KI-84 ? Is it Dissed?

[Karnak]

Exactly what major effect do you expect wing flexing to have?  The difference you are suggesting is not remotely subtle so I can only imagine you're thinking the Spitfire's wings flexed to something like a 30 degree angle from true when it was turning.

That is manifestly false.

[nrshida]

Gaston's logic is far more flexible and dynamic than the formal logic I had to study in University. No wonder he is so far ahead in his field. I'll give it a try though:-


Spitfire wings do indeed bend in turn fights, bend with a reciprocating oscillatory harmonic with a delayed rearward propagation resulting in extra lift from the downward flap just like a humming bird. This was sadly unavailable to the Fw190 because the silly Germans went and made the wings too stiff.

I defy anybody to find proof which contradicts my theory and if you can't I am right 

[Slade]

There are only a few planes that I feel like I am cheating when I fly: LA7, Spit16 and ... Ki-84.  The Ki-84 does nearly everything right.  Competes or surpasses most opponents.

All other planes I have to work at to get kills.  Including including the 109K-4.

Boom and Zoomers are just that (51s, 47s...).  There are some really good pilots that fly BnZs but these planes (and the way they are flown) tend to be one dimensional.  Predictable.

[ink]

There are only a few planes that I feel like I am cheating when I fly: LA7, Spit16 and ... Ki-84.  The Ki-84 does nearly everything right.  Competes or surpasses most opponents.

All other planes I have to work at to get kills.  Including including the 109K-4.

Boom and Zoomers are just that (51s, 47s...).  There are some really good pilots that fly BnZs but these planes (and the way they are flown) tend to be one dimensional.  Predictable.

spot on..... ....excluding noob drivers, whenever I see a KI... I know the guy drivin it wants a fight

one of the very few planes that are like that...and a hurri2c if he don't HO on first pass hahaha

[Karnak]

and a hurri2c if he don't HO on first pass hahaha

Those exist?

[ink]

Those exist?

haha...they did when I flew them

[HighTone]

Guess its time to perk the Ki-84 

[LCADolby]

Gaston's logic is far more flexible and dynamic than the formal logic I had to study in University. No wonder he is so far ahead in his field. I'll give it a try though:-


Spitfire wings do indeed bend in turn fights, bend with a reciprocating oscillatory harmonic with a delayed rearward propagation resulting in extra lift from the downward flap just like a humming bird. This was sadly unavailable to the Fw190 because the silly Germans went and made the wings too stiff.

I defy anybody to find proof which contradicts my theory and if you can't I am right 

Shida this is the single best post I have read all year.

[Gaston]

Exactly what major effect do you expect wing flexing to have?  The difference you are suggesting is not remotely subtle so I can only imagine you're thinking the Spitfire's wings flexed to something like a 30 degree angle from true when it was turning.

That is manifestly false.

  What do you think?

  The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...

  The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?

  The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...

  People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure

  Gaston

  

  

  

[Karnak]

Turn rate and turn radius are not the same thing.  The Vampire is much faster than the Spitfire and it is entirely predictable that its turn rate is faster.  Wing loading is also by no means the be all and end all of turn radius.  Wing efficiency comes into play as well.  4% higher wing loading is not much of a difference in wing loading.  Your Fw190A-5 that is a better turning fighter than the Spitfire Mk Vb has about 60% higher wing loading.  42.51lbs/sq.ft for a Fw190A-5 with two cannons and 75% fuel compared to 26.73lbs/sq.ft for a Spitfire Mk Vb with 75% fuel.  Good luck finding wing efficiency to make up for that difference.

Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?

This is entirely nonsense.  It defies basics physics for the wings to take a 5.5 G load in a 3 G turn  Where do the extra 2.5 Gs of loading come from in a 3 G turn?  By definition a 3 G turn produces 3 Gs of loading.

[nrshida]

 What do you think?

This -> 

[Jabberwock]

 What do you think?

  The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...

  The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?

  The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...

  People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure

  Gaston  

Enough silliness.

The Spitfire XIV vs Vampire tests

Turning Circles: The Vampire I is superior to the Spitfire XIV at all heights. The two aircraft were flown in line astern formation. The Spitfire was positioned on the Vampire's tail. Both aircraft tightened up to the minimum turning circle with maximum power. It became apparent that the Vampire was able to keep inside the Spitfire's turning circles. After four or five turns the Vampire was able to position itself on the Spitfire's tail so that the deflection shot was possible. The wing loading of the Vampire is 33.1lbs per sq. ft. compared with Spitfire XIV's 35.1 lbs per sq. ft.
...The Vampire will outmanoeuvre the Spitfire type of aircraft at all heights, except for initial acceleration at low speeds and in rolling.
... The Spifire XIV used in the comparison trial was a fully operational aircraft fitted with a Griffon 65, giving 2,015 h.p. at 7,500 ft. Vampire I had an operational take-off weight of 8,800 pounds, powered by a de Havilland Goblin 2 turbojet, developing 3,000 pounds static thrust."

Vampire I climbed just as well as the Spitfire XIV, if not a little better, had much more power and lower wing loading...

Gaston, you believe RAF tests when you think they support your conclusions, but ignore them when they don't. Why is that?

[ACE]

  What do you think?

  The silliness of what you are saying can be summed by this: Can you see the difference in wing flexing from 3 Gs to 6 Gs? It is probably visible, but not by much...

  The wings are made to take 12-14 Gs without permanent deformation: Assume I say they take 5.5 Gs worth of load in a 3 G turn, and 8.5 Gs of load in a 6 G turn, where do you come up with a 30° flex?

  The real issue woud be the extra drag, but then extra drag compared to what? If it's compared to a jet, then that woud explain why a same wingload Vampire easiy out-turns a Spitfire Mk XIV (gaining about 90° per 360, which is huge) despite the fact that the Spitfire doesn't lose thrust at lower speeds, and has the superior extra power to easily out-climb it by a wide margin...

  People clinging to their theories point out the Vampire has about a 4% lesser wingoad, leading naturally to a 20-25% gain in turn time I'm sure

  Gaston

   

   

 

Coming from someone who doesn't play the game

[Ack-Ack]

Coming from someone who doesn't play the game

He doesn't play any of the games he posts in the forums for but criticizes the games by claiming the flight models are all wrong while claiming his pen and paper table top "flight sim" is highly accurate.

ack-ack

[ACE]

He doesn't play any of the games he posts in the forums for but criticizes the games by claiming the flight models are all wrong while claiming his pen and paper table top "flight sim" is highly accurate.

ack-ack

Hmm I see..