cola wrote:sirsapo wrote:Conversely, the C's larger wing also produces more drag, so the speed at which max g can be sustained might be faster, negating the benefit of the larger wing.
This is not necessarily true.
On the pure aerodynamic grounds, C has a more efficient lifting setup (L/D) compared to A, which directly translates into superior instantaneous performance (there was some talk about that in a different thread, recently).
T/W is another story though...so, which one has better sustained performance is still anyone's guess, at least for those that didn't fly both models and that's something you can't really calculate, out of publicly available data.
That's why I said the speed at which max g can be sustained. The best instantaneous turn performance will be seen at the slowest speed at which the maximum load factor can be attained, but that doesn't mean the turn can be sustained, thats an issue of Ps. You may have to fly faster to offset the drag and maintain your max sustained g, and that excess speed required is what hurts your performance.
I agree that the C probably has superior instantaneous performance, but more goes into it than just L/D.
alloycowboy wrote:The turn rate of a fighter is actually dictated by the G-Forces the pilot can with stand and still keep his wits about him. The only time a fighter ever reaches it maximum speed is in testing so while an interesting indicator of performance it really doesn't mean much.
In fact for a fighter espically naval fighters maximum endurance and maximum range are more important then the maximum rate of turn. The Navy looses more fighters due to running out gas then fighters being shot down.
No, the turn rate of a fighter is dictated by physics and aerodynamics, not the tolerance of the pilot...
The Navy also loses more fighters to bird strikes than being shot down too, does that mean that adding screens to the front of the intakes is a better feature than turn performance?