manuverable vs acrobatic    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Warbirds and Warplanes >> manuverable vs acrobatic
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/10/2012 9:00 PM   
Ram-bro


 

Posts: 4967
Score: 156
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Bennington, NE, USA
Status: offline 		when it comes to warbirds and flying characteristcs the experts always talk about an aircraft being manuverable. 2 questions for the masses, is it better to be manuverable vs acrobatic and how do determine who is more manuverble? have fun with this one and dont be haten on each other. I ask this question because I saw a documentary that more or less that a P51 Mustang was not designed to fly inverted so is that not acrobatic but manuverable? and or is manuverability measured by your contemporaies? Is the F15 manuverable compared to a mig 2 or su 27 etc......

Hide Signatures
       Post #: 1

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/10/2012 9:14 PM   
vertical grimmace



Posts: 4401
Score: 149
Joined: 3/13/2004
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: ft collins , CO, USA
Status: offline 		It seems that wing loading is the key. Look at the zero. The thing is, they had no armour so it was not a very safe plane to be in when hit.
Also, the carburetor vs. fuel injection comes into play as well. The ability for the ME 109 to push negative G's was used effectively by the likes of Erich Hartman.

_____________________________

"let''''s just say, they will be satisfied with less" Ming the Merciless

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Ram-bro)
       Post #: 2

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/10/2012 10:38 PM   
IL2windhawk



Posts: 644
Score: 100
Joined: 4/7/2006
Last Login: 5/1/2013
From: Ogden, UT, USA
Status: offline 		Manueverability is trumped by speed and team tactics, in my opinion. Boom & Zoom baby! Show them the left, hit 'em with the right. That's where the Mustang shines: in a combat wing.

If a dogfighter gets into a "turn & burn" situation, then chances are he made a mistake somewhere. Either that, or the Rules of Engagement are FUBAR (quite possible!)

_____________________________

Fly War-Clouds.com
WWII Online Air Combat \\ Western Front

Hide Signatures

(in reply to vertical grimmace)
       Post #: 3

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/10/2012 11:23 PM   
invertmast


 

Posts: 5702
Score: 193
Joined: 12/11/2003
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Harrisonburg, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Manueverable: adjective: to be easily manuevered while in motion.


So an aircraft that has a high wing loading and high control surface forces can be very aerobatic, but not very manueverable due to it being more difficult to move due to the higher wing loading and control surfaces forces compared to an extra 300 that has a light wing loading and light control surface forces.

So whil an aircraft can be aerobatic, it may not be manueverable due to its weight and design

_____________________________

Thomas W.
Euro-sport Evo, Scratch built 1/7 F-14D Tomcat, 26.5% Gee Bee R2

Hide Signatures

(in reply to IL2windhawk)
       Post #: 4

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/10/2012 11:45 PM   
Ram-bro


 

Posts: 4967
Score: 156
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Bennington, NE, USA
Status: offline 		so a bomber as seen on this show is described as manuverable....is that a comparison or an observation?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to invertmast)
       Post #: 5

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 12:13 AM   
invertmast


 

Posts: 5702
Score: 193
Joined: 12/11/2003
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Harrisonburg, VA, USA
Status: offline 		It depends on what they are comparing it to, im sure it could be more manueverable compared to another bomber, but less manueverable compared against a fighter

_____________________________

Thomas W.
Euro-sport Evo, Scratch built 1/7 F-14D Tomcat, 26.5% Gee Bee R2

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Ram-bro)
       Post #: 6

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 1:40 AM   
mikes68charger


 

Posts: 480
Score: 106
Joined: 10/19/2010
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: , OH, USA
Status: offline 		 Hum that's what I like about war bits as they don't all fly the same or have the same manueverable

i feel like my 72im CMP BF 109 would walk all over my 72in CMP P40

as the 109 came along way after the P40 they learned thing that made 109 much better 


Even more power dose not always make a huge dif. I got a Hanger 9 B25 converted to electric.  Yes I can do a big nice loop but it really takes a lot of space to do it in

I love how my 74in ESM corsair with scale 3 blade prop with full flaps can do 5 foot carrier landing but my Top Flite Gaint P51 cant



Hide Signatures

(in reply to invertmast)
       Post #: 7

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 2:02 AM   
a65l



Posts: 1869
Score: 105
Joined: 12/7/2003
Last Login: 5/7/2013
From: va veach, VA, USA
Status: offline 		There were and are a lot of pilots that can take what is considered an inferior aircraft and score victories against "superior" aircraft. Even when it comes down to equal pilot skill and unequal capabilities, say a guy in a Mig 21 vs a guy in an F-16, tactics, the mechanics of the engagement, weather, and luck figure into who comes out victorious......

And is there really a difference between manuverable and aerobatic? A TBM Avenger, while fairly manuverable as required to land on a carrier, was prohibited from performing aerobatic manuvers.

_____________________________

In God I trust.
All others pay cash.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to mikes68charger)
       Post #: 8

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 11:56 AM   
carlbecker



Posts: 2067
Score: 100
Joined: 7/30/2002
Last Login: 4/29/2013
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline 		The Bf-109 was designed in the early to mid 30's, saw action in the Spanish civil war. The P 40 was designed in 1938 although the P 36 first flew May 1935. I don't think Willy learned anything from Curtis. I don't think Curtis learned anything from Willy either.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to a65l)
       Post #: 9

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 2:19 PM   
mikes68charger


 

Posts: 480
Score: 106
Joined: 10/19/2010
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: , OH, USA
Status: offline 		You right, I im wrong on those planes but I was just trying to point out there is an evoution that thes planes with throw to get were they are now.

I love flying the BF109 but I hate Landing it, the narrow gear, no fowar rake, and the fact it seems ever  3rd or 4rth flight I have a nose over that kills my Xora 18X10 props $18 a pop its getting old.



Hide Signatures

(in reply to carlbecker)
       Post #: 10

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 4:14 PM   
carlbecker



Posts: 2067
Score: 100
Joined: 7/30/2002
Last Login: 4/29/2013
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline 		I suspect each designer did not know much if anything about what others where doing in different countries. I like Xoar props but breaking them often I go to APC or Mejzlik. I can break carbon props also, and much to often!

Hide Signatures

(in reply to mikes68charger)
       Post #: 11

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 4:17 PM   
MajorTomski



Posts: 2249
Score: 113
Joined: 5/1/2003
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: invertmast

It depends on what they are comparing it to, im sure it could be more manueverable compared to another bomber, but less manueverable compared against a fighter



At over 45,000 feet a B-52 will easily stay on the tail of an F-15. The differences are also a function of where in the atmosphere the manuevering is happening

_____________________________

Spitfire Brotherhood #6
Kadet LT 40 Brotherhood #98

Hide Signatures

(in reply to invertmast)
       Post #: 12

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 4:41 PM   
coronabob


 

Posts: 451
Score: 110
Joined: 2/12/2004
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Friendswood, TX, USA
Status: offline 		To me maneuverability is rate and aerobatic is vector. Rate is acceleration in the 3 axis. Vector is speed and direction.

A plane is highly maneuverable if it can accelerate quickly in any axis. This does not mean it has to be a fast plane. Aerobatics means grace and speed that can be changed in any direction precisely.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to MajorTomski)
       Post #: 13

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 5:59 PM   
alanc


 

Posts: 1601
Score: 105
Joined: 12/15/2003
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: manchester, AE, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Eatra 330,    aerobatic,      mustang,  and ANY other fighter, manoverable,     could you see a mustang doing the red bull circuit?   flick and crash, me thinks

Hide Signatures

(in reply to coronabob)
       Post #: 14

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 6:27 PM   
BobH


 

Posts: 6762
Score: 116
Joined: 4/1/2003
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Springfield, VA,
Status: offline 		Manuverable is how EASY it is to change direction.. Some planes have better control responses than others.. Acrobatic is the RATE of change of a given plane.

_____________________________

BobH.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to alanc)
       Post #: 15

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/11/2012 9:56 PM   
paladin


 

Posts: 2628
Score: 250
Joined: 2/14/2002
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Vestal, NY, USA
Status: offline 		Anyone here ever seen a pattern plane do a Cobra Role? That’s aerobatic, tongue in cheek, its all straight lines, axial roles, and 20 degree pulls. Maneuvering is part what the planes capabilities are and part the pilots ability to string these capabilities into the correct sequence to arrive at the correct location for a firing solution.

What does that mean? That means that early German planes were flown to their absolute max. because their pilots were trained very well. Adversely our pilots did not have any real world combat experience at the beginning of the war so a lot of our planes were under flown. Of course this reversed by war’s end.

Also the type of fight an aircraft is involved in.

Which plane do you want to take on bombers with one on one?
P-51 or Jug

which plane do you want in a one on one dog fight?
P-51 or Jug

Joe

ps great question ram-bro


_____________________________

If it don't fly it wont ketch my eye.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Ram-bro)
       Post #: 16

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/12/2012 1:55 AM   
stevenmax50


 

Posts: 1086
Score: 121
Joined: 6/30/2009
Last Login: 5/16/2013
From: ft payne, AL, USA
Status: offline 		I still have not yet piloted an rc scale warbird.  I understand there is alot of knowledge here about the aerobatic vs manuverable capabilities of warbirds.  But I actually would like to know how to compare the rc versions of the warbirds as I will never pilot a full scale aircraft.  I have always heard that flying rc scale warbirds can be extremly challenging.  I typically overpower my rc models.  If I were to build a 1/4 scale mustang, and put oh...lets say 50cc of gasser on it, would it be aerobatic?  
Now that I type this out and tyhink about it, I dont think I want a warbird that would be considered any more aerobatic than the full scale versions.  But I would always like to have the power to pull through anythinh I might get myself into. 

_____________________________

ROLL TIDE!!!

Hide Signatures

(in reply to paladin)
       Post #: 17

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/12/2012 4:50 AM   
Ram-bro


 

Posts: 4967
Score: 156
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Bennington, NE, USA
Status: offline 		You bring up a interesting thought when you bring up the power question and warbirds. A good example of this was during the Battle of Britan (and please correct me if I am wrong) The Me-109 e and Spitfire 5 were more or less equals until the FW-190 came along and the way the Brits took care of this problem was to put a uprated RR under the cowl. Now apparently being equal was OK with the Brits with the Spit being somewhat more manuverable, so did the Spit loose its manuverability or was the standard changed. Also, what does roll rate have to do with any of this? Roll rate doesn't equate to turn rate. I like the idea that manuverability is the ability to change directions faster, interesting way of seeing it. As to the question of what would you rather go into a dogfight with, a Mustang or a Thunderbolt, it seem sthat alot of pilots preferred the thunderbolt over the Mustang. Good discussion

Hide Signatures

(in reply to stevenmax50)
       Post #: 18

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/12/2012 5:11 AM   
BobH


 

Posts: 6762
Score: 116
Joined: 4/1/2003
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Springfield, VA,
Status: offline 		When the Thunderbolt arrived in the UK the spit pilots would go into a climb and out climb the Jug. That was until the props were changed.. after that. the Jug would leave the spits behind.. going verticle. Speed is life. in pilots terms. With it he can engage or not.. he gets to chose.
Every fighter had its weakness. The job was to determine that weakness and exploit it to your advantage.
As to roll rates.. most WWII fighters had roll rates in the 3.5 seconds per roll. Not all that fast but similar for most planes of the times. The importance of the roll rate can determine when a Split S or other evasive manuver can be executed.. leaving the foe on your six looking for you.

_____________________________

BobH.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Ram-bro)
       Post #: 19

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/12/2012 5:47 AM   
Veltro



Posts: 387
Score: 100
Joined: 8/24/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Ventura, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Pre-WWII it was all about maneuverability. By early WWII it was all about speed and firepower. Today it is all about electronics and the missiles you are carrying.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to BobH)
       Post #: 20

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/12/2012 6:06 AM   
Ram-bro


 

Posts: 4967
Score: 156
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Bennington, NE, USA
Status: offline 		So when you hear the history channel talk about a powerful fighter, what do they mean and relate this to WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and current fighters...

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Veltro)
       Post #: 21

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/13/2012 4:48 AM   
Veltro



Posts: 387
Score: 100
Joined: 8/24/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Ventura, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ram-bro

So when you hear the history channel talk about a powerful fighter, what do they mean and relate this to WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and current fighters...


They could mean horsepower. They could mean firepower. They could mean ordinance carrying ability. They could mean appearance. With the History Channel you never know. There is a lot of fluff in their programs.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Ram-bro)
       Post #: 22

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/14/2012 12:07 AM   
pattnut


 

Posts: 83
Score: 100
Joined: 12/6/2004
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: offline 		MajorTomski; Am I missing something here? A B-52@ 45,000" staying on a F-15's tail?? What, is the F-15 pilot saving fuel? Does he have 1 engine at idle? All the '15 has to do is light the burners, roll to 70-80 degrees of bank, and pull. Soyonara, BUFF....

Old Dawg (1,200 hrs in B-52s)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Veltro)
       Post #: 23

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 12/14/2012 2:48 AM   
paladin


 

Posts: 2628
Score: 250
Joined: 2/14/2002
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Vestal, NY, USA
Status: offline 		When fighters are doing the dance every movement causes drag that slows the plane. The Germans measured power by what AOA the craft could sustain. But in combat it most often translated into how much dancing you can do before you have to use altitude to bolster your Kinetic energy. When your opponent’s kinetic energy is low you have the option to break off or press the advantage.

Hope this helps

Joe


_____________________________

If it don't fly it wont ketch my eye.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Veltro)
       Post #: 24

RE: manuverable vs acrobatic - 5/2/2013 2:59 PM   
MajorTomski



Posts: 2249
Score: 113
Joined: 5/1/2003
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pattnut

MajorTomski; Am I missing something here? A B-52@ 45,000'' staying on a F-15's tail?? What, is the F-15 pilot saving fuel? Does he have 1 engine at idle? All the '15 has to do is light the burners, roll to 70-80 degrees of bank, and pull. Soyonara, BUFF....

Old Dawg (1,200 hrs in B-52s)



Just pulling a dusty old statment I heard from a depot flight test engineer in the late 70's. It surprised everyone back then that at those altitudes the BUFF wing was doing flying better than the Eagle wing. Of course power will win out in the end. But for turns within the BUFF's envelope the BUFF can turn with or better than the Eagle. And again those were flight test crews.

Thank you for your service Sir!

_____________________________

Spitfire Brotherhood #6
Kadet LT 40 Brotherhood #98

Hide Signatures

(in reply to pattnut)
       Post #: 25

Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>  
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Warbirds and Warplanes >> manuverable vs acrobatic
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


0.734RCU1