Hurricane - glide rate

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Christer Engdahl

Well, it was but in the disguise of low drag. The lower the drag is, the better is the range, the climb ratio and also the glide ratio.

These aircraft were designed to "fight" and while low drag was a goal for speed, range, climb, etc., the glide ratio wasn't a huge concern in the performance realm. It just ends up being whatever it is after the other performance goals are met. These aircraft glide like the relative brick when they lose power and have a big prop acting as a barn door out front.

The goal was fighting, if the engine quits, get it on the ground or bailout. How far one could glide wasn't much of a concern in the development process.

[waroff]

Read in AP1564A Hurricane I- Merlin II
"Gliding.
With flaps and undercarriage down a good average gliding speed is 80 m.p.h. A.S.I. reading with the engine running slightly faster than idling speed.

Approach
The normal method of approaching to land is by means of straight glide(at the speed mentioned above)

If for any reason a landing is being made with the flaps up increase the approach speed by 10 m.p.h. A.S.I. reading."

[Christer Engdahl]

Originally Posted by Revi16

It just ends up being whatever it is after the other performance goals are met.

Exactly what I meant, when the goal of low drag is met, you get a good glide ratio in the bargain! Compare the P-51. A "laminar flow profile" was developed to get the lowest possible drag and I bet it had one of the best glide ratios but at a comparatively high speed.

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Christer Engdahl

Exactly what I meant, when the goal of low drag is met, you get a good glide ratio in the bargain! Compare the P-51. A "laminar flow profile" was developed to get the lowest possible drag and I bet it had one of the best glide ratios but at a comparatively high speed.

My initial post which you quoted was "Best glide rate wasn't high on the performance needs list" only meant that a specific glide ratio wasn't a target goal in the development of fighters. The performance goals were Speed, Climb Rate, Altitude and Range.

The Spitfire Mk. I had a much lighter wing loading (and better glide ratio) than the later developed Spitfire Mk.'s. While the later Mk.'s "Power On" performance numbers kept increasing, their glide ratios decreased.


Edit - as for the other posts referencing "glide ratios", there is a distinct difference between a fully functional aircraft with its engine at idle (still making power) and an inoperable engine. An inoperable engine with the prop still turning is a huge air brake, the glide ratio will suffer greatly.