Quickest time around a closed course ?
Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:32 am
What's the best technique for the quickest time around a closed course ?
1. The shortest possible route around the course pulling limit / max g turns around the pylons ?
2. A slightly wider route requiring less G in turns reducing induced drag losses and possibly a higher average indicated airspeed.
Thanks
1. The shortest possible route around the course pulling limit / max g turns around the pylons ?
2. A slightly wider route requiring less G in turns reducing induced drag losses and possibly a higher average indicated airspeed.
Thanks
Last edited by aseanaero on Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:40 am
I'm sure you'll get more qualified, and better, answers here than mine, but I can tell you that often times it just depends on the airplane. For example, when flying that little Cassutt Racer that I took to Reno, it didn't seem to matter much either way. I ended up flying the "close in" method for a couple of reasons....it is easier to see the pylons that way, and since I was so slow, I wanted to be in a predictable place for those who were passing (and lapping) me. In my situation, there was really no reason to fly the wide route.
Interestingly, another former racing airplane, Alley Cat (which was incredibly fast), didn't seem to make much difference either when it came to a tight route vs. a wider route. In it's final design, it had a wing that just didn't seem to "care" whether it had "G" on it or not. However, many times, the faster the airplane is, the less "G" you want to be pulling around the pylons. So it just depends on the airplane (and the pilot) to a certain degree.
Not sure if any of that helps answer your question or not, but there it is anyway.
Gary
Interestingly, another former racing airplane, Alley Cat (which was incredibly fast), didn't seem to make much difference either when it came to a tight route vs. a wider route. In it's final design, it had a wing that just didn't seem to "care" whether it had "G" on it or not. However, many times, the faster the airplane is, the less "G" you want to be pulling around the pylons. So it just depends on the airplane (and the pilot) to a certain degree.
Not sure if any of that helps answer your question or not, but there it is anyway.
Gary
Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:49 am
I've watched Reno many times on TV and it seems there is 2 different techniques in the unlimited class but was wondering if this was also the case in T6 , F1 etc.
I guess it depends on how quickly an aircraft loses energy and it's ability to accelerate.
I've tried to work it out logically but there's too many factors so better to ask those who've actually been there in competition.
All comments are good , keep em coming.
I guess it depends on how quickly an aircraft loses energy and it's ability to accelerate.
I've tried to work it out logically but there's too many factors so better to ask those who've actually been there in competition.
All comments are good , keep em coming.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:39 am
retroaviation wrote:I'm sure you'll get more qualified, and better, answers here than mine, but I can tell you that often times it just depends on the airplane. For example, when flying that little Cassutt Racer that I took to Reno, it didn't seem to matter much either way. I ended up flying the "close in" method for a couple of reasons....it is easier to see the pylons that way, and since I was so slow, I wanted to be in a predictable place for those who were passing (and lapping) me. In my situation, there was really no reason to fly the wide route.
Interestingly, another former racing airplane, Alley Cat (which was incredibly fast), didn't seem to make much difference either when it came to a tight route vs. a wider route. In it's final design, it had a wing that just didn't seem to "care" whether it had "G" on it or not. However, many times, the faster the airplane is, the less "G" you want to be pulling around the pylons. So it just depends on the airplane (and the pilot) to a certain degree.
Not sure if any of that helps answer your question or not, but there it is anyway.
Gary
Another opposite example would be September Fury in 2008. The wing mods in general and wing tips in particular made the airplane really slow down if pulled hard around the turns. It forced the pilot to fly a wide line and keep the drag / lift bucket in check to keep the speed up.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:21 pm
Yeah, without getting too technical, it's all an issue of speed vs. wing loading.
Gary
Gary
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:04 pm
Didn't someone try and put some Learjet wings on a Mustang years ago ?
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:22 pm
aseanaero wrote:Didn't someone try and put some Learjet wings on a Mustang years ago ?
Yes. It was called Miss Ashley II. Griffon engine with contra rotating props. Disentigrated right in front of our eyes while coming to the home pylon.
http://tbirds.hp.infoseek.co.jp/accid2.jpg
Gary
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:30 pm
Don't forget that John Dilley's "Vendetta" was the first Mustang (a real one at that) with a learjet wing and horizontal stabilizer.
After Vendetta crashed, Bill Rogers took those wings and tail and created Miss Ashley II for Gary Levitz.
After Vendetta crashed, Bill Rogers took those wings and tail and created Miss Ashley II for Gary Levitz.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:57 pm
I still want to know where the Mustang winged Learjet with a Merlin rod Allison is. 
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:57 pm
Wow , I thought that photo was a trike until I noticed all the flying debris
Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:59 pm
So did the Lear Jet wing idea work in practice ? (obviously before the inflight break up)
I'm not much into putting jet wings on old Mustangs but Ashley II didn't look too bad
I'm not much into putting jet wings on old Mustangs but Ashley II didn't look too bad
Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:14 pm
aseanaero wrote:So did the Lear Jet wing idea work in practice ? (obviously before the inflight break up)
I'm not much into putting jet wings on old Mustangs but Ashley II didn't look too bad
In a high altitude cruise situation, it was FAST, but of course that's how those wings were designed to operate. The aircraft was not all the way through it's development when it crashed, but most of the experts think it would have maxed out at around 450-460 mph. Not slow by any means, but not fast enough to contend for a Gold class victory. It was a beautiful aircraft though.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:17 pm
mustanglover wrote:Don't forget that John Dilley's "Vendetta" was the first Mustang (a real one at that) with a learjet wing and horizontal stabilizer.
After Vendetta crashed, Bill Rogers took those wings and tail and created Miss Ashley II for Gary Levitz.
Forgot all about that......thanks for the reminder.
Miss Ashley II was a great lookin' airplane in my opinion. It was a Gold racer, but wasn't just mind-blowing fast. It probably would've done better with a different firewall forward.......you know, like a good ol' 3350!
Gary
Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:19 pm
retroaviation wrote:mustanglover wrote:Don't forget that John Dilley's "Vendetta" was the first Mustang (a real one at that) with a learjet wing and horizontal stabilizer.
After Vendetta crashed, Bill Rogers took those wings and tail and created Miss Ashley II for Gary Levitz.
Forgot all about that......thanks for the reminder.
Miss Ashley II was a great lookin' airplane in my opinion. It was a Gold racer, but wasn't just mind-blowing fast. It probably would've done better with a different firewall forward.......you know, like a good ol' 3350!
Gary
If you are going to butcher a Mustang like that at least use a 4360.
Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:24 pm
MX304 wrote:
If you are going to butcher a Mustang like that at least use a 4360.
Why??? I like the power to weight ratio on the 3350 better, plus it's just a better engine all around. There's a reason that very few airplanes used the 4360 in comparison to the dirty-three-filthy.
3350-26WD, 2800-3000 hp, 3500 pounds +/-
4360-20WD, 3500 hp, 4600 pounds +/-