Author Topic: Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V  (Read 2488 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V
« Reply #60 on: September 29, 2002, 06:33:15 PM »
He sucked the air out of some sort of pipe or similair. Sucking the air out of things isn't something that we just found out how to do. Been around quite long.

Gravity works the same way, but as everything is affected by other forces aswell (drag, lift, pull, friction etc) it can't be used in the same way. A ping pong ball and a led ball of the same size won't fall as fast, or accelerate as fast or reach the same top speed.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V
« Reply #61 on: September 30, 2002, 01:19:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus
He sucked the air out of some sort of pipe or similair. Sucking the air out of things isn't something that we just found out how to do. Been around quite long.

Gravity works the same way, but as everything is affected by other forces aswell (drag, lift, pull, friction etc) it can't be used in the same way. A ping pong ball and a led ball of the same size won't fall as fast, or accelerate as fast or reach the same top speed.


i just dropped a ping-pong ball & my mouse roller ball (hard rubber) 18' - they fell at the same rate. galileo did his initial experiments rolling balls on inclined planes (slower accelerations were easier to time). proved the point to his many doubtful peers by dropping balls of varying weights and densities from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. any vaccum created by galileo in his time would have had a negligible difference to normal air with respect to aerodynamics. even today, the best vaccum man can create is several billion times denser than intergallactic space, which itself is not nearly a perfect vaccum (the average cubic meter of intergallactic space contains about 200 atomic mass units worth of matter).  the roll played by friction with air in any falling body is negligible until it begins to approach it's terminal velocity

Offline RRAM

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V
« Reply #62 on: September 30, 2002, 04:26:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by whgates3


galileo did his initial experiments rolling balls on inclined planes (slower accelerations were easier to time).  



And he did it knowing that his tests wouldn't give a really accurate idea of what happens on vacuum, and that all he was going to get was an aproximation, at its best. Galileo wasn't exactly a pisspoor scientific, you know.  

And about the rolling ball thing...

First of all: Rolling balls spend a good ammount of its energy on their rotation, rotation caused by the graze between the ball and the inclined plane. In other words, a ball rolling down a plane is losing energy in its rotation. Galileo laws (as he spelled them) aren't apliable here either.

Second of all: The ball rolled because the graze between the ball and the plane, graze that itself causes an external force opposed to the movement of the ball, and graze that means that Galileo laws aren't,again, appliable because of the presence of an external force.


Galileo did APROXIMATIONS on his laboratory tests and deduced from his tests that in vacuum, everything fell at the same rate.

If you still think that everything falls the same way in the atmosphere, check what I said. Get a 2x2cm box made of paper and throw it thru the window. Get a 2x2cm box, same shape, of iron, and throw it thru the window.

They fall the same way?.

There you go.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2002, 06:41:26 AM by RRAM »

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V
« Reply #63 on: September 30, 2002, 06:08:44 AM »
So do you all deny that F4F Wildcat outdived the A6M, cuz they had almost the same horsepower, almost the same speed, very similar wing area, the biggest difference was weight..

Offline Guppy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Fw 190 A5 vs Spit V
« Reply #64 on: September 30, 2002, 07:39:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So do you all deny that F4F Wildcat outdived the A6M, cuz they had almost the same horsepower, almost the same speed, very similar wing area, the biggest difference was weight..
I distinctly recall reading that the tests performed on the first captured Zero concluded that it was equal with the F4F-4 in dives except that the A6M's engine cut out in pushovers.

Pilot accounts from Lundstrom's The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign also seem to indicate that the F4F could not rely on outdistancing an A6M using pure dive acceleration. (The Zero's severe deficiencies in high-speed manoeuvrability may have been a more significant factor here.)

I'm definitely not suggesting that mass has no impact on dive acceleration... but how big a part does it play, compared to other aerodynamic factors?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2002, 08:02:38 AM by Guppy »