Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[oakranger]

one of our r/c club members flew p-51's. he died last summer.

he used to tell us of things he did. one thing that stuck in my mind, was that he had gotten to fly a couple different me-109's and a couple different fw-190's.

 he loved the 190. he liked everything about it. i think i remember him saying somethign like.......if i had flown one of these before the war, i'd have worried a lot more about running into them in my p-51.

 

 he hated the 109. tight. hard to see out of.....he didn't like it at all.

What was it about the 190 that he notice that should have killed the P-51 or made him worried if he flew it before the war?

[thorsim]

yes, there are larger cockpits out there and ones with fewer bars, even for the 109s ...

i am not sure where that is relevant to this discussion, but i did watch.

any chance you watched that video i linked? it was fairly informative.

[Bronk]

Hmm... I'm wondering why thor just can't answer HT simple questions.

THorism:


So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.

PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",


Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.

HiTech

From what I'm seeing is thor dancing around the questions so he can keep the vagueness of his arguments.

Shame... at least Crump and Kurfy used data , cherrypicked but still data. Yup the quality of luftwhiner has been reduced to hyperbole and semantics.

[betty]

I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.

But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question

PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.

Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.  

The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.

So the simple math.

What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);

Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.

To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.

Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.

Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.

Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.

next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.

F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.

In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.

So Substituing for the above.

Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.

Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.

I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.

So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.

HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.

holy cow hitech! i got sooooooooo lost trying to read this!!! lol...

[pervert]

that is why i made my original post.  i don't think the maneuver fight is your best approach if you are the f4u vs a 109.

BnZ took the real world approach to the contrary, hence this discussion.

You've left a bit in from my quote "I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page" but have not answered if your ok with the fact that the plane Skip is flying is not a German combat 109? I'm no expert in flight modeling but well theres a different engine in that + a different cowling and more than likely all sorts of things changed.

Here is a flight report on a real 109 g10 black 2 the description of how the plane handles pretty much stacks up with the 109 we have in game I doubt any flight sim will ever be absolutely perfect in its flight model. Here is an extract from it...

"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-manoeuvre a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel its is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that. The aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor."

The link to the pdf of the full report...

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

here is the page with the pics of this beautiful plane...

http://www.adlertag.de/bilder/g-10_schw_2/die_me_109_g10_schwarze_2.htm

[thorsim]

Hmm... I'm wondering why thor just can't answer HT simple questions.

From what I'm seeing is thor dancing around the questions so he can keep the vagueness of his arguments.

Shame... at least Crump and Kurfy used data , cherrypicked but still data. Yup the quality of luftwhiner has been reduced to hyperbole and semantics.

from 8 hours before, you just "bla bla bla" and don't read anyone else's posts do you ?

maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion

speaking of waiting it has still been over 4 months now but even so a few more days, find that expert yet?

thought not ...

[hitech]

Per thor.

maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion, direction and velocity, so the ability to accelerate and decelerate also comes into play for my purposes.    

Per this definition.

If weight,wing area and power all remain in the same ratio's the planes will maneuver 100% exactly the same.

Your belief other wise is meaning less.  
All you have to do is substitute Thrust for lift in my above proof and you again come out with the same accelerations. ( Acceleration by definition is rate of change in amplitude or direction of motion)
This is not debatable. If you wish to try debate it, you best bring out the math.

And hence it is the ratio's and not "In and by itself".

Thor if you believe my prof is in error please point out exatly why, I have in a very detailed way pointed out where your statement is flawed using YOUR definition.

Or do you again wish to change your definitions? Because you have been proven wrong with Shaw's definition, and now Your definition.


HiTech




 

[bj229r]

holy cow hitech! i got sooooooooo lost trying to read this!!! lol...

Fly Tiffies! No need to know all that crap--just pile in at 400 Hizookas blazing

<aside, It's cool as heck having the guy who owns and writes this game participating in discussions such as these )

[thorsim]

you see i state that the math is missing something and you come out with the same math. you refuse to address this issue in the real world but claim the math is absolutely true there.

where is your example, this argument is used by some to say that 38s and f4us and juggs and ponies all should out maneuver spits yaks 109s FWs when the vast majority of real world testing says the exact opposite.

so please a real world expert without a vested interest in supporting one stand or the other to support the arguments like the one i have posted above.  i have posted a couple that seem to support my stand, please counter with one or lets look respectfully at the discussion and try to find what is missing.  because sir your math does not support the statements that people try to make it support in the real world ...

like this one for example ...

Corsairs have light effective lift loadings. The things are known to have out-turned Yaks in combat, so what is ridiculous about them out-turning 109s? Deal with it.

----------------

math wise, here is a question ...

where is drag addressed in your equations?  do you disagree that a significantly larger plane would have tend to have significantly more drag, and would not that drag effect maneuverability as i have defined it?

and ...

what about gravity sir would not the lighter plane tend to accelerate against gravity better?
conversely would not the heavier plane tend to accelerate with gravity better?  

Per thor.

Per this definition.

If weight,wing area and power all remain in the same ratio's the planes will maneuver 100% exactly the same.

Your belief other wise is meaning less.  
All you have to do is substitute Thrust for lift in my above proof and you again come out with the same accelerations. ( Acceleration by definition is rate of change in amplitude or direction of motion)
This is not debatable. If you wish to try debate it, you best bring out the math.

And hence it is the ratio's and not "In and by itself".

Thor if you believe my prof is in error please point out exatly why, I have in a very detailed way pointed out where your statement is flawed using YOUR definition.

Or do you again wish to change your definitions? Because you have been proven wrong with Shaw's definition, and now Your definition.


HiTech




 

[Sol75]

----------------

where is drag addressed in your equations?  do you disagree that a significantly larger plane would have tend to have significantly more drag, and would not that drag effect maneuverability as i have defined it?
Yes, BUT if the power loading were the same, then the larger plane would be equally able to overcome the drag.  Also, the corsair in game DOES suffer from increased drag vs. say the spit in a turn, this is demonstrated in the drop off in turn RATE of the hog, not radius.  A spit (with time) will turn FASTER than the hog.


what about gravity sir would not the lighter plane tend to accelerate against gravity better?
Again reference power loading

conversely would not the heavier plane tend to accelerate with gravity better? 
Yes, and they do in game.  Corsair, Jug, etc will outdive a spit all day long.

[thorsim]

sol a question

re the red bull, we have all seen the video where the gentleman is expressing concerns over 40 kg ...

that can't be very much of a wing mod wing loading wise, now i have seen wing mods and they do not even all fly the same aircraft.  why all the worry? why not just adjust the airframe if weight were not a factor in itself ...

what are the teams limited by in the rules? j/c

[Sol75]

As for the rules in red bull air racing, I honestly do not know.  My goals are airshow performing, not racing, so I have not studied the rules or anything.
As for the 40g, again, removing weight while leaving wing loading the same, DOES improve performance.  As for the "Wing Mods" I believe (not 110% sure, but based on looking at the modded wings vs the wing on my airplane) those mods are done to improve the aircraft's overall drag. (lower it), not for "maneuverability" purposes.  I am also sure that as with nascar racing, every redbull team has thier airframe modified to the nth degree within the limits of the rules, and as such, removing weight is the only way to improve performance.  a 40g weight removal does not sound like much, but it can make a difference, especially if both pilots fly the "perfect" race, theoretically the aircraft that is 40g lighter will outperform the heavier one. 

AGAIN I WILL STATE
The above performance difference is predicated on the fact that WING AREA remains the same, thus lowering the WING LOADING by the amount of weight, spread out over the wing area.

Sol

[thorsim]

do you perform sir, if so do you have a schedule posted someplace?

[Sol75]

Not yet, I just acquired the aircraft last summer, I feel I need another good years worth of practice before I am ready to begin performing.  I am planning to attend Sean Tucker's school this coming summer, which generally leads to a few performances with him and his team, we shall see.  The plan is to begin peforming at some of the smaller shows in the summer of 2011, followed by "movin on up" to the larger shows as I gain experience and reputation.

Sol

[hitech]

re the red bull, we have all seen the video where the gentleman is expressing concerns over 40 kg ...

Simple it is a lot easier removing weight then adding power and changing the air frame. This is an engineering design decision , not a question of physics.

Thor you must understand, no one here is saying weight means nothing in design, It DOES.

What we are trying to point out is your "Gut Feeling" Is what is totally flawed.
You continue to want to make the argument looking at only 1 variable. "Weight". And then want to try prove things by only looking at Weight, just like your statement about concern of 40 Kg.

No one here will argue that a given plane that changes in no respect other than to remove weight will maneuver better.
But what you continue to fail to see, is that in the statement I just made there were many assumptions. 1 Wing area did not change, I.E. You change the wing loading. Power did not change I.E. you changed the Power Loading.

It is these loading ratio's that are the important thing,not the weight.
________

you see i state that the math is missing something and you come out with the same math. you refuse to address this issue in the real world but claim the math is absolutely true there.

where is your example, this argument is used by some to say that 38s and f4us and juggs and ponies all should out maneuver spits yaks 109s FWs when the vast majority of real world testing says the exact opposite.

so please a real world expert without a vested interest in supporting one stand or the other to support the arguments like the one i have posted above.  i have posted a couple that seem to support my stand, please counter with one or lets look respectfully at the discussion and try to find what is missing.  because sir your math does not support the statements that people try to make it support in the real world ...

like this one for example ...

Thor because of you lack of understand of the math, you do not see that drag just as all other forces fall out to be the same. Does the plane have more drag, yes, but the ratio of that drag to the power will be exactly the same. So hence using the simple equation F = M * A, again the ration of Force (Drag) to Wieght remains the same and the plane will climb and accelerate exatly the same.

The reason the drag will remain the same ratio is because both lift and drag are given by the same equation form.
Lift = V * V * Ro/2 * CLMax * Area
Drag = V * V * Ro/2 * (Total Drag Coef) * Area

Now note that changing the wing area in the same ratio as weight and power, increases the Lift And Drag in the same ratios.

So now that we have proven the drag will not change the maneuverability, what is next that you wish to learn?

You seem to think the Math and the Real world do not match. They do.

HiTech