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

[Wolfala]

There has been no "FW 190A-8 Western Aces" that has posted on these boards, that, like your explanation of the physics of flight has been all in your imagination.

ack-ack

Gotta hand it to the guy Ack Ack, he's got balls coming back again and again to get his bellybutton kicked with data.

[nrshida]

[Blooz]

There has been no "FW 190A-8 Western Aces" that has posted on these boards, that, like your explanation of the physics of flight has been all in your imagination.

ack-ack

Hey, wait up! Sure there was! That was me! Under a different name of course.
I know I claim to be 46 and living in Buffalo but really I'm 85 and living in Munich. I flew in the Luftwaffe during WW2 and I've out turned P51's in my FW190A8, Spit 5's, P38's, P47's and Zero's! (I was posted in the Pacific too!) It was an accident. I thought the zero was a P51. I'd never seen one before.

(ok, well, I'm lying. It wasn't me but you get the idea. You'd have to be some kind of super gullible sod to believe anything you read on the frikkin INTERNET and take it as the gospel!)

This thread is definately one for the record books...lol

[Ack-Ack]

Hey, wait up! Sure there was! That was me! Under a different name of course.
I know I claim to be 46 and living in Buffalo but really I'm 85 and living in Munich. I flew in the Luftwaffe during WW2 and I've out turned P51's in my FW190A8, Spit 5's, P38's, P47's and Zero's! (I was posted in the Pacific too!) It was an accident. I thought the zero was a P51. I'd never seen one before.

(ok, well, I'm lying. It wasn't me but you get the idea. You'd have to be some kind of super gullible sod to believe anything you read on the frikkin INTERNET and take it as the gospel!)

This thread is definately one for the record books...lol

To be fair with our physics challenged friend Gaston, I think he may have read one of Angus' interviews with a Luftwaffe ace and thought the Luftwaffe pilot was making the post.  Or he could have read one of the many articles and interviews the Finnish guys post on their web site and for some reason thinks he read it in here. 

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

Came across this in Alfred Price's book on the Spitfire "The Spitfire Story"

1942 AFDU trials of the Spit V and Spit IX against the 190

Spitfire V  "The manoeuverability of the FW 190 is better then that of the Spitfire Vb except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out turn it."

Spitfire IX  ""The FW 190 is more manoeuverable then the Spitfire IX except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty."

What did they learn from this?  Gotta improve that roll rate.  Clip those wings.  And get Corky his Spitfire XII

Tests with the clipped Spit Vb showed that even with the clipped wings it still easily out turned the FW-190 and the roll rate was greatly improved.

[Jabberwock]

   
  I always accepted that the Me-109F, and maybe even the G if downthrottled, made TIGHTER turn radiuses: The argument I have always said was that the Me-109's intrinsinc peculiarity is to bleed more speed in sustained turns (this is in fact intrinsinc to the entire Me-109 series: The Me-109E had a minimum radius of 800 feet, but was still out-turned by the Spitfire I with a minimum radius of over 1000 feet. Even the Hurricane I was better than the Spitfire I in real tests with a radius of 850 feet)...

Minimum sustained turn radius at 12,000 ft

Spitfire Mk I : 695 ft

Source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif

But, you've been shown that before, and prefer to quote the turn radius of the Spitfire Mk V with clipped wings, at 20,000 ft. Makes me wonder.

TsAGI testing credits the Spitfire Mk V with a minimum sustained turn radius of 770 feet at 3,300 feet.

The same TsAGI data sheets gives us the following turn radii:

Spitfire IX (LF): 770 ft;
Fw 190 A-4: 1,115 ft
109G-2: 950 ft
109G-2/R-6 (three cannon): 1,030 ft

More later
 

[Stoney]

"You know, someday this thread's gonna end..."

[Tordon22]

Hello, was wondering if perhaps you guys could 'learn me' some aerodynamics while you wait for Gaston to reload.

Spitfire V  "The manoeuverability of the FW 190 is better then that of the Spitfire Vb except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out turn it."

Spitfire IX  ""The FW 190 is more manoeuverable then the Spitfire IX except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty."

What did they learn from this?  Gotta improve that roll rate.  Clip those wings.  And get Corky his Spitfire XII

Tests with the clipped Spit Vb showed that even with the clipped wings it still easily out turned the FW-190 and the roll rate was greatly improved.

When they refer to maneuverability, are they just talking about roll rate? Or anything else? As I understand it, the elliptical wing is the most efficient plan form available?

The turning force is the horizontal component of lift (as I understand it at least), so better aspect ratio would be the better turners in general? Less induced drag, less control input force required? I know engine power and things I haven't heard about yet could come into it as well.

Are high aspect ratio planes bad at rolling because of the surface area?

Was clipping the wings to increase roll as simple as reducing area by clipping the tips? When clipped does the increased induced drag help the roll also?

Were un-clipped spitfires susceptible to dutch roll?

Sorry for the sudden flood of questions, just trying to understand how it all works.

[Masherbrum]

Its called conversion kits. Say you had a high number of MkV Spits. You hence can send out a conversion kit to the Squadron. To convert it into a Mk IX. Conversion Kits where rare and only used if production was hampered by heavy bombing.
But most conversions where done back at the Supermarine factory. As we Brits Reused older Marks of Spits in Two ways. We would convert MkV's at the factory to MkVIII's and send them to Austrailia to bolster up the Asian Theartre till The Supermarine Factory could reach full Pruduction on a Various model i.e the MkVIII.

Its a weird and wonderful way we did things in the war but it worked

 

[Lusche]

Also why do you think there are very little models of Spit MkI to Spit MkV's left. ???
Its becouse the only difference between them is armament and engine power. So its easy for Supermarine to take a MkII Spit and make it a MkIII. And Thus Easy to Take a MkIII Spit And Make It a MkI Spit.And the MkIV Spit to a MkV Spit. We never scraped previous models they where converted if the airframe was sufficiant in strength and hours. But all Most Conversitions where done by Supermane and not on the front line.

Wasn't there a RAF squadron that was inofficially called "The Transformers", because due to clever combination of several conversion kits they were able to transform their Spit IX into Spit I, Spit XIV, Lancaster, Armstrong Whitworth Whitley  or a Churchill MK IV tank? If I recall correctly, they even converted at least one Spitfire into a 190A-3 by using a captured German Rüstsatz

[Charge]

"Was clipping the wings to increase roll as simple as reducing area by clipping the tips?"

It has more to do with putting the ailerons in a more efficient position in relation to wing tip. However there are other factors as well, such as wing rigidity, aileron rigidity, hinge type (movement geometry, frise etc.) and overall design how the tip of aileron connects to wingtip and is subject to airflow.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

Gaston that's a good example of how you take a simple clear pilot account and warp it into support for your pet theory. Lange said the 109 had a better turn but the same pilot in the 190 could pull more G. The unstated reason for that was the different seating position in the 190. Lange's account supports everyone in this thread that you disagree with.

Both a/c had the pilot's feet in the same position relative to the seat. Both a/c had relining seat backs.

[hitech]

Torden22: I have never seen a definition of maneuverability. I have always thought of it as a general description of the entire plane, from engine responsiveness to stick feel, both high and low speed handling, roll rate, turn rate, ability to snap, sensitivity to stalls, climb rate.

I.E. the size of it's entire flight envelope, not just 1 piece.

If anyone has seen a very formal definition, I would like to see it.


HiTech
 

[Stoney]

Torden22: I have never seen a definition of maneuverability. I have always thought of it as a general description of the entire plane, from engine responsiveness to stick feel, both high and low speed handling, roll rate, turn rate, ability to snap, sensitivity to stalls, climb rate.

I.E. the size of it's entire flight envelope, not just 1 piece.

If anyone has seen a very formal definition, I would like to see it.


HiTech
  

Maneuverability, as defined by the U.S. Navy Fixed Wing Performance Flight Test Manual is:

An airplane inflight has a velocity vector which defines its speed and direction of
flight. The capacity to change this vector is called maneuverability. Quantifying the
maneuverability of an airplane involves documenting the acceleration, deceleration, and
turning characteristics. These characteristics are not independent, as the analysis shows;
however, they can be isolated for study...

(emphasis added)

So, using this definition, its very easy to understand why all these WWII pilots thought the FW-190 was so "maneuverable", even if its sustained turn performance was dog poo...

[Babalonian]

Lets skip the the physics lessons, shouldn't we get Gaston to at least install the game (unless he has the $ to go take real flying lessons, then by all means) and get some experience first before we start teaching him the basics of ACM and the distinctions between roll rates, vertical and horizontal turns?  Without doing so, statements like "the 190 was more maneuverable than the 109, except in a flat turn" gets completely lost on him and he starts spouting out about how the 190 was the overall superior turning aircraft of the two.

His fallacies on the performance strengths and weaknesses of various aircraft make me cringe under my laughter.