WWII pilot, combat and flight test reports and quotes

[MiloMorai]

  Probably because you have no WWII FW-190A pilot relative...

You do?

I do have several books on the Fw190 and can't remember any mention of aileron design changes.

What were the part numbers for these ailerons?

[Ciaphas]

Haha there’s always that one “I have a (insert family member) who did (insert task).


Lighten up y’all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nooby52]

 

[atlau]

  No the horizontal and vertical "Corner Speeds" are not the same: That is what the 320 MPH SETP 1989 test at METO absolutely proves: When pulling out of a dive, the P-51D's 6G "Corner Speed" is 250 mph or thereabouts: That 70 MPH discrepancy (with modern 1989 instruments) absolutely proves that the vertical tolerates a lower speed for 6 G than the horizontal, which in effect proves the propeller's load influences the wingloading.

  Hence the WWII obsession with down-throttling...

  SETP test was Minimum to reach 6 Gs at METO.

  "Corner Speed" is minimum speed to reach an unsustained 6 G, it has nothing to do with sustaining 3G turns "at a minimum speed"...

   320 MPH for 6 Gs is so high the aircraft will barely maintain this 6 G for a few seconds...

  The fact that the horizontal corner speed is so close to max. level speed (and is at a much lower speed when pulling on the vertical) would mean that lowering power should never help these things turn horizontally, EVER, but it does... Hence the current basic knowledge is wrong on the horizontal (because they only ever took data from dive pull-outs -where the P-51D's Corner Speed is indeed around 240-250 mph-, dives during which the prop is unloaded).

  It is the prop being loaded that skewers things (which doesn't happen nose-down), hence the down throttling for faster prolonged sustained speed horizontal turning, all the way down to 160 mph for the Me-109, as Karhila points out. Unloading the prop unloads the wings, allowing tighter sustained turns.

  Gaston

 

Dive recovery where you want to minimize alt lost vs corner velocity where you want to maximize turn rate. 2 different things...

I give up... 

[FLS]

  So flight simulations know better than actual front line pilots?

    Gaston

 

Apparently. The more relevant point is that your conclusions aren't supported by your data.

[asterix]

...he is a failed game maker that was trying to make some flight sim oriented board game and was trying to show how in his "game" that his "flight model/physics" was far superior.  You can even search the old Ubisoft IL2 message boards and you'll find the same posts from him trying to claim the same thing about IL2's flight model compared to his board game. ...

Flight model... board game... air combat?
Air combat... board game... flight model?
Wait what?   

[Lusche]

Flight model... board game... air combat?
Air combat... board game... flight model?
Wait what?   

Flight combat simulation isn't necessarily limited to computers. I did play table top / pen&paper based combat flight sims quite a bit before it got popular on computers.
And you basically had the very same conceptual/modeling problems and arguments about 'realism' there as well.

From my collection:

A plane data card from 'Over the Reich':





Data card from 'Air Force':





Data card from 'Air Superiority'

[Gaston]

You do?

I do have several books on the Fw190 and can't remember any mention of aileron design changes.

What were the part numbers for these ailerons?

  Given the photos I posted, I hope you are not actually suggesting that there were no design changes...

  Gaston

[Gaston]

Dive recovery where you want to minimize alt lost vs corner velocity where you want to maximize turn rate. 2 different things...

I give up... 

  You don't understand the context: HighTech claimed he did pull 6 Gs well below 300 mph in a real P-51D. When I asked him if it was pulling out of dive or horizontally, he never got back to me...

  Since the SETP claimed in 1989 that the minimum is 320 mph for 6 Gs at METO horizontally, I'll go with what the Society of Experimental and Test Pilots says... ("Corner Speed is very close to maximum level speed on all four types (F6F, FG-1, P-47D, P-51D, within 10 mph), indicating a rapid loss of speed while turning at high Gs"

  In your game the P-51 pulls 6 Gs all the way down to 240-250 mph, based on USAF data charts provided for the P-51. How come, when tested in 1989, the P-51 will not match this data?

  Widewing came in and said the testers went easy on old airplanes... Why is 6 Gs any easier on an airframe at 320 MPH than 250 mph I wonder?

  Also, it is possible, within my theory, to achieve 6 Gs at 250 mph on the P-51 with reduced power output (well below METO): USAF data may assume (like you all do) that prop power output has no effect on turning ability, and put this in the data as an "airframe limit". I consider the SETP data of 320 mph for 6 Gs at 10k feet as the final word for METO.

  Widewing was reduced to questioning the SETP 1989 methodology, while giving more credence to WWII methodology...: Once again, I'll go with modern test pilots over video game "experts"...

  Gaston

 

 

 

[Gaston]

Apparently. The more relevant point is that your conclusions aren't supported by your data.

 Apparently WWII frontline pilots don't know, but computer game geeks do? That's a pretty remarkable claim.

  Why don't you address these three quotes based on years of front line combat?:

  "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed."

  "-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken,  preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time."

  "They were complementary, Me-109 was a rapier, the FW-190A was a sabre." Rall

  One you've addressed these conclusions of years of frontline combat, you'll be on your way.

  Gaston

[Gaston]

Flight combat simulation isn't necessarily limited to computers. I did play table top / pen&paper based combat flight sims quite a bit before it got popular on computers.
And you basically had the very same conceptual/modeling problems and arguments about 'realism' there as well.

From my collection:

Data card from 'Air Force':

(Image removed from quote.)

  Inherent problems of board game realism have nothing to do with hierarchy between aircraft types for each area of performance... I modified the "Air Force" game, with the correct hierarchy, and a few better rules, to create my "Advanced Air Force" variant. I don't claim it is a realistic representation of air combat... Just a correctly informative one concerning hierarchy between types:

  https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/97109/advanced-air-force

   Gaston

[Ack-Ack]

  Inherent problems of board game realism have nothing to do with hierarchy between aircraft types for each area of performance... I modified the "Air Force" game, with the correct hierarchy, and a few better rules, to create my "Advanced Air Force" variant. I don't claim it is a realistic representation of air combat... Just a correctly informative one concerning hierarchy between types:

  https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/97109/advanced-air-force

   Gaston

And we're supposed to take a word of a failed board game developer as the gospel truth?

[Vulcan]

And we're supposed to take a word of a failed board game developer as the gospel truth?

Because once he got bit by a scorpion, and poison allowed the truth to come to him.

[FLS]

Apparently WWII frontline pilots don't know, but computer game geeks do? That's a pretty remarkable claim.

That wasn't my claim. My claim is that some computer game designers know more about aerodynamics than some WW2 pilots.

You don't present a rational argument.  You have posted nothing that shows that the AH FW 190 should turn better than it does.

[MiloMorai]

  Given the photos I posted, I hope you are not actually suggesting that there were no design changes...

  Gaston

What are the part numbers?