Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen
As for the combat flaps, if they were so bad, why did the Japanese bother with them even so much as to put the flap control on the stick (at least Ki-44 and J2M).
|
I didn't say they were 'bad'. My comment was directed to the downside of the use of flaps to increase CL to improve rate of turn.
The most effective combat flap was the P-38 version, more of a fowler flap version as contrast use of flaps in F4U, F6F, FW 190, P-51, etc.
Turn and climb are dependent on CLmax, Excess Available HP over HP required, and Wing Loading.
Excess HP quickly goes to zero as drag increases. Drag increases as CL increases. CL (and drag) increase rapidly with deployed flaps.
To the other comment about the G6 - once again for a 1944 comparison versus the F4U and F6F you should consider G10, G14 or even K4 as a period vs period comparison.
To re-iterate - my comments weren't to denigrate either the F4U or F6F, but to cast light on the conclusions based on opinions supported by a flight test versus an 'old FW 190 in unspecified condition (rigging and engine). Even RAF comparisons are suspect for the same reasons. Additionally, consider the familiarity of USN pilots wrt FW 190 type. Perhaps flying against Bar or Meyer would have yielded different conclusions?