P-40F EARLY.
• P-40 had a shorter fuselage than the P-40F LATE.
• P-40 had weaker wings than the P-40F that were strengthened for bomb racks.
• P-40 had more aileron travel/movement up than the P-40F.
• P-40 had more aileron travel/movement down than the P-40F.

So, the P-40 and P-40F were two very different planes, and thus it is not surprising, to me, that they got different performance numbers in tops speed, climb rates and roll rates.

 

Reference

 

[Crump]

No airplane wins the war. Pilots win the war. It was the lack of trained and experienced aircrews since mid 1943 that brought the doom to the Japanese. 

 

You are absolutely right.  Pilots do win the war.

 

It would have been more accurate to say the Japanese design philosophy of low speed turning ability is what wins air superiority was proven wrong.   Speed and agility won out over low speed turning ability resulting in a higher pilot attrition rate in experienced pilots than Japan could replace.

 

There is a really good discussion of this in Boyne's "Clash of Wings".  He attributes the Japanese drawing the wrong lessons from their air conflict with Russia.  It is an interesting chapter.  He discusses the role of pilots in the design process.  According to Boyle, the Japanese pilots had an overly large role to include trumping the engineer's in the design process.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Wings

 

You can see that in your post.  The balance tab IS the design fix for the aileron force build up in the Zero.  As an aerodynamic balance, it does not represent a straight shift in the force gradient like a weighted mechanical balance but rather adds a quadratic curve to the force build up as a function of velocity squared.  It would have felt very different.  Instead of telling the pilots to get used to it, it seems the aviation authority told Mitsubishi to find another solution which must have been frustrating for them!

 

I found it interesting too your comment on the elastic cables.  Elastic cables in a control system for primary control would be a horrible idea.  Stretch is something to be eliminated not added to the system.

 

It sounds like the Zero used elastic cables as an aileron balance system.  That is just a type of mechanical balance.  In fact, the first trim systems in airplanes was a bungee cord the pilot would fix the stick with to keep it pushing forward so he did not have push so hard to go fast!

 

Edited to add the Link to Boynes book and later film series.  Both are good.  

Edited February 17, 2015 by Crump

[Crump]

 

 

P-40 had 2 x 0.30 cals in the wings; P-40F had 6 x 0.50 cals.

 

Weight in the wings effects roll rate.

 

P-40 had 2 x 0.30 cals in the fuselage; P-40F had none.

 

Does not effect roll rate

 

P-40 had shorter landing gear than the P-40F.

 

Minor weight change.  

 

P-40 had no wing racks; P-40F had wing racks.

 

Weight added.

 

P-40 had a longer fuselage than the P-40F EARLY.

 

Makes a difference and represents a shift in the static margin.  Generally speaking, the shorter the fuselage the better the roll rate.

 

P-40 had a shorter fuselage than the P-40F LATE.

 

Makes a difference and represents a shift in the static margin.  Generally speaking, the shorter the fuselage the better the roll rate.

 

P-40 had weaker wings than the P-40F that were strengthened for bomb racks.

 

Makes a difference...the structure must be able to handle the loads imposed upon it.  Think of Eric Browns comment on the Spitfire vs FW-190..."Could perform aileron turns that would rip the wings off the Spitfire"

 

P-40 had more aileron travel/movement up than the P-40F.

 

Makes a HUGE difference.

 

P-40 had more aileron travel/movement down than the P-40F.

 

See Above

 

 

 

What you really meant to say in this post is:

 

"Crump is right, the data does not match and is not representative of the P-40 we have in the game!"

[Hoots]

Wait, wait, hang on I need to get some pop corn.

[Crump]

 

 

Wait, wait, hang on I need to get some pop corn.

 

There is no need.     

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

What you really meant to say in this post is:

 

"Crump is right, the data does not match and is not representative of the P-40 we have in the game!"

 

You must have this thread confused with another?

 

Because in this thread you have said..

 

First you said the P-40 roll rate data showing a roll rate of peak of ~135dps @ ~355mph IAS was invalid because 'the curves' showed signs of rudder use, and the reason the rudder was used was due to the NACA not having any standard procedures in place until LATE 1942..

 

At least that is what you were saying, until I pointed out to you that..

• The NACA did have standard test procedures in place by the late 1930s per NACA document No. 715
• The NACA document that contains the P-40 roll rate data referenced the NACA No. 715 document.
• The NACA document that contains the P-40 roll rate data was dated November 1942, thus meeting your own LATE 1942 requirement.

Next, realizing your error you than switched gears and started casting doubt on the P-40 data based solely on the roll rates being so different from the P-40F roll rates. You sited all sorts of reason as to why the P-40 could not obtain the values listed in the NACA document, everything from still trying to cast doubt on the NACA not understanding rudder affects roll rates to cable stretching and everything else in-between.

 

At least that is what you were saying, until I pointed out to you that..

• All the differences between the P-40 and the P-40F that could affect the roll rate values.

Next, realizing your error you than switched gears and are now trying to claim that you have been saying the P-40 data is valid but that the P-40 data does NOT match the P-40 we have in the game..

 

At least that is what you were saying, until I pointed out  the following...

• The only thing funnier than you flip flopping and now saying the P-40 roll rate data 'is' valid, but does not match the in-game P-40 roll rate is the FACT that BoS does NOT have a P-40 in-game!

God only knows what flip flop direction you will try next! 

 

Based on your P-40 in-game comment, I think there is a lot to be said for those who say you should actually play the game once before you comment on it!

 

PS, Now back to my educating Crump on total mechanical energy equations post I am putting together, oh, and I see you are having some physics friction problems over in the ED forums! Feel free to PM me if you have any questions!

Edited February 17, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[Crump]

 

 

I see you are having some physics friction problems over in the ED forums!

 

I think you are confused and not used to talking to adults. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I think you are confused and not used to talking to adults. 

 

You keep trying to turn this into some sort of personal attack.  It is not.

[MiloMorai]

At least you can man up Ace and admit when you were 'in error', instead of doing the wiggling worm dance to get out of admitting your error.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Most good engineers can.. those who cant end up working alone if working at all!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Just to sum things up.. Here are some of the documents I have referenced in this thread

 

The 'NACA Stability and Control Sub-Committee Comparison of Aileron Control Characteristics' document the contains the P-40 roll rate data showing the date of November 1942 (read LATE 1942) and the reference to the 'NACA Procedure for Flight Tests of Aileron Characteristics of Airplanes' document No. 715

 

 

 

The 'NACA Procedure for Flight Tests of Aileron Characteristics of Airplanes - Rudder Position' dated July 1943 (read really late 1942) that states the NACA has been using the standard procedure for 'a number of years' and also notes that not only is the presentation of rudder position NOT required, but the recording itself is NOT required.

 

 

Enjoy

 

 

 

[Crump]

From the 1947 summary of lateral control research....

 

The option to not measure the rudder is removed.  

 

 

Edited February 22, 2015 by Crump

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Thanks for your opinion

 

But know that you circled nothing in red that would suggest the the option was removed.. Nor did you circle anything in red that would suggest the NACA engineers and test pilots were not aware of the fact that rudder affects roll rates at the time the P-40 testing was done.

 

Hope that helps!

[Crump]

 

 

Thanks for your opinion

 

It is not my opinion.  If you want to believe that and it makes things easier for you to digest....feel free. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It is not my opinion.

 

It's not?

 

Well than it should be a simple matter for you to draw a red box around the statement that says the option was removed!

 

But..

 

You did NOT do that..

 

Why do you think that is?

 

Therefore, until you do that..

 

Your interpretation on what the NACA said shall remain in the opinion category

 

Hope that helps!

[Crump]

Ok, just pretend roll coupling does not exist and you are right....

 

There is no need to measure it because the pilot is always 100% dead on accurate and it will always input the exact amount of rudder required!!

 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Ok, just pretend roll coupling does not exist and you are right....

 

There is no need to measure it because the pilot is always 100% dead on accurate and it will always input the exact amount of rudder required!!

 

Based on the fact that you were unable to produce a quote (text with red line around it) from the 1947 NACA document that states the option to NOT record the rudder position during flight was rescinded..

 

I think it is safe to say that you were either confused about what you read, or that you just simply made it up when you said the option to NOT record the rudder position during flight was rescinded..

 

In either case, your statement not only remains in the opinion category, but in the questionable opinion category!

 

As for your last statement above..

 

Crump..

 

I realize you 'think' you know more about flight testing than the NACA knows about flight testing..

 

And that is fine!

 

If believing that makes you feel better, more power to you!

 

All I ask is that you don't get upset with me if I choose to take the NACA word over your word with regards to flight testing!

 

Hope that helps!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Hope that helps!

 

I have barely seen you helping anyone here in the Forum. If someone asks, how to properly start up the 111 engine, and you explain it to him so he manages to do it, you helped. Haven't seen this so far from you. Only thing i see from you all the time are off-topic argues mostly about stuff which have nothing to do with the game. You also don't stop these arguments, no matter how often you get told, that it's off topic. You are just trying to enforce your own opinion as the absolute truth all the time, no matter how wrong it is (i am not saying that you are wrong in everything, or even most things, keep that in mind). But you definitely must have the last word everytime, no matter how off topic it is.

And this definitely doesn't help anyone. So this "Hope that helps" at the end of every post, like you were the professor teaching the stupid mob, "how things are" from you is kinda pathetic, no offence.

 

Back to topic..are you guys still arguing about a plane, which presumably will never make it into the game? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about the P40 roll rate, which will make it into the game?  Or you also wanna start a discussion about the roll rate from the Dornier DO 335 now

Edited February 23, 2015 by Celestiale

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I have barely seen you helping anyone here in the Forum.

Ah, I see where you are confused..

 

Apparently you have me confused with someone that values your opinion!

 

No offence!

 

Hope that helps!