il2 damage model

It was not armoured, very fiew fighters were.

It was underpowered right from the deck (compared to other fighters of that era).

Stupid symetrical wing profile prevented it from assuming high AoA imho. With exception on high negative AoA which is preaty much usless becouse of the properties of human pilot.

From what I have read the engine moved the CoG towards aft making the plane more unstable. So the wierd shit would be called a spin


The best thing about this plane is the canon. But imo the overal entusiasm about 37mm forced the plane to fly better on FH then in RL.

 

One day you may have the knowledge you think you have now & then you will very embarassed if you remember what you just wrote

 

I think you're confusing something here. Instability == good because it means the plane can haul its ass around very quickly. This doesn't say anything about its sustained turn performance, but ass-heavy planes generally have rapid G buildup resulting in very good instantaneous turn.

 

How was the CG moved aft?
Did they put it behind the center of lift?

 

BTW
russians P-39 flyed with extra power of their engines. But engines resource was 5-15 hour. technical specialistes made planes lighter,uninstalling some parts.
motto was "killing of enemy or big engines resource"
PS sorry for bad grammar

 

btw sry exe I mean you was exec.

 

... "Thanks to these changes, the Airacobra had it's center of gravity shifted further aft, exacerbating its already marginal stability. All said and done, the people at Wright Field had reversed the old cliche, and created a sow's ear out of a silk purse."

Jast read the link that Broz posted.


From the 1st Newton's low summaric center of lift (including stabilisers and contorls) must be where the COG is or maybe directly above or below to fly the plane stright but this may require constant preasure on the stick, such a plane cant be called stable.

 

I think U are mistakin instantaneous turn with elevator response. Too big elevator response and U are in a spin.

In modern times unstable planes can be made to fly stable with electronics but back then the aircraft had to have some stability to be operated by human especialy inexperienced one.

 

Well, in my retarded perception of the physic laws redant's "instable" means 'having the COL beneath the COG', meaning that the plane alone would be most happy flying in any position but upside up. Thus, flying straight would be difficult. Thus, ceasing to fly straight, whaen needed, would be easy. Elevator response, though helpful, would be a secondary factor in the plane's will to "haul it's ass around"

 

There is a term for the benefit of the P-39's engine placement, dynamic center of something or other. It refers to the average distance of a unit of mass from the CG, the lower it is the more responsive to control inputs the plane gets, it is quite intuative, except for the technical term No matter how unstable a plane is, flying it straight is just a matter of proper trim & instability is a benefit in manuvering.