![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Generally, the sustained turn rate was around 14-15 degrees/second for
the F-4 hard-wing and about 12.5-13.5 for the F-105. H'mm, those numbers seem kind of high for both, as far as sustained capability goes. 400 KTAS, turn rate in Deg./sec. (rounded off) = 19 (7g); 22 (8g). 500KTAS, turn rate in Deg./sec. (rounded off) = 15 (7g); 17 (8g); 20 (9g). 600KTAS, turn rate in Deg./sec. (rounded off) = 13(7g); 14 (8g); 16 (9g). I'm missing something here. You say the numbers are high and then offer higher numbers. Or are these just basic computations of turn rates w/o regard to airframe factors? Our thread has digressed slightly as we shifted the discussion from instantaneous turn to sustained turn. The former is reached at the upper left corner of the Vn diagram (curiously referred to as corner speed). The latter is achieved at zero PsubS, typically at higher KIAS and influenced by induced drag and (usually) transonic drag. To my knowledge no aircraft can sustain a turn at corner speed at typical combat altitudes (but get a clean F-16 low enough, hmm). One source (Richardson/Spick) gives steady state turn radii and time to make a 180 for the slat-wing and hard-wing, @ M0.6 and 0.9, 10kft. The slat-wing has the advantage, making a 180 in 15.53 sec. @ M0.6 (11.59 deg./sec.), and 13.96 sec. @ M0.9 (12.89 deg./sec.). The hard wing appears to be perhaps 10-20 deg. or so behind. Assuming ISA, @10kft, Mach 1.0 is 638 knots. M0.6 and M0.9 = 383 and 574 KTAS respectively, so M0.6 is well under F-4 (hard) corner, M0.9 a bit over at that height -- assuming KIAS = KCAS, 420 KCAS = 490 KTAS @10kft. OTOH the Thuds 480 KCAS corner is slightly under M0.9; ca. 558 KTAS. FWIW, the same source has a graph comparing the hard and slat-winged F-4's Ps capability @ M0.9 and10kft. The hard-wing has a Ps advantage at low g (4.5g), with the slat-wing advantaged at higher g, although the slats apparently have a lower max. g limit, +7 vs. +7.33g. I had the opportunity to fly against both hard and soft wing F-4's as an adversary on many occasions. The dynamics of ACM don't allow such fine measurements. Subjectively, the slat generated significantly better turn rates at the expense of energy addition rate and vertical performance. IIRC, the VX-4 brief advertised around the order of 2 degrees/sec advantage for the slat sustained and a 50 knot reduction in corner speed. One thing stood out, it's buffet-free performance didn't give the pilot many cues as to where his airspeed was headed ... easy to decell to a point where the energy package was zip-point. R / John |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 30th 04 07:20 PM |
| B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Home Built | 0 | October 30th 04 07:19 PM |
| Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 06:34 PM |
| US (Brit/Japanese/German/USSR) Use of Gun Cameras in Fighters?? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 3 | July 17th 03 07:02 AM |
| CUrtiss Hawk 75 performance debate | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 3 | July 16th 03 11:45 AM |