Posted on 08/03/2018 4:44:40 PM PDT by DFG
Thanks for the link, incredible! Did you see the 130 give a wink as it came out of it’s loop? /s
It still pains me that my beloved F-16 that we designed and perfected at General Dynamics is credited to Lockheed Martin now.
Tough planes with more weight capacity than it is usually possible to attain...probably only do this sort of thing while unloaded.....;-}
Hope it wasn't loaded with breakable items........
My favorite plane to exit while in the Paratroops. Great plane.
WHOA.
Was it just me, or did anyone else hear something that’s sounded like someone dropping their china when that occurred....
My jaw dropped to the ground when I saw that. Taking off in its own length without JATO was another jaw-dropper.
Whoops! Forgot about turbo prop engines. Then again I work with cars and motorcycles...
Sounds like you need a P-51 in your life. ;-D
“...Wonder how they did it in the old days with carburetors? …” [refermech, post 12]
Fuel injection - for combat aircraft powerplants at any rate - predates World War Two.
Not all carburetors have been the same. Pressure carburetors for aero engines were developed at about the same time reduces the problems associated with zero or negative-G conditions.
For 44 years or more, small planes designed for aerobatics have been equipped with special auxiliary fuel and lubrication systems that will permit inverted or negative-G flight for half an hour or more.
“...The B-52, even longer lived than the C-130. Maybe the P-51, tho I was surprised to read that a test pilot who had flown both the P-51 and the ME-109 said the Messerschmidt was the better fighter.” [yarddog, post 28]
The B-52 and the C-130 began coming into USAF operational inventory at the same time.
Not surprising to hear of a pilot rating the Me-109 as “better” than the P-51. Aircraft handling qualities are irreducibly subjective; few pilots can agree on why one aircraft might be “better” than another. Goes double and triple for fighter pilots, who are unwarrantedly sure of themselves and disinclined to accept anybody else’s interpretation.
A number of pilot reports on the Me-109 have appeared in popular-press aviation magazines. Some rate it as very difficult to operate, suffering from excessive control forces. Others rate it as the most nimble airplane they ever took aloft.
It’s not possible to rate one aircraft as “better” overall. Designs are very constrained, and an improvement in one attribute necessarily means a decrease in some other attribute - especially in fighters. The P-51 was no faster than later variants of the Me-109, but used a more advanced airfoil and newer construction techniques resulted in smoother surfaces; all this afforded greater aerodynamic efficiency, improving the range.
Range was in fact the critical factor in the success of the P-51: it was the first Allied fighter capable of escorting bombers as far as Berlin. It sacrificed other key performance factors to do so: it was unstable and tricky to handle at heavy gross weights (as it would be, filled with fuel for takeoff); maneuvers had to be strictly avoided until a significant percentage of its fuel was consumed, and tanks had to be drained in very specific sequences to avoid risks of loss of control.
Landing a P-51 was also notoriously tricky: more were lost to landing and ground handling mishaps than to hostile fire.
Thanks for that info.
Understandable. My B-1 moment was Friday practice for Mildenhall air show. B-1 took off, circled a few times, then disappeared in the distance. A couple other planes took off, then B-1 came in low and loud out of nowhere over the flightline. It was awesome, because it wasn't going to happen at the show over the weekend. I learned later they shook some windows out, and made a few people unhappy.
Darn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.