Author Topic: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.  (Read 24253 times)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2010, 09:29:36 PM »
couldn't the "E-wing" be clipped or full span by bolting an extra part on to the wing tip?

Changing wing tips on a Spit was not hard and was done in the field.  There were Spit XVIs that had wing tips fitted, but they came off the line clipped.  Sometimes it was as simple as pilot preference as you can find both in the same squadrons.  Stan Turner's Spit XVI had full span wings and he was a Wing Commander at the time
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline B3YT

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2010, 12:43:11 AM »
so really there were no clipped wing spits only "E-wing"   :noid :bolt:
As the cleaners say :"once more unto the bleach"

Offline BulletVI

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
      • http://virtuallyinfamous.webs.com
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2010, 10:25:13 AM »

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 :)
You Don't See Me But You Hear Me Coming Then Darkness

HUH Computer's GIVE ME A SPANNER AND A WRENCH ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.  ( Mr Fix It ) :)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #153 on: October 10, 2010, 11:30:26 AM »
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 :)

Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #154 on: October 10, 2010, 11:40:44 AM »
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 :)
Where do you come up with this stuff?  That is so far off in make-believe-land it is hard to imagine even a TV show supplying such bad info.

You cannot convert a Spitfire V into a Spitfire IX in the field and while you probably could in a factory setting it would be hard and pointless.  You cannot convert a Spitfire V or IX into a Spitfire VIII at all.  There were many changes on the Spitfire VIII compared to the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX.  The Spitfire IX was an emergency lash up design to mount a two stage Merlin on what was mostly a Spitfire V airframe.  The Spitfire VIII was the planned, ultimate Merlin Spitfire with all the modifications that the Spitfire IX/XVI never got most of.

Also, the wing tips (for any Spitfire so far as I know) could be changed in about 15 minutes in the field.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Gaston

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #155 on: October 10, 2010, 03:08:04 PM »

  Quote, Hitech: "I see many people here speaking about detailed test reports on aircraft not backing up your delusions of non detailed antidotel pilot reports."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   -Which test reports and where? Eric Brown's self-contradicting opinions? He NEVER stated the Me-109 turned better on top of that...

   Yes, there is ONE test report that backs-up the completely silly notion that a Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A: The German La-5 test... (The German Me-109G-14AS vs FW-190A-9 face off at 28 000 ft. does not count because of the altitude: It is from several pilots and accurate)

   The pilot involved in that La-5 test DID have combat experience, but I would really like to know how extensive it was, and if it included the FW-190A... Very likely this test was at full power since MW-50 is mentioned as included, which might have kept sustained turn speeds above 250 MPH... It does sit on your side, but it sits all alone, and is no more "detailed" than any of my sources...

   Against that, ask ANY 8th Air Force pilot which one turned better... Haven't you guys puzzled before why they are mostly on my side?

   Against that, British RAE tests are on my side (want sources on that?), two Russian combat evaluations are on my side (want sources on that?), and of course Rechlin's quote, confirmed as such by Gunther Rall: "The FW-190A out-turns and out rolls the Bf-109 at any speed"

   So basically, apart from that ONE La-5 test, everyone else who knows anything is against you... Have you ever interviewed ONE FW-190A pilot?

   Ummmmm---------Hey!!!!!!! How about the one that posted HERE through a relative on this board around 2005?

   How come this LONG thread, "FW-190A veteran experience", with obviously authentic info from a FW-190A-8 Western ace, is gone?

   Hmmmm... Now THAT is an interesting mystery... How many REAL FW-190A-8 aces have directly posted detailed opinions on these boards do you think?

   Too many to even remember him apparently. LoL...

   
   For the second time, please adress the following points:

    -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 the Russian evaluation summary http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html    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"?

   And where the HECK are those "better detailed" tests that show otherwise? Oh yeah, I forgot, the US Navy did those... Cough-cough.

   Gaston

   P.S. And I'd really like to see the mystery of the "disapearing FW-190A veteran thread" solved... G.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11615
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #156 on: October 10, 2010, 05:14:59 PM »
Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth

I think you just redefined "bullet point".   :D

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #157 on: October 10, 2010, 08:44:20 PM »
Can't be Kurfurst cause the 109 was really the bestest and most undermodeled plane in AH.

Could be Crumpp but he doesn't write the same way.  He was the 190 is the bestest and most undermodeled plane in AH guy.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline BulletVI

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
      • http://virtuallyinfamous.webs.com
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #158 on: October 10, 2010, 09:19:30 PM »
Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth

Hey is anything in this thread close to te truth no its not.

But why do you think that for a country so low on raw materials that we where able to make a MkV Spit at the time when we where so close to running out of raw material's to build aircraft??? I ask you this???

Its becouse we reused and up graded our current aircraft that was in service. Untill through the help from America reached a sertain rate we could sustain a new scrap and rebuild policy.

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.

It was the only way we could afford to fight between late 1940 and 1942.
You Don't See Me But You Hear Me Coming Then Darkness

HUH Computer's GIVE ME A SPANNER AND A WRENCH ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.  ( Mr Fix It ) :)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2010, 09:32:33 PM »
BulletVI,

Please, please go read a real history book.  Please.  You subscribe to all sorts of weird ideas and myths that sound like the things that 12 year olds come up with when talking about these things.

There are more differences between a Mk I and Mk V Spitfire than you listed, trust me.  While Britain certainly used the materials in downed aircraft or old aircraft as raw materials to make new aircraft they were not refurbishing old versions into newer versions.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2010, 11:55:16 PM »
Hey is anything in this thread close to te truth no its not.

But why do you think that for a country so low on raw materials that we where able to make a MkV Spit at the time when we where so close to running out of raw material's to build aircraft??? I ask you this???

Its becouse we reused and up graded our current aircraft that was in service. Untill through the help from America reached a sertain rate we could sustain a new scrap and rebuild policy.

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.

It was the only way we could afford to fight between late 1940 and 1942.

Please tell me you are kidding.  Again, you are so far from the truth it's just sad.  For search topics I suggest Castle Bromwich, AST Hamble, Southampton, Spitfire production numbers.

Even better would be Bruce Robertson's book "Spitfire-The story of a Famous Fighter" or the more recent Spitfire bible on the Spitfire by E.B. Morgan.

Going back to the Aussie Spit.  They got new production Spitfire Vc and new production Spitfire VIII.  They were not rebuilt Spits.  Spit Is and IIs ended up in OTU's after they were replaced by the Spitfire Vs. Spit Vs took over in the OTUs as the 8,9 XII etc showed up.  Each of the roughly 23000 Spits and Seafires produced had an individual ID ie; MB882, MH434, DP845 etc. 

Attrition did away with most of the I and II, although if you look at survivors there are numerous Spit Is that survived their OTU days and ended up saved in Museums.  RAF Museum, Chicago Museum of Science and Industry,  Imperial War Museum among others have Battle of Britain survivor Spit Is. 
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Jabberwock

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #161 on: October 11, 2010, 01:22:58 AM »
Hauptmann Heinz Lange:

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way

Offline Gaston

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #162 on: October 11, 2010, 07:27:43 AM »
Hauptmann Heinz Lange:

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way


   -Very interesting quote, worth parsing: "I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well"

   By the way, Isn"t "just about as well" enough to blow wing-loading calculationsd to hell?

   This could be interpreted one of two ways: Either the Me-109 had a tighter unsustained turn radius, which is what I always accepted, and the FW-190A gained parity in SUSTAINED turns over several 360°s, or the opposite: The 109 is tighter sustained, equal unsustained...

   Intuitively one would lean for the latter. But virtually every other statement made by almost all other pilots, including Gunther Rall, point the other way: "They (Rechlin) told us it could out-turn our Me-109F (900 lbs lighter than G), however I could out-turn it"

  So Rechlin DID think the early FW-190A out-turned the Me-109F... (Unqualified "out-turning" in WWII always implies in sustained turns, "tighter turn radius" on the other hand is almost always a reference to unsustained turns: Pretty self-evident common sense, but hard to accept when it doesn't fit your worldview apparently....

  Also worth pointing out is the use here of "tighter horizontal turn", NOT faster or better horizontal turn...

  Think about the implications of wing-loading: Is the Me-109's lower wing loading a bigger help to sustain speed in turns or to make the turn tighter?

  Obviously the answer is that a lighter wing loading helps more to make the tightest turns, but wingloading is of little help to sustain speed in those turns if the drag created by the turning condition is much higher (for unknown reasons due to overall airframe design and behaviour in drag at higher angles of attack)...

  Then the heavier aircraft can sustain higher Gs, because of its higher speed, "and do just about as well", despite not turning as tightly...

  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)...


   As far as tests disproving what I say for sustained turns, besides the lonely La-5 quote there is always the TsAGI test series #256...

   The Me-109G-2 is quoted at 20 seconds, the Spitfire Mk V at 18.8 seconds, the F. Mk IX at 17.5 and the LF at 18.5 seconds (because of the detrimental effects of greater full throttle power I would suppose).

   Sustained speeds are all around 320-340 km/h, so not above the FW-190A"s better performing speeds...

   I saw a TsAGI #256-based graph on a Russian site that for the FW-190A-4 cryptically said 19-23 seconds: I was told later this was wrong and it should have read 22-23 seconds. If it is wrong, can I see a scan of the original document, since apparently EVERYTHING here hangs on TsAGI test #256?

   I would also like to know what TsAGI #256 says of the FW-190A-5...

   Even if it IS a powerful statement that the Me-109G out-sustains turns with the FW-190A (I concede as much), the British RAE strenuously disagree with this in their tests against a Me-109G-6/U2, U2 here being a reference to the tall wooden tail apparently, NOT to underwing gondolas as often wrongly assumed...

   So even if Russian combat pilots say unequivocally "Better maneuverability on the horizontal than the Bf-109", the Russian combat pilots AND the RAE test establishment are wrong here, but the #256 test ran by Russian test pilots is right?

   What was the TsAGI turn time on the FW-190A-5?


   Gaston

   P.S. Nobody here remembers an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace posting here and answering questions through a relative in his own 6-8 page thread in 2004-2005, or how he out-turned a P-51D on the deck and shot it down? Must be happening here EVERY DAY I guess... You guys are unbelievable...

   G.


 

   



 

   

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11615
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #163 on: October 11, 2010, 09:19:27 AM »
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.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
« Reply #164 on: October 11, 2010, 12:13:43 PM »
 Gaston

   P.S. Nobody here remembers an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace posting here and answering questions through a relative in his own 6-8 page thread in 2004-2005, or how he out-turned a P-51D on the deck and shot it down? Must be happening here EVERY DAY I guess... You guys are unbelievable...

   G.

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
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song