How does the F4U-1A beat the Spit 16

[BnZs]

right, and that larger aircraft will need to be able to apply all that extra force and have the extra power to over come the energy lost applying that force vs. the other aircraft not burdened with the same weight disadvantage.

Aircraft bleed airspeed in turns because increasing the AoA to increase lift causes massive increases in induced drag. If two aircraft enter the same maneuver, say a 4g turn at 300mph, whichever bleeds airspeed the most quickly will be determined by the ratio of available thrust to drag. Again, absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.

does the f4u have the power lift and drag advantages to over come the weight disadvantage it has vs. the spitfire?

i think not.

You think wrong. In certain configurations, the F4U has a lift/weight comparable to a SpitVb! This is demonstrable from a stall speed comparison.

[Baumer]

[boomerlu]

and it would require a proportionally higher thrust to match the thrust/weight ratio to be able to recover that lost energy as quickly as the lighter aircraft.

Yes that is TRUE. Hence the F4U1A reflects its disadvantage in thrust/weight ratio in its inferior climb rate statistics in the game. Yes... it's modeled properly. The F4U1-A winning vs a Spit 16 in a fight does not invalidate the flight model.

And thank you for bringing up theory vs practice when you are trying to make a THEORETICAL argument that the Spitfire SHOULD beat the F4U1A.

Unfortunately you neglected pilot skill. But even if we assume pilot skill is equal, you've still neglected intial E-state, initial merge altitudes etc etc.

Even if these were all equal, a lot can happen in the sky that will negate the Spitfire's advantages. Yes, I would bet on the Spitfire most of the time, but in any given fight even if we hold all other factors constant, a lot can happen.

Theoretically, the Spitfire should win most of the time. Note the operative words... "theoretically," "should," and "most". A Spitfire loss in these fights does not invalidate the flight model.

[BnZs]

i think there are other factors more important to a scissor and i suspect bob would agree.  

It is apparent which one of us owns and has read a copy of "Fighter Combat" and which has not.

No, minimum turn radius/ability are the most critical to winning the flat scissors. If it begins at *high speed* ability to dump airspeed will also be critical. Roll rate is also important, but not enough to avoid loosing the fight as the fight slows downs if one fighter is significantly inferior to the other in turn radius.

[thorsim]

i have stated my agreement with you about the other factors, there is no "by themselves" in my argument, more like "along with" ...

well then i guess we will need to state the configurations, feel free since you brought it up.

 

Aircraft bleed airspeed in turns because increasing the AoA to increase lift causes massive increases in induced drag. If two aircraft enter the same maneuver, say a 4g turn at 300mph, whichever bleeds airspeed the most quickly will be determined by the ratio of available thrust to drag. Again, absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.

You think wrong. In certain configurations, the F4U has a lift/weight comparable to a SpitVb! This is demonstrable from a stall speed comparison.

[Stoney]

Pick up a high school physics textbook.

Let's drift away from the use of "physics".  We're talking "aerodynamics", with the emphasis is on "dynamics"

[thorsim]

that would depend on the relative advantage %ages wouldn't it.  my copy of shaw is right here btw.

It is apparent which one of us owns and has read a copy of "Fighter Combat" and which has not.

No, minimum turn radius/ability are the most critical to winning the flat scissors. If it begins at *high speed* ability to dump airspeed will also be critical. Roll rate is also important, but not enough to avoid loosing the fight as the fight slows downs if one fighter is significantly inferior to the other in turn radius.

[boomerlu]

Let's drift away from the use of "physics".  We're talking "aerodynamics", with the emphasis is on "dynamics"

Aerodynamics is applied physics. To be be able to reason clearly and rigorously with regards to aerodynamics, one must have a basic understanding of at least high school level mechanics, otherwise one ends up attempting to say that force and energy are interchangeable. Yes in aerodynamics, there is a tradeoff between drag and lift which brings energy into the force equations, but that does not make them interchangeable, only related.

In addition, energy, force, and velocity are physics concepts and these are the terms thor has chosen to argue using.

[Stoney]

absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.

Be careful how you say this.  I know what you mean, but when discussing induced drag, weight has a significant impact.

Also, when you use the term "lift loading", are you using it to represent the ratio between existing lift and aircraft weight?  L/w?  

[thorsim]

where did i propose to invalidate the FM ???

i just said size and weight are factors in maneuverability, do i need to put that in my sig?

WTF ...

Yes that is TRUE. Hence the F4U1A reflects its disadvantage in thrust/weight ratio in its inferior climb rate statistics in the game. Yes... it's modeled properly. The F4U1-A winning vs a Spit 16 in a fight does not invalidate the flight model.

And thank you for bringing up theory vs practice when you are trying to make a THEORETICAL argument that the Spitfire SHOULD beat the F4U1A.

Unfortunately you neglected pilot skill. But even if we assume pilot skill is equal, you've still neglected intial E-state, initial merge altitudes etc etc.

Even if these were all equal, a lot can happen in the sky that will negate the Spitfire's advantages. Yes, I would bet on the Spitfire most of the time, but in any given fight even if we hold all other factors constant, a lot can happen.

Theoretically, the Spitfire should win most of the time. Note the operative words... "theoretically," "should," and "most". A Spitfire loss in these fights does not invalidate the flight model.

[thorsim]

is that what i sad, exactly? i think not.

otherwise one ends up attempting to say that force and energy are interchangeable.

[boomerlu]

where did i propose to invalidate the FM ???

i just said size and weight are factors in maneuverability, do i need to put that in my sig?

My mistake, but then, what the hell are we arguing about now? Others have mentioned it - size matters, but only insofar as it changes aerodynamic variables like lift, drag, etc. Weight matters, but again only insofar as it changes factors like lift loading and power loading.

By themselves they mean nothing. A 1 lb rock can't outmaneuver a Spitfire despite being much lighter. Why? Because the rock has no lift and no power.

[boomerlu]

now the question is could we switch the terms force and energy?

i think to a large extent we can, and there in lies the advantage of which i speak.

"Switch the terms" suggests they are interchangable. You qualify that with "to a large extent".

They are related, but your statement in no way addresses HOW they are related. Therein lies the problem. That's where common sense ends and physics/aerodynamcis has to take over.

You followed my analysis to its conclusion and agree with it, so what are we still arguing about?

[BnZs]

i have stated my agreement with you about the other factors, there is no "by themselves" in my argument, more like "along with" ...

You have repeatedly claimed that size and weight *by themselves*  without reference to lift, power and drag loading will constitute some sort of disadvantage in turning, even if all other factors are equal. This is a proven falsehood. Now you are falsely claiming to have never stated the initial falsehood. But see below.

"a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ..."

"and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ..."

no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.


once again i refer you to newton, and even though the numbers you quote below may give a very close match up in stable situations the maneuver fight is won in the transitions between those more stable situations, and the smaller lighter quicker aircraft wins those fights.  

since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.

no you are projecting again, my point is that everything matters, including size and weight beyond their effects on the loadings.  size and weight matter just as much as anything else, on their own.

i never said wingloading, powerloading, liftloading, were inconsequential.
however size, weight, mass and how they effect acceleration/momentum is a factor as well and should be taken into account.

[thorsim]

because most of the factors others are using are related to a steady state of flight.  the advantage i presented comes into play when changing the state of flight.  it is the difference between how much one can maneuver and how quickly one can maneuver and it can be a significant advantage/disadvantage and it most often goes to the plane that has less mass to move around.  

i do not see how that is difficult to understand.  

My mistake, but then, what the hell are we arguing about now? Others have mentioned it - size matters, but only insofar as it changes aerodynamic variables like lift, drag, etc. Weight matters, but again only insofar as it changes factors like lift loading and power loading.

By themselves they mean nothing. A 1 lb rock can't outmaneuver a Spitfire despite being much lighter. Why? Because the rock has no lift and no power.