FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)

[Karnak]

Your nerd rage amuses me, the original statement of fact was simply a cheeky wee comment but true none the less. Your taking this quite badly I see 

You think I am upset by your inability to be honest?  It is actually rather amusing.

[pervert]

You think I am upset by your inability to be honest?  It is actually rather amusing.

Where am I being dishonest?? fact is a spit 8 starting at co E 800 or so off my 6 wouldn't be able to outturn me in the film I don't think he could even sustain that speed to stay in lag of my turn tbh. Tell me what is dishonest about that? I have backed it up with film as well 

[FLS]

Or, he's looking at the right hand side of the E-M and talking turn rate at a specific speed... a slightly different idea but one with some merit. Whether or not he's savvy to the E-M, I don't know.

He seems to be missing the part where turn rate is speed plus G load and excess power available determines the available G.

[Karnak]

You are being dishonest by calling it a turn comparison when it is, in fact, a speed comparison.  You can do the exact same thing in regards to climb rate, as I pointed out earlier.

Any aircraft that is faster than another could do exactly the same thing.  The aircraft's ability to turn is completely irrelevant to the test's outcome.

[pervert]

[/quote]

You are being dishonest by calling it a turn comparison when it is, in fact, a speed comparison.  You can do the exact same thing in regards to climb rate, as I pointed out earlier.

Any aircraft that is faster than another could do exactly the same thing.  The aircraft's ability to turn is completely irrelevant to the test's outcome.

Question is the plane in the film I supplied turning????

[Karnak]

Question is the plane in the film I supplied turning????

As noted, that is completely irrelevant.

[pervert]

As noted, that is completely irrelevant.

So you are going to deny that the film I supplied is not in fact making a turn at over 370 mph??   it is kind of critical to my first statement that started this  

A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact 

[Karnak]

So you are going to deny that the film I supplied is not in fact making a turn at over 370 mph??  it is kind of critical to my first statement that started this 

No, and I never needed the film, nor have I watched it, as I knew what you were describing.  You are converting a small amount of the aircraft's power into a slight turn, essentially using the excess power at 360mph to turn.  The Spitfire Mk VIII, not able to go that fast, has no excess power to convert to a turn at that speed.  I am assuming the tests are on the deck.

That is not a test of an aircraft's turning capability, it is a test of its speed capability.  Any aircraft that is faster, no matter how poor it may be in terms of max degrees per second turn rate or minimum turn radius, would be able to do that in a test against a slower aircraft.  It has nothing to do with the aircraft's ability to turn.

[pervert]

No, and I never needed the film, nor have I watched it, as I knew what you were describing.  You are converting a small amount of the aircraft's power into a slight turn, essentially using the excess power at 360mph to turn.  The Spitfire Mk VIII, not able to go that fast, has no excess power to convert to a turn at that speed.  I am assuming the tests are on the deck.

That is not a test of an aircraft's turning capability, it is a test of its speed capability.  Any aircraft that is faster, no matter how poor it may be in terms of max degrees per second turn rate or minimum turn radius, would be able to do that in a test against a slower aircraft.  It has nothing to do with the aircraft's ability to turn.

This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.

[Karnak]

It was obvious what you were doing the moment you gave the speed of the sustained turn.

[pervert]

It was obvious what you were doing the moment you gave the speed of the sustained turn.

So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.

[Karnak]

So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.

How would it not be known?  It is self evident.  Same as the climb example I gave earlier with the P-51 and Spitfire.

[Ardy123]

This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.

Pervert, I can't watch the film from work, how did you avoid the spit from getting its nose pointed in front of yours and firing off its guns to kill ya. I mean so you were turning at a faster speed but the spit doesn't need to turn going as fast, he just needs it get his nose pointed in front with enough deflection to pop off the shot.

[FLS]

This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.

So you dove to the deck and used the speed from the dive and you're calling that a sustained turn? In other words you can't sustain a turn at 360mph IAS in a FW190D, as Stony already pointed out. You demonstrated that you have the speed to run away from a Spitfire as Karnak pointed out. You used your imagination and you imagined something.

[PJ_Godzilla]

So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.

Perv, I'm not going to flame you or Karnak. You're both talking past each other, using different currencies, as it were. However, I will submit to you the following fascinating tutorial on the E_M, as posted by The Godfather, Leon "BadBoy" Smith (or, as I say, Smiff). This will show you of what Karnak speaks. As for your assertions, I see no untruth to them - true enough, at certain speeds, the F-dub has a sustained turn capability the Spitty can't match - because it can't fly at those speeds.
It's a pretty dense two pages, not expecially heavy on the maths, but is invaluable... Read and be amazed at what Da Godfatha is putting down.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html