Hi everyone, Here is my performance calculator in version 1.1, parametrized for the Beaufighter: http://hometown.aol.de/WBHoHun/hru_aircraft_beaufighter_v11.zip Be warned that calculator does quite a number of unscientific things because I was unable to figure it out properly. If you have an idea on how to improve it, that would be appreciated (I checked its accuracy by feeding it with historic data, finding it would match many historic graphs well. I get a good match for Fw 190A, Fw 190D-9, P-51B/D, He 112B, Fw 187A-0 among others. I get no match at all for the P-38 and the P-47.) For the Beaufighter, I guessed the basic parameters which I couldn't find (gear ratio, ram recovery, exhaust thrust), then made up a power graph to match the speed graph using 1670 HP as Hercules peak power. Atypically, my calculated Hercules peaks at sea level, which is a bit strange. Next I took the speed-and-boost chart and noted the points where boost dropped the +4 lbs/sqin maximum from the Beaufighter manual. I generated a second power graph from that, using the speeds at +4 lbs/sqin as points of reference. Then I took the empty weight difference from that one Beaufighter site and applied it to my Beaufighter model. Due to the lower weight, induced drag was reduced and my Beaufighter IC came out a bit faster than the historic Beaufighter VI, at least at higher altitudes. At low altitude, I didn't know what to do since my Hercules power graph was atypical and I didn't have any point of reference. I arbitrarily picked two different values, the higher one being closer to Beaufighter VI data and the lower one closer to "typical" power graph shape. That was a rather "quick and dirty" estimate where the inaccuracies in the assumptions certainly outweigh the inaccuracies in the calculation. Still, I think the result is a reasonable estimate that has the advantage of being consistent and based on known assumptions I hope this helps! Regards, Henning (HoHun)
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/index.htm as for beau1, there is only hercules11. but that's good, anyways
Hi Exec, >as for beau1, there is only hercules11. >but that's good, anyways Oops. I got a little confused about the engines, the Hercules 11 would have +6.75 lbs/sqin instead of +4 lbs/sqin. The problem is, I don't know the differences between the different Hercules variants and basically used the Hercules VI at +4 lbs/sqin. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Exec, >hercules6 is at that site near hercules11 After staring at the graphs for a while, I believe the Hercules XI is just the same a the Hercules VI in terms of supercharger gear ratios and apparently differs only in the rated power settings. That means I can probably make a new +6 3/4 lbs/sqin power graph from the data I already have, in the same way as I did before. I will try that tomorrow. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Nice, but... extremly complicated for my taste For now I should say that G column on Turn sheet should be labeled not as Cd/Cl, but Cl/Cd, as it shows aerodynamical quality, and quality of 13,42 (Cl= 1,14 / Cd = 0.09)is to high IMHO, it can be best quality for a WWII plane (Yak-3 had such in fact), but at relativly high Cy values at which best time turn occures quality will be sighnifically lower, it is clear from any airfoil polar... I would guess it will be around 10 for 13 max quality plane.
Don't care for Me-163, I was not speaking of WWII plane with best AQ(don't care if it is Mustang or anything else), I was speaking that 14 is too high quality for best turn for WWII prop plane. Learn english. Read Pishnov. There are tables with pre WWII fighters AQ.
