How does the F4U-1A beat the Spit 16

[thorsim]

it is an extreme example you cherry picked to attempt to make your point.  

different generations(what 20 years?) different missions (high alt high speed interceptor vs. air superiority fighter) ...

try the f15 with the f16 and come back with your mass is inconsequential argument ...

mmmmk

tks.

t

And here you repeat the fallacy yet again. Acceleration will have everything to do with the plane's ratio of thrust to weight and drag, and absolutely nothing to do with what the plane registers on the scale.

I bring up the F-104 vs. F-15 because according to the sort of logic you have repeatedly stated in this thread, the F-15 must turn less well and bleed more energy in maneuvers, because it is more than double the weight.

[thorsim]

you misquoted me, again,  thanks.

try that on AGW where there is a neutral monitor and i can express my feelings about those kind of board tactics more colorfully ...

you can use shaw's definition of maneuverability since i am sure you know what it is and all ...

t

Thorism wrote:

Complete and utter kaka.

Please define the term maneuver in the contexts of your sentence above.



HiTech

[Masherbrum]

you misquoted me, again,  thanks.

try that on AGW where there is a neutral monitor and i can express my feelings about those kind of board tactics more colorfully ...

you can use shaw's definition of maneuverability since i am sure you know what it is and all ...

t

You need to seek some Professional help and I'm not kidding.   You make some of the most absurd "claims/allegations" and NEVER back a single one of them up with something substantiated. 

[thorsim]

was his quote my complete thought? or sentence even?

You need to seek some Professional help and I'm not kidding.   You make some of the most absurd "claims/allegations" and NEVER back a single one of them up with something substantiated. 

[BnZs]

it is an extreme example you cherry picked to attempt to make your point.  

different generations(what 20 years?) different missions (high alt high speed interceptor vs. air superiority fighter) ...

NONE of which makes any difference to the point at hand. The physics of flight remains constant. You have stated repeatedly that weight *alone* without reference to such factors as thrust, lift, and drag somehow negatively effects aircraft maneuvering performance, in some fuzzy manner which you cannot define. If this is in any way true, ti should be apparent in comparing the F-104 to the F-15, which is, again, double the weight. You are wriggling because you have conclusively been proven 100% wrong on this point.

try the f15 with the f16 and come back with your mass is inconsequential argument ...

The F-16 boasts a similar thrust/weight ratio and a basic wingloading almost half that of the F-15. What part of bringing this up do you think argues for your nonsense?

[thorsim]

The F-16 boasts a similar thrust/weight ratio and a basic wingloading almost half that of the F-15. What part of bringing this up do you think argues for your nonsense?

right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.  

not sure why you have a problem with that.

hell put some external fuel on the f16 and even out the wing loading and then make your case.

although the Thrust to weight will probably not translate to our OPs discussion.

how about we use HT's B17 vs. a fighter example i am sure you can match wing loading and BHP with some fighter and make your case.  

lets see it, or make another more relevant comparison i am patient, i can wait.

[hitech]

right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.  

not sure why you have a problem with that.

hell put some external fuel on the f16 and even out the wing loading and then make your case.

although the Thrust to weight will probably not translate to our OPs discussion.

how about we use HT's B17 vs. a fighter example i am sure you can match wing loading and BHP with some fighter and make your case.  

lets see it, or make another more relevant comparison i am patient, i can wait.

As I said, define maneuverability, I'm done guessing what your point is. When asked I always define my terms, why will you not do the same? As I asked before what is a maneuver fight? I know what an angle/turn fight is. I know what an energy fight is. I and I would assume most people have no idea what a maneuver fight is, that could be anything.

So what are you trying to say, because most of us here can not tell. Are you simply saying a spit 16 should win against an f4u-1d? If so I believe it does. Are you saying YOU should always win in a 16 against a f4u1d? If so I can see many ways to beet a 16 in an f4u1d against most pilots some of the time.

I in no way misquoted or cherry picked, this entire thread you have been you trying to make a claim that weight causes less of something, "maneuverability" which I can not even discuss because you will not define what you mean.  I have no desire to get on the phone with bob and ask him for his definition of maneuverability.

As far as AGW if you feel you have to stoop to a name calling level to discuss this topic then my opinion slips even more of you .

HiTech

[BnZs]

right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.  

The F-104 vs. F-15 WAS a perfectly appropriate example. You don't like it because it completely disproves your nonsense. The fighter with the higher thrust/weight and lighter lift loading has the edge in maneuvering. There is no debate about this from anyone...except you. According to all your theorizing, the F-104 should have some sort of edge in maneuver because the F-15 is heavier, not just by a little bit, but literally double the weight. Define what this "edge" is, and back it up with physics.

This is the theory you have thrown out over and over again, the one you stick to without a shred of backing and you cannot retract it now.

Yes, if you manage to actually hang enough weight off of an F-16 to make its lift loading higher than that of an F-15, the F-15 will out-turn it. Easily, considering that so much weight will have also greatly reduced the thrust/weight ratio. What, do you also think a SpitXVI with ord on the racks should be able to outmanever a clean F4U?  

[hitech]

I'm not sure on the following, but I believe you cannot scale a plane's performance by simply making every dimension of the plane larger (even if we handwave and say that the engine produces 2x more horsepower with 2x more weight).

This is because mass is proportional to volume, which is proportional to (dimensions of the plane)^3. On the other hand, planform and wing area (which are very important in calculating lift etc) scale as (dimensions of the plane)^2.

Roll rate... wouldn't roll rate scale properly if we increased wing area and mass equally? The assumption being that we also scale the size of the ailerons, so they'd provide proportionally more torque to overcome the wing area's resistance to rolling (which I believe is linearly proportional to wing area).

Edit: sorry to pull out the formulas and everything, but how else can a person understand WHY scaling something up won't work? Without the formulas, you're reduced to trusting whoever seems to know what they're saying the best.

The roll rate would not scale the same.

Roll rate is not so much a force, but a camber change. A planes roll rate does not continue to increase for a give speed the longer you hold the stick. (of course this is obvious) but what really creates this is the apparent wind that is created by the roll, I.E. in a left roll the wind is striking the right wing in a more downward vector, than it would in level flight. When the change in camber matches the changes in net AOA on both wings , you will be in a steady state roll. When you go faster the sum of the 2 vectors, (roll and fwd vel) create a faster roll, in the opposite way, a longer wing span creates more (downward/ upward) speed on the out side of the wing, causing the steady state roll to be lower.

HiTech

[Raptor]

Is Thorsim Hijacking ANOTHER thread and changing it to the SAME argument as all of his previous misconceptions? Sheesh.

[Baumer]

I think this explains calculating the radius of a turn pretty well.

http://www.flightlearnings.com/radius-of-turn/443/

It's enlightening that weight is not a necessary value to calculate a turn radius, you only need to know bank angle and speed. As Hitech posted, a few simple flight tests would provide the data necessary to calculate which plane will out maneuver the other, at various bank angles and speeds.

[thorsim]

i think "bob" says something like

the ability to change the direction of your velocity vector ...

i would prefer the ability to change your state of motion ...

however, either will do.

a maneuver fight for my purposes here is a fight where the pilot uses his ability to change his state of motion to defeat his opponent.  

as opposed to an energy fight which for my purposes here would be where the pilot uses his energy advantage/s to defeat his opponent.

i did not say you cherry picked, however you did miss quote me.

what i said ...

"because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver and preserve his energy as well as the spitfire."

what you quoted ...

"because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver"

not the same thing at all, therefore a misquote, and as you stated nonsense, but also not an accurate representation of what i posted either.

what i am saying is that size and weight are also factors in and of themselves, not the only factors but factors that also play in the favor of the spitfire when compared to the hog in their relative abilities in a maneuver fight as i defined above.

i am not sure  i have called you a name anywhere, mostly on AGW i have taken issue with certain aspects of the games you designed, your unwillingness to make discussions like some of the ones we have had productive by posting information we can then discuss, and your general message board behavior which many mirror here.  

now i may have called you a name in the process i do not remember doing so, but considering the discussions we have had over various topics and your consistent behavior which i find objectionable, i do not feel compelled to adjust any of my previous comments in regard to anything i may have posted to or about you.

i completely understand if you feel the same.

t

As I said, define maneuverability, I'm done guessing what your point is. When asked I always define my terms, why will you not do the same? As I asked before what is a maneuver fight? I know what an angle/turn fight is. I know what an energy fight is. I and I would assume most people have no idea what a maneuver fight is, that could be anything.

So what are you trying to say, because most of us here can not tell. Are you simply saying a spit 16 should win against an f4u-1d? If so I believe it does. Are you saying YOU should always win in a 16 against a f4u1d? If so I can see many ways to beet a 16 in an f4u1d against most pilots some of the time.

I in no way misquoted or cherry picked, this entire thread you have been you trying to make a claim that weight causes less of something, "maneuverability" which I can not even discuss because you will not define what you mean.  I have no desire to get on the phone with bob and ask him for his definition of maneuverability.

As far as AGW if you feel you have to stoop to a name calling level to discuss this topic then my opinion slips even more of you .

HiTech

[thorsim]

curious why you need to make the wing loading more on the f16 to make your point, as that is not at all what i am saying.

even out all the other factors you choose and then make your case, stacking the deck would prove nothing,
like your other examples so far.

i stated no theory i stated that size and weight are also factors, you are saying they are not ...

prove it.

t

The F-104 vs. F-15 WAS a perfectly appropriate example. You don't like it because it completely disproves your nonsense. The fighter with the higher thrust/weight and lighter lift loading has the edge in maneuvering. There is no debate about this from anyone...except you. According to all your theorizing, the F-104 should have some sort of edge in maneuver because the F-15 is heavier, not just by a little bit, but literally double the weight. Define what this "edge" is, and back it up with physics.

This is the theory you have thrown out over and over again, the one you stick to without a shred of backing and you cannot retract it now.

Yes, if you manage to actually hang enough weight off of an F-16 to make its lift loading higher than that of an F-15, the F-15 will out-turn it. Easily, considering that so much weight will have also greatly reduced the thrust/weight ratio. What, do you also think a SpitXVI with ord on the racks should be able to outmanever a clean F4U?  

[thorsim]

no, other people are bringing up old discussions my point here is a new one.

Is Thorsim Hijacking ANOTHER thread and changing it to the SAME argument as all of his previous misconceptions? Sheesh.

[hitech]

Thorism wrote:

the ability to change the direction of your velocity vector

The only thing that changes the direction of your Vel vector is lift.

And hence we are talking about turn radius & turn rate as I have stated before.