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

[321BAR]

this thread.... STOP TEH MADHNESS!!!!

[FLS]

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

My bad, you are correct, it was a lower seat compared to the allied aircraft.  I misread Lange as saying more G but the quote was that you could turn about as well in high G turns.  It doesn't change my point that Gaston imagines it means something other than what Lange was saying.

[nrshida]

Now that would be a reasonable request, to allow 190 pilots a slightly higher threshold of g to be pulled and model that through the blackout circle in Aces High. If it's true about the seat and feet position and the difference could be quantified. If only Gaston had the powers of reason and logic at his disposal he might have had a better result to improve his beloved 190 in the game, wait a sec, did you guys say he doesn't even play? 

[Charge]

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

I don't think so. Both had reclined seats with nearly same angle all right, but in FW190 you sat nearly on same level with your feet where as in Spit your feet go lower, although you have an option to put your feet to a higher bars on rudder pedals to get your feet higher but the negative side with this is that if you push some negative G your feet will go inside the dashboard. Besides Spit pilot sits on his chute but FW jocks had a back chute -if you wonder the height of the seat bottom that is... It was also concluded in WW2 era test reports that FW had a good cockpit layout in this sense.

(Un)fortunately in AH all the aircraft have the same G tolerance since there are no accurate figures of these qualities IRL but would need to be approximated from cockpit schematics. And would that be another can of worms...

***

"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..."

Yeah, it really makes one wonder, especially when flying an AH A8 as it cannot even make a decent instantaneous turn to have any use of its marginally superior roll rate. And if it was so crappy mainly because of its small wings why did Mr Tank even bother to make Ta152C with such wings (although marginally bigger). He could have just ripped a pair off of Spit wrecks littering the countryside and easily step into a new era of aircraft design. Not to mention a small clip here and there and getting also a very very 190 like roll rate too. 

-C+

[FLS]

Charge that comment you quoted was comparing the FW190 and Bf109.

[Charge]

Ok, not a biggie. AFAIK the seat/leg heights in FW and Bf are pretty minimal but I'm not sure if 109 pilots used back chutes or those you sit on.

-C+

[Lusche]

Ok, not a biggie. AFAIK the seat/leg heights in FW and Bf are pretty minimal but I'm not sure if 109 pilots used back chutes or those you sit on.

-C+

Seems like the sit-on type:

[Stoney]

Yeah, it really makes one wonder, especially when flying an AH A8 as it cannot even make a decent instantaneous turn to have any use of its marginally superior roll rate. And if it was so crappy mainly because of its small wings why did Mr Tank even bother to make Ta152C with such wings (although marginally bigger). He could have just ripped a pair off of Spit wrecks littering the countryside and easily step into a new era of aircraft design. Not to mention a small clip here and there and getting also a very very 190 like roll rate too.  

-C+

Charge, I didn't say the 190 was crappy--I said its sustained turning ability was crappy.  During the war, sustained turning performance proved to be unnecessary for success as an air-to-air platform.  If the 190 had more effective high-altitude performance, it would have been regarded as much more effective as an air-to-air aircraft in the war.  All the competitive Reno racers use smaller, scaled down wings from their original sizes and planforms in order to maximize their performance, so in that respect, Tank was ahead of his time.  With respect to the Ta-152, it had a very high aspect ratio designed to maximize performance at high altitude, and as a result, was a high altitude monster.  And, the Ta-152 had 25% more wing area--I wouldn't call that marginally bigger.  It resulted in a much more efficient wing design, and had lower wing-loading to boot.

  

[MiloMorai]

Ah Stoney that is the Ta152H, not the Ta152C.

Ta152C
area - 19.5 sq m
wing span - 11 m

Ta152H
area - 23.50 sq m
wing span - 14.44 m

Fw190A-8
area - 18,3 sq m
wing span - 10.506 m

I would say a 10.6% increase is marginally bigger.

[Jabberwock]

Just one more:

Yak-1 turn radius: 905 feet

Still trying to track down a copy of "Samoletostroenie v SSSR, 1917-1945". I know there is more data kicking about somewhere.

[Gaston]

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

  -Let me put it this way: If Hitech claims he doesn't remember a thread titled "FW-190 veteran experience" or "FW-190 combat veteran experience", in or around 2005, that had a FW-190A Western Front Ace making statements through a relative (describing how he downthrottled and shot down a P-51D on his tail in two 360° turns on the deck), then he is a bald-face liar...

  "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8". Remember that Hitech?

  Since he remembers it, he probably remembers deleting it too, while we are at it...

  I find his prudent silence on this issue very interesting...

   Gaston

   

 

[Guppy35]

  -Let me put it this way: If Hitech claims he doesn't remember a thread titled "FW-190 veteran experience" or "FW-190 combat veteran experience", in or around 2005, that had a FW-190A Western Front Ace making statements through a relative (describing how he downthrottled and shot down a P-51D on his tail in two 360° turns on the deck), then he is a bald-face liar...

  "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8". Remember that Hitech?

  Since he remembers it, he probably remembers deleting it too, while we are at it...

  I find his prudent silence on this issue very interesting...

   Gaston

  

I find your lack of comprehension even more interesting.

As for silence.  Sometimes it's best to stop talking to the wall, as the wall isn't listening anyway.

[Mace2004]

 -Let me put it this way: If Hitech claims he doesn't remember a thread titled "FW-190 veteran experience" or "FW-190 combat veteran experience", in or around 2005, that had a FW-190A Western Front Ace making statements through a relative (describing how he downthrottled and shot down a P-51D on his tail in two 360° turns on the deck), then he is a bald-face liar...

  "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8". Remember that Hitech?

  Since he remembers it, he probably remembers deleting it too, while we are at it...

  I find his prudent silence on this issue very interesting...

   Gaston

Have you considered that if HiTech were really hiding something he'd just lock/delete this thread?  Personally, I believe deleting this nonsense would be a public service but leaving it up just serves as a monument to just how far your head is up your posterior orifice.

[Ack-Ack]

  -Let me put it this way: If Hitech claims he doesn't remember a thread titled "FW-190 veteran experience" or "FW-190 combat veteran experience", in or around 2005, that had a FW-190A Western Front Ace making statements through a relative (describing how he downthrottled and shot down a P-51D on his tail in two 360° turns on the deck), then he is a bald-face liar...

  "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8". Remember that Hitech?

  Since he remembers it, he probably remembers deleting it too, while we are at it...

  I find his prudent silence on this issue very interesting...

   Gaston

Don't you think that if there was a thread like you claimed it could be found if you search these boards?  Like I said, you are most probably confusing a post from Angus or one of the Finnish guys that had an article (or in Angus' case an interview he did with a Luftwaffe pilot) with an interview with a Focke Wulf pilot.  For some reason because your mind doesn't function like a normal person's, that you think you read a post from an actual Focke Wulf pilot.  While there have (and still) World War II veterans that have played Aces High over the years, not one of them has been a Luftwaffe pilot.  The only player that has played Aces High (and still does) that served in any of the German armed forces during World War II has been Vilkas and he was forced conscripted in to the German army at a very young age to act as a AA gunner.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, you are confused on this as you are confused on the physics and realities of flight. 

ack-ack

[nrshida]

Ah welcome back Gaston. Been away recharging for a fresh beating of the proverbial horse have you? So tactically, having exhausted the attempt to discredit established mathematical and physical simulation, you now resort to the conspiracy theory approach?

I note with interest that you also structure your statement to say that UNLESS HiTech agrees to your otherwise unfounded claim that he deleted another thread supporting your theory, THEN he is a liar.

Your manners sir, are only matched by your incredible ignorance.

I suppose in your mind, if HTC banned you from the forums you would also consider that a victory, since it would PROVE that you were right all along, and they banned you because they couldn't afford to have you going around speaking the 'truth' and had to get rid of you to help with the cover up?

I actually appreciate your contributions because I (and I'm sure others) have learned so much from the other more knowledgeable posters as they try to explain it to you. I had been finding your contributions quite entertaining until  you've started throwing around the words 'ignorant' and now 'liar'.

I Googled your "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8" quote hoping I could find a similar account outside of the AH BBS, however the only link I found is to this 22 page thread:-

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.0.html

...started by you, infact. This seems to be an earlier attempt (in October of 2009) to get everybody to accept your theory that the 190 will out turn a plethora of other WWII aircraft also started by citing Johnny Johnson's account.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

I had actually not read that account until finding this thread. I would encourage everyone here to read it. My only experience of air combat is to fly this simulator, Aces High, but the account immediately gave me an altogether different impression of the fight to the one you have chosen to take.

You see there is a way that an Fw 190 could out turn a Spitfire Mark V, but your lack of understanding regarding the dynamics of turning aircraft, forces you to conclude that the 190s are undermodelled in all of the simulators you attack (Gaston is also active on other forums). All this rather than to admit that you don't actually understand not only the theory of turning an aircraft but you also don't understand the accepted terminology either.

I'll even give you a clue this time. The account is missing three vital pieces of data. the altitude at the merge, the entry speed into the turning fight and finally whether or not altitude was maintained during the turn fight.

I'll reiterate that point for you Gaston, there IS NO DATA regarding these factors.

You see what you did Gaston, and what you always do, is to fill in those gaps with your own assumptions until you are able to interpret these accounts in a way which supports your beliefs, then present this to the community as 'proof' that the 190s are undermodelled. 'Look, Johnnie Johnson said so', when in fact he didn't.

I assume, that even though the other members of the BBS say you don't currently play Aces High, you have at least tried it once or twice? Have you perhaps been unable to out turn a lot of aircraft on the deck in a Fw190, and have therefore launched into this incredible campaign of yours?

I would love to understand your motivation. Why have you particularly chosen to champion the Fw 190?

You know your approach really isn't working here. It's not because we are all ignorant liars who won't accept or don't understand your claims or opinions. I've read a great deal of friendly and receptive responses to your posts. No, your approach doesn't work because you are the ONLY ONE making outrageous claims while continuously displaying your lack of understanding of the subject matter.