Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.

[Mace2004]

Nrshida nails this correctly in summarizing Gaston's "technique."  A great example is this:

Ideally sustained turns should normally never be done at full power anyway with nose traction, so full power tests (ALL WWII formal turn tests by test pilots are always at full or near-full power) are not the optimal way to properly test and compare sustained turn performance anyway...

His hypothesis is that "sustained turns should normally never be done at full power".  His problem comes up in this statement: "All WWII formal turn tests by test pilots are always at full...power".  OK, there's an obvious disconnect between his "theory" and the practical application of flight test so his answer?  Rather than question his own assumptions he resolves the issue by blithely dismissing the combined experience and knowledge of the professional flight test community and just claims his hypothesis is right and they're wrong.  For this to work you'd have to believe that test pilots would intentionally test an aircraft's turn performance in less that optimal conditions (full power) and then claim their numbers are accurate knowing full well that pilots will live and die based upon these assessments.  If Gaston would simply change his faulty hypothesis to "sustained turns should ALWAYS be done at full power" then everything is again right with the world but he refuses to adjust and instead stays in lala land.

Here's another:

Also the MK V nose is slightly shorter which in theory should also help it... But at full power unexpected things can happen...

Again, there is evidence that his theory doesn't work but instead of addressing it he simply claims "but at full power unexpected things can happen."  Really?  What sort of unexpected things?  What is unique about "full power" as opposed to say 95% power?  Is there something mystical that happens just because you're at full power rather than 95%?  I mean it's not very mystical that flying at 95% power lowers the P_s=0 line and reduces G available, increases turn radius and decreases turn rate so what mystical thing is happening?

Another issue where this becomes apparent is his attempt to reconcile anecdotal information with established flight test results and procedures.  These anecdotes are most notable for two things, it's a pilot's description of the fight, not of flight test and second, these accounts lack more details than they provide.  For instance, in his latest link a P51 pilot describes throttling back to improve his turn.  OK, fine but where does he say what his starting speed was???  What is his nose position when he does this?  What was the bandit's speed and relationship to the P51?  He doesn't provide any of this information.  However, we can make some reasonable assumptions based on what he does say.  It appears he probably entered the fight at a high speed so he'd probably be above corner.  It is completely consistent with the EM diagrams for him to throttle back to get his flaps down and improve his turn performance.  How about the 109 pilot's experience level?  Was he fast or slow?  Did he use flaps or not?  When did the 109 really spot the other approaching P51s?  There's no geometry really provided, couldn't the 109 have eased his pull yet kept in some turn in order to point back to his field and thus explain why the P51 gained angles on him?  All of these questions I've posed (and there are many more) are legitimate and necessary to fully ascertain what actually happened but none of this is important to Gaston. Just the fact that the pilot's report said he throttled back is "proof" of his hypothesis.  Nonsense.

Another:

-First of all, isn't it your contention that power level does not affect "Corner Speed", since Corner Speed is by definition unsustained?

Power level doesn't affect corner speed, just the ability to sustain it.  Also, corner speed is NOT by definition unsustained, it is simply the point at which the lift limit intersects the G-limit.  As for it being either sustained or instantaneous it can be either.  In a level turn such as those depicted by an EM diagram it's an instantaneous turn (for WWII aircraft); however, even a WWII airplane can sustain corner provided a nose-low turn is used.  Obviously this is limited by altitude.  Most modern fighters can sustain corner also.  My point here is that if you can't even get the definitions correct, where else is the discussion faulty?

This piece summarizes things nicely:

(The short nose allows less "pull-out-of-the-turn" leverage, meaning that for a given level of power the short nose's turn-induced OFF-center "tendency to go straight" pull (off center because of the turn) taxes the wingloading less for the effort of lifting the nose: The short nose means off-center is LESS off-center: Less press-down leverage on the wings to lift the nose... This "leverage" does not apply to jet propulsion, which thrust has little, almost none, wingload-increasing thrust leverage since thrusting is from behind the wing's center of lift, which is also the pivot point used to lift the nose. Don't buy the nonsense that this pivot point is 500-700 ft. up in the center of the turn BTW...)

Pure gobbledygook.

[hitech]

This piece summarizes things nicely:

(The short nose allows less "pull-out-of-the-turn" leverage, meaning that for a given level of power the short nose's turn-induced OFF-center "tendency to go straight" pull (off center because of the turn) taxes the wingloading less for the effort of lifting the nose: The short nose means off-center is LESS off-center: Less press-down leverage on the wings to lift the nose... This "leverage" does not apply to jet propulsion, which thrust has little, almost none, wingload-increasing thrust leverage since thrusting is from behind the wing's center of lift, which is also the pivot point used to lift the nose. Don't buy the nonsense that this pivot point is 500-700 ft. up in the center of the turn BTW...)

Pure gobbledygook.

Mace2004, Do you think this would pass a physics 101 test of free motion diagrams? Maybe when the world centers on revolutions instead of rotating around the mass-ive brain that Gaston has,  people will finally be torqued enough to learn how to force people to both rotate and revolve to the Gaston accelerated way of thinking.


HiTech

[BulletVI]

Pure gobbledygook.


Mace2004, Do you think this would pass a physics 101 test of free motion diagrams? Maybe when the world centers on revolutions instead of rotating around the mass-ive brain that Gaston has,  people will finally be torqued enough to learn how to force people to both rotate and revolve to the Gaston accelerated way of thinking.


HiTech

So you saying that in like any good debat you argree with Gaston in some area's but falter his way of thinking and conclusions as some area's you dissagree with him ?????

[Ack-Ack]

   Gaston

   P.S. Ack-Ack, do I have to remind you again Hitech disagreed with your fierce conviction about the "Vertical Turn"? Tsk-Tsk...

    G.
   

Please go back to those posts and read what I wrote about "vertical turn" and you'll see that I wasn't incorrect.  Need I remind you that 100% of what you've posted on these boards has been incorrect?  


ack-ack

[Karnak]

The idea that "nose tracted aircraft" would be pulled out of their turn by the thrust originating forward of their center is absurd.  If anything, they would be pulled into their turn by the thrust due to their angle of attack being inside the path they are actually flying.

[BulletVI]

The idea that "nose tracted aircraft" would be pulled out of their turn by the thrust originating forward of their center is absurd.  If anything, they would be pulled into their turn by the thrust due to their angle of attack being inside the path they are actually flying.

Thats true cos as if i remember my aircadet days ( many moons ago ) when we went flying the pilot would show you what the aircaft does when not trimmed. And it always pitched upwards till through loss of speed and lift the aircraft would start to drop its nose.
And he told me that the reason that that happended was due to the thrust crated from the propeler would increase the lift under the centre section of the plane and somee o the wings. as the thrust created by the prop arced out from behind the prop. I was to young at the time and enjoying the flight. but its a similar effect in high speed turns as efectifly in a turn you are to some degree puting the aircraft out of trim for stable flight. Hense when turning or banking you have to keep the nose above or on the horizon line to maintain level alltitude.

Also the more unstable the fighter the more monouverable it is in comat enviroment. Hense you trim the plane out for level flight to make it stable and for fighting it has to loose some of the trimed stability to beable to roll and bank and turn. Thats why a dogfight would only last for upto 5 minutes as the pilot only had the energy to sustain a fight due to G forces and having to keep counter acting his movements to stop his plane spiralling down to the earth.

I may be wrong on some facts or not wordred corectly so please i invite any thurther input.
 

[Gaston]

No no no Gaston, I did not propose a downthrottled Spitfire Mark IX could out turn a Spitfire Mark V. I myself do not agree with your unique downthrottling theory. If you please reread what I wrote, I said:-

'However, using your previous suggestions, couldn't the Spitfire Mark IX pilot have throttled back and out turned the Spitfire Mark V?'

YOU say that you have 'Actual Soviet tests' which show that the Mark IX would 'slightly' out turn the Mark V at full power. Whether this premiss is true or not, according to YOUR unique theories regarding down throttling to prevent 'nose tracted aircraft' pulling themselves out of their turn at full power, YOUR theory regarding the short nose advantage (in this case the Spitfire Mark V) and YOUR theories regarding the torque from the 'prop disk', now YOUR own data contradicts YOUR own theories.

We are, at this point, two levels deep into Gastonworld.

You see first you construct a model of reality. This is a reasonable approach. Then you apply your hypothesis to that model. When your hypothesis does not fit, you keep your hypothesis, throw away your model and try to find a new model which fits your hypothesis better.

Or you could add something new to your basically illogical hypothesis, like your new award winning 'needle tip prop' theory for example.

You can literally do this forever, and I'm sure you have the stamina to do so as well.

A greater opportunity for understanding would be to feed the model back into your hypothesis and adjust your hypothesis, or even find a new hypothesis.

This is not mathematics Gaston, it's just a sort of very rough logical scientific approach to reason with things and find things out.

Alternatively we could alter the physical structure of the Universe and all its physical properties for you until it's just how you like it. That is an awful lot of work for all the non-Gaston entities in the Universe, but at least your Focke-Wulf will finally out turn a Spitfire. 

    -I did not "construct" this "model of reality": I believed firmly, for about 11 out of 14 years of my game's research, in the very same garbage you still believe in... I just got tired of seeing WWII pilots always describing the exact opposite of what I "knew"...

   It took many thousands of contrarian pilots quotes to finally make me accept the false basis of simulation dogma, Shaw and all the rest... I saw the light when I stopped blaming the pilot's "perception" for not agreeing with "reality"...

   First of all, if you would apply a bit of logic to your own prejudices, you would see that the differences in Soviet tests of the sustained turn rate between the Spitfire MkV and the Mk IX are basically non-existent: 18.8 seconds for the Mk Vb to 18.5 seconds for the Mk IXe, and rather oddly 17.5 sec for the Mk IXc, (TsAGI tests)...

   Then you have the British test linked above (from Mike William's WWII aircraft performance site):

   "   "Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive."

   So DESPITE something like a 300-400 hp difference in power, with LITTLE difference in weight, wingloading, aerodynamics, and a HUGELY greater climb rate which indicates a MUCH greater acceleration, WHERE is the huge advantage in turn RATE your worldview predicts?

   Although my theory of lesser power and shorter nose is not really vindicated here (wow: a nose maybe 5 inches shorter), where is the large extra turn rate advantage the hugely greater acceleration available should produce?!?

   Perhaps I should remind everyone here that a Spitfire Mk IX with twin floats supposedly has the same top speed as a Spitfire Mk V?

   And note I brought here two separate sources agreeing with each other about the huge acceleration difference (manifest in the climb rate difference) and also agreeing that this has a small to non-existent effect on the turn rate...

   So those extra 300-400 horses have little effect on the sustained turn rate times...: Isn't that a much bigger blow against you than against me?

   Futhermore, there is an aspect that seems to confirm my downthrottling theory within the same model Mark: If we assume the Spitfire Mk IXc is rated to a lower power level than the Mk IXe, then that could account for the later model being 1 second slower than the the less powerful earlier model: 17.5 seconds for the Mk IXc and 18.5 seconds for the Mk IXe...

  Surely there isn't much of a weight difference...

  Speculation on this was rife that the slower-turning Mk IXe was in fact a clipped-wing Spitfire... This is likely silly given the complete lack of mention in the TsAGI report to that effect, while every Me-109G weapon configuration and FW-190A marks is carefully detailed...

  Yeah, they took several square feet off the wings, but didn't bother mentioning it for a turn rate test...

  Besides, I interviewed a Spitfire Mk IX pilot personally for my game, and he told me clipped Mk IXs were "very rare"...

  The evidence provided for these "clipped wing" tests is about on a level with the objectivity of my usual detrators: Nil.

  And note there is here two concurring sources of data as to the lack of turn rate difference between a Mk V and Mk IX, in itself pretty devastating as to the usefulness of more accelerative power in sustained turns: Compare the 18.8 seconds Mk Vb to 18.5 seconds Mk IXe turn time difference to the difference in climb time to 20 000 ft.:     Spitfire Mk V AA878 (+16 lbs): 6.15 minutes

                                                            Spitfire Mk IX BS543 (+18 lbs): 4.75 minutes

    So do you still want to argue that more power translate directly into a faster sustained turn rate?

    While we are at it, does anyone here still wants to quibble with the German evaluation of an early, less than full rated power capable, needle-prop P-47D that states unequivocally: "The P-47 out-turns our Bf-109G"?

    Gaston


  

[BulletVI]

OK OK OK OK OK

to truely finish this debate we would all have to meet up at an airfield and have every WW2 fighter plane there loaded to the max with sensors to determine the planes capabilities. but thaat will never happen so we have to go from papper records. some of which may be false for if they ended up in enemy hands the enemy would then try to make a fighter to counter act it. So there for records on paper are not 100% reliable.

And in the end its the man who's hand is on the stick and throttle that determins the outcome as for example.  The Tempest could catch a 262 in a dive but not in level flight. Later models of the FW 190 could take down a meteor. its the pilot not the machine.


And this is virtual reality at its best for current technology and i say take it as it is its close to reality as can be

 

[Baumer]

Gaston you're reply to my post shows that you can't accept anyone showing you that you are incorrect. It was clearly documented that the software tools were available and performed exactly as needed.

THE SIMULATION WAS ACCURATE BEFORE THEY TRIED TO REENTER THE ATMOSPHERE.

Instead you dodge the point of my post by blaming the engineers for not speaking up, when your initial point was that the math "predictions" failed spectacularly when that wasn't the case at all.

   Besides, insn't it obvious that simplistic math formulas are laced with assumptions that have no real-life validity? After all, math "predictions" failed spectacularly at predicting even the most simplistic of problems imaginable: Can a few pounds of styrofoam, launched at several hundred miles an hour, punch a hole through the wing leading edge of a space shuttle? 

There is no value in participating in discussions with you (other than for my comedic relief). So in conclusion I will now present the only rebuttal you deserve.




 

[SIK1]

       

[Karnak]

Besides, I interviewed a Spitfire Mk IX pilot personally for my game, and he told me clipped Mk IXs were "very rare"...

This is pure absurdity.  The idea that a single pilot is an authority on the production of all of a type because he flew an example of that type.  There were thousands of of clip winged Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.

[Tupac]

This is pure absurdity.  The idea that a single pilot is an authority on the production of all of a type because he flew an example of that type.  There were thousands of of clip winged Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.

Gaston can't see the fallacy in his own statements, He is just like Voss. Thinks he knows everything because some 80 something year old with alzheimers said so.

Im sure Gaston flies F22's and punches commies in the face, too.

[Tec]

because some 80 something year old with alzheimers said so.

What a twittleing D-bag.

[Karnak]

I am not lacking in respect for Gaston's source, to be clear.  I am lacking in respect for Gaston's ability to understand and apply what his sources tell him.  I am sure the Spitfire pilot he spoke with did not personally see many clipped wing Spitfire Mk IXs and thus in his experience they were rare.  Gaston's mistake is to take that one man's personal experience and extend it across a much larger and wider area when there is no supporting data that says it should be extended and much that says it should not.

[Tupac]

What a twittleing D-bag.

I'm sorry, but its the truth. He thinks that because one account of an elderly pilot supporting his belief makes him right, and has no factual information other than opinion.

I guess he would assume that no pilots would be biased against other planes?

edit: guess I should have read Karnak's post.