"If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?"
Unfortunately my intelligence is not enough to comprehend the pig anecdote by Hitech so can anybody in peanut gallery explain how these two planes could have a different turn rate if it was presumed that their speed does not drop and they both can generate constant 6G:s? Wasn't that the original presumption?
-C+
That is the point charge, they will by definition turn at exactly the same rate. I't is a very simple question.
Now if you know a basic math logic (basic if then definitions) that the condition (if A then b) statement is always true if the b condition is always true.
Hence my response
I think they are 100% equivalent in logic to the following.
If pigs could fly, and the fw was flown by a pig then maybe they will both turn at the same rate.
Is simply saying since b is true (i.e. they will turn at exatly the same rate) I can make "A" anything I want, No matter if "A" is true or false "B" and the entire statement will always be true.
I.E. If it is 90 deg today the planes will turn at the same rate. It simply does not make any difference what the A part of the statement is. Because they will always turn the same rate.
So now read Gaston's statement about turning the same rate if good pilot extera. That part of the statement before the They will turn the same is as relevant as pig's flying.
Now this also is the same as the statements about the use of the term "vertical turn" Gastons conclusion about it's use in that contexts has nothing to do with it's normal use in aviation. And also does not prove his conclusions about the turn rates of planes. The simple fact that Gaston could not recognize a very simple question who's answere was (they turn the same rate) shows a tad about his other logic and understanding of very simple physical concepts.
Since Gaston has shown such a lack of understanding,and all people here who completly understand the physics of flight disagree with him, his only recourse is to say you can't use math to prove things (even though with out math you can not prove anything, because the the theory of if a then b and if b then c makes the statement if a then b true, is math) and by definition to do a proof of anything you must use math logic.
The key difference is knowledgeable people read articles like this and apply the pilot statements with the knowledge of physics and can understand the why of the situation. And can better see what the pilot is describing.
The spit fire driver saying that he pulled harder to the stage of graying out pretty much shows the why the FW was turning faster. The spitfire driver did not mention wanting to stall at all. So I think it is a reasonable assumption to say the spitfire was traveling very fast most likely above corner speed. Once both planes are faster then their corner speed, turn performance will be determined simply by speed where the slower plane who's is still at or above his cornering speed wins the turn. The spitfires better move would be to simply raise the nose and there by slow to corner speed. Would normally eat the fw for lunch in the turn.
So which makes more since, interpreting the description via a method that does not defy basic physics, or coming up with complete crank theory about how the fw is really a better turner then the spit?
HiTech
