Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[Angus]

LOL, well there was a reason why 190's were escorted with 109's, but that applies for the weightier ones at altitude over their best power.
By the way, ROC is very much linked with turn performance....just not absolutely.

[thorsim]

i did ?

where?

Thor, you created a thread not long ago stating that the P38 does things in the game that it should not be able to do. After a lengthy discussion, you eventually came to realize it was not incorrect modeling, but your lack of understanding about how everything works. Now here you are again trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Fly some luftwaffe aircraft against their respective counterparts, they perform true to records and statements made 60 years ago. The 109k is a beast in the late war arena, the 109e may be the best fighter of the early war set.

As per Gaston, referring to a pilot's encounter is sure to be flawed. Judging from the article, the spitv pilot was diving away from enemies, the 190 saw him and turned toward him (losing speed). The spit pilot is going full throttle according to the article, turns and wonders why the 190 is not in front of him... if the spit is going at a much faster speed, then the early 190 will surely be able to turn inside him. Our earliest 190 is the a5, I have read that earlier 190 models could turn better than the a5 and do not doubt. But the German's gave up maneuverability for speed and firepower, as they were facing increasing bomber numbers and maneuverability does not help against bombers.

[hitech]

Gaston.

  The fact is maths alone cannot give us the answer here, and the insistence on them just shows the bias of many education systems towards maths at the expense of both reading skills and rational thinking. I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to find an aerodynamic formula, for estimating maximum turn rate, that takes into account how far ahead of the leading edge of the wings the propeller is... If you don't even compute basic facts about the object, how can you even pretend to predict behaviour on a messy object that churns the air into a spiral?

Will you give me copy right privs of this statement? It is just to good not to keep.

1. Math by definition is pure rational thinking.

2. It is not hard to find the formula that takes into account how far the prop is ahead of the wing to estimate spiral airflow effects over the wing, fuse and tail, AH does this all the time.

3. You are trying to argue that the least significant forces of sustained turn, have a significant effect. Estimations are just that, that is why they are called estimations and if you wish to be precise can even be given a % of accuracy do to the small forces they ignore.

HiTech

[Ack-Ack]

i did ?

where?

He's referring to the thread that discussed the dive flaps in the P-38 and your posts where you were pretty much clueless on how they worked both in game and in real life.  Even in that thread when you were asked to provide any data to back up your assertions you refused to do so.  When others provided data to refute your claims, you just ignored them.


ack-ack

[hitech]

i did ?

where?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html

[SIK1]

i did ?

where?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html

LOL burn!

[thorsim]

you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...

as far as what was discussed lets see ...

that is the thread where i enlightened some "p38 expert" that the p38 was the biggest heaviest largely produced american fighter of the war.  

now do you guys still want to contend that ...

the dive flap did not increase the drag on the airframe and therefore did not slow it down?  

or

that fowler flaps do not increase drag?  

because those are the things i found fault with in other peoples arguments ...

whatever else the dive flap might do to improve the high speed handling them my statement about it's drag is a fact it must and does in fact slow the plane down, in the real world anyway.

however comparatively less drag the fowler flaps produce they still produce drag that is also a fact.

now feel free to look at my statements and find something else i was "wrong" about, feel free but i assure you that my understanding of any of the above issues did not change and any modeling that is different than i stated above is still incorrect.

you guys will do better addressing what i say than what you think i said.  

no offense

+S+

t

LOL burn!

Thor, you created a thread not long ago stating that the P38 does things in the game that it should not be able to do. After a lengthy discussion, you eventually came to realize it was not incorrect modeling, but your lack of understanding about how everything works. Now here you are again trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Fly some luftwaffe aircraft against their respective counterparts, they perform true to records and statements made 60 years ago. The 109k is a beast in the late war arena, the 109e may be the best fighter of the early war set.

As per Gaston, referring to a pilot's encounter is sure to be flawed. Judging from the article, the spitv pilot was diving away from enemies, the 190 saw him and turned toward him (losing speed). The spit pilot is going full throttle according to the article, turns and wonders why the 190 is not in front of him... if the spit is going at a much faster speed, then the early 190 will surely be able to turn inside him. Our earliest 190 is the a5, I have read that earlier 190 models could turn better than the a5 and do not doubt. But the German's gave up maneuverability for speed and firepower, as they were facing increasing bomber numbers and maneuverability does not help against bombers.

He's referring to the thread that discussed the dive flaps in the P-38 and your posts where you were pretty much clueless on how they worked both in game and in real life.  Even in that thread when you were asked to provide any data to back up your assertions you refused to do so.  When others provided data to refute your claims, you just ignored them.


ack-ack

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html

[Ack-Ack]

you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...

as far as what was discussed lets see ...

that is the thread where i enlightened some "p38 expert" that the p38 was the biggest heaviest largely produced american fighter of the war.  

now do you guys still want to contend that ...

the dive flap did not increase the drag on the airframe and therefore did not slow it down?  

or

that fowler flaps do not increase drag?  

because those are the things i found fault with in other peoples arguments ...

whatever else the dive flap might do to improve the high speed handling them my statement about it's drag is a fact it must and does in fact slow the plane down, in the real world anyway.

however comparatively less drag the fowler flaps produce they still produce drag that is also a fact.

now feel free to look at my statements and find something else i was "wrong" about, feel free but i assure you that my understanding of any of the above issues did not change and any modeling that is different than i stated above is still incorrect.

you guys will do better addressing what i say than what you think i said.  

no offense

+S+

t

You proved nothing in that thread other than you really don't have a clue.

The fact that the P-38 was the USAAF's largest and heaviest fighter was never in dispute nor would you find any of us regular P-38 flyers argue otherwise.

Again, we never said that the flaps of any type on the P-38 didn't not have a drag penalty, we just corrected your incorrect assertion that the dive flaps were in fact dive brakes because they caused sufficient drag to slow the P-38 down.  Of course there is a speed hit with anything when drag is introduced but as we stated, it was not sufficient enough to provide any sort of braking in a high speed dive.  You kept claiming otherwise and refused to post anything to support your claim.


You also in that thread assumed that everyone that flies the P-38 does so at full flaps while in Lufberry turns out turning anything under the sun.  Again, we proved that to be incorrect as well.

You also claimed in that thread that in real life, P-38 pilots didn't use their flaps the way we use them in game.  Again, with pilot AARs that we posted we showed that the use of the P-38 flaps in game pretty much mirrored their usage in real life.

You just dismiss anything that does not support what you think to be correct despite the fact that you have provided nothing to back up your claims. 


ack-ack

[thorsim]

no on all counts, please post quotes from me where you think i did any of that to back up your accusations ...

You proved nothing in that thread other than you really don't have a clue.

The fact that the P-38 was the USAAF's largest and heaviest fighter was never in dispute nor would you find any of us regular P-38 flyers argue otherwise.

Again, we never said that the flaps of any type on the P-38 didn't not have a drag penalty, we just corrected your incorrect assertion that the dive flaps were in fact dive brakes because they caused sufficient drag to slow the P-38 down.  Of course there is a speed hit with anything when drag is introduced but as we stated, it was not sufficient enough to provide any sort of braking in a high speed dive.  You kept claiming otherwise and refused to post anything to support your claim.


You also in that thread assumed that everyone that flies the P-38 does so at full flaps while in Lufberry turns out turning anything under the sun.  Again, we proved that to be incorrect as well.

You also claimed in that thread that in real life, P-38 pilots didn't use their flaps the way we use them in game.  Again, with pilot AARs that we posted we showed that the use of the P-38 flaps in game pretty much mirrored their usage in real life.

You just dismiss anything that does not support what you think to be correct despite the fact that you have provided nothing to back up your claims.  


ack-ack

[Chalenge]

In fact as I recall it has been nearly every discussion on anything American has been entered into and brought about to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes (and incorrectly so). Its gotten to the point we cannot talk about P-38s or P-47s or P-51s or F-4Us without the 190 being brought up as an off topic interruption.

[thorsim]

In fact as I recall it has been nearly every discussion on anything American has been entered into and brought about to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes (and incorrectly so). Its gotten to the point we cannot talk about P-38s or P-47s or P-51s or F-4Us without the 190 being brought up as an off topic interruption.

really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine. 

[Chalenge]

really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine. 

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447128.html#msg3447128

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448342.html#msg3448342

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447499.html#msg3447499

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448728.html#msg3448728

All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.

[thorsim]

yes, i believe that the lack of negative consequences for using extreme flap deflections, combined with the criteria decisions that limit some of the planes ability to exploit the use of flaps, does shifts the balance of the plane set in favor of the bigger heavier planes that have the benefit of higher low deflection flap deployment speeds in the game.  

how does that equate to this ???

... to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes  

that is a bit of a stretch, although this board does seem to be very flexible that way.

wanting more real world consequences to be virtually represented does not mean anyone is to be shot in real life.

another "elastagirl" reach there, that makes it really difficult to address your points btw.

now on to full flaps in combat, in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings.  that does not sound like a combat approved configuration to me, do you feel differently?  

so in essence i wish the game were more realistic, like as you say the 'TRW', and because of that you feel i am somehow saying the 190 is superior than anything?  

that is far to complicated a discussion for me to ever try and simplify it to that extent.

by the way specific quotes and threads i am involved in are two very different things,
if you wish to be more specific we can maybe address what seems to be bothering you,
but not until then.

no offense,

+S+

t

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447128.html#msg3447128

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448342.html#msg3448342

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447499.html#msg3447499

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448728.html#msg3448728

All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.

[Widewing]

really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine. 

I realize now that if I drink a beer, I burn off more brain cells than you woke up with this morning....

Please, just go away.

Oh, and "no offense."



My regards,

Widewing

[thorsim]

well then you are welcome to find my quotes to that effect as well ...

until then feel free to follow your own advice ...

projecting and miss representing is something i just don't like ...

none taken

regards back

+S+

t

I realize now that if I drink a beer, I burn off more brain cells than you woke up with this morning....

Please, just go away.

Oh, and "no offense."



My regards,

Widewing