FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)

[ACE]

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.

Its the eagle claw!

[Stoney]

Perv, here's a good link that talks about the two types of turn rates.  You'll see that neither agree with the maneuver you performed in your film.  http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Terminology is important--I'll leave it at that.  If you had said that a FW-190 could outrun a Spit while performing low-g maneuvers, we would have all said "heck yes'.

[pervert]

Perv, here's a good link that talks about the two types of turn rates.  You'll see that neither agree with the maneuver you performed in your film.  http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm

Terminology is important--I'll leave it at that.  If you had said that a FW-190 could outrun a Spit while performing low-g maneuvers, we would have all said "heck yes'.

Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.

[PJ_Godzilla]

You can't really say that the Hurri can't do anything at it's top speed of 260 if the 109 is going 275.

We see this differently. The Spitfire can pull 6G at 250 and maintain 6G until it hits 200 where it can sustain a 3G turn at 18 dps.

What I said was quite clear. I said between 250 and the Spitty's max (approx), the 190a-5 has a higher sustained turn rate. You're talking about transient maneuvers, about which I said nothing. What you state above is true enough, so I don't think we "see this differently" either. My statement was properly qualified and absolutely true, per the plot. What you're talking about is what the logical Spitty driver will do and is typical of combat.

[FLS]

What I said was quite clear. I said between 250 and the Spitty's max (approx), the 190a-5 has a higher sustained turn rate. You're talking about transient maneuvers, about which I said nothing. What you state above is true enough, so I don't think we "see this differently" either. My statement was properly qualified and absolutely true, per the plot. What you're talking about is what the logical Spitty driver will do and is typical of combat.

I just wanted to clarify that the Hurri and Spit are only at a disadvantage if they feel compelled to maintain their speed at the expense of turn rate. I didn't think that was clear to everyone that might read this. I wasn't saying you were wrong about the plot but your statement that the Hurri couldn't do anything at 275 was misleading. I'm sure you meant that it couldn't level turn and still maintain 275 but I wasn't sure that was clear to everyone else.

[Stoney]

Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.

So your contention is that the turn rate of the FW190 is greater than the Spit?

[Widewing]

Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.

That hole is getting mighty deep. When you break thru, be sure to try the local eggrolls.

[pervert]

So your contention is that the turn rate of the FW190 is greater than the Spit?

Never said that you are dealing in absolutes and ignoring the fact that the film I posted is in fact a turn, what you have posted I already know and did know before I posted my original statement. The difference is it use very little G go look at the film and tell me the plane is not turning or that it is not making a circle.

As for the outrun comment well I'd have to still disagree since the plane isn't going anywhere but a circle, if it is inside the FW's circle and is a slower plane depending on how its turning it never really leaves and neither does the FW its a stalemate. Done this with rollover and hawker tonight in the TA hawker in a spit 16 and rollover in a spit 8 hawker pretty much pulled lead in his turn consitant and fluctuated between 800 and 1.5k rollover in the spit 8 took the option of constantly cutting the corners to start with then pulled lead it was the same result.

That hole is getting mighty deep. When you break thru, be sure to try the local eggrolls.

I think its pretty funny seeing a bunch of FM guys deny a circle is a circle and that you make that circle by turning, go watch the film yourself if the FW is not turning and making a circle in the process I will go eat an eggroll!  

Think the problem here is it does not fit into the terminology as stoney puts it, that doesn't make it any less true nor does it change any of the other truths they believe I am attempting to violate.

p.s good fights tonight FLS 

[Karnak]

pervert,

It is because you are using incorrect terminology to describe what you are doing.  Terms have specific definitions, but you aren't using those definitions.

[Stoney]

Look Perv.  The field of aerodynamics uses very specific terminology in order to define things that are otherwise very difficult to define.  Its kind of like economics, where every model has assumptions that exclude some variables in order to illuminate a specific characteristic of the problem being examined.  For the sake of this argument, you either work inside that terminology or you don't.  If you don't, then you aren't proving anything from an aerodynamics perspective.  This is merely for your cultural literacy--take it or leave it.

[Widewing]

Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.

What if the Spitfire flies the same circle (radius, actually), but in the opposite direction? As you approach each other, he high yoo-yoos onto your six and shoots off your winkie.. Then what?

Within the test flight community, I believe that the standard for measuring turn radius was a sustained 3g turn. You're not pulling even a tenth of a g.. Thus, you're simply demonstrating that you can fly a very large circle faster. But, that's not turning per se.

I've seen your logic used before. A now deceased friend of mine was a member of the AVG (Erik Shilling). Erik used to argue that his Tomahawk could out-climb a Ki-43. He used the example of establishing a climb rate at 250 mph.  The Ki-43 could not match the climb rate at that same speed. Thus, Erik argued that he was out-climbing the Japanese fighter. The fact is that at their best rate of climb, the Ki-43 gains altitude considerably faster than a Tomahawk could hope to.  Erik, like you, was attempting to change the definition to suit his argument.

[Charge]

"Erik used to argue that his Tomahawk could out-climb a Ki-43. He used the example of establishing a climb rate at 250 mph.  The Ki-43 could not match the climb rate at that same speed."

If climb rate is a good indication of turn ability would it be safe to say that at that speed the Tomahawk could eventually out-turn Ki43 with higher rate of turn? Of course it would be stupid for the Ki to remain at that speed and not turn inside the Th's turn to achieve its best turn performance. But if he did try to turn inside the Th wouldn't the Ki slow down to his best turn speed (as indicated by climb speed) which would be lower than that of Th and at that speed the turn rate would still determine who is out-turning who regardless of circle diameter. Generally it is hard not to at least match that same turn rate once you slow down a lower wing loaded plane with smaller turning circle.

In practice the Th would roll to the opposite direction when he sees that the Ki is cutting the corner and leave the circle with better E that the Ki?

-C+

[Stoney]

If climb rate is a good indication of turn ability...

Climb rate is determined by excess power available only.  Turn rate is also dependent on load factor, so I don't think you should correlate the two...

A comparatively heavy aircraft with a ton of power available can climb like a scalded dog and be capable of tremendous outright speed, and yet suffer from a poor turn rate.  And, like WW said, he wasn't really achieving "best rate of climb" at 275mph...

I think someone already used the F-104 as an example, but its appropriate in this situation as well.

[pervert]

What if the Spitfire flies the same circle (radius, actually), but in the opposite direction? As you approach each other, he high yoo-yoos onto your six and shoots off your winkie.. Then what?

Your expanding on this quite a lot and not taking the statement for what it is. You are trying to change a strict described situation that works by changing only the parts that makes it fail, ie the situation you described above. I could just as easily say why not have the FW turn back towards the spit seeing he is going in the other direction, climb, fly of the map or countless other options.

Within the test flight community, I believe that the standard for measuring turn radius was a sustained 3g turn. You're not pulling even a tenth of a g.. Thus, you're simply demonstrating that you can fly a very large circle faster. But, that's not turning per se.

This I believe is the crux of the reason of why certain people here won't accept that a low G turn is a turn, but lets not go nuts here widewing the turn I did is a turn and does form a circle. It just does not fit into whats accepted as relevent to air combat by whoever laid out the conditions of it.

I guess the ultimate question for validity is "Is performing a very low G turn or turning on roll a valid or useful thing to have in the MA" In my opinion I'd say yes but like anything in air combat only when the situation requires it. I have used it to escape from gangings countless times rather than just fly off in a straight line I can stay in the vicinity of were ever the fight is and still stay 10 mph or less of my top speed. In a plane that doesn't turn well at low speed this is a good thing.

But, that's not turning per se.

That Is pretty much covered by the 'can' part of my original statement..it was intentionally left that way intially as a joke but a true one, although of very limited use.
 

Erik, like you, was attempting to change the definition to suit his argument.

Give that man an eggroll    problem is under those conditions it is also true. The 3 G min limit for testing was something I was unaware of which explains why Stoney coming off with a statement like

Neither of these aircraft can produce enough thrust to maintain a 360 mph IAS sustained turn.

Made no sense to me as I knew I could do it at over 370 and sustain it, according to your flight testing rules this sort of turn would be impossible to make. But I'd encourage you to look past that and realise that it is a circle and the only way to form that is to turn, trying to say a plane is not turning when you can see it do that on film is a bit ridiculous frankly. Trying then to re define it within your flight testing rules as running away is a matter of convenient perspective on your part the 2 planes are going nowhere but around in circles.

[pervert]

Look Perv.  The field of aerodynamics uses very specific terminology in order to define things that are otherwise very difficult to define.  Its kind of like economics, where every model has assumptions that exclude some variables in order to illuminate a specific characteristic of the problem being examined.  For the sake of this argument, you either work inside that terminology or you don't.  If you don't, then you aren't proving anything from an aerodynamics perspective.  This is merely for your cultural literacy--take it or leave it.

I understand what your trying to say here Stoney but if its useful in game for me to make a low G sustained turn why should I limit myself by the rules of flight testing? It is literally G of a turn at its extreme low end. Why would that need to be excluded if in certain situations it can help you out?