"Aircraft cruise speed" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board Back to the WWII Aviation Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two at Sea
World War Two in the Air
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article Thinking to invade German-held Europe? Then you'll need some of these...
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| LocknLoad | 09 May 2012 1:50 p.m. PST |
What, in your opinion, would a good speed for cruising be expressed as a percentage.
I am thinking about 30% of max speed…
And you? |
| taskforce58 | 09 May 2012 1:59 p.m. PST |
30% is way too slow, more like the landing speed. 70% is closer. |
| HistoryPhD | 09 May 2012 2:34 p.m. PST |
I agree with taskforce58. 30% is barely airborne. 65%-70% |
| ooooooooooooooooo | 09 May 2012 2:56 p.m. PST |
60% to 70% of top speed is a good average. But remember that different aircraft performed better at specific altitudes. In my FLOTILLA game system, each aircraft type has speed envelopes at varying heights for Full Throttle, Combat Cruise, Ecconomical Cruise, and Stall. |
| Mako11 | 09 May 2012 3:57 p.m. PST |
Yes, 60 – 67% is about the standard cruising speed for aircraft. |
| Agesilaus | 09 May 2012 8:20 p.m. PST |
According to Saburo Sakai, the Zero had such excellent range because the pilots leaned out the fuel/air mixture and flew just above stall speed. Later in the war Charles Lindbergh taught the same lesson to American pilots in the Pacific, greatly increasing their range without having to modify the aircraft. But this would not be SOP in other air forces, nor would flights of over 1000 miles over the Pacific Ocean. |
| Toshach | 09 May 2012 8:59 p.m. PST |
It actually varied widely. Radial engines tended to have lower cruise speeds. The Grumman F4f and F6F had cruise speeds of about 150 mph and 170 mph (approx. 40%). Though the FW190 and the P47 had cruise speeds of about 250 mph (approx. 60%) Planes with inline engines like the P-51 and ME 109 had cruise speeeds nearer to 300 mph (75%). The late war Spitfires had a cruise of about 325 mph. |
| elsyrsyn | 10 May 2012 6:35 a.m. PST |
According to Saburo Sakai, the Zero had such excellent range because the pilots leaned out the fuel/air mixture and flew just above stall speed. It's going to take you a while to get anywhere that way, though. Doug |
| Lion in the Stars | 10 May 2012 7:18 a.m. PST |
Eeeeyup. There's actually a specific engine RPM that is most efficient in all piston types. This speed is known, it's a fact of engine design. So for best range on a controllable-pitch prop, you increase the prop's bite (decrease RPM because of engine loading) down to whatever the best-range RPM is and then start manually leaning the mixture out. You can cut your fuel consumption in half just through manual leaning. If you have access to the flight manuals, you can find it. |
| Agesilaus | 10 May 2012 6:26 p.m. PST |
Yes, I believe that Sakai said the trip from Rabaul to Guadalcanal took something like 6+hours both ways and that didn't include time on target. On the map it looks to be between 500 and 600 miles.
In the Pacific it may have taken a long time to get there, but that was preferable to ditching. I imagine the flight back to Rabaul must have seemed even longer to Sakai in a damaged plane, with a smashed canopy, bullet wounds in the head and mostly blind. |
|
