![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "gregg" wrote in message ... I have often wondered about inertia and twins in general: with the engines off the centerline was it harder to get a twin into a roll, and harder to stop? Saying nothing of P effects, and torque, it is the fact that a object with most of it's weight at the center is easier to spin. Think of the figure skater pulling the arms in. She started with arms out, slowly. Arms in, the same energy spun her faster. -- Jim in NC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:56:38 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: "gregg" wrote in message ... I have often wondered about inertia and twins in general: with the engines off the centerline was it harder to get a twin into a roll, and harder to stop? Saying nothing of P effects, and torque, it is the fact that a object with most of it's weight at the center is easier to spin. Think of the figure skater pulling the arms in. She started with arms out, slowly. Arms in, the same energy spun her faster. -- Jim in NC What you say is true Jim, but in WWII, it wasn't the configuration of the airplane that limited fighter maneuverability so much as how the controls stiffened up at speed. Take for instance the Mitsubishi A6M-21 Type Zero fighter, the famous Zero. Looking at the wings you will notice that the ailerons extend nearly all the way from the wingtips to the base. The length of the aileron looks a lot like the typical unlimited aerobatics airplane of today, only it had no spades to assist it. You don't have to be an aerodynamics engineer to look at that and just know that that configuration would be hard to deflect at high speeds. And that's exactly what happened. Navy pilots flying Grumman F4F Wildcats learned early on that they could escape a tough situation by diving and rolling at high speed because the Wildcat's controls did not stiffen up as much as the Zero's. Both the Spitfire and Messershmitt 109's suffered stiffening controls at high speeds to the point where at high speed (near 400 mph), it took 4-5 seconds to bank from one 45 degree bank to the opposite 45 degrees and most pilots had to use both arms to push against the stick to accomplish this. Just think about that and put that image in your head of pushing against the stick and then counting the seconds. A high speed dogfight must have looked like the airplanes were banking in slow motion. Given that situation, ANYTHING that lightened up control forces was going to give a significant advantage to the pilot of that airplane. Brute strength and stamina were likely a factor in a maneuvering fight early in WWII. So when the P-38 got hydraulically boosted controls, the pilot was able to deflect the ailerons with a lot less effort, and the airplane could bank and turn faster than many single engine fighters with unboosted controls despite it's large size and twin engine configuration. Corky Scott |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's finally running! | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | April 29th 05 04:53 PM |
Finally got my X-country in.. | PJ Hunt | Rotorcraft | 0 | December 18th 04 10:50 AM |
Cobra Tongue Strut Removed Finally | Brian Iten | Soaring | 0 | December 4th 04 07:54 PM |
Finally flying new Skyhawks! | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 11 | February 24th 04 10:02 PM |
It’s finally ready! | Joern Lillehagen | Home Built | 0 | September 4th 03 02:11 AM |