Increased load factor means increased drag which results in an increased thrust requirement to maintain the same speed. If thrust is not increased then the speed will decrease.
True. When making a turn you can increase engine power, if you have any to use, so as not to lose speed. My statement was a tad careless.
(For the non flyers.) In order not to lose altitude in a turn the lift must be increased. This results from the fact that the lift force is perpendicular to the wing surface and when you bank to turn the lift vector is tilted. In order to maintain altitude the lift must increase so that its vertical component equals the weight of the plane. This means a higher wing angle of attack which causes increased induced drag and a lower airspeed unless you increase power.
:smack: I wrote this before 1920’s Style “Death Ray” posted, previewed it and then forgot to post it. See what you’ve all got ahead of you when you get old? Do you still want to? :smack:
Silly piece of trivia - my father learned to fly small planes while stationed in the Pacific during WWII and flew Cessnas* on island hops. Dad claimed** that one of the islands that he flew into had winds strong enough that he would drop to stall speed and approach with a negative groundspeed.
*[sub]I think he said that they were Cessnas. He also called them “Maytag Messerschmitts”, though that is at least now used to refer to the Ryan PT-22.[/sub]
**[sub]…And are you going to call my dad a liar? :dubious:[/sub]
I took advanced flight training in Cessna AT-17’s at Fort Sumner, NM. We were there in the early spring at a time when the winds could be pretty fierce. Several times the wind came up while planes were flying so they had those not flying go out to the head end of the runway. As planes landed several of us would grab the wing tips to steady them so they wouldn’t turn over. I don’t think we could have held them in a strong gust but as far as I know we had no landing accidents.
You could slow fly the AT-17 down to about 35-40 mph airspeed and in a strong headwind they descended like an elevator.
The “Sky King” airplane…
The main spar is so big and strong, it is airworthy with one half inch of dry rot on the bottom side.
PT-22 is a very sweet flying bird.
Kind of a similar story. A friend of my dad’s had a WWII P-51 Mustang at an airshow. The plane was worth close to $1,000,000 IIRC and is normally kept in a hanger. Well, it was going to be sitting outside over the weekend because he had it on display at this airshow.
A thunderstorm came in and they were predicting wind gusts up to 70 MPH. Rather than risk his plane getting flipped over, he taxied it out on to the runway, and “flew” it through the storm. The wheels never left the ground, but he sat there for several hours with the tail up and the engine running to keep the plane pointed into the wind.
I hope that story has lost something in translation, because that’s probably not the best way to look after a $1,000,000 aeroplane in a thunderstorm :eek:!
While that is reasonably possible, I think that I would have flown that plane somewhere else if it were mine. I would bet staying on the ground was much more dangerous than just going someplace with more favorable conditions.
BTW, a P-51 Mustang in good, flyable condition is worth a good deal more than $1,000,000 these days. They aren’t making anymore original ones.
There was a chap in New Zealand who bought an ex RNZAF mustang for 75 pounds in the lte 1950s. The wings were scrap but he aquired a new set of wings and an engine and had it made airworthy. He sold it after they started going for big money. It’s now flying as part of Kermit Weeks’ collection.
75 POUNDS!. I realise that was a reasonable amount of money back then but nothing like what they sell for now.
This is true if you include the assumption of level flight at a constant airspeed, which is reasonable but fundamentally artificial. Sailplanes, for example, having no engine routinely violate this without difficulties.
But note that a respectable (and increasing) number of Mustangs flying today have only a limited number of original parts.
I knew a guy who bought a nice Mustang for around $2000 in the mid-1950s (which was about the going price at that time). He flew it for several years and then sold it for $6000, congratulating himself on what a shrewd bargainer he was.
Just to clarify faurther, are you saying shock waves can develop before the indicated speed of sound, compared to the actual speed of sound at that altitude?
Ahh, good ol’ Ft. Sumner, where the men are men, and the women are, too!
It certaintly isn’t the best way to look after a Mustang. I’ll have to ask my dad about the detail, but from what I remember, he was planning on flying somewhere away from the storm where he could get the plane in a hanger. By the time he got on the runway, the storm was already on top of him. He could either take off into a T-storm and try and outrun it, or he could sit at the end of the runway and ride it out. He chose the latter.
FWIW, there were several planes destroyed in that storm that were tied down.
This was the EAA airshow in Oshkosh WI. Somewhere between '78 and '82. I’ll look into it.
Ok, maybe it was 1973.
My dad once told me that he could have bought a Corsair after WWII for $600, but this was before he got into flying and he didn’t know what he’d do with it. (I think it was after WWII – only there were Corsairs on his ship when he was in an AD-4N squadron during Korea, so they were still being used in active service.)
In the late-1970s or early-1980s he mentioned that he had a chance to buy a T-34 airframe for $5,000. I told him he should buy one. Heck, but two!. He said it would take $50,000 to get them airworthy (they needed engines and instrumentation, but dad had a very particular – read: ‘expensive’ – idea of ‘airworthiness’), so he wouldn’t buy one. I really wanted him to. I saw a T-34B sell at auction at the Santa Monica Airport for $250,000 back in the '90s.
Carefull there. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid might drop by. Garrett has been known to shoot from ambush and Billy just shoots at random.
It is the George Washington’s axe phenomenon (This is George Washington’s axe. The blade has only been replaced twice and the handle three times). Anyway, fighter plane airframes are extremely strong and durable. There should be a good deal of that left.
All I know is, it’s harder taking off with a tail wind. 
Because whatever you use to pick up speed (wheels, legs, etc) will be limited to a top speed X, but the tailwind reduces your effective airspeed to X - T, thus reducing lift.
Turn around and take off into the headwind. 
Well, since the question has already been answered and we’re already skewing off topic…
My understanding was that you could buy a brand new - still in the crate - Mustang for about $500. Several people killed themselves in them though. The Mustang has so much power, that the torque of the engine(or P-factor or ascending blade theory or whatever else you want to attribute to it) would cause the plane to flip over on take-off.
Pilots that were trained in a Mustang knew that you had to hold it on the ground until you reached a certain speed. The plane would fly at a speed lower than this, but the ailerons didn’t have enough airflow over them to couteract the torque of the engine.
Subsequently, these people would taxi down to the end of the runway, firewall the throttle, lift off the ground, flip over, and crash.
I’ll have to disagree with you on this one. WWII fighter planes were only designed to last a few months. Extremely strong and durable = un-needed weight.
They were only built as strong as they had to be. The other problem is that aluminum does not have an infinite fatigue life. Over enough cycles, cracks form and pieces need to be replaced.