Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.

[Tupac]

  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!

[Ack-Ack]

   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

[Tupac]

Maybe is we ignore Gaston, he will go away?

Most trolls do.

[Scherf]

He ain't most trolls.

[hitech]

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

[Badboy]

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

[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

[Gaston]

  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

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

[Baumer]

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.

[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

[RTHolmes]

nice formalisation of the Crank

[hitech]

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

[SIK1]

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.    and on a Saturday to boot.

[morfiend]

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.............

[Gaston]

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