Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gaston on August 30, 2010, 08:15:46 PM
-
I am posting this as a follow-up to this thread 3 months ago which I failed to keep up with:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286128.195.html
A few of the relevant links:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html
Most relevant to my comments here:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
I felt the need to answer some of Badboy's assertions after I stopped following the thread, as I realize he had access to the full 1989 report while I had only ever read the "condensed" version.
First I want to point out something about his argument on the Johnny Johnson FW-190A vs SpitV account:
The "quotes" are from me with his answers:
Quote(Gaston)
I love the omission of Johnson's quote: "He was gaining on me (in the same ever decreasing circle, remember?):
-(Badboy)Nope, when Johnson noticed that the 190 was gaining on him it was while he was doing "the tightest of vertical turns" during the time they were whirling round on opposite sides of the circle, the fight was neutral. You are confusing the chronological sequence in Johnson's description.
Quote(Gaston)
(how could "an ever diminishing circle" be a bunch of vertical loops?)
-(Badboy)They were clearly different phases of the fight one followed after the other.
----OK: One phase of flight followed by another: This is the actual Johnny Johnson text:
"Then we both turned hard LEFT and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns"
So the SECOND sentence here is supposed to be a transition to vertical flight.... ("Vertical Turn" was in fact a widely-used WWII lingo for "Vertical Bank Turn")
The following sentences drives the point home:
"Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling the gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me, and IN ANOTHER COUPLE OF TURNS, he would have me in his sights."
I think this can go without comment as to the likelyhood of a series of vertical loops...
Then we can start with the 1989 "Society of experimental test pilots" test comments, which point out a 6G "Corner Speed" at around 320 MPH at METO (thus blowing away, conclusively in my view, any claims for this to be at 2.44 stall; 240-250 MPH).
This is what Badboy says about this, having access to the full report:
"The 3G accelerated stall tests were conducted in a descending turn, which explains why that data point appears where it does, but the speed quoted for the 6G corner velocity is too high. If you examine the data points on the stall speed curve, only the first 3 points correspond to the stalling AoA and lift coefficient for the 1G power on stall speed. Those first 3 points go up to 3G, after 3G, the line indicates that the test pilot was pulling to a point below maximum AoA and was therefore at a lower lift coefficient than he was achieving at the lower G values.
It appears that only 3G accelerated stalls were conducted during those tests and there is a clue in the report as to why that might be. It says that the P-51D they tested had "High Stick Forces, Inadequate stall warning, and Vicious departure characteristics" If the pilot were to allow the stall to fully develop, there was a real risk of exceeding structural limits and spinning the aircraft. Power-on spins were prohibited, because they were (and still are) considered very high risk. Recovery could take as much as 10,000 feet, but these tests were carried out at 10,000 feet, so it is clear that while the pilot was reaching 6G, it was not at the 6G accelerated stall speed, because the resulting "vicious departure" may have overloaded the airframe and left the pilot without enough room for recovery. Not to mention that during departure the rapid onset of normal and lateral forces on the pilot would cause blackouts much more rapidly than the slow G onset normally commanded by the pilot in the approach to the stall, thereby increasing the risk. So the pilot who conducted this test was actually reaching 6G at a speed above the 6G accelerated stall speed for safety reasons, and this was therefore not the true corner velocity. This can also be confirmed by inspection of FIG 10 from this report, when superimposed on curves of what would have been aerodynamically possible. In each case, the pilot gave himself a safety margin and did not reach the 6G accelerated stall that is normally quoted as the Corner Velocity, and instead recorded a higher speed where the 6G limit was reached. That margin in the case of the P-51D test was 34 KIAS above the speed at which a departure would have occurred.
Given that the 1G stall speed and the Corner Speed occur at the maximum lift coefficient, the Corner Speed based on the 1G power-on stall speed of 83 KIAS as stated in Table II and Figure 9 of that report would actually result in a Corner Velocity of 203 KIAS, and a top speed of 300 KIAS for a WWII P-51D at 10k and full military power. That tells a very different story.
Yes, the report was right to state that the corner velocity was close to top speed, but only under the conditions used in the test. Those conditions were of a fighter being flown below full power and thus achieving a top speed well below what it was capable of, and being pulled to 6G at a speed above the 6G stall speed for safety reasons, and thus not achieving its true corner velocity at the 6G accelerated stall. "
---First of all, I have always heard that power level has no effect on the position of the "Corner Speed", so in that context why the power level used here is significant to the absolute CS speed value is beyond me...
-Second, no allowance is made here that the "Corner Speed" could be "pushed" even higher with more power (a strong suspicion of mine since the modest METO setting already was already enough to push "Corner Speed" a gigantic 80 MPH above the expected 240 MPH value)...
-Third, the 6G "Corner Speed" is speculated by Badboy to be somewhat less than the "Real thing", because of fear of stalling, yet pilots point out they limited themselves to 6Gs instead of the full 7Gs, and they do describe the stalls, which shows that they DID go as far as stalling the aircrafts (describing an occasional full inversion on the P-51D's stalling). Nothing prevented them from flying higher anyway if they needed more room to recover...
The pilots did not mention that the "Corner Speed" they described was anything less than the real thing, so it would be more resonable to stick with what they actually stated, which is exactly what I claimed all along: The "Corner Speed" in most of these crates is way too high to be worth "downthrottling" to, particularly when no upthrottling ever follows...
Finally I would like to point out an example on how the wing's position relative to the prop can have large unpredictable effects on performance, which makes it impossible to predict turn performance with just simplistic math formulations: Anyone can compare the following to the multiplicity of math-based game "speculations", that bear no relationship to reality:
Flight journal "Pacific fighters" collector edition 2010, p.74,:
"(On the N1K1, 1001 of near 1500 "George" built) It was probably faster than the Hellcat (It was vs -3s: N1K1: 650 km/h), but the turning performance and maneuverability were not very good. If you were rough with the stick, you could go into what the pilots called "autorotation". During this movement the aircraft would go out of control, or sometimes, it went into a spin. It turned in a way the pilot could not predict. For example, during an aerial melee over Manila with US fighters, a squadron mate of mine went into autorotation when our unit engaged them. His aircraft then went into a spin and crashed into the ground. In autorotation, you do not know what will happen, whether you will go into a spin, or flip over. It is totally unpredictable.
On the flaps: "They worked very well, however, in spite of them, handling the plane was still a problem. The combat flaps worked well in tight turns, and they would work smoothly. But, there were still handling problems with the aircraft. Ryoichi Yamada"
-These problems were apparently much reduced, or absent, on the low-wing N1K2.
If there is an N1K1 in "Aces high", you can see how an inferior maneuverability to US types is certainly not what the math would predict... As one of the few mid-wing single engine monoplane fighters of WWII, one can see how even a few inches of wing position can change a lot of things, and the math predicts none of this...
Same with the Japanese's extensive, and prolonged, testing that concluded one Ki-100 could take on 3 Ki-84s in a dogfight and still have a good chance to win, to the point each of the Ki-84 pilots could repeat the same by switching aircraft...
So you really have to look beyond maths to get a meaningful picture...
Gaston
-
I see nothing has changed.
-
I see nothing has changed.
One thing has changed. He finally learned what a "vertical turn" is. Baby steps.
P.S. And yes Badboy, "Vertical Turn" is in fact a horizontal turn in WWII lingo: Ask any Western WWII veteran pilot (sigh).
G.
----OK: One phase of flight followed by another: This is the actual Johnny Johnson text:
"Then we both turned hard LEFT and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns"
So the SECOND sentence here is supposed to be a transition to vertical flight.... ("Vertical Turn" was in fact a widely-used WWII lingo for "Vertical Bank Turn")
It is also quite amusing for someone that doesn't play this game and doesn't really even know which planes we have in this game comes here and tells HiTech the flight models for his game are incorrect.
ack-ack
-
It is also quite amusing for someone that doesn't play this game and doesn't really even know which planes we have in this game comes here and tells HiTech the flight models for his game are incorrect.
ack-ack
You don't have to play the game to tell that, you can just look at the aircraft vs aircraft stats and see that. If they were correct the German aircraft would totally dominate in usage and K/D against everything, especially the crappy Spitfires.
-
You don't have to play the game to tell that, you can just look at the aircraft vs aircraft stats and see that. If they were correct the German aircraft would totally dominate in usage and K/D against everything, especially the crappy Spitfires.
Removed for my poor ability of expressing thoughts into text.
-
I hope thats not sarcasm, because the german planes in this game truly are undermodeled.
Oh, Karnak's post was dripping with sarcasm. As for the 2nd part of your sentence...well I gotta just laugh. Seriously? What is undermodeled? How did you come about to the conclusion the German planes in this game are under modeled? Do you have any verifiable data that backs up your claim? Or is your assumption based on that what you watched on the History Channel? Or is it because you don't do very good in them so the planes must be modeled incorrectly?
ack-ack
-
Oh, Karnak's post was dripping with sarcasm. As for the 2nd part of your sentence...well I gotta just laugh. Seriously? What is undermodeled? How did you come about to the conclusion the German planes in this game are under modeled? Do you have any verifiable data that backs up your claim? Or is your assumption based on that what you watched on the History Channel? Or is it because you don't do very good in them so the planes must be modeled incorrectly?
ack-ack
I was hoping he was serious, I was being sarcastic too.
Im still not completely sure what the point of this thread was, just thought id be a smart**s.
-
Im still not completely sure what the point of this thread was
Was there ever a point?
-
There is absolutely no way for anyone to have a meaningful discussion with Gaston on these boards, as he neither possesses, nor desires to gain, any significant knowledge of aerodynamics. He refuses to acknowledge that anecdotes are useful for context only.
-
Could it be that he like myself doesn't fully understand that taking the real life stats for the planes in to the virtual world and online play factors of lag and millisecond time differences and what ever else there is that compared to the real life aircraft they may only ever be able to perform up to 70-80% realistic on a computer as yet there is no true way to fully copy real life physics and such on to a computer program as the technology isn't fully available yet :)
I mean i now know that there is some difference in aircraft performance in the game to what it is in real life.
-
I mean i now know that there is some difference in aircraft performance in the game to what it is in real life.
How.
-
How.
As yet computer technology isn't able to fully imitate all the real life aspects ability's and the physics involved. I believe i was told of this point in another thread by some of the long term players :)
-
The problem with using this report to make your point is that the weight of the P-47D-30 used in the test by the SETP is seriously underweight. All the aircraft are somewhat underweight however the P-47 and Hellcat are grossly underweight to make that comparison (The Hellcat even more so).
Having said that the P-47 displays some excellent qualities including Stability, tracking and high speed maneuvering. Between the 1944 Joint Fight Conferance Report and this report I think you get a very good idea of how the P-47 performed relative to it's peers.
-
Could it be that he like myself doesn't fully understand that taking the real life stats for the planes in to the virtual world and online play factors of lag and millisecond time differences and what ever else there is that compared to the real life aircraft they may only ever be able to perform up to 70-80% realistic on a computer as yet there is no true way to fully copy real life physics and such on to a computer program as the technology isn't fully available yet :)
I mean i now know that there is some difference in aircraft performance in the game to what it is in real life.
No, he's not arguing about technical aspects of the game that would be more commonly associated with that kind of argument. Gaston is trying to argue the physics of the flight model but the problem is 1) he doesn't have a concept of the physics 2) He doesn't play AH (nor ever has) so doesn't know how our planes perform 3) a lack of understanding of the most basic of flight terms (he had no idea what a vertical turn meant).
Why he comes to these boards and try and spew this tripe is beyond me, other than he's got some type of agenda. Maybe it's to show that he's the better game designer (he claims to be making a game) but he's been repeatedly shown by those more qualified how wrong he is.
ack-ack
-
No, he's not arguing about technical aspects of the game that would be more commonly associated with that kind of argument. Gaston is trying to argue the physics of the flight model but the problem is 1) he doesn't have a concept of the physics 2) He doesn't play AH (nor ever has) so doesn't know how our planes perform 3) a lack of understanding of the most basic of flight terms (he had no idea what a vertical turn meant).
Why he comes to these boards and try and spew this tripe is beyond me, other than he's got some type of agenda. Maybe it's to show that he's the better game designer (he claims to be making a game) but he's been repeatedly shown by those more qualified how wrong he is.
ack-ack
Ah cool there is always one worse than the other then :lol ( i.e ME :lol ) :D
-
So I took the time to read through Gaston's post and a couple of things seem to have me scratching my head. :uhoh
The most striking thing is it seems that Gaston thinks having a high corner speed is a good thing,or am I reading this wrong?
He then questions Badboy as to why more engine power would make a difference or again am I wrong on this?
One last thing,I might be wrong again so bare with me but I thought corner speed was defined as the lowest possible speed at which an airframe would pull 6 G's.
Discuss! :lol
:salute
-
No, he's not arguing about technical aspects of the game that would be more commonly associated with that kind of argument. Gaston is trying to argue the physics of the flight model but the problem is 1) he doesn't have a concept of the physics 2) He doesn't play AH (nor ever has) so doesn't know how our planes perform 3) a lack of understanding of the most basic of flight terms (he had no idea what a vertical turn meant).
ack-ack
So he is saying that our planes are undermodeled but has never actually flown them? There might be a few flaws to that logic.
-
So he is saying that our planes are undermodeled but has never actually flown them? There might be a few flaws to that logic.
Yep, in essence he's saying X is broken without ever seeing X.
ack-ack
-
Need to try something before you can complain about it.
LOL
-
It's worse than that. He doesn't think his reading of anecdotes about X corresponds with the physics around X, so physics must be wrong.
-
Gaston : Just try the damn game FFS, we'll hear your complains after
-
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
Ahhh at last I am learning not to. I may have to write it again 100 more times to remember.
HiTech
-
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
I will not debate physics with ....
Ahhh at last I am learning not to. I may have to write it again 100 more times to remember.
HiTech
Come on HiTech Tell us who they are and get it off your chest Buddy :)
-
Come on HiTech Tell us who they are and get it off your chest Buddy :)
Even you should be able to figure out who HiTech is referring to.
ack-ack
-
Even you should be able to figure out who HiTech is referring to.
ack-ack
I can but i want names as to know im not alone :lol
-
Even you should be able to figure out who HiTech is referring to.
ack-ack
Yes i can but i want names so i know im not alone :lol
-
Darn DOUBLE POST NO SORRY now a TRIPLE POST :D
-
Just need to look no further than who posted this thread.
ack-ack
-
I'm offering needle nose pliers in this thread only, $39.95 a pair. Remember, cut the barb off first....................
-
In other news, Tropical Storm "Gaston" forms out in the Atlantic...
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/204114w5nlsm.gif)
Coincidence or an omen of where this thread is headed? :devil
-
In other news, Tropical Storm "Gaston" forms out in the Atlantic...
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/204114w5nlsm.gif)
Coincidence or an omen of where this thread is headed? :devil
:rofl
Looks like its headed to the Caribbean. If that's the case, I'll leave now and get the daiquiris on ice... :cheers:
-
Error in post: See below
-
So I took the time to read through Gaston's post and a couple of things seem to have me scratching my head. :uhoh
The most striking thing is it seems that Gaston thinks having a high corner speed is a good thing,or am I reading this wrong?
He then questions Badboy as to why more engine power would make a difference or again am I wrong on this?
One last thing,I might be wrong again so bare with me but I thought corner speed was defined as the lowest possible speed at which an airframe would pull 6 G's.
Discuss! :lol
:salute
-No, what I am saying is that ANY downthrottling MAKES NO SENSE IF THE CORNER SPEED IS THAT HIGH.... Which inevitably means that the MOST POWER POSSIBLE to stay as close as possible to Corner Speed is NOT useful for the tightest and fastest possible sustained turns (in nose-tracted aircrafts)... More power simply pulls them into too wide a radius (which does not happen to pushers, for obvious leverage reasons)...
-My other point is that the predictive power of maths is very poor, as the N1K1 example demontrates.
I must correct here the speculation on my part that the N1K2's low wing solved the horizontal handling problems: The N1K2 was extensively trained for, and used (successfully) in boom and zoom attacks, which coming from the Japanese indicates to me they STILL didn't think its horizontal handling smelled the roses...
Also my pilot quotes makes no mention of the N1K2 being any better, which in the context of the boom and zoom training I think could be taken as a clue my speculation about the wing position's positive effect was wrong.
My overall point is that maths are not at all predictive for detailed, or even rough, comparative performance in WWII fighters: See this Ki-100 vs Ki-84 evaluation as an example:
"-OK, how about this for substantiated?: "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on nothing but the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)
Textual quote : P. 76:
"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.
During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.
In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.
The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.
In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.
Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"
He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."
If the math cannot predict that the Ki-100 is worth 2-3 Ki-84s in dogfights, and repeat it after switching pilots, as the Japanese tested themselves, what the HELL can we assume it can predict?!?!?!
Gaston
-
:rofl
Looks like its headed to the Caribbean. If that's the case, I'll leave now and get the daiquiris on ice... :cheers:
It's storming right now here in Finland, is it the Gaston storm?
-
More power simply pulls them into too wide a radius (which does not happen to pushers, for obvious leverage reasons)
:headscratch: explain?
-
When did we get a Ki-100?
-
When did we get a Ki-100?
I know! He singed up for the wrong flight sim forum.
-
If the math cannot predict that the Ki-100 is worth 2-3 Ki-84s in dogfights, and repeat it after switching pilots, as the Japanese tested themselves, what the HELL can we assume it can predict?!?!?!
All is naught, nothing can ever be predicted as gaston just proved. But doesn't his very proof become invalid since math can not predict anything?
HiTech
-
All is naught, nothing can ever be predicted as gaston just proved. But doesn't his very proof become invalid since math can not predict anything?
HiTech
I always suspected math was useless. From now on instead of using math I will just use what ever I think should be used. You know, what ever I feel like it should be. :banana:
More people need to just go with their gut instinct as opposed to using smoke and mirrors hocus pocus like math. :neener:
-
Gaston posted the same drivel over at the Ubisoft forums. It's also more clear in his posts over at Ubisoft what his motivations are and that is to show how he's made the better sim, his post is rife with "in my sim..."
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1731089978/p/1
ack-ack
-
Gaston posted the same drivel over at the Ubisoft forums. It's also more clear in his posts over at Ubisoft what his motivations are and that is to show how he's made the better sim, his post is rife with "in my sim..."
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1731089978/p/1
ack-ack
(quote from Gaston in that thread)
"Which is exactly why you will NEVER find me modelling this thing for my boardgame..."
Board game?
-
Hmmm....... this thread seems oddly familiar; but maybe this time the cat will make it.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/funny-animated-gifs-i-think-i-can-i-think-i-can.gif?w=330&h=278)
Of course Gaston can all ways follow the last step and try again in a few months.
(http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/f750280c-4fd5-42a3-9f71-42f0a6f9ed6e.png)
-
If the math cannot predict that the Ki-100 is worth 2-3 Ki-84s in dogfights, and repeat it after switching pilots, as the Japanese tested themselves, what the HELL can we assume it can predict?!?!?!
If math cannot be used to predict flight modeling and aircraft behavior then the commercial aviation and the military wouldn't spend thousands of dollars each year on flight simulators to train pilots. I also think aircraft manufacturers would probably have trouble staying in business if they couldn't use computer models for R&D purposes and prototypes w/out a reasonable degree of fidelity.
-
All is naught, nothing can ever be predicted as gaston just proved. But doesn't his very proof become invalid since math can not predict anything?
HiTech
Its alright HT, Gaston is our "Special Friend" So play nice with him.
-
Gaston,
Welcome back, and thank you for submitting your latest theories.
I have given careful consideration to various interpretations of your anecdotal evidence and the extensive theory you have been able to extrapolate from your lengthy analysis. However, it is with some regret that I must inform you of my disagreement with your claim that aircraft with short noses have less power, and that this defeats calculation and the laws of physics.
My argument is that a shorter nose acts like a reduced throttle but without actually reducing the throttle. They both have the same effect of defeating our calculated expectations that do not take into account the basic issue of leverage physics...
It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this and other anecdotes, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in this field have been loath to come to contradiction with your findings. For example, your hypothesis that throttle setting can influence wing loading:
In effect, my argument is that a Spitfire a FULL power turning at 250 MPH will have a higher REAL-TURN wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power: Lighter wingloading wins, just as everybody says... Note in Johnny Johnson's account the Spitfire pilot says he is at FULL throttle, which explains his defeat in sustained turning...
This was a fascinating example of your work, and I was particularly delighted with your exposition of previously unknown aerodynamic concepts with detailed explanations involving prop disks and barbells.
And yes, at full throttle in the turn, the Spitfire will have a higher real-life wingloading than a downthrottled FW-190A... Try different barbell handles and weights and see why... Gaston
However, I do feel that there were a number of points which might have tipped you off to some potential weakness in your theory:
- The length of an aircraft nose has no influence on throttle setting.
- Modelling calculations really do make accurate predictions.
- Throttle setting and wing loading are unrelated.
- None of this has anything to do with barbells.
Without going into too much detail, let me say that:
- Your explanations appear to be entirely arbitrary.
- They defy the laws of physics.
It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that I must also disagree with your prop disc stress-riser theory as an explanation for the ability of a throttled aircraft to have superior sustained turning ability to one at full power.
As for the extent of my assertion about the effect of the upper disc half thrust increase relative to the bottom half (which has been described and accepted here by at least one poster), one aspect I think is worth emphasizing is the following: This is equivalent to having the prop's center of thrust move UP, and this upward movement creates a lever, however small: My assertion is that this effect is a heavy burden on the wing load because the propeller blade is at 90° to the fuselage, and this creates an unsupported STRESS-RISER that multiplies the effect that would seem modest otherwise.
I think this effect is of sufficient magnitude to allow a FW-190A to out-sustain turns a Spitfire V if the Spitfire is putting out 1400-1500 HP and the FW-190A is downtthrottled to say 900 hp
Sadly, I must inform you that stress risers are changes in a structure that can cause stress concentrations, and are in no way related to an aircraft's turning ability, and that you have the relationship between power and sustained turning the wrong way around. I am also sorry to pass you the sad news that the single poster you thought had accepted your theory no longer posts on these boards.
However, more recently, I was particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theory regarding the influence of engine power on corner speed:
no allowance is made here that the "Corner Speed" could be "pushed" even higher with more power (a strong suspicion of mine since the modest METO setting already was already enough to push "Corner Speed" a gigantic 80 MPH above the expected 240 MPH value)...
I am once again reluctant to contradict your hypothesis, because it is clear that you have made a careful analysis of the anecdotal evidence. However, it is with some regret that I must again point out that you have the relationships the wrong way around and you have arrived at a conclusion contrary to the laws of physics. I would also like you to know that during a recent conversation with colleagues, I fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your theories as the subject of a formal research proposal, but was ultimately voted down because despite your use of several very technical and important sounding words, your theories don't really have any aerodynamic merit.
I for one would like to support your obvious and admirable desire to promote what can only be described as very effective aircraft. Unfortunately, I was unable to conceal the bias in your theories towards the superiority of those aircraft, due to the lack of any real scientific evidence.
However, I would like to emphasis that I have enjoyed your detailed explanation of this fascinating theory. While it lacks scientific rigor, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.
You should know that I have reserved a special shelf in my office for the theories you have submitted to these boards, and my colleagues and I speculate frequently on what new hypothesis you will extract from the wealth of anecdotal evidence in your possession.
Kind Regards
Badboy
-
wow I just read the original thread, that really is nonsense. Id love to see how hes going to turn all that ?physics into a coaded flight model. they will certainly be interesting to fly :eek:
-
Gaston,
Welcome back, and thank you for submitting your latest theories.
Kind Regards
Badboy
ouch.
(remind me not to get into an argument w/ Badboy)
-
All is naught, nothing can ever be predicted as gaston just proved. But doesn't his very proof become invalid since math can not predict anything?
HiTech
True Maths can only provide you with a marginal estimate. i.e you work out by maths the strees and breacking point of a 737's wing and you calculate an average point that it will breack. but in real life testing it may break well before your calculation or well after it. Maths is there in subjects like engineering and physics and sutch to give us a known number. But real life testing can exceed or not meet your numbers.
Thus maths is the guid line we use in design. Best example is when mitchell designed the Spitfire it never in testing was anywhere near his final calculations it was better :)
now again some will take the mickey out of me here but thats my explination of the use of maths in the world :)
-
True Maths can only provide you with a marginal estimate. i.e you work out by maths the strees and breacking point of a 737's wing and you calculate an average point that it will breack. but in real life testing it may break well before your calculation or well after it. Maths is there in subjects like engineering and physics and sutch to give us a known number. But real life testing can exceed or not meet your numbers.
Thus maths is the guid line we use in design. Best example is when mitchell designed the Spitfire it never in testing was anywhere near his final calculations it was better :)
now again some will take the mickey out of me here but thats my explination of the use of maths in the world :)
:headscratch:
WTH is maths.
-
:headscratch:
WTH is maths.
strees
breacking
breack
sutch
guid
explination
It isn't like there is a button that says 'Spell Check' RIGHT NEXT To the button you have to click to post.
-
WTH is maths?
maths is the abbreviation of the plural mathematics.
how else would you properly abbreviate mathematics? :P
-
strees
breacking
breack
sutch
guid
explination
It isn't like there is a button that says 'Spell Check' RIGHT NEXT To the button you have to click to post.
Some of you gents with significant tenure may remember Brady5. Now that guy was a truly talented butcher of the English language. He was however, a first class individual.
"Sweat Jeseus!!"
-
Bullet is defineatly a grade A personality in-game.
You guys dont know him, and have no business chastising him.
-
ouch.
(remind me not to get into an argument w/ Badboy)
:rofl (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/590/cupofownage1175025246.jpg)
-
Bullet is defineatly a grade A personality in-game.
You guys dont know him, and have no business chastising him.
Ah, but we do know him.
The stuff he posts here is "legend" (it's even dumber than Gaston's stuff)
-
A wall full of fresh Caca Del Toro
Gaston
Gaston, go make your own 1/2 arsed flight sim. :banana:
-
Gaston, go make your own 1/2 arsed flight sim. :banana:
He isn't making a sim but he IS making a board game.
Seriously...
This is all about a Pokemon card game using WW2 airplanes.
-
He isn't making a sim but he IS making a board game.
Seriously...
This is all about a Pokemon card game using WW2 airplanes.
:O :rofl :headscratch: :rolleyes:
-
He isn't making a sim but he IS making a board game.
Seriously...
This is all about a Pokemon card game using WW2 airplanes.
:devil
-
This is what "Badboy" considers a description that includes VERTICAL LOOPS:
"Then we both turned hard LEFT, and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling the gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me, and IN ANOTHER COUPLE OF TURNS, he would have me in his sights."
-Just how seriously do you want to take someone who is unwilling to see that a LOOP in the above text is:
#1: Absent.
#2: Would never be named as a TURN?
Since apparently everyone here is too ignorant of WWII lingo to know "Vertical Turns" was a widely used short-hand for "Vertical bank turns" (no official documents or extensive records for informal short-hands, unfortunately), perhaps you should collectively at least display the intellectual honesty to admit a TURN is NOT a LOOP (and that, to top it off, there is no room for a drastic change of tactics in the above text!!!)...
Is that too much to ask for? Let me guess...
Gaston
P.S. I will try to find some descriptive written reference to this informal WWII lingo, but I doubt even that will convince the open minds around here...
G.
-
This is what "Badboy" considers a description that includes VERTICAL LOOPS:
"Then we both turned hard LEFT, and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling the gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me, and IN ANOTHER COUPLE OF TURNS, he would have me in his sights."
-Just how seriously do you want to take someone who is unwilling to see that a LOOP in the above text is:
#1: Absent.
#2: Would never be named as a TURN?
Since apparently everyone here is too ignorant of WWII lingo to know "Vertical Turns" was a widely used short-hand for "Vertical bank turns" (no official documents or extensive records for informal short-hands, unfortunately), perhaps you should collectively at least display the intellectual honesty to admit a TURN is NOT a LOOP (and that, to top it off, there is no room for a drastic change of tactics in the above text!!!)...
Is that too much to ask for? Let me guess...
Gaston
P.S. I will try to find some descriptive written reference to this informal WWII lingo, but I doubt even that will convince the open minds around here...
G.
Ive been waiting for a topic to post this in, and i believe I found one. GET BACK TO YOUR HUGBOX!
-
Since apparently everyone here is too ignorant of WWII lingo to know "Vertical Turns" was a widely used short-hand for "Vertical bank turns" (no official documents or extensive records for informal short-hands, unfortunately), perhaps you should collectively at least display the intellectual honesty to admit a TURN is NOT a LOOP (and that, to top it off, there is no room for a drastic change of tactics in the above text!!!)...
Is that too much to ask for? Let me guess...
Gaston
P.S. I will try to find some descriptive written reference to this informal WWII lingo, but I doubt even that will convince the open minds around here...
G.
Need I remind you that it was me that had to tell you what a vertical turn was? It was you in your previous thread that insisted a "vertical turn" was "WW2 pilot lingo for a horizontal turn. In case you've forgotten, let me remind you yet again.
P.S. And yes Badboy, "Vertical Turn" is in fact a horizontal turn in WWII lingo: Ask any Western WWII veteran pilot (sigh).
G.
You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn.
ack-ack
Quote, Ack-Ack: "You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn."
- I'm tired of debating this: Read the context of the text, and go educate yourself on WWII pilot lingo:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
If you are unwilling to educate yourself on WWII pilot language, or open your eyes to what is written, then there is not much point in debating with willfull ignorance, is there? Hightech, if you are a pilot and have spoken to WWII pilots, why not set this guy straight?
Now do you know why I think you're completely clueless and whatever game you claim to be making will be so rife with inaccuracies that it will be no more valuable or worthy than the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass.
I'm not even going to bring up the point you tried to make in your post on the Ubisoft forums when you mention Robert Johnson. That little nugget showed that you have no idea on ACM or basic flight maneuvering and attributed a commonly used tactic to something else.
ack-ack
-
Maybe is we ignore Gaston, he will go away?
Most trolls do.
-
He ain't most trolls.
-
99.9% of the time gaston is way off base, but in this specific reading, I'm on his side that the term vertical in this context's simply means it was a very steep banked turn.
But that is not to say the term vertical was regularly used as a term for a steep banked term. Using it as meaning a steep banked turn would be the last thing I would think of if I heard the term "Vertical Turn" in isolation.
From gaston:
P.S. I will try to find some descriptive written reference to this informal WWII lingo, but I doubt even that will convince the open minds around here...
I believe we are still waiting on this.
HiTech
-
but in this specific reading, I'm on his side that the term vertical in this context's simply means it was a very steep banked turn.
Yep, in retrospect I have to agree. It is also fairly easy to find text from that period referring to horizontal turns, vertically banked turns and turns in a vertical or horizontal plane... and so on. So it seems certain they used and understood the terms just as we do today.
However, let's not forget that Gaston introduced that particular anecdote in order to illustrate his contention that being at full power somehow increases wingloading and reduces sustained turning ability.
In effect, my argument is that a Spitfire a FULL power turning at 250 MPH will have a higher REAL-TURN wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power: Lighter wingloading wins, just as everybody says... Note in Johnny Johnson's account the Spitfire pilot says he is at FULL throttle, which explains his defeat in sustained turning...
So, of course it doesn't matter one bit if the turns were vertical or horizontal, either way the conclusions are still delightfully comical.
Badboy
-
Gaston,
it is with a hint of shame that I find myself looking forward to each new installment of your work... and I would therefore like to apologise for enjoying your theories merely for their entertainment value.
If you are willing to accept my genuine assistance with any of the aerodynamic concepts involved, I would be delighted to offer my help.
Please feel free to PM me if you would like to take it to email.
Kind regards...
Badboy
-
I would just like to point out that Hightech has just agreed with me that Badboy, Ack-Ack and countless others are dead wrong about the meaning of "vertical turn" in this particular text (to my great relief!)...
This means the discussion can now actually move forward in a useful way...
Leaving aside for the moment the issue of partial power to increase the low-speed turn rate, I think it is worthwhile to emphasize the context in which this text was written, and why it is particularly significant:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
To begin with, it is written with the hindsight of a POST-WAR perspective, from a very combat-experienced 30+ kill ace over years of combat. So the content of his account could be interpreted as being intended to be generally illustrative, not a particularly odd anecdote of a curious day (or he would give indicative warnings that this was not typical or normal)...
Second, it is true the aircrafts in question are the Spitfire Mk V versus the what is probably an early FW-190A, the FW-190A-3 or A-4.
It thus may not be illustrative of late-war aircraft capabilities.
It is worth mentionning here that the Soviets found the FW-190A-5's displaced center of gravity (6 inch longer nose), to reduce the full-power sustained turn rate by one second over the A-4... (This is actually contrary to my short-nose theory, but, contrary to some, I don't consider theories to be absolutes, or to be absolutes in a LINEAR way, especially at full power...: All my posts are mainly about observing the natural reality, and not to hang on with a death grip to theories... As long as the rough general picture I have of the aircraft's relative performance is correct, I couldn't care less if my theories about WHY are ALL wrong...)
Another point worth noting is that Soviet full-power sustained turn rate tests found little difference between the turn rates of the Spitfire Mk V and the much more powerful Spitfire Mk IX (usually less than 1 second apart at around 19-20 seconds). Again, this is against my lower-power shorter-nose allows better turn times theory, but at full power vs lower power things may again not be LINEAR, or apply to all types...
I have several late-war examples of FW-190As out-turning P-47s late in 1944, and this much better than they did in early 1944, but that could be due to worsening P-47D Bubbletop turn performance. Not really significant, right?
Wrong. It is still very significant in light of what follows:
German evaluation of a captured P-47D Razorback (needle prop): "The P-47 out-turns our Me-109G" . From: "On Special Missions: Kg 200"
In addition, in the over 600 P-47 combat accounts that I have read on Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance" site, the P-47 ALWAYS out-turns easily the Me-109G (at worst it is a match in right turns only, and even then the P-47 still can win), something which the P-51D has a LOT of trouble doing without resorting the fancy, very specific, downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/flaps down "trinity" (this from the additional 600-700 P-51 accounts from the same site)...
Early Spitfire encounters with FW-190As are always along the lines: "The Me-109s would dive and extend away, but the FW-190As would stay and fight": IE:
"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."
The result of that encounter? 8 to 1 in favour of the FW-190As...
So the consistency with the Johnny Johnson account is, again, very typical, and in line with a post-war reminescence meant to be informative...
Do I need to mention Soviet evaluations of FW-190As in combat?: "Will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed", "Superior to the Me-109 in horizontal maneuvers", "engages in prolonged turning combat while the Me-109s interacts with it by using "Boom and Zoom" tactics"
Yes, all this, including the Soviet accounts, is fairly early, and usually goes up to no more than the A-4 or A-5s in early 1943. But are the late-war 1944 A-8s really that different?
Ask yourself this: If the Johnny Johnson account benefits from a post war hindsight, why does he not mention that FW-190As got worse as war went on?
He only mentions that the Spitfire Mk IX redressed the balance. In fact there are accounts from German pilots that the FW-190A-8 was the most maneuverable of the entire A and D series, especially with the broad wood prop... At least one actual FW-190A-8 Western ace described, on this very board, but through a relative who did not say his name, how he, downthrottled, during an on-the-deck turning combat, gained nearly 180° per 360° on an edge-of-stalling P-51D (who must have been at full power for this to be even possible)...
I did find a late-war account of a Spitfire Mk XII being unable to get away from a FW-190A in horizontal turns, only being saved by another unknown aircraft hitting the FW-190 in the cockpit...
British RAE tests also found the FW-190A to turn much better than the Me-109G, though they likely under-estimated the 109. (The P-51B with full drop tanks was found to also out-turn the Me-109G, but could not out-turn the FW-190A even without drop tanks...)
Then you have Johnny Johnson starting his POST-WAR article with: "They (FW-190As) seemed faster in a zoom climb than the Me-109, and also far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better."
I really don't know what it would take, in the face of all this, to abandon notions that the math can allow us to make predictive statements about sustained turn performance outcomes (or even unsustained ones for that matter, if our lack of previous knowledge of the 6G Corner Speed of a P-51D being actually tested at around 315-320 MPH IAS is any guide)...
I remember clearly a whole thread, long ago on this very board, about how the Tempest V had the highest sustained climb rate of all the several types tested by the RAE on a specific day, and yet compared to all the other types present had the slowest straight-line horizontal acceleration!
I don't know what it would take to make people realize that mathematics are not predictive of relative performance accross different types, and sometimes not even within the same type (if the downthrottling issue is any guide)...
When you look at all the differences between a Me-109G or a FW-190A, it is obvious to me the differences are way too vast to be within the reach of simple math calculations...
Which is why personal accounts are inherently more valuable.
Gaston
-
Gaston do you really honestly believe that modern mathematics's can't predict an aircraft's performance? I'm not talking about how someone describes a particular event or encounter, but the actual maximum's of a designs performance.
I really suspect that you post this stuff just to keep some silly discussion going, rather than to serve any meaningful purpose.
-
This came from the ubi board in a thread with gaston. It is oh so fitting.
And PS Gaston I'm HiTech not Hightech.
The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always:
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[3]
In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.
Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky belief. Others can (charitably) be characterized as underachievers in all walks of life.
HiTech
-
nice formalisation of the Crank :aok
-
I have a question for gaston, no help from the peanut gallery please.
If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?
HiTech
-
This came from the ubi board in a thread with gaston. It is oh so fitting.
And PS Gaston I'm HiTech not Hightech.
The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always:
1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[3]
In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.
Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky belief. Others can (charitably) be characterized as underachievers in all walks of life.
HiTech
I would just like to point out that Hightech has just agreed with me
He sure did. :aok and on a Saturday to boot. :cheers:
-
I have a question for gaston, no help from the peanut gallery please.
If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?
HiTech
I wont answer but everyone knows spits turn better............. :devil
-
I have a question for gaston, no help from the peanut gallery please.
If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?
HiTech
-With a bit of luck and skill on the FW-190A's part (no abrupt wind gust for instance), they share the same turn rate (though you have to build up the Gs more gently on the FW-190A, which is tactically important). But as they decelerate and tighten the turn while maintaining 6G, The FW-190 will lose more speed and will have to turn tighter to stay at 6G, which it will be unable to do well, without snapping out or tail sinking, because its high speed handling stinks... It all depends on how careful, skilled and lucky the FW-190A pilot is, and why this is depends on on your understanding of the following excerpts:
"When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire."
"In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs"."
"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."
-Since a 320 MPH sustained 6G turn, being an unsustained speed turn, is mostly similar to a dive pull-out laid on its side, I would be curious to know what is your understanding of these quotes...
Gaston
-
they share the same turn rate
you should have just left it at this.
everything else in that paragraph and the quotes after it are either wrong or utterly irrelevant to the question. thats 5 words out of about 270 that actually make sense, less than 2%.
-
I would be curious to know what is your understanding of these quotes...
Gaston
I think they are 100% equivalent in logic to the following.
If pigs could fly, and the fw was flown by a pig then maybe they will both turn at the same rate.
HiTech
-
Hitech porked the FW. :bolt:
-
Hitech porked the FW. :bolt:
Hi,
It depends on how you set up or what kind of joystick you have.
I have a used/preowned Microsoft Sidewinder Force feedback 2 that's set-up correctly, and flying a 190 is very pleasing when going to furballs in dueling arena.
I feel bad for those thata have to fly 190s with cheap logitecs and saiteks sticks with short throws since the 190 is kinda sensitive at low speeds.
-
I read in one of Gastons posts that he was talking of down throttling. If he means that when you start your turn its best to stay at full throttle then disagree. As i believe that to turn and bank a fighter quicker you have to throttle back as you start the turn then throttle up on the exit the same Way you take a Formula 1 car round the track you come to a corner you reduce speed and p on the exit. I believe that is done to corner faster and corner with less G force and to keep the car/ plane as stable as can be and more responsive in the turn.
Example you are on the tail of a 109 in the turn you throttle back into the turn thus lessen the G's so you can maintain CONTROL WITHOUT BLACK OUT. Also it serves as a plus that is if you get bounced you can roll out and dive and have extra power for a faster accelerating which can save you.
Again i probally haven't read it fully or properly. :)
BulletVI
-
Hitech porked the FW. :bolt:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Only if pigs could fly!!
:salute
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Only if pigs could fly!!
:salute
(http://bible.gideonse.com/pics/they-fly.jpg)
So I guess Schlowy4 can stop blaming me now for porking the FW 190 and everything else German. :D
ack-ack
-
Funny, I thought a lot of self-confident hot shots had just been demonstrated by Hitech as being incapable of properly understanding the concept of a "vertical turn" IN THE MEANING INTENDED BY THE TEXT...
Gaston
-
"If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?"
Unfortunately my intelligence is not enough to comprehend the pig anecdote by Hitech so can anybody in peanut gallery explain how these two planes could have a different turn rate if it was presumed that their speed does not drop and they both can generate constant 6G:s? Wasn't that the original presumption?
-C+
-
Funny, I thought a lot of self-confident hot shots had just been demonstrated by Hitech as being incapable of properly understanding the concept of a "vertical turn" IN THE MEANING INTENDED BY THE TEXT...
Gaston
Keep clinging to that.
-
"If a spit and an fw are both traveling 320 mph and pulling and maintain 6's. Which plane will turn faster?"
Unfortunately my intelligence is not enough to comprehend the pig anecdote by Hitech so can anybody in peanut gallery explain how these two planes could have a different turn rate if it was presumed that their speed does not drop and they both can generate constant 6G:s? Wasn't that the original presumption?
-C+
That is the point charge, they will by definition turn at exactly the same rate. I't is a very simple question.
Now if you know a basic math logic (basic if then definitions) that the condition (if A then b) statement is always true if the b condition is always true.
Hence my response
I think they are 100% equivalent in logic to the following.
If pigs could fly, and the fw was flown by a pig then maybe they will both turn at the same rate.
Is simply saying since b is true (i.e. they will turn at exatly the same rate) I can make "A" anything I want, No matter if "A" is true or false "B" and the entire statement will always be true.
I.E. If it is 90 deg today the planes will turn at the same rate. It simply does not make any difference what the A part of the statement is. Because they will always turn the same rate.
So now read Gaston's statement about turning the same rate if good pilot extera. That part of the statement before the They will turn the same is as relevant as pig's flying.
Now this also is the same as the statements about the use of the term "vertical turn" Gastons conclusion about it's use in that contexts has nothing to do with it's normal use in aviation. And also does not prove his conclusions about the turn rates of planes. The simple fact that Gaston could not recognize a very simple question who's answere was (they turn the same rate) shows a tad about his other logic and understanding of very simple physical concepts.
Since Gaston has shown such a lack of understanding,and all people here who completly understand the physics of flight disagree with him, his only recourse is to say you can't use math to prove things (even though with out math you can not prove anything, because the the theory of if a then b and if b then c makes the statement if a then b true, is math) and by definition to do a proof of anything you must use math logic.
The key difference is knowledgeable people read articles like this and apply the pilot statements with the knowledge of physics and can understand the why of the situation. And can better see what the pilot is describing.
The spit fire driver saying that he pulled harder to the stage of graying out pretty much shows the why the FW was turning faster. The spitfire driver did not mention wanting to stall at all. So I think it is a reasonable assumption to say the spitfire was traveling very fast most likely above corner speed. Once both planes are faster then their corner speed, turn performance will be determined simply by speed where the slower plane who's is still at or above his cornering speed wins the turn. The spitfires better move would be to simply raise the nose and there by slow to corner speed. Would normally eat the fw for lunch in the turn.
So which makes more since, interpreting the description via a method that does not defy basic physics, or coming up with complete crank theory about how the fw is really a better turner then the spit?
HiTech
-
Thx, Hitech. :aok
-C+
-
For example a race car slows to corner better and faster
A fighter does the same you slow up you turn tighter whilst powering into the turn to save from stalling.
It simple logic the faster you are the more wider the turn at medium speeds you turn better at slow speeds you turn even better but run the risk of staling.
this i believe covers all aircraft. Except when you have one aircraft hats slower than the other i.e a Zero againts a Spit 8 theZero will always turn better due to its top speed being less than the Spit 8. And its weight plays a helping part aswell.
-
For example a race car slows to corner better and faster
Actually it slows in order to limit G to a point where grip (on the road) is maintained or controlled at max speed for the bend. It wiil take the widest line that allows this (unless defending a line). Given the car (or bike) slows (brakes) to hit this speed an additional dynamic is added whereby the point of transition from deceleration to acceleration defines the optimum apex and apex speed. For bikes this ( optimum apex point) changes for differing types when considering the acceleration characturistic of differing bikes and the differing grip qualities of tyres and suspension set ups.
Defining a "vertical turn". As discussed above this is not a common RAF term. I believe that the present RAF description is a "Wing vertical turn" for the manouvre now assumed.
I haved asked some folk at Cranwell to garner an expert opinion on what JJ might have meant.
-
yes but you slow in an aircraft aswell to tighten the turn and to reduce G effects to around 3 G's i do believe :)
-
For example a race car slows to corner better and faster
A fighter does the same you slow up you turn tighter whilst powering into the turn to save from stalling.
It simple logic the faster you are the more wider the turn at medium speeds you turn better at slow speeds you turn even better but run the risk of staling.
this i believe covers all aircraft. Except when you have one aircraft hats slower than the other i.e a Zero againts a Spit 8 theZero will always turn better due to its top speed being less than the Spit 8. And its weight plays a helping part aswell.
Dear oh dear. Be careful of using the car analogy for aircraft turn performance. The analogy breaks down badly and many an aspiring virtual pilot in AH have mangled themselves upon the treacherous shoals of physics believing that the slower you go the better you turn! :)
If your airspeed is higher than corner velocity your turn performance will get better as you get slower until you reach corner velocity. However, the slower you go below corner velocity the worse your turn performance gets!
Why? Examine the following turn radius equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/eq08-m2.gif)
So turn radius is a function of velocity (V). So hey, the lower V is the smaller the radius right? Cool! Slow your airplane down to out turn the other guy then! Well there's a big problem and that's load-factor (n) is a function of lift which varies with airspeed. The lower your airspeed, the lower the load-factor (acceleration normal to the flight path) for a fixed lift coefficient. A decreasing load-factor means an increasing radius by the equation. Thus there is a maximum turn performance where velocity is at it's lowest while load-factor is at it's highest and that occurs magically at the corner velocity for an airplane. Slowing down slower than corner velocity means that though you're reducing your airspeed, you're also reducing load-factor which results in an overall worse turn performance compared to at corner speed.
Tango
-
i belive the technical term for gastons sciance is "bollocks to the proven facts science" also know simply as bollocks , in some quaters it can be called flights of fancy. seeing as we are taking aboot flight we could say he has a mixure of the two and there fore has bollocks fancy or a even a flight of bollocks.
-
Since Gaston has shown such a lack of understanding,and all people here who completly understand the physics of flight disagree with him, his only recourse is to say you can't use math to prove things (even though with out math you can not prove anything, because the the theory of if a then b and if b then c makes the statement if a then b true, is math) and by definition to do a proof of anything you must use math logic.
The key difference is knowledgeable people read articles like this and apply the pilot statements with the knowledge of physics and can understand the why of the situation. And can better see what the pilot is describing.
The spit fire driver saying that he pulled harder to the stage of graying out pretty much shows the why the FW was turning faster. The spitfire driver did not mention wanting to stall at all. So I think it is a reasonable assumption to say the spitfire was traveling very fast most likely above corner speed. Once both planes are faster then their corner speed, turn performance will be determined simply by speed where the slower plane who's is still at or above his cornering speed wins the turn. The spitfires better move would be to simply raise the nose and there by slow to corner speed. Would normally eat the fw for lunch in the turn.
So which makes more since, interpreting the description via a method that does not defy basic physics, or coming up with complete crank theory about how the fw is really a better turner then the spit?
HiTech
-To begin with the "6G turn at 320" example, I provided the correct answer, but added elements of complexity to your attempts to over-simplify issues in a way that obscures rather than enlighten... I'm not even sure the FW-190A can even reach TRUE 6 Gs at 320 MPH without registering some of those Gs as a steep nose-up deceleration mushing (indistinguishable to a G-meter)... It probably can do it, if barely, and Kurt Tank registering 7 Gs at 400 MPH with MERELY 14 pounds of backward stick pressure demonstrates the aircraft is no longer in a normal mode of flight, or the controls would be heavier than 2 pounds per Gs... No pilot usually mentions overly light high-speed elevators on the FW-190A, but they could become very light, and still remain G-responsive, upon nose-up mushing deceleration...
In your 6G example, no WWII fighter can maintain 6G AND maintain a 320 MPH speed without diving... So how well they maintain speed at 6 G is clearly relevant to maintaining 6 Gs...
It does mean that, if we assume inferiority at speed retention at the same 6 G rate of turn at 320 MPH, the FW-190A will either slow down more from 320 MPH, and thus ironically turn tighter, to a slower speed, or it will be forced to spiral down at a steeper angle to maintain 320 mph... (A true disaster in real-life combat, which is why so much real-life WWII fighting is made out of LEVEL turns...)
Just for fun: Can you tell me WHY spiraling down at a steeper angle than your opponent, to match the turn rate, is a disaster?
I also think that how you get TO 6 Gs, and if you can increase the Gs fast and carelessly or slow and carefully, is very relevant to real-life combat (maybe you are not concerned with that); On the FW-190A, the build-up has likely better be slower than on the Spitfire...
As far as ignoring reality, consider this quote from Hitech:
"The spitfire driver saying that he pulled harder to the stage of graying out pretty much shows the why the FW was turning faster. The spitfire driver did not mention wanting to stall at all. So I think it is a reasonable assumption to say the spitfire was traveling very fast most likely above corner speed. Once both planes are faster then their corner speed, turn performance will be determined simply by speed where the slower plane who's is still at or above his cornering speed wins the turn. The spitfires better move would be to simply raise the nose and there by slow to corner speed. Would normally eat the fw for lunch in the turn."
-FIRST of all, if he really was that fast, an indication of that would have been the term BLACKING OUT... The fact that he states GRAYING out means he was already incapable of reaching his 6 G Corner Speed...
So that is the first thing you ignore...
-SECOND, there was was NO FUTURE HOPE of the turning combat getting better AFTER Corner Speed was reached by turn deceleration, because this simple sentence PROVES Johnny Johnson KNEW he was ALREADY below a speed from which the turn rate changes for the better when you go slower:
"In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights. ---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech-IT COULD ONLY BE A QUESTION OF TIME..."
There is NO mention of the extremely steep dive spiral that would have allowed speeds, in the 4-6 G turn range, to remain above the likely 300 MPH + Corner Speed of EITHER aircraft types(!)...
This is how is described the presumed mythical "spiral" (the only straw you have to cling to for things remaining for significant periods of time above "Corner Speed"):
"Then we both turned hard left and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever-decreasing circle"
What SEEMED TO BE an ever-decreasing CIRCLE... OPPOSITE SIDES: No opposite sides in a spiral...
The pilot himself irrefutably contradicts your notion that continuing to slow down would improve things for him: He knew there was no hope of that, and says so as clearly as it can be said...: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
I think he would be shocked if he saw you thought he could have done better with a Spitfire V: He clearly states only the Spitfire IX redressed the balance, as is well-known... (More power in this case does contradict my notion of downthrottling being a help in turns: Perhaps it is a peculiarity of the Spit, or it was the spiral climb or just plain climbing that made the Mk IX so much more competitive in battle?: Soviet tests show little difference in turn rate with the Mk V at full power, which inclines me to think the Spitfire IX was also better off keeping as high a speed as possible against the FW-190As, just as the Soviets recommended for their own similar-performing domestic fighters...)
AND there is a THIRD thing you ignore: He, from the very start of his account -thus making the intended MEANING of the whole thing clear- makes the general but unequivocal statement, a 32 kill ace with the entire war behind him now: "It (FW-190A) also turned better (than the Me-109)"
He doesn't bother to mention speed, circumstances, or anything else: IT TURNED BETTER, period...
And THAT is the intended context of his whole story...
All Gunther Rall ever did is quibble about what he could do with the (900 lbs lighter than G) Me-109F, and even THEN his statement started with: "THEY (Rechlin test facility) told us the FW-190 turned better than our Me-109F"
So if math formulas cannot predict any of this, what is the logical conclusion?
As far as ignoring the irrefutable "proof" of the ability of math formulas to predict performance outcome, can you point to me WHAT features of the Ki-100 allows math formulas to predict it can routinely win a dogfight alone against 3 Ki-84s?
If you cannot point to a reason why your predictive method WILL predict such an outcome, isn't it the logical conclusion that your predictive method CAN'T predict it?
One of the basic principles of the scientific method is that the theory (here post-war jet-based math formulas) has to be verified by REPEATABLE experiments. Since we don't test WWII fighters anymore (and the ONE test we have in 1989 showed a 320 MPH Corner Speed, completely at odds with math formulas), then one of the basic principles of the scientific method is not respected:
You advance a theory but provide no repeated experiments that confirms it.
In fact, most WWII tests and combat accounts REFUTE the absurd notion that a Me-109G out-turns a FW-190A, as your math formulas so clearly predict... Why don't you look up what the British RAE said when they compared the two?: "P-51B with two full wing drop tanks out-turns the Me-109G but cannot out-turn the FW-190A, even when clean"....
Besides, insn't it obvious that simplistic math formulas are laced with assumptions that have no real-life validity? After all, math "predictions" failed spectacularly at predicting even the most simplistic of problems imaginable: Can a few pounds of styrofoam, launched at several hundred miles an hour, punch a hole through the wing leading edge of a space shuttle?
We all know the counter-intuitive answer to that one, don't we? And they had to test it later to confirm even such a simple thing... The finest number-crunchers of NASA could not even predict there was a risk serious enough to be worth LOOKING at the leading edge (I know the whole story about how they half-heartedly tried, and the bureaucratic snafu that prevented it)... Looking at it on TV at the time I wasn't any brighter, mind you, but then I also thought back then the Me-109G out-turned the FW-190A...
Gaston
-
Dang, no PNG yet? :aok
-
Where's that dang popcorn smiley. :cheers:
-
dtango,
Thank you for your post. While not a math expert (certainly not maths either), your post explained something that had been puzzling me. I was having trouble out turning a 109 K-4 when I was in the 109 F-4. I knew I should be able to out turn him, but he was easily able to cut through my corner. I realize now that I had taken the speeds down way to slow, as I was just above stall speed. I suspect, although I could be wrong (and am willing to be corrected), that flying that low and slow enabled his engine power to pull him through the turn better than I could. Basically I had negated my one big advantage and had turned it over to him. So rather than trying to turn too slowly, I should instead turn at a faster rate and eventually get the inside turn. I do not have film, but does this sound right?
Ubben
-
...or, as I was thinking through my maths it occurred to me that I could just be a crappy pilot.
Ubben
-
...or, as I was thinking through my maths it occurred to me that I could just be a crappy pilot.
Ubben
Nah at various speeds the aircraft will turn tighter/ faster you just have to read some performance charts ( google 109 performance sheets and you may be suprised :) ) or just get a buddy to climb to 40,000 and dive and turn drop hight in a spiral movement and ask him if he's getting a shot on you :)
-
Besides, insn't it obvious that simplistic math formulas are laced with assumptions that have no real-life validity? After all, math "predictions" failed spectacularly at predicting even the most simplistic of problems imaginable: Can a few pounds of styrofoam, launched at several hundred miles an hour, punch a hole through the wing leading edge of a space shuttle?
Gaston the above quote clearly displays your myopic view of engineering and mathematics as it relates to evaluating system performace. Before you make any more asinine statements about mathematics being unable to predict performance maybe you should read the Columbia accident report.
Here it is for you so you can find it easily, http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html (http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html)
In particular here are pages 61 and 62 for you to look at. As you will see in the items I outlined for you in red, there was plenty of data available and software, that had clearly predicted the amount of damage that was caused by the strike.
Be sure to click on the image to see it at full scale.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ColumbiaPg61.jpg)
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ColumbiaPg62.jpg)
I seriously doubt any of this information will deter you from your cause, it's clear to me that you're nothing more than a luftwhining zealot who will not listen to reason.
-
but educational for the rest of us who will listen
-
I seriously doubt any of this information will deter you from your cause, it's clear to me that you're nothing more than a luftwhining zealot who will not listen to reason.
Gaston isn't a Luftwhiner, he's trying to prove that he is the better game developer and trying to prove that Aces High has a terrible and inaccurate flight model and HiTech really doesn't know what he's doing. That is what Gaston is trying to prove, nothing else and he's been failing miserably at it. Even the guys at the Ubisoft forums think of him in the same light as we do.
ack-ack
-
dtango,
Thank you for your post. While not a math expert (certainly not maths either), your post explained something that had been puzzling me. I was having trouble out turning a 109 K-4 when I was in the 109 F-4. I knew I should be able to out turn him, but he was easily able to cut through my corner. I realize now that I had taken the speeds down way to slow, as I was just above stall speed. I suspect, although I could be wrong (and am willing to be corrected), that flying that low and slow enabled his engine power to pull him through the turn better than I could. Basically I had negated my one big advantage and had turned it over to him. So rather than trying to turn too slowly, I should instead turn at a faster rate and eventually get the inside turn. I do not have film, but does this sound right?
Ubben
Hi dev41 -
Glad you found the info helpful. I've been debating how much to answer your question in this thread as well because it's likely to get sucked up in a blackhole with this thread ;)!
For your specific situation, it's hard to answer for a variety of reasons because when we start comparing relative turn performance it gets even trickier. You haven't given enough data points that would conclusively validate the cause and effect of your turn performance variation between the 109F-4 and 109K-4. I suppose this train of thought is relevant to this thread: trying to make performance assessments between aircraft based on anecdotes is very inaccurate because usually we are missing key data that make a big difference. What people will do (like what Gaston has done) is to make presumptions about those key pieces of missing data which are for the most part are inappropriate which lead to faulty conclusions.
Don't be fooled. Turn performance can be a tricky topic just evaluating a single airframe. It gets even more complicated when you want to do relative comparisons between airplanes because a host of other factors get introduced. When we talk about turn performance we usually try to simplify and choose parameters to constrain and limit the complexity so that key concepts can be understood (e.g. constraining turn performance to a pure sustained level turn at a fixed altitude, fixed engine power output, fixed weight and configuration, etc.). Turn performance is relative to a lot of factors and that relativity increases when you start comparing dissimilar airplanes.
For your specific situation here are some thoughts for you not knowing key details:
1) Make sure you understand when rate and radius leads to angles advantage. The smaller radius doesn't always result in an angles advantage! Would you believe that in a nose-to-tail turn that if one plane has a larger radius but a greater turn rate that the plane with the larger radius will out-turn the plane with the smaller radius but a slower turn rate? For more details you can read this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,253819.0.html
2) Quick tests for the 109F-4 and 109K-4 (50% fuel, 3k alt, WEP, clean config, best sustained level turn [zero energy gain/loss] ) - back of the napkin testing ;) I got the following:
K4 turn-rate: ~18 dps, best sustained turn velocity: ~175 mph, g-load (calc): 2.7 g's, radius (calc): 826 ft
F4 turn-rate: ~18 dps, best sustained turn velocity: ~160 mph, g-load (calc): 2.5 g's, radius (calc): 747 ft
So the F4 vs the K4, the F4 has an advantage in turn radius but they are both equal in turn rate. Dropping power or trying to slow down in nose-to-tail (1-circle) turn fight in the F4 would ensure the F4 would lose because best turn rate dictates who has the advantage in that situation.
It should be noted that I achieved those numbers flying to the edge of the envelope in a sustained level turn. Flying close to the edge but not close enough also makes a significant difference. For the F4 tests my first runs were at what I thought was the edge but I was only able to achieve a turn rate of 16.4 dps, 2.4 g's, 857 ft radius at 167 mph. My other runs I was able to push that to data points above but the difference between that and the lower performance was just a hair difference in control input. The moral of the story, learn how to fly the extreme edge of your airplane which takes lots of practice!
Tango
-
Even the guys at the Ubisoft forums think of him in the same light as we do.
ack-ack
I try not to think about Gaston, or you could just be Gaston and not think at all.
-
Could we still try to keep this at least moderately civil, please?
In that pre-set situation of Fw vs Spit that if they both would try to maintain their tightest turn of 6Gs what would actually happen IRL?
Presumptions:
In attempt to hold the maximum Gs:
A. FW will need more angles to maintain that G and thus bleeds energy more rapidly.
B. Rather than by having a bigger wing and creating more drag in maneuvers the Spit cannot decelerate as efficiently as FW or risk an accelerated stall, but it will thus keep up high turn rate.
C. In slower speed the more engine power of FW cannot make up for the difference in wing-area and thus, lift as it cannot maintain such AoA that would enable it to compete in turn radius in low speed.
1. FW has higher corner speed and through a 6G turn would hit its best turn rate quicker and seem to gain on Spit initially. As the speed bleeds off the Spit would eventually hit its corner speed and start out turning FW that has now decelerated beyond its corner speed? (In fact Spit would probably start out-turning FW even before Spit hits its best corner speed...)
2. While maintaining its energy better the Spit would actually decelerate slower to its corner speed if it chooses to maintain full throttle?
3. By cutting throttle the Spit can decelerate more rapidly and possibly negate the brief advantage the FW may have in turn radius due to faster deceleration?
The bottom line of this would be that there would be a stage where FW has slight advantage in "turning" to Spit but this advantage is quickly lost (it may not even last a full 360 deg turn!) as the planes decelerate. OR does it, in fact, have even that (Tango?)?!?
If there is a brief advantage existing the best bet for FW would be to make the 6G turn until it hits it best corner speed (270mph?)and maintain that and wait for the Spit to gain angles as it decelerates to its best corner speed (160mph?) and then try to utilize its slightly better E state and better roll rate.
Of course the best option for Spit would be not to choose to decelerate to its best corner speed but just hold speed and by having a better turn rate it will get into FWs 6oc as well but with more E.
I.e, the FW does not really have any real advantage over Spit in turning but the advantage it may briefly have would come through the error in Spit pilots choice of tactics?
-C+
-
Hi Charge:
fundamentally the scenario you described is possible for the assumptions you're making, some of which are explicitly stated, while others implicit. Essentially you're saying that for your scenario the 190 gets to its corner faster than the Spit V which would result in an initial advantage for the 190, which is a perfectly logical conclusion given your assumptions.
In your example you're making some assumptions about things like: a) altitude not being a factor, b) initial starting speeds, c) relative weights not being a factor, d) a given engine output, e) amount of load factor being pulled, etc. Change any of these and you could get other alternatives as to when and why the FW-190 could out turn a Spitfire....or vice versa. For instance let’s say that the initial starting airspeeds between the aircraft was even greater with the Spitfire much higher above its corner velocity than the 190, then in your scenario the 190 would have an even longer envelope of initial turn advantage against the Spit.
Like dev41’s virtual example, or Johnny Johnson’s real life anecdote what presumptions we make about key missing information is important about the conclusions we make about performance from a physics standpoint.
Now that I’ve read the full Johnny Johnson article itself I believe there are a couple of clues that I haven’t seen mentioned thus far (though honestly I have no desire to look through the mountains of replies & threads on the topic to check).
1) Johnson’s story occurs over Dieppe which means the 190 was either an A2 or A3 (assuming it was a 190 and not a 109!). It’s possible that he encountered a Fw-190A3 with the BMW 801D-2 engine with MW50.
2) Johnson started at 10,000 ft. By the time he met the 190 he was probably much lower than that after his initial fight which then resulted in him being alone.
3) Johnson mentions a head on merge with the 190 and then both making left hand turns which means a nose-to-tail turn fight (two circle fight). As I mentioned above the turn rate not turn radius dictates the nose-to-tail fight.
4) Johnson says that as they turned the circles got smaller. This probably means they were above their respective corner velocities.
5) Johnson says that he is at full throttle in the turn fight but then later to escape he has to punch in WEP. This means he probably was at military power during the turn fight, but not WEP.
Let’s look using AH climb charts to compare the Spitfire V and the Fw-190A5 which is pretty close to the A3 (more importantly having the same engine). Notice the rate of climb advantage of the A5 compared to the Spit V below 8,000 ft. Note the big difference between the Spitfire V MIL vs. the A5’s WEP rate of climb below 4,000 ft.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/spitva5.png)
It’s entirely plausible that Johnny Johnson’s encountered a Fw-190A3 that won the nose-to-tail turn fight against the Spitfire V because of a better sustained turn rate advantage thanks to the 190 being at WEP while Spitfire V was only MIL power. The 190 could have had a higher turn rate than the Spitfire thanks to the big offset in T/W margin to help it fight induced drag e-bleed. Of course we’re also missing data about the initial speeds as well as the weights of the aircraft in question. If the Spitfire was much faster than the 190 and the weights even closer in margin then it would make this scenario even more plausible.
Tango
-
Charge , also do not confuse the 6g limit as corner speed as in AH. Real life corner speed varies between pilots. And today is normally defined by airframe load limits.
Also all could simply be explained by a higher G tolerance by one of the pilots.
Gaston: You really are by definition a Crank. You really believe you know more then all the experts in aerodynamics , and are so blinded by your belief, that you are trying to argue that it is more likely that physics are wrong, rather then your interpretation of another persons interpretation (one of the pilots) of what really happened in a fight.
HiTech
-
Everyone knows that physics and maths in particular is just a big conspiracy by the establishment to keep the brothers down. :rock
-
Also all could simply be explained by a higher G tolerance by one of the pilots.
Yep!
I thought about saying that too but I didn't want to take the flak from luftwhiners saying I had some bias vs. german iron because I called the Fw pilot in Johnson's a case meathead. :D
-
Personally I hope Gaston manages to rally himself again & keep posting. Not only is it entertaining but I'm learning masses about aerodynamics and aircraft dynamics from all the experts trying to explain it to him :salute
-
Gaston the above quote clearly displays your myopic view of engineering and mathematics as it relates to evaluating system performace. Before you make any more asinine statements about mathematics being unable to predict performance maybe you should read the Columbia accident report.
Here it is for you so you can find it easily, http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html (http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html)
In particular here are pages 61 and 62 for you to look at. As you will see in the items I outlined for you in red, there was plenty of data available and software, that had clearly predicted the amount of damage that was caused by the strike.
Be sure to click on the image to see it at full scale.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ColumbiaPg61.jpg)
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/ColumbiaPg62.jpg)
I seriously doubt any of this information will deter you from your cause, it's clear to me that you're nothing more than a luftwhining zealot who will not listen to reason.
-You need to read from some OTHER sources than NASA... There were SEVERAL meetings by all the relevant engineers with the project manager herself, some dealing ONLY with the foam impact issue... What did the engineers say? That they don't know...
They DID say on the other hand that they would like to look, but for some reason they didn't want to go through the upper management echelons, and tried to get a request directly to an Army satellite to look for the impact point...
The project manager got wind of the attempt to circumvent the usual hierarchic channels, and contacted the Army to cancel the "improper" satellite photo request.
Even if the math existed that would predict the disaster, you have to wonder why nobody was shouting : "You are going to kill them!"
Not only that, they didn't even bother LOOKING under the wing leading edge...
Maybe because nobody would stake their reputation on what the math predicted, even for the bother of such a minor check?
In the end it is clear only a real-life test convinced everyone, AFTER the disaster, and burst the bubble of the unbelievers...
Real-life tests is also what is sorely missing from all these wonderful WWII simulations... And when the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" actually tested the P-51D's 6 G Corner Speed in 1989, it came out at 320 MPH... (Despite the amusing gyrations by Badboy as to why it ain't so...)
By the way, how do you like the RAE's conclusions that a P-51B with full underwing drop tanks can out-turn easily a Me-109G? How do you like their conclusion that the same P-51B CLEAN is equal to a FW-190A?
Do you want me to source that?
An interesting snippet of Spitfire performance is in order, since the Johnny Johnson text is about a Mk V...:
"Manoeuvrability
20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive."
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9tactical.html
Soooo... As I suspected, the superiority of the Spit IX over the Spit V was NOT in turning circle (Russian tests have them pretty close too at around 19-20 sec), but in the ability to CLIMB and then dive to attack the Spit V...
Are you willing to bet the Spitfire IX redressed the balance by boom and zooming FW-190As? You would rather not comment?
Gaston
P.S. Ack-Ack, do I have to remind you again Hitech disagreed with your fierce conviction about the "Vertical Turn"? Tsk-Tsk...
G.
-
I just came accross this (I run into this stuff ALL the time, lol):
"S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945:
The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water and at the same time noticed an oily patch about 75 feet wide on the water and some debris in it which appeared to be parts of wreckage of the E/A which I had just attacked. This was the approximate area that the E/A would have likely gone into. The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2 being unable to overtake it broke away."
Note the likely TERRIFIC speed the FW-190As were doing as just as they were intercepted:
"when I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height. I immediately turned into the aircraft, and recognized them as FW.190’s. I at once closed and made a stern attack on the E/A on the left."
Oh, they were above Corner Speed when the second one made that Spitfire Mk XIV-beating orbit just above water, for sure! Lol!
Gaston
-
Gaston let me clarify what you are saying:-
1. So a Spitfire Mark V out turns Spitfire Mark IX
2. FW190A out-turns a Spitfire Mark V (as admitted by Johnny Johnson in his book)
3. Therefore the FW190A out turns the Spitfire Mark IX, and so the Spitfire's only hope for victory was to 'boom and zoom' the better turning FW190?
Hmm, I think it's perfectly logical as you have stated it. However, using your previous suggestions, couldn't the Spitfire Mark IX pilot have throttled back and out turned the Spitfire Mark V? Where would that leave the FW190A?
Can you please explain the physics and dynamics involved. No mathematics please, I don't believe in any of that new age stuff.
-
"Charge , also do not confuse the 6g limit as corner speed as in AH. Real life corner speed varies between pilots. And today is normally defined by airframe load limits. Also all could simply be explained by a higher G tolerance by one of the pilots."
Hitech, I'm not confusing those, I think... I thought that by corner speed we are talking about aerodynamic corner speed which is defined as the best turn rate and radius the airframe can generate (even though momentarily) and this is something a WW2 era fighter probably cannot maintain due to lack of engine power, thus it is important to interpret the turning chart as a whole and not just one figure at some speed. For modern fighters the corner speed chart is more limited by structural limits due to greater speeds and assumed better G tolerance of pilots, AFAIK.
FW has slightly better ergonomics for high G fight but I thought that that was not a factor in this corner speed range as I understood it.
And with the approach I chose I did not want to refer to Johnson case but approach the situation as it would have developed IRL from a neutral situation as was your original situation setting with equal speeds and equal G onset and see what would happen from that point on considering the differences in designs.
***
1. So a Spitfire Mark V out turns Spitfire Mark IX
-> by turn radius or rate? I think that while SpitV has a slightly lower corner speed, less weight and thus smaller turn radius and the IX cannot make up for that difference with more power and better turn rate so SpitV is still somewhat better in "turning" when it hits its own corner speed range. Or is it?
2. FW190A out-turns a Spitfire Mark V (as admitted by Johnny Johnson in his book)
->only briefly in certain conditions? Even thought the climb chart gives a different view but I'm not sure if climb performance gives a direct indication of turn performance too (I understand the logic why it should, though). If that would be the case the 190A3 would dominate SpitV on the deck even in turn fight and A5 is not that different form A3 so we would have noticed that kind of phenomenon in AH.
3. Therefore the FW190A out turns the Spitfire Mark IX, and so the Spitfire's only hope for victory was to 'boom and zoom' the better turning FW190?
-> From anecdotal evidence I have understood that FW pilots had the option to tangle with SpitVs even in a knife fight and extend away at will if the situation got bad for them, and that was the advantage SpitIX took away from them while still maintaining good turn performance.
-C+
PS. Personally I'm more interested in A8s performance in this game. ;)
-
I just came accross this (I run into this stuff ALL the time, lol):
"S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945:
The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water and at the same time noticed an oily patch about 75 feet wide on the water and some debris in it which appeared to be parts of wreckage of the E/A which I had just attacked. This was the approximate area that the E/A would have likely gone into. The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2 being unable to overtake it broke away."
Note the likely TERRIFIC speed the FW-190As were doing as just as they were intercepted:
"when I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height. I immediately turned into the aircraft, and recognized them as FW.190’s. I at once closed and made a stern attack on the E/A on the left."
Oh, they were above Corner Speed when the second one made that Spitfire Mk XIV-beating orbit just above water, for sure! Lol!
Gaston
Where were they identified as 190A?
-
Charge: You have the concept down, I'm just stating that if the pilot can not take the g's that the plane can handle then it becomes obvious that the corner velocity when analyzing a fight must take each pilot limit into account. I doubt many pilots could stand up to the airframe limit of most wwii fighters.
And this is why using antidoteal evidence like this fight description really can not be used to determine a lot about each airplane. Simple pilot G tolerances could win or loose a fight.
Even different days can change things, there are days where I can take 6'gs almost indefinably. Other days I can hardly pull over 4, and Ive done sustained 7 before when fighting L39's.
But the concept of corner vel is simply slowest speed that you can maintain max g's. How you define Max g's can vary.
HiTech
-
Charge: You have the concept down, I'm just stating that if the pilot can not take the g's that the plane can handle then it becomes obvious that the corner velocity when analyzing a fight must take each pilot limit into account. I doubt many pilots could stand up to the airframe limit of most wwii fighters.
And this is why using antidoteal evidence like this fight description really can not be used to determine a lot about each airplane. Simple pilot G tolerances could win or loose a fight.
Even different days can change things, there are days where I can take 6'gs almost indefinably. Other days I can hardly pull over 4, and Ive done sustained 7 before when fighting L39's.
But the concept of corner vel is simply slowest speed that you can maintain max g's. How you define Max g's can vary.
HiTech
Well Hitech we all know that some people can take more G's than others its a known fact that life style and body mass help. But im glad you have just probaly looked this up and taken an average persons tolerence to G forces and use them in the game. :) It simplifies it does it not then every player shall have the same reaction to G forces in the game its fair example two comatants start pulling G's you can be assured that the guy behind you is nowpulling G's to stay with you thus making it harder for him to Shoot :)
Good thinking :salute
-
And when the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" actually tested the P-51D's 6 G Corner Speed in 1989, it came out at 320 MPH...
Gaston, the data available in that report leads to the conclusion that the corner speed for the P-51D was actually 234mph at SL. As shown in the diagram below.
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM7.gif)
I suspect that you either don't have the full report, which includes the tables and charts that would allow you to confirm what I'm saying, or you don't have the analytical skills to interpret the information or follow the reasoning.
Either way, if you would like any clarification or help in following the logic involved, just ask, I'd be delighted to help.
Badboy
-
Gaston let me clarify what you are saying:-
1. So a Spitfire Mark V out turns Spitfire Mark IX
2. FW190A out-turns a Spitfire Mark V (as admitted by Johnny Johnson in his book)
3. Therefore the FW190A out turns the Spitfire Mark IX, and so the Spitfire's only hope for victory was to 'boom and zoom' the better turning FW190?
Hmm, I think it's perfectly logical as you have stated it. However, using your previous suggestions, couldn't the Spitfire Mark IX pilot have throttled back and out turned the Spitfire Mark V? Where would that leave the FW190A?
Can you please explain the physics and dynamics involved. No mathematics please, I don't believe in any of that new age stuff.
-Actually Soviet tests show the Spit Mk IX to slightly out-turn the Mk V at full power, by a fraction of a second, but to me that is still a surprise by the rough rules I have that too much power "pulls" an aircraft "out" of its ideal sustained turn rate by forcing a wider radius...
Also the MK V nose is slightly shorter which in theory should also help it... But at full power unexpected things can happen...
Ideally sustained turns should normally never be done at full power anyway with nose traction, so full power tests (ALL WWII formal turn tests by test pilots are always at full or near-full power) are not the optimal way to properly test and compare sustained turn performance anyway...
According to my theory, you are absolutely right that a downthrottled Spitfire Mk IX could, in theory, downthrottle to improve its sustained turn rate. It could then possibly best a Spitfire Mk V, and could also in theory also best a FW-190A, despite the FW-190A's shorter nose, because the Spitfire has a much lighter wing loading.
(The short nose allows less "pull-out-of-the-turn" leverage, meaning that for a given level of power the short nose's turn-induced OFF-center "tendency to go straight" pull (off center because of the turn) taxes the wingloading less for the effort of lifting the nose: The short nose means off-center is LESS off-center: Less press-down leverage on the wings to lift the nose... This "leverage" does not apply to jet propulsion, which thrust has little, almost none, wingload-increasing thrust leverage since thrusting is from behind the wing's center of lift, which is also the pivot point used to lift the nose. Don't buy the nonsense that this pivot point is 500-700 ft. up in the center of the turn BTW...)
There are many other unpredictable, non-linear issues with sustained nose traction turn performance: I think aircrafts like the Me-109G can turn more tightly initially than a FW-190A or P-51D, but are for some reason aerodynamically "dirtier" while turning, and thus cannot sustain speed in a sustained turn to compete with these two: Oseau demise witness: "His Me-109G6/AS slowed down more in turns than his adversaries (P-51Ds). I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Me-109G" Leo Shuchmacher of II/JG1. "Jagdwaffe Vol. 5 section 3, p.202 . Robert Forsyth.
The problem is that I am only aware of three European fighters where downthrottling was described to improve prolonged sustained flat turns: In theory it should work the same for all, but for some reason was not described for all...
The 3 Euro fighters where it IS described are the FW-190A, the Me-109G and the Merlin P-51 (in quite a dramatic fashion for this last one).
I never read it described for the P-47 despite reading thousands of combat reports, so it could be that peculiarities of both the P-47D and the Spitfire made sustained downthrottling unprofitable for these two types...
What do the P-47D and the Spitfire have in common? Surprisingly they have many handling similarities: They are both very light on the elevator controls at high speeds, but above 300 MPH the Spitfire is probably a bit more skittish, being saddled instead with a peculiar "mushing" tendency that allows it to raise its nose without tightening the turn, but instead allows it to shoot accross the circle with perfect 3 axis control while in a high speed "stall" (which is not a stall because of the full 3 axis control)...
Apparently you could not, above 250-300 MPH, pull back the Spitfire's stick top more than 3/4 of an inch without going into this "mushing" condition, but you could push your luck briefly to shoot "accross" the circle, "as if" you turned much tighter than in reality you could...
And yet, Spitfire dive pull-outs were very impressive, with little apparent tendency to tail-sink nose-up, and could be accomplished so harshly that the wings could be bent: Exact same issue with the P-47D, but the P-47D was stronger.
I think above 250-300 MPH a P-47D Razorback with needle tip prop will slightly out-turn a Spitfire, just like it does the Me-109G at ALL speeds, if for some reason mainly to the left... "The (needle-tip P-47D out-turns our Me-109G" On Special missions, Kg 200 (German-captured P-47D test conclusions: Look it up).
I think at full power the lesser traction of a needle tip P-47D prop allowed better low-speed sustained turning than an ALSO full power paddle-blade prop P-47D below 250 MPH (My boardgame got it wrong on this), because late 1944 bubbletop P-47Ds cannot compete in turns with anything, whereas the needle-tip Razorback could MATCH prolonged sustained turns with a FW-190A-6 in late 1943/early 1944!
I think a needle-tip prop had the SAME effect on the P-47D as downthrottling, but the P-47D being so big and heavy pilots felt psychologically unconfortable in lowering power in turns: As a result later Paddle-blade Bubbletops in late 1944 get matched in turns sometimes even by Me-109Gs(!!!)
It goes without saying, late 1944 P-47Ds cannot compete in sustained turns at all with late 1944 FW-190As... Not even close...
So why no Spitfire downthrottling accounts? I think the Johnny Johnson account is great evidence: Despite its post-war hindsight, he describes going full power and shows no inclination to describe that as a cause of his trouble with the FW-190A...
The American Merlin P-51 pilots were apparently less rigidly "by the book" than UK pilots, and happily ignored what they were taught in flight school with an apparently more acute and less dogmatic survival instinct:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
I have yet to hear of a British pilot sustained turn downthrottling account, but it could be the case that the Spitfire's peculiarities did not make downthrottling profitable in sustained turns... Imagine for instance, that the Spitfire's aerodymamics IN TURNS at very low speed is unusually "dirty" below 200 MPH but much "cleaner" turning above 200 MPH: Then you would need to increase the power below 200 MPH to prevent the speed from decelerating far more than the tighter radius would profit you...
My bet is they followed the taught procedure, and the Spitfire WOULD beat other aircrafts downthrottled... They probably followed dogma, unlike the P-51 pilot quoted above... Downthrottling in sustained flat turns was never universally accepted by any air force, as Finnish Ace Karhila hints to us: "Most pilots increased power and then turned. In the same situation I would reduce power and then found I could turn just as well [in a smaller radius]"
I hope this clarified what I meant.
Gaston
P.S. This is a link to my boardgame: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/5031083708?r=5031083708#5031083708
G.
-
Gaston, the data available in that report leads to the conclusion that the corner speed for the P-51D was actually 234mph at SL. As shown in the diagram below.
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM7.gif)
I suspect that you either don't have the full report, which includes the tables and charts that would allow you to confirm what I'm saying, or you don't have the analytical skills to interpret the information or follow the reasoning.
Either way, if you would like any clarification or help in following the logic involved, just ask, I'd be delighted to help.
Badboy
I don't have the full report, only a condensed version, but that still paints a clear picture...
-First of all, isn't it your contention that power level does not affect "Corner Speed", since Corner Speed is by definition unsustained?
-Second, I for my part DO think power levels affects the Corner Speed, and more power would NOT bring this down from 320 MPH to 234 MPH like you say, but would likely INCREASE the Corner Speed by a modest amount, say to 340 MPH or maybe more...
-They tested the airframes to 6 G instead of 7 Gs, THAT was the "safety margin" they allowed for the age of the airframes. They DID specify it to clarify the test results...
I do not see any evidence they allowed any other kind of "safety margin", or then obviously their 320 MPH data would then not be the true "Corner Speed": The lowest speed at which 6 G could be reached.
Finally, let's say that they DID allow a safety margin against high-speed stalling (but note they DID stall these aircrafts, thus had no fear of doing so in this testing for low speeds at least), then that margin would have been what? 15 MPH? 20 MPH?
That still leaves us a true Corner Speed well above 300 MPH...
Can't you see that no reasonable "margin of safety" would be allowed to skew data from 234 MPH to 320 MPH?
What would be the value of this expensive test if they did so?
Gaston
-
No no no Gaston, I did not propose a downthrottled Spitfire Mark IX could out turn a Spitfire Mark V. I myself do not agree with your unique downthrottling theory. If you please reread what I wrote, I said:-
'However, using your previous suggestions, couldn't the Spitfire Mark IX pilot have throttled back and out turned the Spitfire Mark V?'
YOU say that you have 'Actual Soviet tests' which show that the Mark IX would 'slightly' out turn the Mark V at full power. Whether this premiss is true or not, according to YOUR unique theories regarding down throttling to prevent 'nose tracted aircraft' pulling themselves out of their turn at full power, YOUR theory regarding the short nose advantage (in this case the Spitfire Mark V) and YOUR theories regarding the torque from the 'prop disk', now YOUR own data contradicts YOUR own theories.
We are, at this point, two levels deep into Gastonworld.
You see first you construct a model of reality. This is a reasonable approach. Then you apply your hypothesis to that model. When your hypothesis does not fit, you keep your hypothesis, throw away your model and try to find a new model which fits your hypothesis better.
Or you could add something new to your basically illogical hypothesis, like your new award winning 'needle tip prop' theory for example.
You can literally do this forever, and I'm sure you have the stamina to do so as well.
A greater opportunity for understanding would be to feed the model back into your hypothesis and adjust your hypothesis, or even find a new hypothesis.
This is not mathematics Gaston, it's just a sort of very rough logical scientific approach to reason with things and find things out.
Alternatively we could alter the physical structure of the Universe and all its physical properties for you until it's just how you like it. That is an awful lot of work for all the non-Gaston entities in the Universe, but at least your Focke-Wulf will finally out turn a Spitfire. :rock
-
Nrshida nails this correctly in summarizing Gaston's "technique." A great example is this:
Ideally sustained turns should normally never be done at full power anyway with nose traction, so full power tests (ALL WWII formal turn tests by test pilots are always at full or near-full power) are not the optimal way to properly test and compare sustained turn performance anyway...
His hypothesis is that "sustained turns should normally never be done at full power". His problem comes up in this statement: "All WWII formal turn tests by test pilots are always at full...power". OK, there's an obvious disconnect between his "theory" and the practical application of flight test so his answer? Rather than question his own assumptions he resolves the issue by blithely dismissing the combined experience and knowledge of the professional flight test community and just claims his hypothesis is right and they're wrong. For this to work you'd have to believe that test pilots would intentionally test an aircraft's turn performance in less that optimal conditions (full power) and then claim their numbers are accurate knowing full well that pilots will live and die based upon these assessments. If Gaston would simply change his faulty hypothesis to "sustained turns should ALWAYS be done at full power" then everything is again right with the world but he refuses to adjust and instead stays in lala land.
Here's another:
Also the MK V nose is slightly shorter which in theory should also help it... But at full power unexpected things can happen...
Again, there is evidence that his theory doesn't work but instead of addressing it he simply claims "but at full power unexpected things can happen." Really? What sort of unexpected things? What is unique about "full power" as opposed to say 95% power? Is there something mystical that happens just because you're at full power rather than 95%? I mean it's not very mystical that flying at 95% power lowers the Ps=0 line and reduces G available, increases turn radius and decreases turn rate so what mystical thing is happening?
Another issue where this becomes apparent is his attempt to reconcile anecdotal information with established flight test results and procedures. These anecdotes are most notable for two things, it's a pilot's description of the fight, not of flight test and second, these accounts lack more details than they provide. For instance, in his latest link a P51 pilot describes throttling back to improve his turn. OK, fine but where does he say what his starting speed was??? What is his nose position when he does this? What was the bandit's speed and relationship to the P51? He doesn't provide any of this information. However, we can make some reasonable assumptions based on what he does say. It appears he probably entered the fight at a high speed so he'd probably be above corner. It is completely consistent with the EM diagrams for him to throttle back to get his flaps down and improve his turn performance. How about the 109 pilot's experience level? Was he fast or slow? Did he use flaps or not? When did the 109 really spot the other approaching P51s? There's no geometry really provided, couldn't the 109 have eased his pull yet kept in some turn in order to point back to his field and thus explain why the P51 gained angles on him? All of these questions I've posed (and there are many more) are legitimate and necessary to fully ascertain what actually happened but none of this is important to Gaston. Just the fact that the pilot's report said he throttled back is "proof" of his hypothesis. Nonsense.
Another:
-First of all, isn't it your contention that power level does not affect "Corner Speed", since Corner Speed is by definition unsustained?
Power level doesn't affect corner speed, just the ability to sustain it. Also, corner speed is NOT by definition unsustained, it is simply the point at which the lift limit intersects the G-limit. As for it being either sustained or instantaneous it can be either. In a level turn such as those depicted by an EM diagram it's an instantaneous turn (for WWII aircraft); however, even a WWII airplane can sustain corner provided a nose-low turn is used. Obviously this is limited by altitude. Most modern fighters can sustain corner also. My point here is that if you can't even get the definitions correct, where else is the discussion faulty?
This piece summarizes things nicely:
(The short nose allows less "pull-out-of-the-turn" leverage, meaning that for a given level of power the short nose's turn-induced OFF-center "tendency to go straight" pull (off center because of the turn) taxes the wingloading less for the effort of lifting the nose: The short nose means off-center is LESS off-center: Less press-down leverage on the wings to lift the nose... This "leverage" does not apply to jet propulsion, which thrust has little, almost none, wingload-increasing thrust leverage since thrusting is from behind the wing's center of lift, which is also the pivot point used to lift the nose. Don't buy the nonsense that this pivot point is 500-700 ft. up in the center of the turn BTW...)
Pure gobbledygook.
-
This piece summarizes things nicely:
(The short nose allows less "pull-out-of-the-turn" leverage, meaning that for a given level of power the short nose's turn-induced OFF-center "tendency to go straight" pull (off center because of the turn) taxes the wingloading less for the effort of lifting the nose: The short nose means off-center is LESS off-center: Less press-down leverage on the wings to lift the nose... This "leverage" does not apply to jet propulsion, which thrust has little, almost none, wingload-increasing thrust leverage since thrusting is from behind the wing's center of lift, which is also the pivot point used to lift the nose. Don't buy the nonsense that this pivot point is 500-700 ft. up in the center of the turn BTW...)
Pure gobbledygook.
Mace2004, Do you think this would pass a physics 101 test of free motion diagrams? Maybe when the world centers on revolutions instead of rotating around the mass-ive brain that Gaston has, people will finally be torqued enough to learn how to force people to both rotate and revolve to the Gaston accelerated way of thinking.
HiTech
-
Pure gobbledygook.
Mace2004, Do you think this would pass a physics 101 test of free motion diagrams? Maybe when the world centers on revolutions instead of rotating around the mass-ive brain that Gaston has, people will finally be torqued enough to learn how to force people to both rotate and revolve to the Gaston accelerated way of thinking.
HiTech
So you saying that in like any good debat you argree with Gaston in some area's but falter his way of thinking and conclusions as some area's you dissagree with him ?????
-
Gaston
P.S. Ack-Ack, do I have to remind you again Hitech disagreed with your fierce conviction about the "Vertical Turn"? Tsk-Tsk...
G.
Please go back to those posts and read what I wrote about "vertical turn" and you'll see that I wasn't incorrect. Need I remind you that 100% of what you've posted on these boards has been incorrect?
ack-ack
-
The idea that "nose tracted aircraft" would be pulled out of their turn by the thrust originating forward of their center is absurd. If anything, they would be pulled into their turn by the thrust due to their angle of attack being inside the path they are actually flying.
-
The idea that "nose tracted aircraft" would be pulled out of their turn by the thrust originating forward of their center is absurd. If anything, they would be pulled into their turn by the thrust due to their angle of attack being inside the path they are actually flying.
Thats true cos as if i remember my aircadet days ( many moons ago ) when we went flying the pilot would show you what the aircaft does when not trimmed. And it always pitched upwards till through loss of speed and lift the aircraft would start to drop its nose.
And he told me that the reason that that happended was due to the thrust crated from the propeler would increase the lift under the centre section of the plane and somee o the wings. as the thrust created by the prop arced out from behind the prop. I was to young at the time and enjoying the flight. but its a similar effect in high speed turns as efectifly in a turn you are to some degree puting the aircraft out of trim for stable flight. Hense when turning or banking you have to keep the nose above or on the horizon line to maintain level alltitude.
Also the more unstable the fighter the more monouverable it is in comat enviroment. Hense you trim the plane out for level flight to make it stable and for fighting it has to loose some of the trimed stability to beable to roll and bank and turn. Thats why a dogfight would only last for upto 5 minutes as the pilot only had the energy to sustain a fight due to G forces and having to keep counter acting his movements to stop his plane spiralling down to the earth.
I may be wrong on some facts or not wordred corectly so please i invite any thurther input.
:salute
-
No no no Gaston, I did not propose a downthrottled Spitfire Mark IX could out turn a Spitfire Mark V. I myself do not agree with your unique downthrottling theory. If you please reread what I wrote, I said:-
'However, using your previous suggestions, couldn't the Spitfire Mark IX pilot have throttled back and out turned the Spitfire Mark V?'
YOU say that you have 'Actual Soviet tests' which show that the Mark IX would 'slightly' out turn the Mark V at full power. Whether this premiss is true or not, according to YOUR unique theories regarding down throttling to prevent 'nose tracted aircraft' pulling themselves out of their turn at full power, YOUR theory regarding the short nose advantage (in this case the Spitfire Mark V) and YOUR theories regarding the torque from the 'prop disk', now YOUR own data contradicts YOUR own theories.
We are, at this point, two levels deep into Gastonworld.
You see first you construct a model of reality. This is a reasonable approach. Then you apply your hypothesis to that model. When your hypothesis does not fit, you keep your hypothesis, throw away your model and try to find a new model which fits your hypothesis better.
Or you could add something new to your basically illogical hypothesis, like your new award winning 'needle tip prop' theory for example.
You can literally do this forever, and I'm sure you have the stamina to do so as well.
A greater opportunity for understanding would be to feed the model back into your hypothesis and adjust your hypothesis, or even find a new hypothesis.
This is not mathematics Gaston, it's just a sort of very rough logical scientific approach to reason with things and find things out.
Alternatively we could alter the physical structure of the Universe and all its physical properties for you until it's just how you like it. That is an awful lot of work for all the non-Gaston entities in the Universe, but at least your Focke-Wulf will finally out turn a Spitfire. :rock
-I did not "construct" this "model of reality": I believed firmly, for about 11 out of 14 years of my game's research, in the very same garbage you still believe in... I just got tired of seeing WWII pilots always describing the exact opposite of what I "knew"...
It took many thousands of contrarian pilots quotes to finally make me accept the false basis of simulation dogma, Shaw and all the rest... I saw the light when I stopped blaming the pilot's "perception" for not agreeing with "reality"...
First of all, if you would apply a bit of logic to your own prejudices, you would see that the differences in Soviet tests of the sustained turn rate between the Spitfire MkV and the Mk IX are basically non-existent: 18.8 seconds for the Mk Vb to 18.5 seconds for the Mk IXe, and rather oddly 17.5 sec for the Mk IXc, (TsAGI tests)...
Then you have the British test linked above (from Mike William's WWII aircraft performance site):
" "Manoeuvrability
20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive."
So DESPITE something like a 300-400 hp difference in power, with LITTLE difference in weight, wingloading, aerodynamics, and a HUGELY greater climb rate which indicates a MUCH greater acceleration, WHERE is the huge advantage in turn RATE your worldview predicts?
Although my theory of lesser power and shorter nose is not really vindicated here (wow: a nose maybe 5 inches shorter), where is the large extra turn rate advantage the hugely greater acceleration available should produce?!?
Perhaps I should remind everyone here that a Spitfire Mk IX with twin floats supposedly has the same top speed as a Spitfire Mk V?
And note I brought here two separate sources agreeing with each other about the huge acceleration difference (manifest in the climb rate difference) and also agreeing that this has a small to non-existent effect on the turn rate...
So those extra 300-400 horses have little effect on the sustained turn rate times...: Isn't that a much bigger blow against you than against me?
Futhermore, there is an aspect that seems to confirm my downthrottling theory within the same model Mark: If we assume the Spitfire Mk IXc is rated to a lower power level than the Mk IXe, then that could account for the later model being 1 second slower than the the less powerful earlier model: 17.5 seconds for the Mk IXc and 18.5 seconds for the Mk IXe...
Surely there isn't much of a weight difference...
Speculation on this was rife that the slower-turning Mk IXe was in fact a clipped-wing Spitfire... This is likely silly given the complete lack of mention in the TsAGI report to that effect, while every Me-109G weapon configuration and FW-190A marks is carefully detailed...
Yeah, they took several square feet off the wings, but didn't bother mentioning it for a turn rate test...
Besides, I interviewed a Spitfire Mk IX pilot personally for my game, and he told me clipped Mk IXs were "very rare"...
The evidence provided for these "clipped wing" tests is about on a level with the objectivity of my usual detrators: Nil.
And note there is here two concurring sources of data as to the lack of turn rate difference between a Mk V and Mk IX, in itself pretty devastating as to the usefulness of more accelerative power in sustained turns: Compare the 18.8 seconds Mk Vb to 18.5 seconds Mk IXe turn time difference to the difference in climb time to 20 000 ft.: Spitfire Mk V AA878 (+16 lbs): 6.15 minutes
Spitfire Mk IX BS543 (+18 lbs): 4.75 minutes
So do you still want to argue that more power translate directly into a faster sustained turn rate?
While we are at it, does anyone here still wants to quibble with the German evaluation of an early, less than full rated power capable, needle-prop P-47D that states unequivocally: "The P-47 out-turns our Bf-109G"?
Gaston
-
OK OK OK OK OK
to truely finish this debate we would all have to meet up at an airfield and have every WW2 fighter plane there loaded to the max with sensors to determine the planes capabilities. but thaat will never happen so we have to go from papper records. some of which may be false for if they ended up in enemy hands the enemy would then try to make a fighter to counter act it. So there for records on paper are not 100% reliable.
And in the end its the man who's hand is on the stick and throttle that determins the outcome as for example. The Tempest could catch a 262 in a dive but not in level flight. Later models of the FW 190 could take down a meteor. its the pilot not the machine.
And this is virtual reality at its best for current technology and i say take it as it is its close to reality as can be :)
:salute
-
Gaston you're reply to my post shows that you can't accept anyone showing you that you are incorrect. It was clearly documented that the software tools were available and performed exactly as needed.
THE SIMULATION WAS ACCURATE BEFORE THEY TRIED TO REENTER THE ATMOSPHERE.
Instead you dodge the point of my post by blaming the engineers for not speaking up, when your initial point was that the math "predictions" failed spectacularly when that wasn't the case at all.
Besides, insn't it obvious that simplistic math formulas are laced with assumptions that have no real-life validity? After all, math "predictions" failed spectacularly at predicting even the most simplistic of problems imaginable: Can a few pounds of styrofoam, launched at several hundred miles an hour, punch a hole through the wing leading edge of a space shuttle?
There is no value in participating in discussions with you (other than for my comedic relief). So in conclusion I will now present the only rebuttal you deserve.
(http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/d38156e0-16b7-44ba-990f-328757598edc.jpg)
-
:banana: :rock :aok
-
Besides, I interviewed a Spitfire Mk IX pilot personally for my game, and he told me clipped Mk IXs were "very rare"...
This is pure absurdity. The idea that a single pilot is an authority on the production of all of a type because he flew an example of that type. There were thousands of of clip winged Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.
-
This is pure absurdity. The idea that a single pilot is an authority on the production of all of a type because he flew an example of that type. There were thousands of of clip winged Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.
Gaston can't see the fallacy in his own statements, He is just like Voss. Thinks he knows everything because some 80 something year old with alzheimers said so.
Im sure Gaston flies F22's and punches commies in the face, too.
-
because some 80 something year old with alzheimers said so.
What a twittleing D-bag.
-
I am not lacking in respect for Gaston's source, to be clear. I am lacking in respect for Gaston's ability to understand and apply what his sources tell him. I am sure the Spitfire pilot he spoke with did not personally see many clipped wing Spitfire Mk IXs and thus in his experience they were rare. Gaston's mistake is to take that one man's personal experience and extend it across a much larger and wider area when there is no supporting data that says it should be extended and much that says it should not.
-
What a twittleing D-bag.
I'm sorry, but its the truth. He thinks that because one account of an elderly pilot supporting his belief makes him right, and has no factual information other than opinion.
I guess he would assume that no pilots would be biased against other planes?
edit: guess I should have read Karnak's post.
-
Yep, no clipped Russian Spitfire LFIXe. Not that the Russians would have been getting new production LFIXes off the line just as the RAF were. And not that by late 44-45 they'd in the main be clipped wing LF versions. If only I could find an image.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire3.jpg)
Just can't find any.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/RussianIX.jpg)
Not that those sneaky Ruskies would be the only ones to operate two seat clipped Spit IXs either. Wish I could find a photo of one
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/clipped2seatSpit.jpg)
-
Gaston. I see that instead of choosing to consider what I said, you decided to try and devalue my criticisms of your technique by calling what I believe in 'garbage'.
On the basis of my limitted posts you don't actually know what I believe in though do you? Beyond that I don't agree with your unique theories and think your logic is flawed. Thus I must assume you meant that anything that doesn't agree with your theories is garbage?
Then you suggest I should apply a bit of logic to my own prejudices. Isn't that what I suggested to you? Although I managed to avoid words and concepts such as prejudice, and garbage.
A little bit disrespectful of you in my opinion, but I won't force that on you. No doubt you have your own code of personal conduct which differs from mine.
I'm sorry if you think you have dismissed my comments and the comments of others here with your response. It rather seems to me you have only succeeded in confirming what I said about your general technique and marginalised your position yet further.
The answer to your latest question about the Spitfire Mark IX having 300 - 400 more horsepower available compared to the Spitfire Mark V and yet not having a huge turn rate advantage is actually explained very clearly in Mace's post (and thank you Mace, I learn a little more each time you post).
If you applied what I suggested previously right there, about hypothesis and models, on that very contradiction, you would see the flaw in your logic and the very obvious gap in your understanding immediately and be able to make some progress.
But it's okay Gaston, you have decided you are absolutely correct and your faith will not be shaken by anything. I wish you luck in trying to single handidly debunk the whole mathematical simulation conspiracy and hope that your 14 years of research has been meaningful to you.
Good luck and try to keep it respectful.
nrshida.
-
Where were they identified as 190A?
Well they certainly were not FW-190Ds, or:
1-They would have been identified as "Long-nosed FW-190s", as in 99% of other combat reports...
2-The "orbiting" one would have had a hard time kicking the pants off a Spit Mk XIV in a low-speed on-the-deck orbit, if this report is any guide:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7891055058/p/1
Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."
Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."
Ho-Hum...
And this inferiority is very noticeable in most if not all the combat reports I have seen... On the other hand vertical maneuvers may have been another issue...
But of course you guys are CONVINCED the FW-190D-9 out-turns the FW-190A in flat sustained turns... LoL!!!
It would help if you guys listened to ONE relevant WWII pilot in your entire lives... Johnny Johnson for instance...
As far as the Spitfire IX clipped wing, if you also spent time building models, you would know how scarce, comparatively to full-wings, available markings for clipped Mk IXs are (But not so scarce at all for Mk Vs)...
In any case, the full wing Mk IXs outnumbers the clipped mark IXs by somewhere around ten to one, and that still leaves hundreds of clipped Mark IXs to chose from...
And the TsAGI test STILL would have mentionned it if the Mk IX was clipped: Is that really what you are clinging to?
How about taking your head out of your little simulation worldview for a minute, and at least ADRESSING two basic questions:
-First, did the Luftwaffe not evaluate an UNDERPOWERED needle-prop P-47D Razorback and state flat-out: "The P-47D out-turns our Me-109G"?
If so, how come?
Second, what the heck do you think this Russian evaluation summary http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html of hundreds of combat encounters meant by "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"?
Or Johnny Johnson when he says, post-war: "The FW-190A turned better than the Me-109"?
Doesn't it hurt your head to have all these WWII pilots beat on it all the time, year after year after year?
It sure did mine when I was building my game (I HATED the feeling these combat pilot quotes gave me, and no wonder), and you WILL feel better when you start accepting what they say...
It's better than Aspirin or Tylenol: Trust me, I know from bitter experience...
Gaston
-
Nice straw man gaston, I do not see one person here speaking about sim vs reality.
I see many people here speaking about detailed test reports on aircraft not backing up your delusions of non detailed antidotel pilot reports. So your argument really boils down to the belief that combat reports speak more directly about plane performance then the reports that came from test pilots who job it was to accurately measure performance.
Many people here not only fly for real but have flow wwii planes. Many people here have many hours flying real planes in mock combat.
Many people here have degrees related to the field of physics and aerodynamics.
But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.
HiTech
-
LOL Gaston, in the 30 years I've had studying the Spitfire, I've spent more time around Spitfire pilots then you could ever hope to. Sadly most of them are gone now, but thankfully I got a chance to meet many of them before they passed. I've listened to them plenty and have a file cabinet full of letters, combat reports, logbook copies, and just about anything else you can find on the Spit.
One of the proudest moments of my life was sitting with a bunch of Spit drivers at RAF Coltishall and listening to them talk. I'd been living and breathing their history for a number of years prior to that meeting. They would ask me if what they were remembering was corrrect. Much to my embarrasment there were times where I could correct their memories from the primary source stuff I had. I was royally chewed out by one guy who was writing his story because I didn't correct him. When he found out that I knew he'd made a mistake, he was not happy I hadn't told him.
As for using model building decals as a reference for the scarcity of clipped wing Spits. That's about the dumbest argument I've heard yet.
So in regards your latest post. Fail.
-
But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.
HiTech
HiTech, Gaston is never wrong. Just ask him.
I don't know if he went to collage, but if he made it past 3rd grade i'm sure he made one.
Gaston is also very good at maths, but be careful! I heard he is also a level 7 dungeon master with bowstaff skills.
-
But Gaston think of one very very simple fact, not one person on this board has been agreeing with any thing you say. Your speaking with people who teach this stuff, yet you wish to tell your collage professor (did you ever go to collage?) that you have this great new physics 101 idea that defies Newton.
HiTech
Not one person has agreed with him on the Ubisoft boards either.
ack-ack
-
He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he? Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.
-
Not one person has agreed with him on the Ubisoft boards either.
ack-ack
It is thus noted this thread is memorialized for it's epic contribution to the sim community: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,297112.msg3805925.html#msg3805925 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,297112.msg3805925.html#msg3805925)
-
He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he? Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.
No, Kurfurst was a Luftwhiner and Gaston is just some guy that thinks he's a game developer and trying to prove that his game is far superior to Aces High. What I find really funny (other than Gaston's take on reality) is that he's never played Aces High, so how does he know the flight model is incorrect?
ack-ack
-
is this thread honestly still going? :rofl
-
And I hope it does. Aside from the bovine discharge emanating from the rants of poster "X", the conversations have been quite insightful. I have found myself testing some of the points. I for one thought the tightest turns were effected at the slowest airspeeds. Not necessarily the case. Shows me how much more I have to learn.
BTW Hitech, I think our pilots should have S.D. Tuckers knack for G's either that or his Pitts is overmodeled. :airplane:
-
As for using model building decals as a reference for the scarcity of clipped wing Spits. That's about the dumbest argument I've heard yet.
So in regards your latest post. Fail.
With regards to Decalls for the model kits the model manufacturor will either take the Skin and squadron markins of a certain Mk of Spitfire or any other type of plane. From the first Squadron to recieve that type of plane.
Now there are clipped wing models of Spits out there for example Tamiya's MkVb version has the option to make it the MkVbc i believe. ( the kit i biult was years ago lack of memory ) And came with the Right decalls aswell. But most kits you can buy an extra kit to make them these special or rare model's. Along with the proper decals ( Squadron Marking's ).
I know as its my hobby to build these plane's and been my nobby since i was 5. Just cos theres a lack of kits for a certain aircraft or no kit doesnt mean it wasnt around. Heck You can get a kit to convert a MkV Spit into the MkVII Spit and there was only 3 prototypes i believe. :)
-
He isn't the return of Kurfurst is he? Had a strange sense of deja vu yesterday reading this stuff.
Nah, Kurfurst just thought all German aircraft were significantly superior to all American aircraft and vastly superior to all British aircraft. He didn't think that aeronautical engineers were all full of toejam.
-
couldn't the "E-wing" be clipped or full span by bolting an extra part on to the wing tip?
-
couldn't the "E-wing" be clipped or full span by bolting an extra part on to the wing tip?
Changing wing tips on a Spit was not hard and was done in the field. There were Spit XVIs that had wing tips fitted, but they came off the line clipped. Sometimes it was as simple as pilot preference as you can find both in the same squadrons. Stan Turner's Spit XVI had full span wings and he was a Wing Commander at the time
-
so really there were no clipped wing spits only "E-wing" :noid :bolt:
-
Its called conversion kits. Say you had a high number of MkV Spits. You hence can send out a conversion kit to the Squadron. To convert it into a Mk IX. Conversion Kits where rare and only used if production was hampered by heavy bombing.
But most conversions where done back at the Supermarine factory. As we Brits Reused older Marks of Spits in Two ways. We would convert MkV's at the factory to MkVIII's and send them to Austrailia to bolster up the Asian Theartre till The Supermarine Factory could reach full Pruduction on a Various model i.e the MkVIII.
Its a weird and wonderful way we did things in the war but it worked :)
-
Its called conversion kits. Say you had a high number of MkV Spits. You hence can send out a conversion kit to the Squadron. To convert it into a Mk IX. Conversion Kits where rare and only used if production was hampered by heavy bombing.
But most conversions where done back at the Supermarine factory. As we Brits Reused older Marks of Spits in Two ways. We would convert MkV's at the factory to MkVIII's and send them to Austrailia to bolster up the Asian Theartre till The Supermarine Factory could reach full Pruduction on a Various model i.e the MkVIII.
Its a weird and wonderful way we did things in the war but it worked :)
Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth
-
Its called conversion kits. Say you had a high number of MkV Spits. You hence can send out a conversion kit to the Squadron. To convert it into a Mk IX. Conversion Kits where rare and only used if production was hampered by heavy bombing.
But most conversions where done back at the Supermarine factory. As we Brits Reused older Marks of Spits in Two ways. We would convert MkV's at the factory to MkVIII's and send them to Austrailia to bolster up the Asian Theartre till The Supermarine Factory could reach full Pruduction on a Various model i.e the MkVIII.
Its a weird and wonderful way we did things in the war but it worked :)
Where do you come up with this stuff? That is so far off in make-believe-land it is hard to imagine even a TV show supplying such bad info.
You cannot convert a Spitfire V into a Spitfire IX in the field and while you probably could in a factory setting it would be hard and pointless. You cannot convert a Spitfire V or IX into a Spitfire VIII at all. There were many changes on the Spitfire VIII compared to the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire IX was an emergency lash up design to mount a two stage Merlin on what was mostly a Spitfire V airframe. The Spitfire VIII was the planned, ultimate Merlin Spitfire with all the modifications that the Spitfire IX/XVI never got most of.
Also, the wing tips (for any Spitfire so far as I know) could be changed in about 15 minutes in the field.
-
Quote, Hitech: "I see many people here speaking about detailed test reports on aircraft not backing up your delusions of non detailed antidotel pilot reports."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Which test reports and where? Eric Brown's self-contradicting opinions? He NEVER stated the Me-109 turned better on top of that...
Yes, there is ONE test report that backs-up the completely silly notion that a Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A: The German La-5 test... (The German Me-109G-14AS vs FW-190A-9 face off at 28 000 ft. does not count because of the altitude: It is from several pilots and accurate)
The pilot involved in that La-5 test DID have combat experience, but I would really like to know how extensive it was, and if it included the FW-190A... Very likely this test was at full power since MW-50 is mentioned as included, which might have kept sustained turn speeds above 250 MPH... It does sit on your side, but it sits all alone, and is no more "detailed" than any of my sources...
Against that, ask ANY 8th Air Force pilot which one turned better... Haven't you guys puzzled before why they are mostly on my side?
Against that, British RAE tests are on my side (want sources on that?), two Russian combat evaluations are on my side (want sources on that?), and of course Rechlin's quote, confirmed as such by Gunther Rall: "The FW-190A out-turns and out rolls the Bf-109 at any speed"
So basically, apart from that ONE La-5 test, everyone else who knows anything is against you... Have you ever interviewed ONE FW-190A pilot?
Ummmmm---------Hey!!!!!!! How about the one that posted HERE through a relative on this board around 2005?
How come this LONG thread, "FW-190A veteran experience", with obviously authentic info from a FW-190A-8 Western ace, is gone?
Hmmmm... Now THAT is an interesting mystery... How many REAL FW-190A-8 aces have directly posted detailed opinions on these boards do you think?
Too many to even remember him apparently. LoL...
For the second time, please adress the following points:
-First, did the Luftwaffe not evaluate an UNDERPOWERED needle-prop P-47D Razorback and state flat-out: "The P-47D out-turns our Me-109G"?
If so, how come?
Second, what the heck do you think the Russian evaluation summary http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html meant by "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"?
Or Johnny Johnson when he says, post-war: "The FW-190A turned better than the Me-109"?
And where the HECK are those "better detailed" tests that show otherwise? Oh yeah, I forgot, the US Navy did those... Cough-cough.
Gaston
P.S. And I'd really like to see the mystery of the "disapearing FW-190A veteran thread" solved... G.
-
Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth
I think you just redefined "bullet point". :D
-
Can't be Kurfurst cause the 109 was really the bestest and most undermodeled plane in AH.
Could be Crumpp but he doesn't write the same way. He was the 190 is the bestest and most undermodeled plane in AH guy.
-
Bullet, that's just not even close to the truth
Hey is anything in this thread close to te truth no its not.
But why do you think that for a country so low on raw materials that we where able to make a MkV Spit at the time when we where so close to running out of raw material's to build aircraft??? I ask you this???
Its becouse we reused and up graded our current aircraft that was in service. Untill through the help from America reached a sertain rate we could sustain a new scrap and rebuild policy.
Also why do you think there are very little models of Spit MkI to Spit MkV's left. ???
Its becouse the only difference between them is armament and engine power. So its easy for Supermarine to take a MkII Spit and make it a MkIII. And Thus Easy to Take a MkIII Spit And Make It a MkI Spit.And the MkIV Spit to a MkV Spit. We never scraped previous models they where converted if the airframe was sufficiant in strength and hours. But all Most Conversitions where done by Supermane and not on the front line.
It was the only way we could afford to fight between late 1940 and 1942.
-
BulletVI,
Please, please go read a real history book. Please. You subscribe to all sorts of weird ideas and myths that sound like the things that 12 year olds come up with when talking about these things.
There are more differences between a Mk I and Mk V Spitfire than you listed, trust me. While Britain certainly used the materials in downed aircraft or old aircraft as raw materials to make new aircraft they were not refurbishing old versions into newer versions.
-
Hey is anything in this thread close to te truth no its not.
But why do you think that for a country so low on raw materials that we where able to make a MkV Spit at the time when we where so close to running out of raw material's to build aircraft??? I ask you this???
Its becouse we reused and up graded our current aircraft that was in service. Untill through the help from America reached a sertain rate we could sustain a new scrap and rebuild policy.
Also why do you think there are very little models of Spit MkI to Spit MkV's left. ???
Its becouse the only difference between them is armament and engine power. So its easy for Supermarine to take a MkII Spit and make it a MkIII. And Thus Easy to Take a MkIII Spit And Make It a MkI Spit.And the MkIV Spit to a MkV Spit. We never scraped previous models they where converted if the airframe was sufficiant in strength and hours. But all Most Conversitions where done by Supermane and not on the front line.
It was the only way we could afford to fight between late 1940 and 1942.
Please tell me you are kidding. Again, you are so far from the truth it's just sad. For search topics I suggest Castle Bromwich, AST Hamble, Southampton, Spitfire production numbers.
Even better would be Bruce Robertson's book "Spitfire-The story of a Famous Fighter" or the more recent Spitfire bible on the Spitfire by E.B. Morgan.
Going back to the Aussie Spit. They got new production Spitfire Vc and new production Spitfire VIII. They were not rebuilt Spits. Spit Is and IIs ended up in OTU's after they were replaced by the Spitfire Vs. Spit Vs took over in the OTUs as the 8,9 XII etc showed up. Each of the roughly 23000 Spits and Seafires produced had an individual ID ie; MB882, MH434, DP845 etc.
Attrition did away with most of the I and II, although if you look at survivors there are numerous Spit Is that survived their OTU days and ended up saved in Museums. RAF Museum, Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, Imperial War Museum among others have Battle of Britain survivor Spit Is.
-
Hauptmann Heinz Lange:
I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way
-
Hauptmann Heinz Lange:
I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way
-Very interesting quote, worth parsing: "I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well"
By the way, Isn"t "just about as well" enough to blow wing-loading calculationsd to hell?
This could be interpreted one of two ways: Either the Me-109 had a tighter unsustained turn radius, which is what I always accepted, and the FW-190A gained parity in SUSTAINED turns over several 360°s, or the opposite: The 109 is tighter sustained, equal unsustained...
Intuitively one would lean for the latter. But virtually every other statement made by almost all other pilots, including Gunther Rall, point the other way: "They (Rechlin) told us it could out-turn our Me-109F (900 lbs lighter than G), however I could out-turn it"
So Rechlin DID think the early FW-190A out-turned the Me-109F... (Unqualified "out-turning" in WWII always implies in sustained turns, "tighter turn radius" on the other hand is almost always a reference to unsustained turns: Pretty self-evident common sense, but hard to accept when it doesn't fit your worldview apparently....
Also worth pointing out is the use here of "tighter horizontal turn", NOT faster or better horizontal turn...
Think about the implications of wing-loading: Is the Me-109's lower wing loading a bigger help to sustain speed in turns or to make the turn tighter?
Obviously the answer is that a lighter wing loading helps more to make the tightest turns, but wingloading is of little help to sustain speed in those turns if the drag created by the turning condition is much higher (for unknown reasons due to overall airframe design and behaviour in drag at higher angles of attack)...
Then the heavier aircraft can sustain higher Gs, because of its higher speed, "and do just about as well", despite not turning as tightly...
I always accepted that the Me-109F, and maybe even the G if downthrottled, made TIGHTER turn radiuses: The argument I have always said was that the Me-109's intrinsinc peculiarity is to bleed more speed in sustained turns (this is in fact intrinsinc to the entire Me-109 series: The Me-109E had a minimum radius of 800 feet, but was still out-turned by the Spitfire I with a minimum radius of over 1000 feet. Even the Hurricane I was better than the Spitfire I in real tests with a radius of 850 feet)...
As far as tests disproving what I say for sustained turns, besides the lonely La-5 quote there is always the TsAGI test series #256...
The Me-109G-2 is quoted at 20 seconds, the Spitfire Mk V at 18.8 seconds, the F. Mk IX at 17.5 and the LF at 18.5 seconds (because of the detrimental effects of greater full throttle power I would suppose).
Sustained speeds are all around 320-340 km/h, so not above the FW-190A"s better performing speeds...
I saw a TsAGI #256-based graph on a Russian site that for the FW-190A-4 cryptically said 19-23 seconds: I was told later this was wrong and it should have read 22-23 seconds. If it is wrong, can I see a scan of the original document, since apparently EVERYTHING here hangs on TsAGI test #256?
I would also like to know what TsAGI #256 says of the FW-190A-5...
Even if it IS a powerful statement that the Me-109G out-sustains turns with the FW-190A (I concede as much), the British RAE strenuously disagree with this in their tests against a Me-109G-6/U2, U2 here being a reference to the tall wooden tail apparently, NOT to underwing gondolas as often wrongly assumed...
So even if Russian combat pilots say unequivocally "Better maneuverability on the horizontal than the Bf-109", the Russian combat pilots AND the RAE test establishment are wrong here, but the #256 test ran by Russian test pilots is right?
What was the TsAGI turn time on the FW-190A-5?
Gaston
P.S. Nobody here remembers an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace posting here and answering questions through a relative in his own 6-8 page thread in 2004-2005, or how he out-turned a P-51D on the deck and shot it down? Must be happening here EVERY DAY I guess... You guys are unbelievable...
G.
-
Gaston that's a good example of how you take a simple clear pilot account and warp it into support for your pet theory. Lange said the 109 had a better turn but the same pilot in the 190 could pull more G. The unstated reason for that was the different seating position in the 190. Lange's account supports everyone in this thread that you disagree with.
-
Gaston
P.S. Nobody here remembers an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace posting here and answering questions through a relative in his own 6-8 page thread in 2004-2005, or how he out-turned a P-51D on the deck and shot it down? Must be happening here EVERY DAY I guess... You guys are unbelievable...
G.
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
-
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
Gotta hand it to the guy Ack Ack, he's got balls coming back again and again to get his bellybutton kicked with data.
-
(http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2493/energizerbunny2008med.jpg)
-
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
Hey, wait up! Sure there was! That was me! Under a different name of course.
I know I claim to be 46 and living in Buffalo but really I'm 85 and living in Munich. I flew in the Luftwaffe during WW2 and I've out turned P51's in my FW190A8, Spit 5's, P38's, P47's and Zero's! (I was posted in the Pacific too!) It was an accident. I thought the zero was a P51. I'd never seen one before.
(ok, well, I'm lying. It wasn't me but you get the idea. You'd have to be some kind of super gullible sod to believe anything you read on the frikkin INTERNET and take it as the gospel!)
This thread is definately one for the record books...lol
-
Hey, wait up! Sure there was! That was me! Under a different name of course.
I know I claim to be 46 and living in Buffalo but really I'm 85 and living in Munich. I flew in the Luftwaffe during WW2 and I've out turned P51's in my FW190A8, Spit 5's, P38's, P47's and Zero's! (I was posted in the Pacific too!) It was an accident. I thought the zero was a P51. I'd never seen one before.
(ok, well, I'm lying. It wasn't me but you get the idea. You'd have to be some kind of super gullible sod to believe anything you read on the frikkin INTERNET and take it as the gospel!)
This thread is definately one for the record books...lol
To be fair with our physics challenged friend Gaston, I think he may have read one of Angus' interviews with a Luftwaffe ace and thought the Luftwaffe pilot was making the post. Or he could have read one of the many articles and interviews the Finnish guys post on their web site and for some reason thinks he read it in here.
ack-ack
-
Came across this in Alfred Price's book on the Spitfire "The Spitfire Story"
1942 AFDU trials of the Spit V and Spit IX against the 190
Spitfire V "The manoeuverability of the FW 190 is better then that of the Spitfire Vb except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out turn it."
Spitfire IX ""The FW 190 is more manoeuverable then the Spitfire IX except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty."
What did they learn from this? Gotta improve that roll rate. Clip those wings. And get Corky his Spitfire XII :)
Tests with the clipped Spit Vb showed that even with the clipped wings it still easily out turned the FW-190 and the roll rate was greatly improved.
-
I always accepted that the Me-109F, and maybe even the G if downthrottled, made TIGHTER turn radiuses: The argument I have always said was that the Me-109's intrinsinc peculiarity is to bleed more speed in sustained turns (this is in fact intrinsinc to the entire Me-109 series: The Me-109E had a minimum radius of 800 feet, but was still out-turned by the Spitfire I with a minimum radius of over 1000 feet. Even the Hurricane I was better than the Spitfire I in real tests with a radius of 850 feet)...
Minimum sustained turn radius at 12,000 ft
Spitfire Mk I : 695 ft
Source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif
But, you've been shown that before, and prefer to quote the turn radius of the Spitfire Mk V with clipped wings, at 20,000 ft. Makes me wonder.
TsAGI testing credits the Spitfire Mk V with a minimum sustained turn radius of 770 feet at 3,300 feet.
The same TsAGI data sheets gives us the following turn radii:
Spitfire IX (LF): 770 ft;
Fw 190 A-4: 1,115 ft
109G-2: 950 ft
109G-2/R-6 (three cannon): 1,030 ft
More later
-
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/Duvall.png)
"You know, someday this thread's gonna end..."
-
Hello, was wondering if perhaps you guys could 'learn me' some aerodynamics while you wait for Gaston to reload.
Spitfire V "The manoeuverability of the FW 190 is better then that of the Spitfire Vb except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out turn it."
Spitfire IX ""The FW 190 is more manoeuverable then the Spitfire IX except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty."
What did they learn from this? Gotta improve that roll rate. Clip those wings. And get Corky his Spitfire XII :)
Tests with the clipped Spit Vb showed that even with the clipped wings it still easily out turned the FW-190 and the roll rate was greatly improved.
When they refer to maneuverability, are they just talking about roll rate? Or anything else? As I understand it, the elliptical wing is the most efficient plan form available?
The turning force is the horizontal component of lift (as I understand it at least), so better aspect ratio would be the better turners in general? Less induced drag, less control input force required? I know engine power and things I haven't heard about yet could come into it as well.
Are high aspect ratio planes bad at rolling because of the surface area?
Was clipping the wings to increase roll as simple as reducing area by clipping the tips? When clipped does the increased induced drag help the roll also?
Were un-clipped spitfires susceptible to dutch roll?
Sorry for the sudden flood of questions, just trying to understand how it all works.
-
Its called conversion kits. Say you had a high number of MkV Spits. You hence can send out a conversion kit to the Squadron. To convert it into a Mk IX. Conversion Kits where rare and only used if production was hampered by heavy bombing.
But most conversions where done back at the Supermarine factory. As we Brits Reused older Marks of Spits in Two ways. We would convert MkV's at the factory to MkVIII's and send them to Austrailia to bolster up the Asian Theartre till The Supermarine Factory could reach full Pruduction on a Various model i.e the MkVIII.
Its a weird and wonderful way we did things in the war but it worked :)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Also why do you think there are very little models of Spit MkI to Spit MkV's left. ???
Its becouse the only difference between them is armament and engine power. So its easy for Supermarine to take a MkII Spit and make it a MkIII. And Thus Easy to Take a MkIII Spit And Make It a MkI Spit.And the MkIV Spit to a MkV Spit. We never scraped previous models they where converted if the airframe was sufficiant in strength and hours. But all Most Conversitions where done by Supermane and not on the front line.
Wasn't there a RAF squadron that was inofficially called "The Transformers", because due to clever combination of several conversion kits they were able to transform their Spit IX into Spit I, Spit XIV, Lancaster, Armstrong Whitworth Whitley or a Churchill MK IV tank? If I recall correctly, they even converted at least one Spitfire into a 190A-3 by using a captured German Rüstsatz
-
"Was clipping the wings to increase roll as simple as reducing area by clipping the tips?"
It has more to do with putting the ailerons in a more efficient position in relation to wing tip. However there are other factors as well, such as wing rigidity, aileron rigidity, hinge type (movement geometry, frise etc.) and overall design how the tip of aileron connects to wingtip and is subject to airflow.
-C+
-
Gaston that's a good example of how you take a simple clear pilot account and warp it into support for your pet theory. Lange said the 109 had a better turn but the same pilot in the 190 could pull more G. The unstated reason for that was the different seating position in the 190. Lange's account supports everyone in this thread that you disagree with.
Both a/c had the pilot's feet in the same position relative to the seat. Both a/c had relining seat backs.
-
Torden22: I have never seen a definition of maneuverability. I have always thought of it as a general description of the entire plane, from engine responsiveness to stick feel, both high and low speed handling, roll rate, turn rate, ability to snap, sensitivity to stalls, climb rate.
I.E. the size of it's entire flight envelope, not just 1 piece.
If anyone has seen a very formal definition, I would like to see it.
HiTech
-
Torden22: I have never seen a definition of maneuverability. I have always thought of it as a general description of the entire plane, from engine responsiveness to stick feel, both high and low speed handling, roll rate, turn rate, ability to snap, sensitivity to stalls, climb rate.
I.E. the size of it's entire flight envelope, not just 1 piece.
If anyone has seen a very formal definition, I would like to see it.
HiTech
Maneuverability, as defined by the U.S. Navy Fixed Wing Performance Flight Test Manual is:
An airplane inflight has a velocity vector which defines its speed and direction of
flight. The capacity to change this vector is called maneuverability. Quantifying the
maneuverability of an airplane involves documenting the acceleration, deceleration, and
turning characteristics. These characteristics are not independent, as the analysis shows;
however, they can be isolated for study...
(emphasis added)
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...
-
Lets skip the the physics lessons, shouldn't we get Gaston to at least install the game (unless he has the $ to go take real flying lessons, then by all means) and get some experience first before we start teaching him the basics of ACM and the distinctions between roll rates, vertical and horizontal turns? Without doing so, statements like "the 190 was more maneuverable than the 109, except in a flat turn" gets completely lost on him and he starts spouting out about how the 190 was the overall superior turning aircraft of the two.
His fallacies on the performance strengths and weaknesses of various aircraft make me cringe under my laughter.
-
this thread.... STOP TEH MADHNESS!!!! :x
-
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.
-
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? :rofl
-
"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. :D
-C+
-
Charge that comment you quoted was comparing the FW190 and Bf109.
-
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+
-
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:
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/bf109_entering.jpg)
-
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. :D
-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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
-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.
-
-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.
-
-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
-
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.
-
-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
Gaston is thus revealed as nothing more than a ****ing ticking timebomb bi-polar nerd with more accounts than a social life would permit, just waiting for the proper situation to explode. Everyone is missing "your point" because you can't form one properly. Listen, ok? Brush your hair off your entended forehead, whipe that sweat off your unibrow, and look
in the mirror. You're a mongoloid.
-
Be nice guys. Gaston can't remember the thread either :D and Gaston's special needs won't be met by insults. :old:
-
I would love to understand your motivation. Why have you particularly chosen to champion the Fw 190?
It's not about the Focke Wulf or any other plane. Gaston's only intent is to show how his game is the one that is accurately modeled while Aces High, IL 2 or any other flight sim is not modeled correctly and inherently flawed because these games take physics into account in the flight models. If you've seen Gaston's pen and paper game (he posted the link in the Ubi thread) you can see why his game isn't flying off the shelves.
Basically, he's a failed game designer that made a terrible game and is trying to show how in fact he's a great game designer/developer and he made a great game.
ack-ack
-
It's not about the Focke Wulf or any other plane. Gaston's only intent is to show how his game is the one that is accurately modeled while Aces High, IL 2 or any other flight sim is not modeled correctly and inherently flawed because these games take physics into account in the flight models. If you've seen Gaston's pen and paper game (he posted the link in the Ubi thread) you can see why his game isn't flying off the shelves.
Basically, he's a failed game designer that made a terrible game and is trying to show how in fact he's a great game designer/developer and he made a great game.
ack-ack
got links for his game?
-
Another one of Gaston's gems (this one posted on the Ubi forums).
Posted Mon August 30 2010 23:41 Hide Post
"Autorotation" is exactly as the text was in the magazine: It is still on newstands now marked "display until November 1st"...
It is not a translation by me, but the pilot did likely speak in Japanese...
I have heard Robert Jonhson speak of autorotation for the P-47D, which is a similar-looking aircraft... I took it to mean the nose yaws opposite from the bank side as you implement the bank, as opposed to if it was the banking to the same side, which would then be a good thing: It clearly was meant as an abnormality, and may have no relation to the Japanese N1K1 issue anyway...
This to me explains why R. Johnson sometimes banked opposite his target's bank, especially to the right if the target banked left: A right bank might have turned him towards the left-going aircraft as he rolled 270° (but maybe he just wanted to avoid the "mushing" delay of a reversal, as he described himself, by carrying on a full roll circle in case the enemy reversed)...
I am also pretty sure that the P-47D, in its Razorback version at least, banked a bit slower to left and turned slightly slower to right... At least I thought it serious enough in several accounts to incorporate this in my simulation... The P-47D is one of the hardest WWII fighters out there to pin down on the "character" issue, and I don't claim to have everything right in my game...
another gem.
Another example of why any simulation designer should drop math "predictiveness", except for very narrow areas, if the "big" picture is to be even remotely relevant:
I know of one Ki-61-Ib pilot account describing how this supposedly slow-climber could out-zoom anything the US had until the P-38 was encountered, to the Ki-61's pilot's great shock... He described he could out-zoom the F6F easily and, in his words, "even the F4U was inferior to my Ki-61 in zoom, but with the P-38 I found myself in a predicament I had never faced before, as it stayed behind me even in the steepest climb as I tried to escape..."
ack-ack
-
got links for his game?
The link was posted in either this thread or in the last Gaston thread, it's basically a pen and paper board game. For some added laughs, you should do a search for Gaston's "Rapier and Saber" flight model theory on these boards (think he posted it about a year ago).
ack-ack
-
Guys - I didn't realize that the Gaston virus had infected other threads than WWIIaircraft. what a piece of work!
-
Guys - I didn't realize that the Gaston virus had infected other threads than WWIIaircraft. what a piece of work!
Your Bert Marshall connection the one I'm thinking of drgondog? It explains the ID anyway :)
-
Your Bert Marshall connection the one I'm thinking of drgondog? It explains the ID anyway :)
Bert Wilder Marshall, Jr is my father..
-
Guys - I didn't realize that the Gaston virus had infected other threads than WWIIaircraft. what a piece of work!
He is at The Great Planes board now.http://warbirdsforum.com/index.php
-
Bert Wilder Marshall, Jr is my father..
:salute
-
Bert Wilder Marshall, Jr is my father..
Dragons and Bulldogs. Had to be :)
-
Dragons and Bulldogs. Had to be :)
Good guess. I got that nickname some 45 years ago in Cherry Point, NC
The book title, however, was a play on the squadron nicknames "Angels=358FS, Bulldogs =354FS and Dragons=357FS". I am just now finishing Volume I of a II volume set on the 355th from its inception through last year.
The 358FS in their infinite wisdom changed from Angels to Lobos in Vietnam era but the 354 and 357FS have kept their WWII squadron names and they have remained intact through Korea and Vietnam and Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan.
Have been flying 'Hogs for last 30 years and under constant deployment cycles a squadron at a time.
-
He is at The Great Planes board now.http://warbirdsforum.com/index.php
:lol Thanks for the link :aok
-
He is at The Great Planes board now.http://warbirdsforum.com/index.php
Painful reading....
-
Painful reading....
As always...
-
Good guess. I got that nickname some 45 years ago in Cherry Point, NC
The book title, however, was a play on the squadron nicknames "Angels=358FS, Bulldogs =354FS and Dragons=357FS". I am just now finishing Volume I of a II volume set on the 355th from its inception through last year.
The 358FS in their infinite wisdom changed from Angels to Lobos in Vietnam era but the 354 and 357FS have kept their WWII squadron names and they have remained intact through Korea and Vietnam and Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan.
Have been flying 'Hogs for last 30 years and under constant deployment cycles a squadron at a time.
Care to go have some fun in an RV? I'll drop by Grenville and we can go have some breakfast in Cedar Mills on a Sunday morning?
HiTech
-
Care to go have some fun in an RV? I'll drop by Grenville and we can go have some breakfast in Cedar Mills on a Sunday morning?
HiTech
HiTech is asking for a man date!
ack-ack
-
Care to go have some fun in an RV? I'll drop by Grenville and we can go have some breakfast in Cedar Mills on a Sunday morning?
HiTech
How adorable....
-
HT - just now got back to this thread. We are going to Irish Festival at Fair park tomorrow and will take a couple of our Irish Wolfhounds and hang with other Wolfie 'persons'. If you have time the Festival is a lot of fun with bands, hounds, beer swigging lunatics and gerneral Dallas riff raff.
I think we are planning to be there around Noon'ish and plan to find the wolfhound herd as a central base of Ops.
Regards,
Bill
-
Guys - I didn't realize that the Gaston virus had infected other threads than WWIIaircraft. what a piece of work!
You should read his stuff on the Ubisoft boards, those are even funnier than his posts on WWIIaircraft or on here.
ack-ack
-
Man...how can anyone actually search out this guy's posts? I feel stupider just from reading some of this thread...it's like he's sucking brain cells right out of my skull into an intelligence vacuum.
-
AHEM I thought this thread was clased HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM :noid :noid
Maybe i was wrong :bhead
-
There is absolutely no way for anyone to have a meaningful discussion with Gaston on these boards, as he neither possesses, nor desires to gain, any significant knowledge of aerodynamics. He refuses to acknowledge that anecdotes are useful for context only.
It's worse than that. He doesn't even know how to do simple statics and dynamics. I don't think he even knows how to calculate simple vectors like moments.
I chuckled at his acceptance of the anecdote as probative. I note that the British pilot even uses the word SEEMINGLY (any data there? - nope) and posits that the bandit will have him in a couple of turns - something that was entirely speculative and probably based on fear.
You're right. The whole damn thing is pointless.
Now all we need is Thorsim in here.
-
Oh scheissse, I think I just necro-boofed.
-
Ive been following his stuff on warbirds.com forum - I get the same feeling trying to understand his theories as I do looking at a marcel duchamp sculpture ... :headscratch:
-
Oh scheissse, I think I just necro-boofed.
Don't worry, it's only been a month since the last post.
-
Don't worry, it's only been a month since the last post.
Wow. The bbs has gone soft. You're supposed to post up that picture of the girl's face being impacted by the fat guy's belly while the text. "Holy Necro-Bump!" scrolls. You'd better hope most of the guys here don't read that or you'll become the prison-yard favorite. :)
That said, I'm tempted to ask Skuzzy if we can make an exception to the "no threads intent on berating someone - on PAIN OF DEATH" rule to rip on Gaston and maybe Thorsim as well.
Just kidding, Skuzzy... just kidding.
However, it became painfully clear to me in the 190A5 vs. 190A8 thread that Gaston has little/no physics or engineering background, does not understand simple rules of physics. That's not really bashing him so much as it is being truthful.
My advice: Socrates, I believe, said, "debate a wise man vigorously but only give a fool the byatch-slap" - or something like that. They had ho's and byatch-slapping back then, right? Sharpton would be a good guy to ask - since he likes talking about "them Greek HObags".
-
Inconceivable this thread is! (in my best Yoda speak) :D Been gone months from this forum and I find this thread still alive. :rock
-
Inconceivable this thread is! (in my best Yoda speak) :D Been gone months from this forum and I find this thread still alive. :rock
Yeah, way to go PJ...
:)
-
Inconceivable this thread is! (in my best Yoda speak) :D Been gone months from this forum and I find this thread still alive. :rock
WANGO TANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devil
-
WANGO TANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devil
:rock
-
This thread deserves to live forever, and to be posted to occasionally throughout time to keep it alive.
We owe it to the future.
-
This thread deserves to live forever, and to be posted to occasionally throughout time to keep it alive.
We owe it to the future.
I never get tired of sayin "WANGO TANGO" to Tango. Been doing that since 2002 on Rook channel. At first he was like "WTF?", then I told about the Nuge tune and he's been laughing ever since! :rock
Speaking of Wango Tango, where you been hidin Tango? :devil
-
This thread deserves to live forever, and to be posted to occasionally throughout time to keep it alive.
We owe it to the future.
:t
-
I never get tired of sayin "WANGO TANGO" to Tango. Been doing that since 2002 on Rook channel. At first he was like "WTF?", then I told about the Nuge tune and he's been laughing ever since! :rock
Speaking of Wango Tango, where you been hidin Tango? :devil
My dear Karaya - I have to go into my aerogeek man-cave to recover when I run across a thread like this one that totally dismantles my understanding of reality portrayed by physics. You see I must confess it takes a long time for me to recover from a mental breakdown when someone throws down the gauntlet and proves through pilot stories that my faith in Newton, Bernoulli, Prandtl, and Navier-Stokes is totally misplaced and nothing more than a delusional illusion. :rolleyes:
-
:rofl bro.
-
the Nuge
Ah, Theodore Nugent . . . I really like that guy! Besides Wango Tango (for Tango), there is Great White Buffalo about, I think, the Brewster. :)
-
Ah, Theodore Nugent . . . I really like that guy! Besides Wango Tango (for Tango), there is Great White Buffalo about, I think, the Brewster. :)
Brooke - It should read...
"...there is Great White Buffalo about, I think, the Brewster. :bhead"
Fixed it for ya :D
-
This thread deserves to live forever, and to be posted to occasionally throughout time to keep it alive.
We owe it to the future.
I went 88 mph and touched a high tension line that was spiking at 1.21 gigawatts after a lightning strike, and was transformed back to April 02, 2011.
I was then groped by my Mom and learned how to play rock n roll from the bestest rock and roll player of the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHQB0O5R4t8
-
Absolutely classic thread.
How are you Gaston, keeping well, working on any new material?
:salute
-
Absolutely classic thread.
How are you Gaston, keeping well, working on any new material?
:salute
This may be the only forum he has not been tossed from.
-
To hunt a species to extinction is not logical Captain.
-
This may be the only forum he has not been tossed from.
I think he's been kept around here for the comedy relief he provides.
ack-ack
-
Gaston has shown up on the Banana board a few times. There was the perfect thread for him there to get involved in until it was locked.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792
It would have been very entertaining with him, Crumpp and the thread starting, JG14Josf, going at it.
-
Gaston has shown up on the Banana board a few times. There was the perfect thread for him there to get involved in until it was locked.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792
It would have been very entertaining with him, Crumpp and the thread starting, JG14Josf, going at it.
Kinda cringed a bit when I looked through that thread. I think it was my BBS PTSD acting up seeing some of the names and remembering some old threads here all of a sudden :)