Dive Speeds

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Pullout from Power On Vertical Dives in the LaGG, Full Combat Load, Elevator Trim at -50% Cruise Setting takes. 

• 550 IAS, less than 400m, 580 Maximum IAS in Pull Out 
• 600 IAS, about 700m, 670 Maximum IAS in Pull Out
• 650 IAS, about 800m, 725 Maximum IAS in Pullout

[303_Kwiatek]

 

Pullout from Power On Vertical Dives in the LaGG, Full Combat Load, Elevator Trim at -50% Cruise Setting takes. 

• 550 IAS, less than 400m, 580 Maximum IAS in Pull Out 
• 600 IAS, about 700m, 670 Maximum IAS in Pull Out
• 650 IAS, about 800m, 725 Maximum IAS in Pullout

 

 

Hmm so Lagg3 needs only 700 m instead 1400m for recovery  ( as i remember Fins Lagg3 dive test was close to manual)

Edited January 11, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Hmm so Lagg3 needs only 700 m instead 1400m for recovery  ( as i remember Fins Lagg3 dive test was close to manual)

Power Off they need a lot less and don't speed up at all. 

[Matt]

If the dive speeds would be as low as mentioned in the pilot handbooks, this is the first report people would post to complain about way too low maximum possible dive speeds.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me_109_Dive_Test.pdf

[303_Kwiatek]

Not exacly casue it is for IAS not TAS. 750 kph IAS for about 4-5 km alt means TAS about 850-900 kph.  But these raport proved other interesting thing.   Bf 109 needed from 740 IAS power dive  about 1400m for recovery   where LAgg3 need from 600 kph IAS similar distance.  It said somethig about elevator response and strenght of plane.

Edited January 11, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Lo and behold: I agree with Kwiatek. A 50-75 km/h "caution range" seems reasonable, and would mean that you actually have to take care during a dive (same as you have to do in RoF)

What I like about RoF is that there are huge differences about limits of how steep and fast ich plane can fly and pull out of dive. Plus climb and roll/pitch differences gives very unique environment.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I very much agree - at least it is a bad idea to try to deduce technical characteristics from reports of tactical usage or even manuals of tactical doctrine, unless the technical reason for some recommendation is explicitly stated.  There are simply too many other variables.

 

 

Exactly.  My squad has always had a policy of not chasing aircraft that dive away steeply from high alt and that is regardless of what we are flying or who we are chasing.  As soon as they dive away they are out of the fight.  They are not defending their charges, they are not threatening us so why leave your squadron?    Of course there are times when you are hot on someones tail at medium alt and he decides to use a dive to avoid your guns but even then you don't follow them down in a tail chase; you follow level or in in a very shallow dive because 109s & 190s especially love to zoom up again then you get an easy kill.  If they dive at VNE and pull out staying at treetops then they have wasted their potential energy and allowed you to fly the hypotenuse to catch them by flying a shorter distance without stressing your airframe.  A manual advising pilots not to chase enemies in high speed dives is not an admission that the plane cannot dive safely.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

 

 

Not exacly casue it is for IAS not TAS. 750 kph IAS for about 4-5 km alt means TAS about 850-900 kph.  But these raport proved other interesting thing.   Bf 109 needed from 740 IAS power dive  about 1400m for recovery   where LAgg3 need from 600 kph IAS similar distance.  It said somethig about elevator response and strenght of plane.

We have very important information on this topic

-maximum diving speed

-how many meters to recover from the dive.

I also agree with Kwiatek about the speed limits of diving being too high for all aviation. With this high limit, we need higher altitude to reach critical speed and thus, more difficult to gain separation in a dive

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

We have very important information on this topic

-maximum diving speed

-how many meters to recover from the dive.

I also agree with Kwiatek about the speed limits of diving being too high for all aviation. With this high limit, we need higher altitude to reach critical speed and thus, more difficult to gain separation in a dive

 

Well, LaGG-3 takes about half of what it should. 

[303_Kwiatek]

I found some more info on Russian forum about maximum dive speed of Lagg3 and LA5 tested by VVS

 

вобщем, получается так что - ранние машины, без какой-либо балансировки, в пикировании хоть и показывали дикие скорости, поначалу, но впоследствии выяснилось что они начинали сыпаться уже на 620-630 ТАС (это проблема РН, главным образом)... после балансировки руля направления (позже, только один верхний балансир) и прочей настройки, пикирование стало таким, каким оно было в первых тестах... а в начале 42го, ввели аэродинамическую компенсацию (РН чуть больше по площади, вверху, вместо балансира) и позднее ничего не меняли, вероятно, кроме частичного облегчения конструкции, на "66й" серии...

 

собственно, что также последовательно отражено в РЛЭ - "Курс переучивания на самолет ЛАГГ-3. Москва. 1942 год." (550 ИАС, если нет балансиров/600 ИАС, если они присутствуют); новое РЛЭ, за сентябрь-октябрь 42го (аж 650 ИАС); и, наконец, известное РЛЭ за июль 43го, по каким то причинам, повторяет курс перечивания (это или простое копирование, либо специфика периода, когда лагг отошел на второй план, а еще выпускающиеся, модернизированные тбилисские самолеты имели чуть меньшую прочность, и тп)...

 

если взять более тяжелый ла-5, который имел проблемы с управляемостью, именно в пикировании, и который с осени 1942го пошел уже своим путем КМК, то - в РЛЭ за ноябрь 42го, указаны похожие 625 ИАС; в "методических указаниях по технике пилотирования самолета ла-5 с мотором м-82", собственно, теже 625 ИАС; в РЛЭ для ла-5фн (апрель 44го), уже 650 ИАС...

 

Google translator:

 

in general, it turns out that - the early cars, without any balancing, in the dive, although they showed wild speed, at first, but later it turned out that they were starting to fall already on 620-630 TAS (this is the problem of the PH, mainly) ... after (later, only one upper balancer) and other settings, the dive became as it was in the first tests ... and in the beginning of the 42nd, aerodynamic compensation was introduced (LV a little more in area, above, instead of the balance beam) and later nothing changed, probably, except for a partial egcheniya design on "66y" series ...

 

in fact, which is also consistently reflected in the RLE - "The course of retraining for the aircraft LAGG-3., Moscow, 1942." (550 IAS, if there are no balances / 600 IAS, if they are present); new RLE, for September-October 42nd (already 650 IAS); and finally, the well-known RLE for July 43rd, for some reason, repeats the course of perepivaniya (this or simple copying, or the specifics of the period when the lagg has receded into the background, and the still modernized Tbilisi planes had slightly less strength, and m) ...

 

if we take a heavier la-5, which had problems with controllability, namely in a dive, and which since autumn 1942 went already by its own way KMK, then - in the RLE for November 42nd, similar 625 IAS are indicated; in "methodological instructions on the technique of piloting an airplane la-5 with a motor m-82", in fact, the same 625 IAS; in RLE for la-5fn (April 44go), already 650 IAS ...

 

 

 

"1 сентября 1942 г. ЛаГГ-3 с М-105ПФ и винтом ВИШ-61П закончил государственные испытания, которые проходили с 25 августа. На машине имелись доработанные рули высоты и поворота с аэродинамической компенсацией, снизившей нагрузки на органы управления, частично убирающийся костыль и пять бензобаков. На крыле установили бомбодержатели и предкрылки. Кроме 37-мм пушки Ш-37 самолет вооружался одним пулеметом БС с боекомплектом 140 патронов. Испытания показали, что применение предкрылков и аэродинамической компенсации рулей облегчило управление самолетом (хотя управление рулем поворота оставалось еще довольно тяжелым); время виража, несмотря на увеличение полетного веса, сохранилось прежним; улучшилась поперечная устойчивость. Самолет без проблем пикировал под углом 60° с приборной скоростью 650 км/ч. Наивыгоднейшими для атаки углами были 30 - 40°. Стрельба из 37-мм пушки не раскачивала машину и, соответственно, не влияла на точность прицеливания, что было особенно важно для борьбы с бронетехникой."

 

 

On September 1, 1942, LaGG-3 with M-105PF and VISH-61P screw completed the state tests that took place on August 25. The car had modified rudders of height and turn with aerodynamic compensation, which reduced the load on the controls, partially retracted crutch and five petrol tanks, with bomb racks and slats on the wing.In addition to the 37 mm Sh-37 gun, the aircraft was armed with one BS machine gun with an ammunition of 140 cartridges.Tests showed that the use of slats and aerodynamic compensation of rudders facilitated the control of the aircraft (although the steering of the turn was still quite heavy), while the turnaround time, despite the increase in flight weight, remained the same, improved lateral stability.The aircraft without problems dived at an angle of 60 ° with an instrument speed of 650 km / h. The most advantageous angles for attack were 30 - 40 ° Shooting from a 37-mm gun did not rock the car and, accordingly, did not affect the accuracy of aiming, which was especially important for fighting armored vehicles. "

Edited January 11, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Here is what Limits Dive Speed (A6M included)

Edited January 20, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[unreasonable]

That does it, no more flying for me!

[bzc3lk]

Here is what Limits Dive Speed (A6M included)

I think you will find that A6M is an R/C model.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think you will find that A6M is an R/C model.

So what