Let's face it, the Spitfire Mk.Vb will probably not be amazing.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Being someone who enjoys 100% of the ingame aircraft provided, and being mostly unbiased to any particular side, I have witnessed so many irrational arguments in comment sections and Forums, especially here, that I have grown to understand that you shouldn't judge an Aircraft by it's Enthusiasts.

 

My interest encompasses almost all types operating in the European and some in the Pacific and is rather broad, instead of needlessly in-depth.

 

These are the points I can already foresee coming up, just by the nature of the Aircraft.

 

 

-Light Elevators: Just like the Fw-190, the Spitfire had very light Elevators, which will be very sensitive to jerky movements and catch most allied Pilots off Guard and make their Aim Difficult.

 

-Spin and Stall: Here the Spitfire and 190 are quite similar as well. Both have somewhat of a rear-weight-bias and thus violent Departure. I have read many reports about Mk.I to Mk.IX and later, and all say that you had to respect the boundaries signalled by the Severe Shuddering and Vibrations set by the Inner Wing Section beginning to Stall in tight turns. If pulled beyond that point, even at high speeds, it would depart in a Violent Flicking Motion, tightening up in an accelerated Stall with up to Blackout G-Forces, resulting in a Spin with a Special Recovery Drill (unlike Soviet Types which are easily and intuitively recovered)

It differs from the Soviet Types which will become mushy and gently drop a wing slightly when close to stalling.

 

I think in the Stall and Spin department many of the same complaints as with the 190 will arise.

 

-Vision Forward: Will be as bad as MiG-3, generally vision forward will be far worse than all russian types

-Vision Downward: blocked by massive Wings

 

-Ground Handling: The landing gear, unlike virtually all ingame types, is extremely narrow (narrower than 109) and close to the center of gravity, so many Pilots used to Soviet and German Style Landing Gears will have difficulty taxiing and not nosing over on landing. It will also be a Female Dog on Rough Ground, since the wing tips are likely to touch the ground, and it's general Ill-Suitedness for Soviet Airfield Conditions.

 

.Long Take-Off Run: It will have a Take-Off Run Similar in length to that off a LaGG-3, and worse when external ordonance is fitted.

 

.Manouverability: It will have the worst Rate of Roll of Single Engined Fighters, more in line with the Bf110 and Pe-2. Turn will be good, but limited by the much more violent departure. The Good Power will even out a lot of the Airframes faults.

 

General Performance: Compared to the German Fighters it will be Outclassed in almost every way, and will require Tactics Similar to flying a Yak-1. It will not be able to Dictate the Terms of Combat. It's 2 years outdated.

 

Firepower: The seemingly good Firepower is only of use within Convergence Range. Above and below that you only every have 50%, analogous the a Bf109.

 

 

Apart from  that I think it will make a decent general Dogfight Platform, but it has many similarities to the 190 when it comes to handling issues, especially Spin/Stalls.

It will most likely be in the same Class as a Yak-1b, slower, but better in a Climb.

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I don't know if the Spitfire mk Vb over Kuban was the 1941 or 1942 version. IIRC the 1941 version would have up to 12lb boost, while the 1942 would have 16lb boost and a bit better engine tolerance to negative Gs.

 

Either way even if the performance in Kuban isn't great this addition would be good for mock up western scenario servers... with Spits mk Vb and P-39 vs the German fighters of the BoS planeset.

Edited November 7, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[A_radek]

 

 

-Light Elevators: Just like the Fw-190, the Spitfire had very light Elevators, which will be very sensitive to jerky movements and catch most allied Pilots off Guard and make their Aim Difficult.

 

-Spin and Stall: Here the Spitfire and 190 are quite similar as well. Both have somewhat of a rear-weight-bias and thus violent Departure. I have read many reports about Mk.I to Mk.IX and later, and all say that you had to respect the boundaries signalled by the Severe Shuddering and Vibrations set by the Inner Wing Section beginning to Stall in tight turns. If pulled beyond that point, even at high speeds, it would depart in a Violent Flicking Motion, tightening up in an accelerated Stall with up to Blackout G-Forces, resulting in a Spin with a Special Recovery Drill (unlike Soviet Types which are easily and intuitively recovered)

It differs from the Soviet Types which will become mushy and gently drop a wing slightly when close to stalling.

 

I think in the Stall and Spin department many of the same complaints as with the 190 will arise.

 

 

I agree with you on all points.

 

But thinks it's a little unfair to compare it with the 190. I do think it's departure will be violent, no slats, and a rather thin airfoil would make it twitchy at the limit. But If I'm not mistaken the wingloading of these two differs significantly. Meaning the spit would swallow a lot more hamfisting before biting back.

[303_Kwiatek]

Performance of Spitfire MkVb +12lbs wshould be better then Yak1 69 series. Spit got better turn rate, better climb rate at boost, was faster at high alts and got much higher maximum dive speed. Yak 1 was only slighty faster at deck. Spit wit metal airleons shouldnt be much different then yak in roll. These is just from historical analyze performance data

[Trinkof]

If I remember correctly it is supposed to be, historically, an almost perfect match versus the macchi .... And the macchi vs spit V was recorded as one the most "balanced" duel between fighters in ww2.

 

And macchi is actually roughly equal to the F2 in term of performances.

 

So in a Kuban scenario... Spit will certainly noy be great.

[JG13_opcode]

For every 190 fanboy who gets all emotional when it's not the best, there is at least one spitfire fanboy who feels the same.

 

There was a guy named GunRunner who would edit the "historical" plane sets on his server so that he could fly a spitfire and have it be the fastest aircraft on the map.

 

Get ready for incoming feels when the Spit Vb doesn't turn into a war winner.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

All in all by performance standards, particularly in 1943 scenarios, it will be a dog...

 

...but it will be the best-looking dog the world has ever seen

 

You need to keep in mind though that Battle of Kuban players will have three Allied fighters to go around - Spitfire Mk.V, P-39L-1 and Yak-7B. Out of these, only the Yak-7B is anything close to beginner-friendly (it was an advanced trainer originally and inherited the smooth handling of the Yak-1). The Spitfire and Airacobra on the other hand will have aggressive stall characteristics, good climb performance and an engine that can be easily damaged if treated roughly.

 

Compared to the Airacobra in terms of 'extremely unnatural furball performance', aka 'stick to the dick at 200m' - the only performance parameter that matters in deathmatch online gaming in sims - it won't feel so tricky to handle.

[GridiroN]

It will most likely be in the same Class as a Yak-1b, slower, but better in a Climb.

 

Wut? The Yak 1B is going to be one of the best all around fighters Russia has. I've been reading up on Yaks, and It was known as one of the most preferred model of Yak between all 4. The 7 is faster, smoother, and more technically modern, but the gas tank was an issue and screwed up it's centre of gravity.

 

All in all by performance standards, particularly in 1943 scenarios, it will be a dog...

 

...but it will be the best-looking dog the world has ever seen

 

Never understood the appeal of the plane. It's always been one of the uglier fighters of WW2 to my eyes, with that HUGE nose section and tapered tail.... The 109 and A series 190's are sexiest frames imo, with the MiG3 in close second. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by GridiroN

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Yak-1b served successfully way into 1944 and early 1945, I guess it gives the impression of being outdated because of its designation or something since there were Yak-9s and Yak-3s entering service around then, but the Yak-1b was serving side by side with them.

 

ShamrockOneFive created an excellent campaign for the old Il-2 based on 821 IAP's exploits over Crimea in 1943 and 1944. Most of it is flown in the Yak-1 (particularly if you choose to start as a Captain or lower) and you could really give hell to those late-type Bf-109s and Fw-190s in that thing even if one hit of their 30mm would end your day. So long as you saw them coming, which was made easy because of the visibility, you could dance around them. It was like an I-16 that goes at 500 km/h without breaking a sweat

 

The looks are a funny thing - I agree on the MiG-3 being beautiful, but I find all the Bf-109s after the G-6 to be downright horrible and the only variants I actually appreciate visually are the early series up to Emil. The Fw-190 doesn't invoke too many feelings, it kind of looks like a cigar with wings but then again it's a matter of taste

 

I can't say I get a massive kick from the Spitfire in flight though (apart from the fact that it's living, breathing history and its significance), there is something clumsy to the way it goes about and I don't know what. I saw it together with a Mustang and a Yak-3 and while the latter pair flew about like they owned the place, the Spitfire always seemed like it could drop out of the sky if the wind blew a little.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The looks are a funny thing - I agree on the MiG-3 being beautiful, but I find all the Bf-109s after the G-6 to be downright horrible and the only variants I actually appreciate visually are the early series up to Emil. The Fw-190 doesn't invoke too many feelings, it kind of looks like a cigar with wings but then again it's a matter of taste

 

I can't say I get a massive kick from the Spitfire in flight though (apart from the fact that it's living, breathing history and its significance), there is something clumsy to the way it goes about and I don't know what. I saw it together with a Mustang and a Yak-3 and while the latter pair flew about like they owned the place, the Spitfire always seemed like it could drop out of the sky if the wind blew a little.

 

Ki-46 recon version, love the aerodynamic canopy and fuselage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GridiroN]

Ki-46 recon version, love the aerodynamic canopy and fuselage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Japanese had a very odd, yet strikingly practical manner of designing planes. Like... "why didn't anyone think of this before...?" but then "of course no one would think of this.." lol!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Odd or not it was effective, Ki-46 had very low drag coefficient and with relatively low power engines it still was fast which made it so appealing as fast reconnaissance machine. 

 

One thing I hate about Spitty or any other British aircraft is gauges. I just cant into mph, feet per minute, lbs per sq. inch boost pressure. And the need to drive it on the left side of runway

Edited November 8, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[NZTyphoon]

One thing I hate about Spitty or any other British aircraft is gauges. I just cant into mph, feet per minute, lbs per sq. inch boost pressure. And the need to drive it on the left side of runway

As long as the pilots knew the sky rules and used their indicators properly, flying the Spitfire in the left lane wasn't a problem: this modern Swedish pilot, for example, who's just meandering along on a Sunday drive, is straddling the lanes and is guaranteed to inconvenience other road users.

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by NZTyphoon

[A_radek]

As long as the pilots knew the sky rules and used their indicators properly, flying the Spitfire in the left lane wasn't a problem: this modern Swedish pilot, for example, who's just meandering along on a Sunday drive, is straddling the lanes and is guaranteed to inconvenience other road users.

 

Yes we get that alot here in sweden. Either they are crawling along blocking the road for miles, or they suddenly decide to make a takeoff run the next available straightway and your car needs another paintjob :D

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

The worst thing are Americans on your Roadways, they just block the Overtaking Lane for everyone else all the time.

[Trooper117]

I love the Spitfire, always have done (plus the Hurricane) but remember, this Spit will be a Mk Vb... it will certainly be at a disadvantage against the 190... (as proved when they first met in the west) .

However, another point to take on board is that they didn't do as well over the Eastern Front, because of the nature and type of the air war being fought there. They were withdrawn after a while to the PVO where they could be used to their advantage and not the lower level combat favoured by the Soviets.

 

I will still fly it as my main go to plane, (and the Hurricane if they ever release one) and will no doubt die gloriously on many an occasion... 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

The Yak-1b served successfully way into 1944 and early 1945, I guess it gives the impression of being outdated because of its designation or something since there were Yak-9s and Yak-3s entering service around then, but the Yak-1b was serving side by side with them.   ShamrockOneFive created an excellent campaign for the old Il-2 based on 821 IAP's exploits over Crimea in 1943 and 1944. Most of it is flown in the Yak-1 (particularly if you choose to start as a Captain or lower) and you could really give hell to those late-type Bf-109s and Fw-190s in that thing even if one hit of their 30mm would end your day. So long as you saw them coming, which was made easy because of the visibility, you could dance around them. It was like an I-16 that goes at 500 km/h without breaking a sweat

 

Same could be said about the Lagg3, which also served pretty much until the war ended. It's not neccessarily a badge of quality when the Soviets used equipment until the end of the war..several different reasons. That said, it of course doesn't mean that it's a bad plane - quite the opposite. I'd still say, the La5F, FN, La7, Yak9 (all versions apart from D, K), Yak 3, and P39-N/Q have been better fighters.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Oh, they were better of course, but what I mean is it remained competitive in 1944 (like the last LaGG-3 iterations which felt like a new plane altogether when compared to the 1st series) unlike the I-153 in 1942 for example

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Oh, they were better of course, but what I mean is it remained competitive in 1944 (like the last LaGG-3 iterations which felt like a new plane altogether when compared to the 1st series) unlike the I-153 in 1942 for example

 

Ok, yes, i agree. Performance 1943 onwards didn't nearly rise as fast as before in the European theatre..apart from the Jets of course

[Crump]

 

"Manouverability: It will have the worst Rate of Roll of Single Engined Fighters, more in line with the Bf110 and Pe-2. Turn will be good, but limited by the much more violent departure. The Good Power will even out a lot of the Airframes faults."

 

 

The roll rate of the normal wing Spitfire was excellent in comparison to other fighters of it day.

 

The perception it had a poor rate of roll is patently false. That is a false perception created by the fact it is most famously compared to the FW190 in terms of agility.

[E69_geramos109]

I hope to see a lot of pilots killed if you ignite the fuel tank. It is just in front the pilot so some hit there and the pilot will be a fireball.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

"Manouverability: It will have the worst Rate of Roll of Single Engined Fighters, more in line with the Bf110 and Pe-2. Turn will be good, but limited by the much more violent departure. The Good Power will even out a lot of the Airframes faults."

 

 

The roll rate of the normal wing Spitfire was excellent in comparison to other fighters of it day.

 

The perception it had a poor rate of roll is patently false. That is a false perception created by the fact it is most famously compared to the FW190 in terms of agility

Well, in their own testing the Mk.I had 45° per second against the Emils up to 100° per second, and the Metal Aileron ones didn't increase the total rate by much, just inproved it at high speed.

The Clipped tip models basically traded turn for roll.

[Crump]

Well, in their own testing the Mk.I had 45° per second against the Emils up to 100° per second, and the Metal Aileron ones didn't increase the total rate by much, just inproved it at high speed.

The Clipped tip models basically traded turn for roll.

 

You are misreading that. At 200 mph IAS and 1/4 deflection, the Spitfire was at lighter forces but only achieved a 45 degree per second rate of roll.

 

That is not the same thing as having a roll rate advantage.

 

In fact, at 300 mph IAS the force for deflection was even as well as the time to bank and at 400 mph IAS the Spitire achieved a higher rate at the same aileron deflection.

[Dakpilot]

Many of the 'roll comparison charts' available are for a particular speed and control column force/weight usually without rudder input

 

just using these will not give a full picture of an aircraft's roll 'performance'

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Max_Damage]

I have heard that some people refer to the spitfire's wing as "amazing". I dont understand how it is amazing. It just has a large area giving benefit in turn time and climb rate but at a great cost of top speed and acceleration. It is balanced in favor of turning/climbing very much.

[tomo-pauk]

It was amazing in some categories, not so much in other. The weak rear spar with it's weak attachment point was making wing twisting when aileron forces were higher, making the rate of roll too small/slow. A wing of 25% less wing area was considered on the Spitfire in early ww2 years, conclusion was that it will have more shortcomings than benefits.

And benefits were several. Thin profile was beneficial to the high speed and dive limit. Large area enabled easy installation of ever bigger and more powerful engines a reasonably easy task, keeping wing loading within limits. Ditto for the additional fuel tankage in fuselage. Installation of four powerful cannons was done*, not something one can do on the Bf 109 or Soviet fighters' wings. Capacity for additional fuel tanks was there + the cannons in same time. Space for coolers of all kinds.

 

As far as top speed on Spitfire: a clean-up on engine installation, celaning some of added stuff, and more attention to fit & finish brough the Spitfire V EN.946 from 358 mph to 388 mph.

Acceeration depends much more on power/thrust vs. weight, than on the wing area.

 

* four cannons obviously required at least Merlin 61 or Griffon, but that is not the thing/shortcoming of the wing itself

Edited November 12, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[Max_Damage]

It was amazing in some categories, not so much in other. The weak rear spar with it's weak attachment point was making wing twisting when aileron forces were higher, making the rate of roll too small/slow. A wing of 25% less wing area was considered on the Spitfire in early ww2 years, conclusion was that it will have more shortcomings than benefits.

And benefits were several. Thin profile was beneficial to the high speed and dive limit. Large area enabled easy installation of ever bigger and more powerful engines a reasonably easy task, keeping wing loading within limits. Ditto for the additional fuel tankage in fuselage. Installation of four powerful cannons was done*, not something one can do on the Bf 109 or Soviet fighters' wings. Capacity for additional fuel tanks was there + the cannons in same time. Space for coolers of all kinds.

 

As far as top speed on Spitfire: a clean-up on engine installation, celaning some of added stuff, and more attention to fit & finish brough the Spitfire V EN.946 from 358 mph to 388 mph.

Acceeration depends much more on power/thrust vs. weight, than on the wing area.

 

* four cannons obviously required at least Merlin 61 or Griffon, but that is not the thing/shortcoming of the wing itself

He he. Its like early bf109 (g2, f4) were having an optimal engine/wing ratio and early spitfire (2,5) had too weak engine for the wing. Later on, bf109 received engine that is too heavy for the wing. And the later sptifires received a powerful engine with still appropriate weight for the wing gaining an optimal combination.

[tomo-pauk]

The Bf 109 never went above the DB 605 series of engines, so I don't know what the "Later on, bf109 received engine that is too heavy for the wing." sentence means. Griffon, especially the 2-stage supercharged, was a considerably heavier than DG 605 engines.

As for the Spit's wing vs. engine power and the resultant speed, the case of the EN.946 demonstrates that wing size was not that much of a problem, other things acted as a speed brake, and the 388 mph speed is close to the Bf 109F4 (635 km/h = 395 mph) with similar engine power at rated altitude (= 1180 PS at 6 km, with ram, engine doing 2500 rpm and 1.3 ata).

Edited November 12, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[Felix58]

Interesting article - Spitfires over Kuban

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The worst thing are Americans on your Roadways, they just block the Overtaking Lane for everyone else all the time.

Only problem here is it is a scale replica (Jurca) design with a French registration. No Muricans envolved.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Only problem here is it is a scale replica (Jurca) design with a French registration. No Muricans envolved.

Aye, Captain Obvious.

[Dave]

I have heard that some people refer to the spitfire's wing as "amazing". I dont understand how it is amazing. It just has a large area giving benefit in turn time and climb rate but at a great cost of top speed and acceleration. It is balanced in favor of turning/climbing very much.

I wouldn't use "amazing", but what was innovative about the Spitfire wing was its elliptical planform. The aim of an elliptical foil is to minimise lift-induced drag and tip vortices. For a given wing area lift can be increased with lower corresponding increase in induced drag resulting in lower energy loss for a given rate of turn. The airframe can also be theoretically driven more easily.  A drawback is that the whole wing will tend to stall at once unless washout is added to encourage the root to stall first. The area of the Spitfire wing also results in a lower wing-loading than most of it's contemporaries like the 109. This would further improve its turn performance. The drag penalty for this is mitigated by the aforementioned induced-drag reduction. Reduced drag also allowed the Spitfire Vb to climb at almost 4800' per minute at sea level with engine output comparable with that of the G2. With suitably large ailerons the roll-performance of an elliptical wing will be no less than a more "conventional" design. Any suggestion that the Spitfire rolled slowly - as some try to assert based upon its wing - is patently untrue. The Spitfire rolled as well as its contemporaries until the FW190 and P47 entered service. Notably, it continued to roll (and pitch) easily past speeds beyond which the 109's controls became excessively heavy.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Dave

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

I wouldn't use "amazing", but what was innovative about the Spitfire wing was its elliptical planform. The aim of an elliptical foil is to minimise lift-induced drag and tip vortices. A major drawback is that the whole wing will tend to stall at once unless washout is added to encourage the root to stall first.

A true elliptical wing doesn't have to look elliptical. What counts is the Lift Distribution to Elliptical. In theory this could be a wing that is elliptically shaped, with equal relative thickness along the wing and without twist. But it can also be a Trapezoid wing with thickness, taper and twist calculated in a way to result in elliptical llift distribution.

 

The Spitfire wing is elliptical in shape, however due to the twist and thickness changes and the slight changes in dihedral means that it's lift didtribution is all  over the place and nowhere close to ellipitcal. the 109 most likely more ellliptical than the Spitfire.

[tomo-pauk]

I wouldn't use "amazing", but what was innovative about the Spitfire wing was its elliptical planform. The aim of an elliptical foil is to minimise lift-induced drag and tip vortices. For a given wing area lift can be increased with lower corresponding increase in induced drag resulting in lower energy loss for a given rate of turn. The airframe can also be theoretically driven more easily.  A drawback is that the whole wing will tend to stall at once unless washout is added to encourage the root to stall first. The area of the Spitfire wing also results in a lower wing-loading than most of it's contemporaries like the 109. This would further improve its turn performance. The drag penalty for this is mitigated by the aforementioned induced-drag reduction. Reduced drag also allowed the Spitfire Vb to climb at almost 4800' per minute at sea level with engine output comparable with that of the G2. With suitably large ailerons the roll-performance of an elliptical wing will be no less than a more "conventional" design. Any suggestion that the Spitfire rolled slowly - as some try to assert based upon its wing - is patently untrue. The Spitfire rolled as well as its contemporaries until the FW190 and P47 entered service. Notably, it continued to roll (and pitch) easily past speeds beyond which the 109's controls became excessively heavy.

The 'innovative' part was the thing of the thickness-to-chord ratio choosen - 13.2%. Low T-t-C means the wing is thin, obviously, and that will lower the drag of the wing vs. a thicker wing of same area and profile series.

The reduced drag have had next to nothing re. rate of climb, it was where reasonable power and favorable wing loading came to play.

Spitfire rolled slowly when at high speed and when non-excessive stick forces were applied, 25-30 lbs. The issues with wing not being stiff enough were remedied 1st with clipping the wings (not for all the versions, of course), and later with introduction of a stronger wing with Mk.18 and new wing with Mk.21.

[Dave]

A true elliptical wing doesn't have to look elliptical. What counts is the Lift Distribution to Elliptical. In theory this could be a wing that is elliptically shaped, with equal relative thickness along the wing and without twist. But it can also be a Trapezoid wing with thickness, taper and twist calculated in a way to result in elliptical llift distribution.

 

The Spitfire wing is elliptical in shape, however due to the twist and thickness changes and the slight changes in dihedral means that it's lift didtribution is all  over the place and nowhere close to ellipitcal. the 109 most likely more ellliptical than the Spitfire.

 

Yes to the "doesn't need to look elliptical". In discussion of the concept behind Mitchell's innovative original idea, I was referring to elliptical planform with constant thickness-chord ratio and constant aerofoil section with zero washout. It was a stated design intent (by Reg Mitchell) of the Spitfire wing that its elliptical planform aid in induced drag reduction, and while changes were made in response to testing over many years which altered its lift distribution from elliptical, I maintain that this aspect of the Spitfire wing was its major innovation.

I have been building this type of foil for decades for water craft due to this property. Obviously in my case the foil section is symmetrical and the design-angle-of-incidence constant.

 

The reality is that using 1930's technology a truly elliptical planform will not produce an elliptical lift distribution under aeroelastic loads anyway. The tendency of the wing to twist with changes in AOA and airflow dynamically alters its lift distribution. An elliptical planform helps to compensate for this also - less washout should be required to prevent the tip from stalling first under load. Given that this isn't an aeronautical engineering forum I didn't see a need to go into more detail than to say "the spitfire's elliptical planform wing was its major innovation".

 

The 109 has far from "elliptical lift distribution". I believe someone has already posted the data elsewhere in the fora.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

The reduced drag have had next to nothing re. rate of climb,

 

Rubbish. Drag reduction of any kind (profile, parasitic,  induced) will always benefit climb performance as it increases excess power..

Edited November 19, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

 

 

Spitfire rolled slowly when at high speed and when non-excessive stick forces were applied

 

How slowly, and at what speed? Slowly compared to what? Actual numbers now - not "feelings". 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I wish the whole forum could stop using "feelings" now. There has to be a better word or synonym. It's almost a cussword round these parts.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

How slowly, and at what speed? Slowly compared to what? Actual numbers now - not "feelings". 

Rubbish. Drag reduction of any kind (profile, parasitic,  induced) will always benefit climb performance as it increases excess power..

And likewise decrease of lift will always effect climb performence negativly.

Edited November 19, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[tomo-pauk]

Rubbish. Drag reduction of any kind (profile, parasitic,  induced) will always benefit climb performance as it increases excess power..

 

Easy with the language.

Drag, or reduction of it, comes way after the power(thrust)-to-weight ratio when it is about the rate of climb.

 

How slowly, and at what speed? Slowly compared to what? Actual numbers now - not "feelings". 

 

Like this: link

Or this: link