190A5 vs 190A8

[Gaston]

 
  Quote, Ack-Ack: "You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn."

  - I'm tired of debating this: Read the context of the text, and go educate yourself on WWII pilot lingo:
  http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

 If you are unwilling to educate yourself on WWII pilot language, or open your eyes to what is written, then there is not much point in debating with willfull ignorance, is there? Hightech, if you are a pilot and have spoken to WWII pilots, why not set this guy straight?


  -Quote PJ_Godzilla: "If we resolve the slight reaction torque plus slight force imbalance caused by the turning effect to a single force vector at the point of thrust, yes, we can say there would be a slight nose-down moment caused by turning the nose puller and LIKEWISE slight nose down moment caused by the pusher, assuming the point of thrust is above the "pivot". The only way you get "nose up" out of that pusher is if you change the realtionship of the "pivot" and the point of thrust."

  -If there is a nose-down moment in either case, both propulsion and traction thrust centers starting above the pivot point by the same amount, then the alignment of the center of thrust is getting closer to the pivot point in the propulsion case and is getting FURTHER away in the traction case... I don't see how there is a way around that...

   Perhaps there is no nose-up moment in propulsion, I agree, but it sure is getting closer to that when pushed and further away when tracted... That alone is very significant from the point of view of leverage... I don't see why you you would not mention it...

   Besides, to get back to the Anton vs Gustav issue, anyone who has faced both in battle, and knows anything about the issue, knows perfectly well that the FW-190A acted like a "Saber", which is curved, and that the Me-109G acted like a "Floret", which is straight, which basically means the FW-190A out-sustain turns the Me-109G... Observed Luftwaffe tactics are perfectly in sync with this, as linked previously...:

   
   http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

   This means that whatever the theoretical math says, it is ignoring some basic issue, and is therefore not an authoritative source... Just like downthrottling cannot be used to reach the calculated 2.44 ratio "Corner Speed" if the real "Corner Speed" is found at 320-350+ MPH !

   Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...

   To which I can only say: Thank God!

   Gaston

   

   

[FLS]

Gaston there is nothing in Johnson's account which suggests he's describing a horizontal turn when he uses the term "vertical turn". The fact that he escapes with a vertical dive suggests that the FW190 was nose up in a vertical turn and catching Johnson who picked that moment to break off. If they were in a horizontal turn then the FW190 could have dove when Johnson did. It's not "well known WW2 pilot slang". What fighter pilots know well is that the best time and way to exit a fight is when your opponent is pointed in the opposite direction. The opposite of a vertical dive is a vertical climb. Both are part of a vertical turn. I hope this helps.


Edit: Regarding the Saber vs Floret (Foil) comparison. The Saber is a heavier weapon more suited for slashing attacks. The Floret is lighter, more nimble and designed for thrusting. Your contention that the Saber's curve represents sustained turning ability is frankly ludicrous.

[Ack-Ack]

 
  Quote, Ack-Ack: "You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn."

  - I'm tired of debating this: Read the context of the text, and go educate yourself on WWII pilot lingo:
  http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

   Gaston
  

Nothing in that story even remotely proves "vertical turn" was WW2 pilot slang for a horizontal turn.  Honestly, think about it using some logic.  Why would a pilot use vertical turn to describe a turn on the horizontal plane?  

If you are unwilling to educate yourself on WWII pilot language, or open your eyes to what is written, then there is not much point in debating with willfull ignorance, is there? Hightech, if you are a pilot and have spoken to WWII pilots, why not set this guy straight?

I'm sorry but the only one displaying ignorance is the person that doesn't have a concept of the basic physics of flight and thinks a vertical turn was used to describe a horizontal turn by WW2 pilots.

Can you remind me which Avalon Hill baord game you're revamping?  Just so I know which game to steer clear of game that completely ignores the basic laws of aerodynamics.


ack-ack

[Stoney]

 
 
   Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...

   To which I can only say: Thank God!

   Gaston

   

   

So, ulitmately, this all boils down to the fact you (and those that share your views on other non-simmer sites) think every aerodynamics text in the world is wrong.  That's outstanding...

[Masherbrum]

So who is Gaston?   Does he play AH?   I've never heard of him, but he obviously knows very little.   "Vertical turn"?   

[Knite]

  Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...

Gaston,

You do realize that during WWII, math, and currently math+computer flight models are exactly how aircraft are designed, built, tested, and produced, right? I mean, you're talking about upside-down comprehension in the computer simulation world, but that same "upside-down" comprehension is what's up in the sky right now carrying people across oceans and participating in wars.

In the "modern age", Mathematics, computers, and scientific hard theory are how things are done. Not via faith and "I think this will work".

[Scherf]

Dudes,

The hubris knows no limits. "I put this interpretation on pilot accounts, but the maths apparently don't support my interpretation. Teh maths are teh wrong!"

Just leave him be, there's nothing can be done.

[PJ_Godzilla]

 

  -If there is a nose-down moment in either case, both propulsion and traction thrust centers starting above the pivot point by the same amount, then the alignment of the center of thrust is getting closer to the pivot point in the propulsion case and is getting FURTHER away in the traction case... I don't see how there is a way around that...

No. Diagram it out for a pusher and puller. Ignoring local flow effects, th shift due to blade alpha and inertial effect would be the same in the ac vertical- and thus so would be the offset. Any lateral displacement would cause a slight nose down, tractive, slight nose up push, and we know this term will get even smaller than the a/c vertical term since the ac will likely be near theta = 90. You're working with decimal dust.


   Besides, to get back to the Anton vs Gustav issue   
   http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTactics...

Quotes like this?
   "Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better.
"

   

[hitech]

Gaston physics 101 calculating toque or moment.




But in essence what the above pages show is that torque is the same no mater where it is applied to a body.

If the Engine is 1' above the cg and thrusting directly forward it makes no difference how far   (1 mile or 0 ) in front  or behind the cg i, it will produce the exact same pitching down moment, and that number is (thrust) ft lbs (because I choose 1 ft above) if I chose 2 ft it would be Thrust * 2 FT Lbs.

If you do not believe the 2 pages above, then we no longer really have anything to discuss, because the 2 pages are right out of a collage physics 101 text book.

As far as the vertical turn , it is in no way a normal term for a 90 deg horizontal term, but reading the document Gaston posted I am not so sure that it is referring to a turn in the vertical plane. In that account my guess would be it is being used as a term for a Chandal/ lazy 8 in which case the escape would be on the down side of the Chandal as the fw is on the up side .

Gaston, if you do not believe math works for plane analysis, and that when any report disagrees with the basic flight physics then something else is not being shown in the report, or it is being interpreted wrong and would be able to be found in other reports, as example stick forces limiting g pulling,or ram air increasing HP with speed. But to just trying to guess what the reason is with out some basis in fact is just pure folly.

This means that whatever the theoretical math says, it is ignoring some basic issue, and is therefore not an authoritative source... Just like downthrottling cannot be used to reach the calculated 2.44 ratio "Corner Speed" if the real "Corner Speed" is found at 320-350+ MPH !

And this is where you miss the boat, as I said above it math dosn't meet the real thing there is a reason. But the discrepancy in MPH you are showing , let alone the range (320- 350 ) is a HUGE range, at the speeds you are dealing with you have showing nothing in the magnatude of forces that would show close to a 100 mph corner vel error. Gaston just as 2.44 is 6 Gs 3.0 is 9 Gs, at 320 you would be in the 9 G range , posible the just said corner vel of 320 , but did not specifie the G loading? There is nothing that sais corner vel has to be 6 Gs, that is just a convention used because it is a good average for what pilots can take.


HiTech

[Ex-jazz]

Is it just me or Hitech's picture links don't work?

[Ack-Ack]

Is it just me or Hitech's picture links don't work?

Just you.


ack-ack

[FLS]

As far as the vertical turn , it is in no way a normal term for a 90 deg horizontal term, but reading the document Gaston posted I am not so sure that it is referring to a turn in the vertical plane. In that account my guess would be it is being used as a term for a Chandal/ lazy 8 in which case the escape would be on the down side of the Chandal as the fw is on the up side .

HiTech

I read it as an oblique loop because of the grey out. A chandelle seems like it would get too slow and the FW190 could unload then take a shot, and a high yoyo/lazy8 just wouldn't have the G.

[Ex-jazz]

Just you.


ack-ack

I guess it's then for the  US-net viewers only, instead of the internet. 

[Lusche]

Just you.

And me.

[Yossarian]

I guess it's then for the  US-net viewers only, instead of the internet. 

<--- non-US person currently looking in awe at the pictures