P38

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by demian, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    not all
    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html is absolute

    one thing is strange for me, however. gil states that p-38g has twice better turn than p-38f. meanwhile brits stated that p-38e can get rid from fw190 in spiral climb. also, p-38l has a comparable turn with heaviest of 190: 190a-8/r8.

    it means:
    1)p-38e/f authors were idiots to build a plane that won't turn and simple trick in p-38g fixed the idiocy. sounds crazy

    2)that 190 cannot turn at all or at least cannot climb while turning. if lightning1(read p-38e) is better in spiral climb. sounds crazy

    3)that p-38g authors invented superhyperflaps that increased lift thrice (sic!). sounds crazy.

    i have no understanding why report has a mention about turn time of p-38g that is twice faster that p-38f.
     
  2. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Another testing point to look into. :joystick:

    What were the configurations on the aircraft? Were they both clean (i.e. no flaps)?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  3. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Be careful what the Brits stated and when !

    Remember the Brits had ONLY very early P-38 with NON Turbo-supercharged engines and non counter rotating props - both engines turning the same direction.

    Also the Brit versions did not have that anti- compressibility flap, spoiler that came in the later versions.

    There was also that little story of a special flight of a DC-3 cargo plane that flew from the Lockheed plant to supply England with those flap kits and the brits shot it down.....

    I guess it looked too much like a He-111......
    :D

    So YES, the Brits most likely tested a P-38 that was very very different from all others.
     
  4. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    After live data calculations, P-38F has a slightly smaller turn radius than Bf-109F-4. I just suck at flying. :p

    I would, however, like to test P-38F against a Bf-109F-4 to prove my thesis. That and I would also like to prove/disprove my hypothesis that the P-38 has a better sustained turn rate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  5. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    dunno. it was one phrase on the paper monography.
    can discard it
     
  6. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    If you're referring to

    I agree that it's meaningless without any concrete data about speeds and altitudes. Maybe they flew the tightest turn that the G model with flaps was capable of, and the F model without any flaps just couldn't hack it all and constantly had to straighten out of the turn or risk departing controlled flight or something like that.

    I've read somewhere that the 38's fowler flaps increased effective lift by roughly one third, so nowhere near three times the lift without flaps.
     
  7. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Actually, P-38 and Fw-190A-8/R8 have about the same stall speed (+/- 2 kmh), so there may be truth in advertising after all.
     
  8. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Wow, that's a lot of info to fill in exec. Much of what you're asking for takes a lot of time, and that time was already spent years ago making it what it was to start with, before it became WBFH, and then later on people changed it because of sore losers who couldn't bare the thought of a large bomber escort pursuit aircraft performing like the wicked fighter it was designed to be. Those who have a problem with an aircraft performing too well or not well enough should prove their case with data, otherwise they should have no say and shouldn't speak unless THEY have data to disprove or prove it. If it were possible, I would like to try the first released version P-38 issued with Warbirds before it went WBFH. It may be incorrect but, it would be interesting for me to see what it was like. Things like nose dropping heavy, maneuvering flaps moving back up when dive brake initiated, torque rolling with both props spinning, auto-trim not stabilizing aircraft, inability to taxi on one engine are all wrong as well.

    Here is some nice REAL WORLD demonstrations in video form: You Tube Film footage:
    07:38: Taxiing on one engine

    08:00: Fly by on one engine, landing and taxiing

    03:20: Excellent Climb Rate, 140-180 mph at 2500 FPM

    05:25: Bong/McGquire used low speed buffeting to their advantage and could track with zeros

    02:00: Late J & all L models with dive flaps would provide safe diving with a nose up effect with flap actuation.

    03:30: Flat spin recovery demonstration

    02:20: Capable of 300MPH with a dead engine


    Ok, as for the data you ask for, I can provide information compared to what is documented but, not at all those set numbers, alts, speeds and such. The data that I find in the manual and USAF test data varies because they used random altitudes and fuel/ordinance rates which are good information but, don't provide the necessary set rates. There are some performance curves on some charts I've seen so maybe that should take care of much of what is needed. The data I will provide will be primarily at 100% throttle (3000 RPM) per the sources.

    One last VERY VERY important thing to bear in mind that I'll be focusing on, is the issue of known RPM/Throttle position. The performance ratings given that are most common and readily available in the manual address an RPM rating of 2600 RPM. This is 87% throttle. And respectively, 3000 RPM is 100% full throttle. 100% throttle is considered the standard setting where the information provided states "MAXIMUM".

    The other information provided from different sources on the internet vary and don't always mention what the throttle situation is, whether it's 3000RPM or 3000RPM with WEP, except that they will note it with: Max: 396mph etc.
     
  9. demian

    demian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    917
    Suggestions:

    Ask Exec and Fas what model of P38 is acceptable for them, F1plo, F15lo, or even P38G.That is first and the most important step.

    And you should test it , against all planes if needed, testing method of riding plane on the stall is the best IMHO.
    When we tried spit vs a6m test, it looked like its quite different what u see on paper and what u can do in arena .So, dont believe so much in that theory, mb some paramters are wrong or missing or...
    If you really do those tests without engine, i am quite sure that it could be problem for ur understanding of dogfight on paper and arena.
    Simply , you will never fight another plane with no engine, and best way to discover what im talking about is duel later la model versus N1k.
    You will see there what La's engine can make it to do , and what N1k simply cant. It is suggestion, not some mumbo jumbo bs talk, so pls with no emotional responses. If you take gandhi's work as the only one method available , you will be wrong. If you dont believe me, just ask anyone to outturn zeke in spit , and you will see if anyone can do it. And I believe math test said spit should do it. If you then , after that , listen Gandhi again, he will start to implement whole bunch of other factors, so ....
    Do yourself a favour , do tests on paper, go dogfight in it, test it in ta, then in the end, do old proven method, measure time of sustained and instant turn ...Command is .startlog mumble or .stratlog whatever name , then .stoplog and after that just go to fh folder, find file named as mumble, open with notepad... Read direction , find same direction for start and end and simply read times between those two..
    I will never believe for a8r8 , just based on math, i would have to do it for myself in arena , not for once, but for many many times. So you should do it in same manner.Then you can claim that some plane outturns or not some other plane, and everyone will believe you . At least admins will, unlike some other pilots in arena who will not. Why would they?
    Listen ....
    Ego and tests dont go together. Ill try to explain now why i said everything in here.It is simple, your doing some math test , because gandhi did the same. Cool. With all respect to pilot Gandhi , he is not some person who will notice his mistakes, simply because there are people limited with some factors to comprehend truth.Do tests, but do real flying after. Paper is one thing dogfight another.With those test you do now, some noob will come tomorrow and claim that B25 is also uber now , that it can outturn yak1.For that not to happen, try it in ta, try it in ma, just try it.
    I dont like what is happening here , with all those numbers, nothing proven in arena , simply dont like it , and dont want to be part of it.
    I was attacked yesterday for claiming that p38f can outturn f4 , then i couldnt test new yak because pilots wanted only to kill me , even if that means by taking yak9 ,because somhow in arena the only point is obviously to kill. The only guy who understood it, was i must say Visloa, who took p38 when i explained him what im doing there.Few days before i was attacked by gandhi after killing him few times in yak7vs p40 . Same guy didnt want to fight versus me , because its not challenge for him , has nothign to prove ... And i would never ever write this , but i noticed that it is becoming predominant behaviour in arena . Simply said, how can u test P38 on paper , without ever turning with another plane , and then claim you do know something? Or, how can you never dogfight versus yak1, and then claim its uber? By all data if 38f outturns f4 , it should without problem, on flaps, outturn new yak. But there was no one to try it . I couldnt test yak1 with arena full of people. I couldnt test it,because Alw doesnt turn in p38
    ,mumble is claiming its impossible, and so onnn....Question is , how the fuck you know then, yak1 is uber? How you know P38f is bad, when u never turned it?? How can you know plane, if u never ride it on stall??
    By turning off engine, calculating numbers? I dont think so. And let me be. Let me simply exist like that .
    Im exiting this thread, wont participate in such FM building. My job was anyway to draw some attention to P38 , to keep this thread alive, and to make players believe something is actually possible to change on players demand. I did it. No only for P38 , for hellcat , for zero etc. The rest is on you players, for alw, mumble, ant etc for P38 , for zero on gandhi. Just dont blame me in the end if u make idiotical plane. I am so pissed, i could take now P38 , largest model, and put it someone's a.. . I will continue my test work working with Funton, who actually can value help..
     
  10. gandhi

    gandhi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,613
    My testing procedures:

    1. Load the subject aircraft with 100% fuel and take off near sea level in the TA.

    2. Ensure track is recording, and shut the engine off.

    3. Keeping wings level with flaps either deployed or clean, maintain level flight until the aircraft stalls (does not have to be perfectly level).

    4. Play track with a .startlog recording for the test period (it's possible to do this during the initial flight as well).

    5. Change log file to .xls and open in excel. Select the entire column of data.

    6. Go to Data -> Text to Columns and choose delimited.

    7. Check "semicolon" and put an "=" in the "other" box. Click finish.

    8. The data is now ready for analysis. Copy the appropriate cells to get the formulas on the same spreadsheet as the data. Update the aircraft data and graph.

    I've attached a spreadsheet with a P-38F run with flaps (everything is metric, and make sure to change it to .xls). The formulas and aircraft specification cells are on the right end of the sheet. Data points exist for every half second of the flight. Angle of attack is computed by comparing altitude change vs x-y movement on the map, and then subtracting it from the "pitch" column.

    The almighty lift coefficient is computed using this formula, using the corresponding cells in the spreadsheet:
    [​IMG]

    G = number of G's (Z column)
    m = mass, kg (cell AI1)
    1.2 = air density at sea level, kg/m^3 (cell AI3)
    V = true airspeed, m/s (J column divided by 3.6)
    A = wing area, m^2 (cell AI2)
     

    Attached Files:

  11. gandhi

    gandhi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,613
    A few words about demian:

    Most passive aggressive person. Ever.

    (He) talks about "feeling" rather than testing, yet is so impressed with (him)self that (he) won't even notice a Pe-2 out turning (his) Yak and shooting 7.7mm and 20mm "Navy" ammunition...

    boa: im not having an argument with you
    victim: im not arguing!
    boa: yes you are, look at how clever i am

    boa: your ego is way too big
    victim: my ego is not important
    boa: i know you better than you know yourself

    boa: you only try to prove how big your penis is
    victim: stop flaming, dude
    boa: you are the one who is flaming!

    boa: you need to work on being more relaxed person
    victim: you're too much like a woman, trying to "fix" people
    boa: no im not a woman
    boa: **sob** u cant say i didnt try
     
  12. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Shut the hell up and get in Bf-109F-4 in TA pls.

    EDIT: Bf-109G2 (I believe?) could not quite match my P-38J in sustained turn at very low altitude. If you're wanting exact altitudes, figure out how tall radar antenna is.

    I believe what happened to start this thread in the first place happened in the long long ago, as stated earlier... somewhere... when we had a series of luftwhinings where there were complaints of the P-38 being too good at whatever, so the P-38 was porked. Somewhere along the way, that was corrected, and I'm not sure if it happened with 1.68 or if it happened in 1.67R2. This post needed to happen, however. The science in it should cure the stupid that may later errupt. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2010
  13. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    So I did some hacking on my warbirds, and I entered the P-38 model from the original 2.77R3. It had much better handling than the current model. I was wondering if we could compare the code between the two and figure out where the model went wrong with pitch controls.

    ADDENDUM:
    Flew P-38F with 2.77R3 FM against sst in kurfurst, and was able to hold my own very well against him in maneuvering. After I get some lunch, I'll "revert" to 1.6X FM and see if same result applies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2010
  14. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
  15. boa

    boa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    277
    I was reading and reading, reading....and reading...
    I must say , I cant believe you actually forced me to read all these threads, just to prove you have right to be angry on some old fh dev who "ruined" P38 on purpose...Ok, lets start...
    You do have the right to be angry at some old dev.
    You dont have the right to molest us all in arena every 10 min with that anger.
    Anger is yours, over something that happened who knows when , and you still keep it. I dont know rgreat , never seen him. Do you know him? No?
    From what i have seen , read, he was asking for something. You can clearly see in link No3 , on first page, how everything started , how everything started with bad approach. Thats it. It was just bad approach...Rgreat imho had reasonable attitude.Just like devs today have reasonable attitude, if you just let yourself to really read what they suffered in the past. So much flame, for no reason, just in those 4 links...
    Today , you have same situation , exactly the same as it was back then.
    You have open call, all you need to do is to write something like this:

    P38 fh climb speed (lets say ) 8min.
    According to model F15-lo number 76859, tested at California, 23.6.1942
    climb speed 7,3 min.
    Max speed at alt 5km fh model 400mph, according to test flight of F15-lo number 67543, max speed at alt 15000kf 420mph.

    And so on.....
    Thats it. Same pattern Exec asked in 2003, you can check in those links you posted.
    Exactly the same situation already happened, and you , today after 6 years ,reacting like those people back then. Same mistake!
    No need for that Mumble. I really believe what I said to you, gandhi, antred,alw and many others, we have the best team working on fh , today..
    I dont know what happened in 2005, or 2003, because I came here in 2006.
    I dont need to care about past . I really believe what i said about Fas and Exec and all others who work on fh, cockpits,models, etc. (sad,we dont know all their names)..
    All you need to do , is to test something, not just to listen to others, like "someone changed my client overnight", :"someone fucked up allied planes on purpose", "Fuck this game , here some things never change" etc etc.
    It is so easy to hate , to bitch , to whine, but instead, you could do yourself a favor and involve yourself in testing of different aspects of planes etc.
    I told you all those things many times, I dont know where is problem , i dont know what is problem, but you simply have bad approach, and you dont seem to care about that fact. I have no time nor wish to explain that im not someone special, that im human too , that i understand when someone gets angry or something like that . All i ve been doing in here is supporting people, and I dont think I should talk about that at all.
    Im just really tired of idiots logging in , spending 15 min in arena , and then saying something like :"OH FUCK, ADMINS AGAIN FUCKED UP GAME:".
    Well, no one forces them to play if they dont like.Just go to hell with that kind of attitude for once, and leave rest of players to have fun. Fun, is why we play this game. Fun. Then you come, and listen to all those idiots, not moving ur ass to check any plane, just listening negative people, and you think you have every right to screw game for us. No you dont have that right.
    Few days ago , was Muumi. Yesterday was Hami. Tomorrow will be some other guy . No, your problem is not in P38 , because you had problem just because Muumi flew me262 in 1944, killing li2s. He should fly i dont know, whatever suits you probably.
    Let me tell you my story . Since i can burn rather easy , for unjustice, i was burning here many times, sometimes for a reason, sometimes not. I would say i always had good reason, but who knows? Then some day , I named sqd with rather insulting name for admins. I was 100% convinced, i have the right to insult them like that , after all they did. Fas was online, and when he saw name of my sqd, he said he will kick me out. Of course i just waited that , to nail him , i was ready. Then he said in russian something that i cant forget. And he didnt kick me out, instead he just left ...
    Instead of nailing him , he nailed me , without insulting, just showing his real face. I felt broken. I always knew I was not evil person, I always wanted only the best solution for any problem. But that gone too far, and even if I felt I was right, I knew I did something bad. I had problems with Turks. they come for me like bunch of wolves , Im standing alone. In the end I insult all of them so much, that I end up hurt. Same thing happened with Polish. In both cases, i am sure i was right 90% , but I do something that only HURTS me in the end.You must know where your limit is.
    I said something to Exec on forum, night after that i see him in arena.
    I felt like idiot for everything i said, even if i thought im right 90%.
    Ever seen Exec in arena? Flown with him ? Fas? Turks I know you dont like, but lets say Polish for example? Most of people in arena are good guys, good persons, we just sometimes forget that. Dont have to love them, not even like them, but learn to deal with them. I dont like Al on forum. I can say to him all kinds of nasty shit , but that doesnt mean i wouldnt like to fly with him in arena. To fight him, to work with him on fields, or something like that .
    Im not saying all of this because , I dont know, some stupid selfish reason, but because i care for ppl. I do care for me to have fun, but I also care for every one of you , to have fun too. I was so happy when admins changed La. I was so happy with thought they might fix P38 for Alw, antred, zero for gandhi..I was so happy when i saw 109 g2 avail in late war, because Biber always liked that plane a lot. When 168 came out, you could feel energy in arena going for better. Do we want to screw all of that just so you could feel miserable because its easier for you that way? I dont think so . I think you r just one step away from getting P38 fixed, so do something. Dont just stand there bitching.
     
  16. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Yes, we are about a step away from it being fixed. We were always a step away from fixing things since I first started playing. The only relief I get is that we are actually moving forward and, imho, the right direction this time. Then again, I have thought this before and have been disappointed in the past. I do not envy the position fas finds himself in. He has a lot of bullshit to overcome in an environment where people have become so jaded by previous admins. Once he sets a good trend, I hope to see this "developery pidarasy" go away, and even I would have an attitude change most likely. The sad part is that most everyone is not here to see it anymore, so we may be starting over completely, with an entire new generation of players.

    Now, you say that I'm just one step away from fixing the P38. Yes, I am. Unfortunately, that step is the actual programming of the FM. Not much I can do there boa.

    I'm putting boa and demian on ignore now.
    </flamewar>
     
  17. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Wow, that was very well said boa. Don't know why mumble put you on ignore either. I like what you said about the past and present situation. The 3rd topic link was something that really got started off wrong. It was a boil over of mine that happened after constant complaints about the P-38 got it changed for the worse, and much worse than any other fighter. Then it was screwed up again to the extreme opposite direction. Fly a screwed up aircraft that flew worse than a bomber twice it's size and weight? No, I called it quits and didn't fly for a couple years like many others did. some never coming back, just because the current developers were trying to make lame pilots happy due to expert pilots shooting them down, and those wanting extreme real world features. Like I said and lectured them before, I said, that we all come here because we want to have some fun. When it ceases to be fun, we leave. They made this game more like a difficult simulator geared for professionals and probably lost nearly half of the pilots. Then things went downhill. I think it was partially an ego problem and partially a buddy kiss buddy thing where they listened to their buddies whine and changed things to make them happy rather than check to see if there was something wrong with the aircraft, rather than the pilots inabilities. Then those buddies left, and now it's time for 1.68 to change all this with the current pilots we have. I do hope it isn't messed up again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It kinda bugs me still that I can't seem to hammer into people's heads about the problems with the P-38. But yet, I see new aircraft added and others removed. Would be nice if they would add the P-38G, which is essentially along the same lines of performance as the J and L with the except of dive flaps and boosted ailerons.

    I'm working currently on gathering information, from WBFH and online information/data concerning speed characteristics.
    Finding data about the G J & L are fairly easy to locate but, the F is a little more difficult as it was a low production variant, very much disliked by the USAF and was replaced by later variants. This is the same case with any other aircraft.
     
  18. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    [OT]
    Don't understand why I ignore? :shuffle:
    [/OT]

    About the game being too hard... I'm not so sure that it is. Yes, there are challenges in learning what each plane does, and yes, there is strategy involved. I'll keep my opinion to myself about people who think that's too difficult, so I'll put it to you this way. Why should a plane like the P-38 get neutered in order for the rest of the players in normal/uber rides to have the ability to shoot down the more skilled pilot better than 50/50? :dunno:

    What I would like to see is having all models made to where they comply with the historical performance data. This is what we're working for here in this post. Nothing more, nothing less. That way, when people start flaming about how plane X did this better than plane Y when plane Y is clearly superior, we can just put them on ignore like boa. :p

    The reason I brought up the P-38 again in the first place is that the model has been changed so many times that now we have a model that is pretty much right on performance-wise, but there are still some quirks in the model that strike me as odd. For example, I try to do what the manual/training films say the P-38 can do, and half the time it works, half the time it doesn't. Now I know from previous versions there has been some work done on the model concerning effectiveness of controls. I only ask for a review of these changes and to make modifications as necessary, because there is something a little off about how the P-38 handles to me.

    Anything below 90 MPH with flaps up and you're in a stall, there's no way around that and there shouldn't be because that's how a P-38 flies. Between 100 MPH-130 MPH it seems to me that during my takeoff roll I'm either stalling(dumping lift) or flying (making lift) and it does this even if I hold the climb angle as steady as humanly possible, at 130 MPH and above, I feel like I have a solid airplane under me. In essence, it almost feels like the P-38 model has two different stall speeds for one configuration of airplane. No matter what I do with my flying technique I cannot seem to chase that out of my flying. That and the behaviour of the auto trim lead me to suspect that something is amiss here, and I cannot figure out what it is.

    This is about as plainly as I can state the problem. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free. We're waiting to hear from you.
     
  19. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    I'm in the same thinking here too. It's about time people put up or shut up about the aircraft behaviors unless they have data to settle the case. I say this to myself as well. If I say the P-38 was faster than plane type "x", it's something I found in the test data. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time and the developers. It was my bad for lashing out at rgreat because of the situation but, it got some things rolling. I'm hoping -exec- and fas--- can use the data I find to make the P-38 CORRECT, not UBER. If it's "UBER" to some people in the end, then that's just what it is. In my review of all P-38 variants, the data I find hurts the P-38 in some areas compared to current FH settings but, majorly improves others performances. Comparing WBFH settings, If the data I find slows the P-38 down in whatever performances at set altitudes, that's just the real results. I'll take it. The P-38 is slower than it should be in some areas, and faster than it should be in others. The behavior right now of the P-38 is messed up when comparing actual REAL LIFE maneuvers footage and instructional videos. With the correct engine/prop thrust, lift coefficient, etc, the aircraft will perform like it's supposed to.
     
  20. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    I still can't quite put my finger on why the P-38 flies the way it does. After much practice, I can achieve takeoff at around 90 mph with moderate difficulty (40-60% success rate) in the P-38 now, but there is still much to be desired in the rate category. I just cannot get the nose around as fast as I believe I should be able to.

    I'm looking for some stall speeds as I'm writing this to see if I can calculate new values for Cl.

    Found one here for the L model that I believe is a clean configuration stall speed

    An uncyclopedia article because I was desperate for info

    From wwiiaircraftperformance.org

    I'm not really sure what's up with the stall data on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, but from the power off stalls, clean gives a Cl of 1.99 and flaps + gear gives 3.16. Power on gives 3.71 for clean and full flap/gear yield 7.01 Cl, unless my maths are off a bit, which is likely. :dura:

    The one thing I haven't accounted for yet, however, is the lift that is generated by the thrust flow over the wings. I believe this gives a significant boost to lift IMHO, but I am unable to quantify scientifically at the time how much of a contribution this lift produces.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2010