Dora roll rate and turning rate, true to real-life data?

First of all, you still haven't presented any kind of test that would prove anything in turning department.

 

Landing speed is not a good measurement of any kind of turn performance. You are still pulling the same argument just changing your wording.

 

The landing speed is no argument at all. Show us at least stalling speed

 

As a matter of fact landing speed & take off run combined are rather good indicators as long as we're looking at similar airplane types as they tell us something about excess thrust and available lift.

 

The only plausible reason that the P-51 should do better with flaps up would be if its' flaps were less effective than the Fw190's, but I doubt that.

According to who & what? A game? Come on...

 

It's more than just a game, it's a sim, a 200$ one at that.

 

Yeah as I thought it doesn't exist...

 

Oh, so apparently I can't find the direct source meant that it doesn't exist, then using your logic the D9's stall speed also doesn't exist because we've yet to find the direct source.

 

The US actually tested the Ki-84 and found it to be a very maneuverable fighter only slightly inferior in the turn to the Zero.

Again "slightly inferior" is a subjective term, the Japanese tested the P51C and found it's turn characteristic to be almost the same as their Ki 84, does that means that it should turn almost as well as the Zero?

 

Btw, the F4U uses the exact same airfoil as the Fw190, and in US tests it was found to easily outturn the P-51C mustang with a similar wing loading.

Similar wingloading?

 

F4U1A wingloading at full load 11432 lbs: 177kg/m2

P51C at normal take off weight at 9800lbs: 203kg/m2

 

Yep, similar wing loading alright, but i guess "similar" is also subjective. ;)

 

This is so misleading that it's frightening.

 

Only lowering the landing gear will NOT lower the stall speed, the stall speed will either stay the same or slightly increase as the extended gear disturbs the airflow on the wing.

 

Hence the stalling speed with only flaps down will normally either be lower than with both flaps and gear down or the same but with reduced drag. Any pilot knows this.

 

Please don't just quote from a google search..

Nope, I've seen this question on every pilot forums, they all asnwered the same thing: lowering landing gears decrease stall speed, not increase. I'd like to see your sources.

 

As a matter of fact landing speed & take off run combined are rather good indicators as long as we're looking at similar airplane types as they tell us something about excess thrust and available lift.

 

The only plausible reason that the P-51 should do better with flaps up would be if its' flaps were less effective than the Fw190's, but I doubt that.

 

As a matter of fact every nation has different safety specifications (and landing speed is one of them). The only thing absolute is the stall speed.

Edited April 4, 2015 by GrapeJam

You cannot get a full picture of turn performance just looking at one parameters.

 

To answer the question of "Does the FW-190D9 outturn the P-51D?" the answer is "it depends on the specific conditions."

 

Here is the sustained load factor comparison:

 

 

You can see that the lift limited performance of the P-51D does occur at a lower velocity due to the stall speed.

 

However, it terms of sustainable load factor, the FW-190D9 simply has more power available and can sustain a higher load factor.

 

That is why the FW-190D9 also has more acceleration at low altitude:

 

 

This translates into a Rate of Turn advantage as long as the FW-190D9 does not try to match the Mustangs performance at the Mustangs lower velocity, the FW-190D9 will move its nose thru 360 degrees faster than the Mustang.

 

 

A higher Rate of Turn allows the Dora to advance in the turning circle faster than the Mustang meaning the Mustang pilot will end up with the Dora on his tail in a steady state turn.

 

BUT if the Dora pilot tries to match the Mustang's speeds....it will be the Dora pilot who cannot match Rate of Turn and he will end up with the Mustang on his tail.

 

The Mustang commands a radius of turn advantage when traveling at a lower velocity. The Mustang almost always turns in a smaller radius especially if he is at his best ROT velocity.

 

That means if the Dora pilot picks a pure or lead pursuit in the turn, the Mustang will out-turn the Dora.

 

The Dora should always pick a lag pursuit. That means do not look at the Mustang or ahead of the mustang, instead focus on a point behind the mustang in a sustained turn fight.

 

Bottom line is these two designs are very evenly matched in terms of level sustained turn performance. It comes down simply to the skill of the pilot.

 

At altitude, the Mustang becomes superior where it has more power available. The advantage of the Dora gets smaller as we go higher in altitude until the Mustang takes the lead.

 

With its agility advantage and acceleration, the Dora has a dog-fighting edge over the P-51 at low altitude.

 

That being said, neither of these aircraft "outclass" the other. They are equals with very little to choose between them in terms of practical performance.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Crumpp

One more thing....

 

If you are going to engage in turn fights in either aircraft, know your exit.

Why the hell do they want to turn against a P-51? Dive, climb and roll is a winner.

Been keeping some speed in reserve. It's possible to start a climb after a Dora and force him to stay vertical. If I go into it faster, say using WEP on the down leg and then following a climbing Dora, I can close the gap in the vertical, and still get a tag on him.

 

Takes a good D pilot to pull out of that and get position.

 

Fight to your ship's strength, and land punches when it really counts.

It's more than just a game, it's a sim, a 200$ one at that.

 

*sigh*

 

 

Oh, so apparently I can't find the direct source meant that it doesn't exist, then using your logic the D9's stall speed also doesn't exist because we've yet to find the direct source.

 

:huh:

 

Again "slightly inferior" is a subjective term, the Japanese tested the P51C and found it's turn characteristic to be almost the same as their Ki 84, does that means that it should turn almost as well as the Zero?

 

I'll trust the US evaluation on this one, esp. considering it's a written down report, not some quote from a pilot 70 years later of where we have no way to verify its accuracy.

 

Similar wingloading?

 

F4U1A wingloading at full load 11432 lbs: 177kg/m2

P51C at normal take off weight at 9800lbs: 203kg/m2

 

It was actually a P-51B, I simply misremembered, and weights were as follows:

 

F4U-1 = 12,162 lbs for a wing loading of 38.7 lbs/sq.ft.

P-51B = 9,423 lbs for a wing loading of 40 lbs/sq.ft.

 

Yeah, wow what a big difference, not similar at all :music_whistling:

 

And yet despite this very similar wing loading the F4U-1 completely trounced the P-51 in the turning comparison.

 

Yep, similar wing loading alright, but i guess "similar" is also subjective. ;)

 

Yes, a lot more similar than you would have us believe, and yet the F4U-1 proved way superior in the turn.

 

Nope, I've seen this question on every pilot forums, they all asnwered the same thing: lowering landing gears decrease stall speed, not increase. I'd like to see your sources.

 

I call BS. A real pilot knows that lowering the landing gear does nothing besides increase drag. A landing gear is not a lifting device/surface, it doesn't function like flaps.

 

You found that one quote by doing a simple google search, and it's the only one there is, everywhere else it is explicitly stated (by real pilots mind you) that lowering the gear does NOT lower the stall speed. Lowering the flaps on the other hand WILL reduce the stall speed, and if you do it without lowering the gear too then you'll achieve a higher L/D ratio than with the gear down.

 

As a matter of fact every nation has different safety specifications (and landing speed is one of them). The only thing absolute is the stall speed.

 

Well then please show me where this is stated specifically, cause I've sure never heard of that before.

You cannot get a full picture of turn performance just looking at one parameters.

 

To answer the question of "Does the FW-190D9 outturn the P-51D?" the answer is "it depends on the specific conditions."

 

Here is the sustained load factor comparison:

 

 

You can see that the lift limited performance of the P-51D does occur at a lower velocity due to the stall speed.

 

However, it terms of sustainable load factor, the FW-190D9 simply has more power available and can sustain a higher load factor.

 

That is why the FW-190D9 also has more acceleration at low altitude:

 

 

This translates into a Rate of Turn advantage as long as the FW-190D9 does not try to match the Mustangs performance at the Mustangs lower velocity, the FW-190D9 will move its nose thru 360 degrees faster than the Mustang.

 

 

A higher Rate of Turn allows the Dora to advance in the turning circle faster than the Mustang meaning the Mustang pilot will end up with the Dora on his tail in a steady state turn.

 

BUT if the Dora pilot tries to match the Mustang's speeds....it will be the Dora pilot who cannot match Rate of Turn and he will end up with the Mustang on his tail.

 

The Mustang commands a radius of turn advantage when traveling at a lower velocity. The Mustang almost always turns in a smaller radius especially if he is at his best ROT velocity.

 

That means if the Dora pilot picks a pure or lead pursuit in the turn, the Mustang will out-turn the Dora.

 

The Dora should always pick a lag pursuit. That means do not look at the Mustang or ahead of the mustang, instead focus on a point behind the mustang in a sustained turn fight.

 

Bottom line is these two designs are very evenly matched in terms of level sustained turn performance. It comes down simply to the skill of the pilot.

 

At altitude, the Mustang becomes superior where it has more power available. The advantage of the Dora gets smaller as we go higher in altitude until the Mustang takes the lead.

 

With its agility advantage and acceleration, the Dora has a dog-fighting edge over the P-51 at low altitude.

 

That being said, neither of these aircraft "outclass" the other. They are equals with very little to choose between them in terms of practical performance.

 

I wouldn't say this is far off at all (although I am still in disagreement about the CL curves), but is this how things are ingame?

 

Either way it will be interesting to see how the two aircraft stack up once someone gets around comparing them in real life in a modern day comparison.

 

So far only the 109 has been directly compared with the P-51 in a modern day comparison, and to no suprise it easily out turned the Mustang by a very large margin, but from German tests we know that the 109 also rather easily outturned the Fw190, so that doesn't tell us much really.

F4U-4 @ 12,401 lbs

Wing Loading = 39.4 lbs/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 96 mph (CAS = 102 mph)

 

P-51D @ 9,000 lbs

Wing Loading = 38.3 lb/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 101 mph (CAS = 107 mph)

 

Above would not be possible if it wasn't for the fact that the NACA 23XXX series airfoil provides a higher lift coefficient than the P-51's laminar flow airfoil, and this is despite a slightly higher wing loading and a gull wing design which without a doubt reduces the efficiency of the wing.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Hummingbird

F4U-4 @ 12,401 lbs

Wing Loading = 39.4 lbs/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 96 mph (CAS = 102 mph)

 

P-51D @ 9,000 lbs

Wing Loading = 38.3 lb/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 101 mph (CAS = 107 mph)

 

Above would not be possible if it wasn't for the fact that the NACA 23XXX series airfoil provides a higher lift coefficient than the P-51's laminar flow airfoil, and this is despite a slightly higher wing loading and gull wing design.

 

Yeah, except the 190's wingloading ain't 1lb/ft2 higher than the Mustang(at combat load of 9720lbs) like the F4U, it's a whole frigging 6 lbs/ft2 higher than the Mustang. To kg/m2 it's a friggin 32kg/m2 difference, compared to the F4U which is a mere 8kg/m2 difference.

Edited April 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

Yeah, except the 190's wingloading ain't 1lb/ft2 higher than the Mustang(at combat load of 9720lbs) like the F4U, it's a whole frigging 6 lbs/ft2 higher than the Mustang. To kg/m2 it's a friggin 32kg/m2 difference, compared to the F4U which is a mere 8kg/m2 difference.

 

The Fw190 features a cleaner higher AR wing than the F4U, and it isn't gull shaped either for which you loose some lift. As a result the overall lift coefficient (and L/D) of the 190's wing will be higher.

 

Hence I suspect a VERY small difference in stall speed between the Fw190 & P-51 at combat loads, and considering the Fw190's larger amount of available thrust it should be able to outturn the Mustang in a sustained turn fight.

The Fw190 features a cleaner higher AR wing than the F4U, and it isn't gull shaped either for which you loose some lift. As a result the overall lift coefficient (and L/D) of the 190's wing will be higher.

 

Considering that the F6F-5 used the same airfoil with the 190, had lower wing loading than the F4U-4(8kg/m2 lower), yet had only 6 mph lower stalling speed clean. I doubt the difference would be significant.

 

Hence I suspect a VERY small difference in stall speed between the Fw190 & P-51 at combat loads, and considering the Fw190's larger amount of available thrust it should be able to outturn the Mustang in a sustained turn fight.

The question is:

Did you do it correctly?

What crumpp said is correct, in theory, in practice it's not easy to achieve it without getting shot. And the Mustang's pretty damn clean so it's pretty great at trading altitude for speed so in a lot of time it can turn downward to gain speed and get into a position to take snap shot at you. (Albeit with depleted energy)

 

And then you also have to take into account which direction the turnfight's taking? Right hand or left hand turn?

Edited April 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

Considering that the F6F-5 used the same airfoil with the 190, had lower wing loading than the F4U-4(8kg/m2 lower), yet had only 6 mph lower stalling speed clean. I doubt the difference would be significant.

 

Again IAS, u need TAS to be able to tell anything.

 

Furthermore the F6F-5 outturned the F4U in comparative tests quite readily.

F4U-4 @ 12,401 lbs

Wing Loading = 39.4 lbs/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 96 mph (CAS = 102 mph)

 

P-51D @ 9,000 lbs

Wing Loading = 38.3 lb/sq.ft.

Stall speed (IAS), clean & power off = 101 mph (CAS = 107 mph)

 

Above would not be possible if it wasn't for the fact that the NACA 23XXX series airfoil provides a higher lift coefficient than the P-51's laminar flow airfoil, and this is despite a slightly higher wing loading and a gull wing design which without a doubt reduces the efficiency of the wing.

 

Or, y'know, maybe it just means the F4U had more available alpha before flow separation, which would have absolutely NOTHING to do with high speed sustained turns, just low-speed maneuvering at the corner of the envelope no pilot worth the title should ever find themselves in a fight,

So far only the 109 has been directly compared with the P-51 in a modern day comparison, and to no suprise it easily out turned the Mustang by a very large margin

 

You mean, when both ships had their power cut hugely from the historical WEP ratings, right? Because the only modern comparisons I'm aware of were done under that condition, and that's a game-changer.

 

For a good-turning aircraft which relies primarily on P/W for its turning ability, having the power cut is devastating. For a good-turning aircraft which relies less on P/W for its turning ability, because of the presence of other factors which improve turning, having the power cut isn't as bad.

 

Most 109 models should out-turn the P-51D at low & medium altitudes, in general, if they're both running similar configurations (i.e., you aren't pitting a high-boost P-51 versus a low-boost Me 109, and/or stacking fuel loads, etc.). However, it's a relatively small margin of difference, and not nearly as great as the difference when you limit the power of both aircraft to a non-historically-representative level.

 

You're using an ahistorical comparison to try to make conclusions about the historical situation. That doesn't work. You need to look at the issue more closely in order to get a better idea of how things really are & were.

Again IAS, u need TAS to be able to tell anything.

 

Furthermore the F6F-5 outturned the F4U in comparative tests quite readily.

Nope that was CAS, done by the same people and clearly written in the test document, stop assuming. And 6mph lower stall speed so of course it could outturn the F4U. at low speed anyway, at high speed the F6F-5's stick force was rather heavy, more than twice the stick force of the F4U.

 

And funnily enough, the F4U-4 had a lower stalling speed with gears and flaps out than the F6F-5 ;)

Edited April 6, 2015 by GrapeJam

You mean, when both ships had their power cut hugely from the historical WEP ratings, right? Because the only modern comparisons I'm aware of were done under that condition, and that's a game-changer.

 

For a good-turning aircraft which relies primarily on P/W for its turning ability, having the power cut is devastating. For a good-turning aircraft which relies less on P/W for its turning ability, because of the presence of other factors which improve turning, having the power cut isn't as bad.

 

Most 109 models should out-turn the P-51D at low & medium altitudes, in general, if they're both running similar configurations (i.e., you aren't pitting a high-boost P-51 versus a low-boost Me 109, and/or stacking fuel loads, etc.). However, it's a relatively small margin of difference, and not nearly as great as the difference when you limit the power of both aircraft to a non-historically-representative level.

 

You contradict yourself with that statement, seeing as with wartime boost settings the 109 would've had an even greater advantage, and the difference was by no means a small margin.

 

In two of the modern comparisons the 109 featured a merlin engine (Buchon) running at the same boost pressure as the P-51, and the 109 easily outperformed it in anything but speed. And the Buchon is as heavy as a K-4 mind you.

 

It would also be rather odd if the 109, a much smaller aircraft, didn't outperform the P-51 significantly in the turn. The 109 features a higher AR wing with a higher lift airfoil, plus it incorperates slats at the outboard part of the wing to make sure that the max lift reached matches the root and is kept similar across the span. Add to this a much lower power loading and you're going to end up with an aircraft with a much higher ITR & STR than a Mustang.

 

It's not by chance that modern pilots who have flown both aircraft all say that the 109 is very close to the Spitfire when it comes to turning, esp. at low speed. The Spitfire is still superior ofcourse, but not by much.

Nope that was CAS, done by the same people and clearly written in the test document, stop assuming. And 6mph lower stall speed so of course it could outturn the F4U. at low speed anyway, at high speed the F6F-5's stick force was rather heavy, more than twice the stick force of the F4U.

 

CAS is still not TAS, but you're welcome to link me the report.

 

And funnily enough, the F4U-4 had a lower stalling speed with gears and flaps out than the F6F-5 ;)

 

Again link? However it's entirely possible considering that the F4U-4 features massive flaps, but again let's see if its IAS, CAS or TAS. But honestly I think you're looking at an overload fighter configuration for the F6F and comparing it with a half fuel F4U, because otherwise the F6F features a lower stall speed in the charts I've seen.

 

By comparison the P-51 also features larger flaps than the Fw190 however, so this isn't something that is gonna help you with your argument ;)

Edited April 7, 2015 by Hummingbird

By comparison the P-51 also features larger flaps than the Fw190 however, so this isn't something that is gonna help you with your argument ;)

Are you realy trying to find the truth or are you trying to prove your point?

 

 

To me talking about different planes won't change much and certainly won't prove that Fw190 can outturn P-51.

 

You should focus on providing your own data to prove or disprove that 190 can turn better. Don't try to prove what you want to prove. Try finding the truth.

CAS is still not TAS, but you're welcome to link me the report.

 

 

Again link? However it's entirely possible considering that the F4U-4 features massive flaps, but again let's see if its IAS, CAS or TAS. But honestly I think you're looking at an overload fighter configuration for the F6F and comparing it with a half fuel F4U, because otherwise the F6F features a lower stall speed in the charts I've seen.

Well, first the F6F-5's stall speed in landing configuration is actually 5mph lower than the F4U-4, my mistake. Oh BTW, your figure of the F4U-4 stall speed was....guess what?....CAS.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf

 

By comparison the P-51 also features larger flaps than the Fw190 however, so this isn't something that is gonna help you with your argument ;)

Larger flaps=/= more effective flaps. Seeing as the 190's stall speed in landing configuration 14 mph lower than clean, compared to the 7mph lower than clean for the P51. Plus the 190's flap actuall change surface size while the Mustang's flaps don't.

 

And as Solty's said, you still haven't presented your stall speed figure for the 190, I've presented mine(A2A is a 200% sim and many would say that it's even more accurate than DCS so there's credibility to that), and even without guns and ammo the D9's higher than the Mustang at full load.

 

Landing speed/take off distance is no indication of stall speed. The B17 at maximum load had a stall speed of 102mph(4mph lower than the Mustang at full load) yet it neeeded a landing distance of ground run alone at 3780 ft, compared to 1970ft of the Mustang at full load.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf

Edited April 7, 2015 by GrapeJam

Larger flaps=/= more effective flaps. Seeing as the 190's stall speed in landing configuration 14 mph lower than clean, compared to the 7mph lower than clean for the P51. Plus the 190's flap actuall change surface size while the Mustang's flaps don't.

 

According to what, A2A ? :lol:

 

And as Solty's said, you still haven't presented your stall speed figure for the 190, I've presented mine(A2A is a 200% sim and many would say that it's even more accurate than DCS so there's credibility to that), and even without guns and ammo the D9's higher than the Mustang at full load.

 

I've presented the stall speed figures actually available.

 

Landing speed/take off distance is no indication of stall speed. The B17 at maximum load had a stall speed of 102mph(4mph lower than the Mustang at full load) yet it neeeded a landing distance of ground run alone at 3780 ft, compared to 1970ft of the Mustang at full load.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf

 

Erm.. why are you comparing two completely difference aircraft design concepts with a massive weight and size difference? Also when did landing roll come into the equation?

 

Size & weight matters A LOT, incase you didn't know.

 

Landing speed & take off distance is a good indicator of two things: available lift and available thrust, both of which are vitally important in a turn fight.

 

The B-17 actually features a rather low stalling speed, but because of its extremely low power to weight ratio it takes A LOT longer to take off, and if it enters a tight turn it will not be able to sustain it for more than a fleeting moment before losing all speed and stalling because it lacks the necessary excess thrust.

 

Hence why stalling speed alone says little about an aircraft's prowess in a turn fight.

Are you realy trying to find the truth or are you trying to prove your point?

 

 

To me talking about different planes won't change much and certainly won't prove that Fw190 can outturn P-51.

 

You should focus on providing your own data to prove or disprove that 190 can turn better. Don't try to prove what you want to prove. Try finding the truth.

 

I brought up the F4U as an example of an aircraft that uses the exact same airfoil as the 190, and as a result is capable of outturning an aircraft (P-51) with a similar wing loading using a laminar flow airfoil.

 

Proving what is already known, that the NACA 23XXX series airfoil features a higher max lift coefficient than the laminar flow airfoil, something modern windtunnel testing has long proven. (Both airfoil types are still used)

 

The laminar flow airfoil is excellent for low AoA flight, but at higher AoA's it suffers due to the sharp leading edge and aft placed max thickness. Best way to cure this and get the best of both worlds = Slats or LE flaps. Sadly the P-51 features neither of these.

 

Laminar flow airfoil history & characteristics: http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/airfoil5.html

Edited April 7, 2015 by Hummingbird

For modern figures:

 

P-51 root:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51hroot-il

P-51 tip:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51htip-il

 

Fw190 root:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca23015-il

According to what, A2A ? :lol:

 

More likely than you think, Eric Brown flew the FW 190A4/U8 and he stated in clean condition the landing speed was 127mph, but in landing condition it was a mere 102mph. This 190 had the 2 outer cannon removed so it should have the same weight as the standard A4(4100kg)

The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.

The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).

I've presented the stall speed figures actually available.

 

Nope, landing speed is no stall speed.

 

 

Erm.. why are you comparing two completely difference aircraft design concepts with a massive weight and size difference? Also when did landing roll come into the equation?

 

Size & weight matters A LOT, incase you didn't know.

 

Landing speed & take off distance is a good indicator of two things: available lift and available thrust, both of which are vitally important in a turn fight.

 

The B-17 actually features a rather low stalling speed, but because of its extremely low power to weight ratio it takes A LOT longer to take off, and if it enters a tight turn it will not be able to sustain it for more than a fleeting moment before losing all speed and stalling because it lacks the necessary excess thrust.

Now look at the Mustang vs the D9, the Mustang's much cleaner than the D9 plus it was also heavier than the D9 and thus it does not lose speed as easy and thus needed a longer landing distance. Initial acceleration wasn't also the best either.

 

Hence why stalling speed alone says little about an aircraft's prowess in a turn fight.

The same can be said for stall speed with full flaps down ;)

 

Also in case you didn't know, the P51's wings weren't true laminar, in fact they tested the hell out of the front line planes and couldn't get the laminar effect at all, it achieved it's speed thanks to it's extremely clean airframe:

http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html

http://wp1113056.server-he.de/ABL/20-forschung/laminarfluegel/laminarfluegel_en.htm

Edited April 7, 2015 by GrapeJam

More likely than you think, Eric Brown flew the FW 190A4/U8 and he stated in clean condition the landing speed was 127mph, but in landing condition it was a mere 102mph.

 

It has long been known that those figures are incorrect, esp. seeing as that would mean that the Fw190's were stalling before landing :lol:

 

The reason for this is that the 190A Eric brown flew suffered from a host of issues, incl. mis adjusted ailerons leading to aileron reversal and premature stalls.

 

So yeah if A2A based their figures on that one report by Brown then that explains it :D

 

The std. A4 didn't even weigh 4000 kg, which would yield a landing speed of 160 km/h, or 100 mph - i.e. 2 mph under the stall speed in Eric Brown's report :lol:

 

Nope, landing speed is no stall speed.

 

I didn't say so.

 

Now look at the Mustang vs the D9, the Mustang's much cleaner than the D9 plus it was also heavier than the D9 and thus it does not lose speed as easy and thus needed a longer landing distance. Initial acceleration wasn't also the best either.

 

Again what's with the landing distance?? The landing speed is what we're talking about here, not the landing distance.

 

The same can be said for stall speed with full flaps down ;)

 

A low stall speed is worth nothing by itself.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Hummingbird