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

[Guppy35]

Yep, no clipped Russian Spitfire LFIXe.  Not that the Russians would have been getting new production LFIXes off the line just as the RAF were.  And not that by late 44-45 they'd in the main be clipped wing LF versions.  If only I could find an image.


Just can't find any. 


Not that those sneaky Ruskies would be the only ones to operate two seat clipped Spit IXs either.  Wish I could find a photo of one

[nrshida]

Gaston. I see that instead of choosing to consider what I said, you decided to try and devalue my criticisms of your technique by calling what I believe in 'garbage'.

On the basis of my limitted posts you don't actually know what I believe in though do you? Beyond that I don't agree with your unique theories and think your logic is flawed. Thus I must assume you meant that anything that doesn't agree with your theories is garbage?

Then you suggest I should apply a bit of logic to my own prejudices. Isn't that what I suggested to you? Although I managed to avoid words and concepts such as prejudice, and garbage.

A little bit disrespectful of you in my opinion, but I won't force that on you. No doubt you have your own code of personal conduct which differs from mine.

I'm sorry if you think you have dismissed my comments and the comments of others here with your response.  It rather seems to me you have only succeeded in confirming what I said about your general technique and marginalised your position yet further.

The answer to your latest question about the Spitfire Mark IX having 300 - 400 more horsepower available compared to the Spitfire Mark V and yet not having a huge turn rate advantage is actually explained very clearly in Mace's post (and thank you Mace, I learn a little more each time you post).

If you applied what I suggested previously right there, about hypothesis and models, on that very contradiction, you would see the flaw in your logic and the very obvious gap in your understanding immediately and be able to make some progress.

But it's okay Gaston, you have decided you are absolutely correct and your faith will not be shaken by anything. I wish you luck in trying to single handidly debunk the whole mathematical simulation conspiracy and hope that your 14 years of research has been meaningful to you.

Good luck and try to keep it respectful.

nrshida.

[Gaston]

Where were they identified as 190A?

   Well they certainly were not FW-190Ds, or:

   1-They would have been identified as "Long-nosed FW-190s", as in 99% of other combat reports...

   2-The "orbiting" one would have had a hard time kicking the pants off a Spit Mk XIV in a low-speed on-the-deck orbit, if this report is any guide:

   http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7891055058/p/1

   
    Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

    Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

    Ho-Hum...

    And this inferiority is very noticeable in most if not all the combat reports I have seen... On the other hand vertical maneuvers may have been another issue...

    But of course you guys are CONVINCED the FW-190D-9 out-turns the FW-190A in flat sustained turns... LoL!!!

    It would help if you guys listened to ONE relevant WWII pilot in your entire lives... Johnny Johnson for instance...

    As far as the Spitfire IX clipped wing, if you also spent time building models, you would know how scarce, comparatively to full-wings, available markings for clipped Mk IXs are (But not so scarce at all for Mk Vs)...

    In any case, the full wing Mk IXs outnumbers the clipped mark IXs by somewhere around ten to one, and that still leaves hundreds of clipped Mark IXs to chose from...

    And the TsAGI test STILL would have mentionned it if the Mk IX was clipped: Is that really what you are clinging to?

    How about taking your head out of your little simulation worldview for a minute, and at least ADRESSING two basic questions:

    -First, did the Luftwaffe not evaluate an UNDERPOWERED needle-prop P-47D Razorback and state flat-out: "The P-47D out-turns our Me-109G"?

    If so, how come?

    Second, what the heck do you think this Russian evaluation summary http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html of hundreds of combat encounters meant by "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"?

    Or Johnny Johnson when he says, post-war:  "The FW-190A turned better than the Me-109"?

    Doesn't it hurt your head to have all these WWII pilots beat on it all the time, year after year after year?

    It sure did mine when I was building my game (I HATED the feeling these combat pilot quotes gave me, and no wonder), and you WILL feel better when you start accepting what they say...

    It's better than Aspirin or Tylenol: Trust me, I know from bitter experience...

     Gaston

   

   

   

[hitech]

Nice straw man gaston, I do not see one person here speaking about sim vs reality.

I see many people here speaking about detailed test reports on aircraft not backing up your delusions of non detailed antidotel pilot reports. So your argument really boils down to the belief that combat reports speak more directly about plane performance then the reports that came from test pilots who job it was to accurately measure performance.

Many people here not only fly for real but have flow wwii planes. Many people here have many hours flying real planes in mock combat.

Many people here have degrees related to the field of physics and aerodynamics.

But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.

HiTech

[Guppy35]

LOL  Gaston, in the 30 years I've had studying the Spitfire, I've spent more time around Spitfire pilots then you could ever hope to.  Sadly most of them are gone now, but thankfully I got a chance to meet many of them before they passed.  I've listened to them plenty and have a file cabinet full of letters, combat reports, logbook copies, and just about anything else you can find on the Spit.

One of the proudest moments of my life was sitting with a bunch of Spit drivers at RAF Coltishall and listening to them talk.  I'd been living and breathing their history for a number of years prior to that meeting.  They would ask me if what they were remembering was corrrect.  Much to my embarrasment there were times where I could correct their memories from the primary source stuff I had.  I was royally chewed out by one guy who was writing his story because I didn't correct him.  When he found out that I knew he'd made a mistake, he was not happy I hadn't told him.

As for using model building decals as a reference for the scarcity of clipped wing Spits.  That's about the dumbest argument I've heard yet.  

So in regards your latest post.  Fail.

[Tupac]

But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.

HiTech

HiTech, Gaston is never wrong. Just ask him.

I don't know if he went to collage, but if he made it past 3rd grade i'm sure he made one.

Gaston is also very good at maths, but be careful! I heard he is also a level 7 dungeon master with bowstaff skills.

[Ack-Ack]

But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.

HiTech

Not one person has agreed with him on the Ubisoft boards either.

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he?  Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.

[Wolfala]

Not one person has agreed with him on the Ubisoft boards either.

ack-ack

It is thus noted this thread is memorialized for it's epic contribution to the sim community:  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,297112.msg3805925.html#msg3805925

[Ack-Ack]

He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he?  Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.

No, Kurfurst was a Luftwhiner and Gaston is just some guy that thinks he's a game developer and trying to prove that his game is far superior to Aces High.  What I find really funny (other than Gaston's take on reality) is that he's never played Aces High, so how does he know the flight model is incorrect? 


ack-ack

[321BAR]

is this thread honestly still going?

[dirtdart]

And I hope it does.  Aside from the bovine discharge emanating from the rants of poster "X", the conversations have been quite insightful.  I have found myself testing some of the points.  I for one thought the tightest turns were effected at the slowest airspeeds.  Not necessarily the case. Shows me how much more I have to learn.

BTW Hitech, I think our pilots should have S.D. Tuckers knack for G's either that or his Pitts is overmodeled.   

[BulletVI]

As for using model building decals as a reference for the scarcity of clipped wing Spits.  That's about the dumbest argument I've heard yet.  

So in regards your latest post.  Fail.

With regards to Decalls for the model kits the model manufacturor will either take the Skin and squadron markins of a certain Mk of Spitfire or any other type of plane. From the first Squadron to recieve that type of plane.
Now there are clipped wing models of Spits out there for example Tamiya's MkVb version has the option to make it the MkVbc i believe. ( the kit i biult was years ago lack of memory ) And came with the Right decalls aswell. But most kits you can buy an extra kit to make them these special or rare model's. Along with the proper decals ( Squadron Marking's ).

I know as its my hobby to build these plane's and been my nobby since i was 5. Just cos theres a lack of kits for a certain aircraft or no kit  doesnt mean it wasnt around. Heck You can get a kit to convert a MkV Spit into the MkVII Spit and there was only 3 prototypes i believe.

[Karnak]

He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he?  Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.

Nah, Kurfurst just thought all German aircraft were significantly superior to all American aircraft and vastly superior to all British aircraft.  He didn't think that aeronautical engineers were all full of toejam.

[B3YT]

couldn't the "E-wing" be clipped or full span by bolting an extra part on to the wing tip?