G-loads in WW2

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?


Depends on the aircraft

The Spitfire and Hurricane were just about unbreakable being
able to handle more g than the pilot but the Me-109 was
known to have suffered wing tip and tail spar failures and had real
compressibility issues. One of the results was that despite the
theoretical performance Luftwaffe pilots were often a little
more hesitant about really aggressive manoeuvering than their
RAF opponents.

The early versions of the Hawker Typhoon also had
structural problems with the prototype actually breaking
just aft of the cockpit, fortunately the pilot survived.
Improvements were made but tail failures were always
a problem.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:38:51 GMT, Jay Stranahan
wrote:

Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?

Jay, without looking at any references, I recall that British pilots
in primitive G suits were able to pull 9 Gs in the late marks of the
Spitfire. That's a lot, as I understand it. Isn't the rule of thumb
that a fit pilot can withstand 5 Gs?

Some planes were certainly fragile. There were several cases of
Japanese army Hayabusa ("Oscar") pilots shedding their wings in close
combat in SE Asia in 1941-1942. And there were at least two cases
where a P-40 collided with a Hayabusa wing to wing, with the result
that the Hayabusa lost the wing and went down, while the P-40 flew
home.

I don't think they were fragile as a matter of course. The problem was
that all 1930s airplanes were basically designed by guess; the fittest
survived the testing process and were put into service.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"tw" wrote in message . ..
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?


Depends on the aircraft

The Spitfire and Hurricane were just about unbreakable being
able to handle more g than the pilot but the Me-109 was
known to have suffered wing tip and tail spar failures and had real
compressibility issues. One of the results was that despite the
theoretical performance Luftwaffe pilots were often a little
more hesitant about really aggressive manoeuvering than their
RAF opponents.

Wasn't this also because at least the Spit's stall characteristics were
docile, whilst the 109 and 190 were rather vicious in that respect?

Both aircraft were difficult though the Spitfire was marginal better
in the earlier series but much better in latter. The nerve of the
pilot counted for more than the differences in aircraft and at least
in the early series aircraft Me 109E, Me 109F the differences in
handling were not so great. The 109 had handly page automatic leading
edge slats that made it possible to opperate the aircraft with high
wing loading and gave a relatively benigne stall. (Handley Page and
Messerschmitt swapped a nos of usefull patents)

Geoffrey Welland talks of being able to hold a turn on the spit on the
pre-stall "buffet" while watching an Me 109 trying to follow him, stalling
and flick-rolling the other way into the ground.

The Luftwaffe wern't particulary concerned with turning circle in
specifying and selecting the Bf 109. The idea was to make an aircraft
as small as possible with the biggest engine and therefore the highest
power to weight ratio and lowest drag. In this they succeded. They
also succeded in making a very easy to produce aircraft. (1/4th the
labour content of the Spitfire excluding engine as its sheet metal was
all 2 dimensional) Throughout the war it always maintained the
abillity to perform a steep corkscrew climb that no aircraft could
follow and in the early Me 109E, Me 109F and final Me 109K had a climb
advantage due to power to weight ratio.

However it is an airframe that in chronilogical age was more in the
Hawker Hurricane era than the Spitfire.

The aerodynamics became outmoded: the slats limited role rate, the
ailerons became so stiff that the roll rate was only 1/4th that of a
Fw190 at speeds of over 400mph and the whole airframe was too draggy.
It soldiered on to long and the high wing loading meant that the
aircraft couldn't grow as well as the spitfire

The real reason the 109 suffered mostly was the quality of pilot
training.


The FW190 had a similarly
nasty stall I believe and pilots were leery of hauling it around too close
to the ground.

For the 190A: Its strength was in a very high roll rate and a very
effective engine at low altitude and its performance in the vertical.

The Ta 152H, a derivative of the FW190, could out turn and out run any
allied fighter though its roll rate was average.





The early versions of the Hawker Typhoon also had
structural problems with the prototype actually breaking
just aft of the cockpit, fortunately the pilot survived.
Improvements were made but tail failures were always
a problem.

Flutter. A very difficult problem that causes fatigue failure. The
first German digital computers Konrad Zuse Z3 was used in solving
flutter problems in Germany.

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jay Stranahan writes:
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?


The AMericans and British put a _lot_ of effort into figuring out what
wa happening at these speeds, and finding ways for airplanes to
operate safely in this region. This effort let to proper instructions
for pilots to safely maneuver out of the dangerous regions (No nose up
trim, for example, and no recovery likely above some particular
altitude) and systems to allow safe recovery in the Transonic Zone,
such as the Dive Recovery Flap - a small flap on the underside of teh
wing that produced a nose-up moment when deflected, cancelling out the
nose-down pitching moment of teh airfoil. Note that this wasn't a
Dive Brake. It was too small to have enough drag to slow the airplane
down.

The only aircraft that actualy received this dive recovery flap was
the P47M in what must have been early 1945. It was an impressive
aircraft. The P47N might also have had it.



For some reaon, the Germans, for all their pioneering efforts in high
speed flight, did not investigate compressibility phenomenon on any
sort of a sytematic level, and put little or no effort into working
with existing airplane tyoes. Their solution was to put a Big Red
"Thou Shall Not Exceed Susch-and-So an Airspeed at X Meters Altitude"
in the Pilot's Handbook, and leave it at that.

The jets were supposed to be in service in August 1943. Problems in
engine development caused by having to develop low/zero nickel alloys
delayed them. It would seem pointless developing these sorts of
things if the would be of no use in a fast jet.

in article , Guy Alcala at
wrote on 8/3/04 23:14:

Billy Preston wrote:

"Jay Stranahan" wrote
Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?

Right out of the factory they were excellent aircraft, but the technology
back then couldn't hold a form, and it wasn't uncommon for the 10th
pilot to pull 6 G's and something break. I'm not sure when the strain
maneuver was developed, but I think that WW2 pilots only had a G
suit (dive bombers mostly) and did not strain for added G's, so most
planes were built for more G's than a pilot could produce normally.

Checking the P-51D operational load limit chart (at Zeno's), for design gross
weight of 8,000 lb. the a/c is stressed for +8/-4g. G-suits only came in in
mid-44, and IIRR only for the allies. I don't know if dive bomber pilots got
them; I know allied fighter pilots in the ETO did.

Guy


The first G-suit used in combat was designed by Wilbur R. Frank at the
University of Toronto, Canada in 1942.
Ed

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

And, of course, the Meteor is still in service too. Well, two of them
are - a hybrid "T8" used for ejector-seat development and a converted
F8 used for drone control system calibration at Llanbedr. The latter
will leave service later this year when Llanbedr closes.
Not bad for the first jet to enter service.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

I don't think anyone is getting bent out of shape. The Me 262 was the
first jet fighter but unlike the Meteor and P-80 the Me 262 had its
development and the development of its engines cut short and
interfered with by the war. The Junkers & BMW teams were way ahead in
using cooling films in combustion chambers and in hollow blade
cooling. They were also ahead in the use of vitrious and metallic
oxide coatings.

It's not right to triumphantly rubbish completely the technology and
efforts of the Germans: they were ahead in many areas as well as
behined. Often when they failed it was due to absence of raw
materials or the problems of war time construction far more severe
than the ones the allies faced.

The Jumo 004 engine was actualy produced for many decades after the
war in the eastern block (initialy in the junkers factories) then the
Soviet Union as the RD-10 as was the BMW003 as the RD-15 and then also
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which used its own versions to power its
trainers. Once given proper materials and improved controls it
performed reliably. In France the Jumo 004 and BMW 003 were studied
and fitted into the Sud-Est S.O. 6000 "Triton" and the Arsenal VG-70.
Both the chief engineers of BMW and Junkers went on to designe great
engines after the war for the west. The Adour of the Mirage, the T53
of the UH-1 Iroqois, T55 of the Chinook and AGT-1500 of the Abrams
came from the designers of the Jumo 004 and BMW 003.

I suspect that the basic Me 262 would have ended up as projected with
more powerfull engines such as the HeS 011 mounted in the armpit
position and remained in use as a heavy figher for quite a while.

Cub Driver wrote:

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service....

If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
and there were no -262s available to me for comparison.

The question is, was the P-80 better than the ME-262 in 45? We'll never
know, but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
-80 was not.

Were German Generals better than American Generals? At least we have
some basis for comparison.


Jack

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:46:03 -0500, Jack wrote:


but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
-80 was not.

I suggest you look a little more, the P-80 was operational in italy before
the end of the war.


greg

--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht