Bf-109 G/Later models design

[ZachariasX]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:38 PM, Youtch said:

Can you please explain more, i am not sure to understand.  Many thanks in advance.

250 mph is still perfect maneuveing speed for a 109 and pilots, then and now, are rather happy stunting her, even though for loops you want to add snother 50 mph.

 

To me, the references quoted indicate that pilots on both sides generally were not aware of the concepts of one circle fights vs two circle fights, the difference of going for angle or for turn rate. Interestingly enough, those quotes overall reflect the strategies to succeed in this game as well, even regarding the type of aircraft.

 

The reason you chop the throttle is your decision to force a one circle fight on your oponent, forcing an overshoot with is everything you want to get a kill shot. This is a crucial decision for fighting in a 109, unless you have an F in 1942 or a K against lesser allied planes, where going two circle for a rate fight is a viable option against most opposing planes.

 

The idea that with power off you make the „fastest turns“ is simply false. Here is what fastest turns looks like, posted in here before:

 

 

You can see that on the deck, most WW2 planes (depending on the weight, but in a dogfight configuration) fly the circle fastest (in the least number of seconds) with a flight speec of around 270 km/h. The heavier the aircraft is, the faster you have to go. It is important to know that a one circle fight („chopping throttle“) is not about going around the circle fastest, but about getting most angle (smallest radius) in the least amount of time. Essentially, you are flying toward the enemy aircraft, not to a spot behind it. Also, this chart is reflecting FULL power. Throttling back makes the right side of the plot to lower in parallel, lowering the vertex as well, increasing best sustained turn times.

 

What you can do when going slow, is fly the smallest circle. This is the point of one circle fighting, along with the main goal of forcing your quarry to overshoot. If you pull in a tight circle, as tight as you can and you chop your throttle, and he doesn‘t chop the throttle, he will pass you with you on his tail. This is what you want. Then you can kill him.

 

Going faster may produce faster turns, but as the turns are wider; two circle fights usually last longer and they make both planes better targets for all the other aircraft.

 

In a 1 vs 1 engagement, you are free to choose one or two circle fights. In a multiship engagement, it is very dangerous to spend to spend more time than strictly nessesary in a fight, hence best you stay very fast and do hit and run on slow planes that are essentially helpless. You spend time in a fight with „chopped throttle“ in a multiship engagement, you are one of those. The less time you spend being such, the longer you live. If you get caught, then forcing an overshoot in a one circle fight might be the quickest way to finish your quarry and then escape, reposiotion, and look for another oblivious victim that can‘t help it. It is NOT the time to build energy or seek a better position. It killed you back then and it will frag you in the game. All the methanol will not help you. Pulling up when an assailant is zooming up on you makes you the easiest of all targets: slowest and largest silouette. NEVER pull up in such a situation. A decending turn is even better, as this trajectory increases rüthe flight speed of your assailant, making it harder for him to follow you.

 

And there also: correct timing is the difference between life and death. The faster the attacker is, the less angle he has to pull to maintain his bearings on you. (DCS teaches you that as well: the faster a missile fired at you is, the more dangerous it is as it has to maneuver less to maintain trajectory on you.) He has to be close enough that your turn produces sufficient angle and far enough for not having shot. You can see now the tragedy of the Zero fighter vs a P-38 that can easily shoot from 700 m distance. The Zero is always dead unless the P-38 pilot makes a mistake. And there is no need to follow the Zero at all. Just shoot it. And this is what allied pilots did back then on fast aircraft like Corsair or Lightning: Just aim at it dead center, pull the trigger and slowly pull up the nose. Any plane flying steady or pulling up will be shot.

 

Just pulling up is the worst of all reactions, as you do not move out of plane in regards to your assailant. This means, he can keep his aim, pull the rigger and just pull back the stick and make you slowly disappear under his nose while hosing you with lead. Then he can relax the stick and just marvel at the fireball that was formerly you while extending from the danger zone.

 

It is essential to maneuver in accordance to your enemy and maneuver out of plane in order not to be a cooperative bandit. Planes are not just „better than the other“, it is the pilot who should maneuver his plane to its strenghts and force that kind of fight on the enemy. If the enemy - through incompetence or overconfidence - accepts that fight, you likely win. Doesn‘t matter if he has 1000 hp more than you.

 

Clostermann had a technical education, a higher one than most of his peers. Yet it was not at a level even the intersted layman can have these days. With the knowledge of the hindsight, it is also an unfair comparison. When Clostermann says that the 109 turns better than the Spit at slow speed, it means that the 109 with its smaller wing higher lift profile can hit the brakes harder when intitiate a hard turn and chopping throttle while raising the nose higher than the Spit. This is what you need to win the one circle fight, which quickly is a stall speed contest. It will however NOT fly around the circle faster than the Spit. In the game, take Spits one circle in the 109 and you have good odds. Never go one circle in a Spit against the 109, as you are so much better going two circle. You would be just throwing away your aces going one circle.

[JeanStravinsky]

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

250 mph is still perfect maneuveing speed for a 109 and pilots, then and now, are rather happy stunting her, even though for loops you want to add snother 50 mph.

 

  I did not say 250 mph for maneuvers not involving the rudder... I said above 250 mph for maneuvers that do involve the rudder, like maintaining altitude and speed while turning left horizontally in a 60 degree bank at full power... It is clear the Me-109 was uncomfortable to fly in dives for that directional trim reason alone. "The lack of rudder trimmer is severely felt" the British evaluation said of the slower Me-109E... It remained entirely true on the G-6, I checked the other British tests of later models... Me-109G pilots did not say "you could recognize a Me-109 pilot by his over-developed left leg" for nothing... Until they improved the rudder, this got worse the faster the variants went.

 

  The right nose drift was caused by the offset fin I think, which was there to reduce the left drift on take offs.

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

To me, the references quoted indicate that pilots on both sides generally were not aware of the concepts of one circle fights vs two circle fights, the difference of going for angle or for turn rate. Interestingly enough, those quotes overall reflect the strategies to succeed in this game as well, even regarding the type of aircraft.

 

  If you read the 1600 P-51 and P-47 Encounter Reports on Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance" site, which I have done twice, you will see the typical turning contest is rarely below 3 turns, usually 3-4 to the left between the P-47D and the Me-109G, and those are the shortest, usually because the opponent is a P-47D needle tip prop Razorback. The P-47 Razorback always wins to the left over the Me-109G, but to the right it is a whole other matter, and Me-109Gs usually can go on forever for 10-20 circles. Bubbletop paddle blade P-47s are not as good, not even close, but it could be just that they don't have that superior turning left side that the Razorback seems to have... (This left side dominance is so pronounced the Razorback can turn fight on the deck with 2 X 1000 lbs bombs, and still hold its own with Me-109Gs, even without dropping the bombs: Aquapendente bridge attack, pre-paddle blade, May 1944...)

 

  The FW-190A will hold turns with a P-47D, even a Razorback to the left, almost all the time. Strangely, the P-51 has more trouble turning with the Me-109G than with the FW-190A, the opposite of the P-47D... (I suspect some of those odd low-speed P-51 accounts involve "Sturmbocke" FW-190s rather than regular FW-190A fighters). It is also very easy to fly the FW-190A badly by using speed, as its high speed handling is absolutely terrible...

 

  There is, in those Encounter Reports, two accounts of one half hour of continuous turning between a P-51D and a Me-109G: TWO 30 minutes of continuous turning... That is about 90 consecutive 360s...

 

  Do you see why the notion of "one-circle-two circle" is never mentioned by any WWII pilots? A higher number of circles was needed just for the guns to inflict the damage (typically with a 1% hit rate).

 

  While 2 circles dogfights did happen, usually starting at opposite ends in the merge, I would say far more typical is 3 to 5, with 10 circles being not uncommon. As I said, two cases of 90 circles... The reason they could turn indefinitely is that props, unlike jets, have their best thrust when the engine is running high while the turn is keeping a lid on the speed.

 

  The aircraft is "sitting" on its prop, so to speak, just where the prop can generate its highest load, which is about 3000 lbs at 160 to 200 mph. This is unlike jets, which do not lose as much thrust with speed (like props do). Furthermore, the broader thrust area of a prop compared to a jet seems to make the prop tolerate this highly turn-constrained thrust load better. In both the 90 circles dogfights, no mention of stalling or of "losing energy", for good reason: It was simply irrelevant...

 

  

  Concerning the 800-900 P-47 Encounter Reports, the actual cases of diving on a lower target, in a hit and run type of attack, are virtually non-existent... (Maybe 10 -15 out of 900, if that)... By contrast, in the Spitfire Encounter Reports on the same site (about 100 of them), diving is used very frequently in attacks...

 

  Virtually all the P-47 does is turn... A constant problem is its long nose is always obscuring the target, as, unlike almost all other WWII fighters, it has no downward nose taper from the windscreen. The reason the nose is constantly obstructing its target is because the P-47D, especially the Razorback, usually has the smaller radius compared to its 109 opponent, which means the 109 is always hiding under the P-47's cowl, from being in a wider circle.

 

  Note I do not think this would happen if the Me-109 pilot would reduce power and not spiral slightly down. But they are clearly trying to maintain a high speed, and as much altitude as possible while at high power, and in left turns that gives the P-47 an advantage so large that usually a tailing Me-109G is reversed in about 4 turns to the left, often in 3... I think in reality, at speeds below 230-250 mph, the 109G was equal to the P-47D Razorback in left turns, and superior in right turns (and superior on both sides to a Bubbletop), but you certainly don't get that impression from reading these Encounter Reports...: It is a theory of mine that Me-109G pilots simply kept the power too high to turn well. I also think the Razorback turned so well because the needle tip prop was less efficient, which had the same effect as lowering power. The symmetry difference in turns compared to the Bubbletop was possibly due to the prop spiral hitting that raised spine, which might have helped its left turns: Pure speculation, I hasten to add...  

 

  Usually such a fight is spiralling down (but not steeply), which is probably what keeps the turning speed above 230-250 mph for the 109 (thus in the left foot severely felt zone...), but again, that is just a theory.

 

  In right turns, even the Razorback gradually loses to the 109G, or is about on par if they spiral down. Then the turn fight can last a very long time, 10-20 circles being somewhat uncommon but possible. For some reason the 109 rarely if ever tries right turns, despite Steinhoff's recommendation of using the right spiral climb: That particular advice is literally never used in fact... But then "Encounter Report" failures probably don't get published on that site, I strongly suspect...: All of the Encounter Reports feature kills... (Yes it is that kind of site, and you will not find any documents there, that I know exist,  that paint Allied equipment in anything less than a stupendous light: This must be kept in mind when going there, but it soon becomes pretty obvious...)

 

  

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The reason you chop the throttle is your decision to force a one circle fight on your oponent, forcing an overshoot with is everything you want to get a kill shot. This is a crucial decision for fighting in a 109, unless you have an F in 1942 or a K against lesser allied planes, where going two circle for a rate fight is a viable option against most opposing planes.

 

The idea that with power off you make the „fastest turns“ is simply false. Here is what fastest turns looks like, posted in here before:

 

 

You can see that on the deck, most WW2 planes (depending on the weight, but in a dogfight configuration) fly the circle fastest (in the least number of seconds) with a flight speed of around 270 km/h. The heavier the aircraft is, the faster you have to go. It is important to know that a one circle fight („chopping throttle“) is not about going around the circle fastest, but about getting most angle (smallest radius) in the least amount of time. Essentially, you are flying toward the enemy aircraft, not to a spot behind it. Also, this chart is reflecting FULL power. Throttling back makes the right side of the plot to lower in parallel, lowering the vertex as well, increasing best sustained turn times.

 

  I am very interested in that true airspeed of 270 km/h, as that is only around 160 mph...

 

  Karhila mentions below an "optimal" turn speed of 260 km/h (an indefinitely sustained turning speed, given the 5-10 or so circles dogfight he described),  as being optimal for the twin Gondola Me-109G-6... 260 km/h is 160 mph, or barely 60 mph above a level bank stall speed(!)...

 

  Is this to say that the Me-109G-6, having a full power top speed of 400 mph, give or take, can sustain indefinitely turns (at 160 mph) that are so hard, they can cut 240 mph from the full power top speed?

 

  In my opinion, sustaining turns around 3 Gs at 260 km/h, indefinitely, cannot be so tight that 3G will cut 380 km/h from the full top speed potential... Therefore I (tentatively) conclude 3G sustained at 260 km/h is not at full power... Maybe I am wrong in this? The context of the quote seem to suggest that this is not at full power: He even contradict pilots who went for full power:

 

Quote, Karhila:  "I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well.."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection. --250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed. (160 mph)"
- Kyösti Karhila

 

  Note that he mentioned this in the context of a multiple (5 or 10 X 360 circles) dogfight at sea level. It went on for quite some time... And he said he won because he cut the throttle and gained a smaller radius despite a similar or unchanged turn rate.

 

(He claimed he was facing two P-51Ds, but in his area he usually faced only Lagg-3s and La-5FNs, and I think the Yak-9D, with its ventral radiator and bubble canopy, along with slightly squarer wing tips, could easily have deceived him, since he never saw Yaks in combat before. P-51Ds seem very unlikely to me.)

 

  That his description cannot be "energy management", but is in fact "force management", is evident in the non time-limited nature of the down-throttling in the quote below (instantaneous effect with no time limit is the defining feature of force effects, as opposed to energy effects): There is leverage involved somewhere in there: 

 

Hansemann:  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/33...

 

  "The second Me-109 was maneuvering to get on my tail, and a dogfight developed at 500 ft. (after climbing from 150 ft. following a slow gaining attack on a landing Me-109) At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got to the edge of the [German] airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. [Meaning was forced to turn multiple consecutive 360s continuously, even when going towards the enemy ground fire...] Gradually (no time limit despite multiple 360s) I worked the Me-109G away from the field, and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings." 

 

   This is throttle reduction over multiple consecutive 360s on the deck (from a very low starting speed): This cannot be energy management, since there would be no time for cutting power from such a low speed. He would have to throttle back up almost immediately. This here is clearly force, there is no way this is energy being expended over several consecutive 360s: That energy is simply not there to begin with. 

 

  And yes, I do think the weaker needle tip P-47D prop made it turn better for the exact same reasons... There is some kind of leverage issue (input reversal, in other words) with these things that makes them the way they obviously are... And managing them is not managing their speed, or their "energy", it's managing their internal leverages, which the prop creates from being ahead of the wing, and that jets don't have...

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

What you can do when going slow, is fly the smallest circle. This is the point of one circle fighting, along with the main goal of forcing your quarry to overshoot. If you pull in a tight circle, as tight as you can and you chop your throttle, and he doesn‘t chop the throttle, he will pass you with you on his tail. This is what you want. Then you can kill him.

 

   Although over-running was a bothersome problem for aiming, I can't remember many instances where this was actually fatal to the pursuer, out of thousands of dogfights. Maybe one or two... 

 

   What IS fatal is trying to roll out of the turn: That is just about the most fatal thing in real WWII air combat... This is why the targets were "trapped" and the turning went on forever, and always in consecutive circles to the same side...

 

  You need to stop thinking in terms of "one two circles", and heed the advice of this FW-190A-8 1945 ace:  

 

   "Our wings were never level in combat. We turned to one side without interruption. Outnumbered as we were, by 1945 it was the only way to survive."

 

  From what I read, turning all day long in consecutive 360s is closer to late-war WWII combat than just one or two circles... I'm only slightly exaggerating...:

 

  A N1K2 Japanese Navy pilots described it as such: "I was attacked by 8 P-51s, alone, and I started turning around this small lake near my home. I turned and turned at such an unimaginably low speed they tried to hit me for half an hour, but they could not adjust their fire because they could not understand how slow I was going."

 

  It's half an hour: 90 or 100 consecutive circles... There is also a Ki-43 who did the exact same thing with 12 P-38s.

 

  We are not talking about gaining angles here... And the "unimaginably slow speed" certainly means he was not at full power either (The Ki-43 was also described as "loafing at reduced power with his canopy open").

 

  I don't know how much plainer I can make this: Props and guns like going slow... 

 

  And if you dive on a lower target, that target better not be aware you are coming, or its you and your speed that is going to be in deep trouble... In the REAL world that is... And for your guns to have any chance with a high speed differential, you need to fire at point-blank range (unless you are Hans Joachim Marseille apparently).

 

  The Me-262 had an absolute crap kill ratio until it got R4M rockets... The problem was not its reliability or acceleration or anything like that: Guns simply do not like large speed differences...

  

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Going faster may produce faster turns, but as the turns are wider; two circle fights usually last longer and they make both planes better targets for all the other aircraft.

 

   In real life they could not lead a curving target (not even with a K-14 sight). This is why diving attacks had to be on an unaware target, with firing delayed to the last possible moment.

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

In a 1 vs 1 engagement, you are free to choose one or two circle fights.

 

   Once in a circle you cannot roll out of it. A basic rule Germans were often unaware of, generating a lot of kills apparently...

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

In a multiship engagement, it is very dangerous to spend to spend more time than strictly necessary in a fight, hence best you stay very fast and do hit and run on slow planes that are essentially helpless.

 

 

   Slow planes are not helpless. In the real world it is you who is helpless because the speed differential makes your guns nearly useless except at contact range, while your trajectory is straighter and easier to "lead" than their deep curves. Also, their noses often can move around faster than yours.

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

 

 

And there also: correct timing is the difference between life and death. The faster the attacker is, the less angle he has to pull to maintain his bearings on you. (DCS teaches you that as well: the faster a missile fired at you is, the more dangerous it is as it has to maneuver less to maintain trajectory on you.) He has to be close enough that your turn produces sufficient angle and far enough for not having shot. You can see now the tragedy of the Zero fighter vs a P-38 that can easily shoot from 700 m distance.

 

 

   If you are faster, your best firing range is between 30 and 50 yards, according to an N1K2 Navy Pilot. Even 100 yards is too far...

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Clostermann had a technical education, a higher one than most of his peers. Yet it was not at a level even the interested layman can have these days.

 

 

   Yes but he has the actual first hand experience, more RAF missions than anyone ever, and 18 kills, including 10 on FW-190s... I'll grant you Robert Johnson has 32 kills and is about as reliable as a 3 dollars bill (what with these wonderful "Me-209s" kills painted on his ship, not to mention a myriad of demonstrable lies, almost on a level with Chuck Yeager, which is saying something).

 

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

 

With the knowledge of the hindsight, it is also an unfair comparison. When Clostermann says that the 109 turns better than the Spit at slow speed, it means that the 109 with its smaller wing higher lift profile can hit the brakes harder when intitiate a hard turn and chopping throttle while raising the nose higher than the Spit. This is what you need to win the one circle fight,

 

   This is how he described it in the video, from seeing the gun camera footage of a Me-109G: "The Spitfire begins the turn and gains on the German, then as the turn goes on and on, the Spitfire gains less and less, and then you see the German's fire begin. At first it begins to miss the Spitfire's tail planes by a lot, then gradually it gets closer and closer, and then it starts to hit the tail planes, and then it walks higher and higher up the fuselage, until the Spitfire pilot is forced to bail out..."

 

   Guns are SLOW.... And they like it when things are SLOW... Guns like turns because turns are inevitably SLOW... And you can't roll out of them. Guns will really love you if you try...

 

21 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 It will however NOT fly around the circle faster than the Spit. In the game, take Spits one circle in the 109 and you have good odds. Never go one circle in a Spit against the 109, as you are so much better going two circle. You would be just throwing away your aces going one circle.

 

 

   If the Spitfire does not make a hard initial turn at high speed, which it CAN do better than the 109 or 190, then it will lose as the speed decays: That is crystal clear in everything Pierre Clostermann said... In fact, it is even more true with the FW-190A, and the situation was (somewhat) redressed by using the Mark IXs better climb rate and hit and run tactics, not turning.

   

Edited July 30, 2023 by JeanStravinsky

[Youtch]

Is there any of this remotely implemented in IL2 GB? Is there any difference between left and right turn modelled in the game for specific plane?

 

I am under the impression that it is virtually impossible in the game for a Bf109 to loose to a P47 in a turn fight, regardless of throttle power, or in SP and MP.

 

I would even dare saying that no matter the number of p47s you throw at a Bf109, as long as the Bf109 is aware and not caught by surprise, it can get rid of them one by one without breaking a sweat.

 

Regarding the point you made of slow turn going for ever as an evasive tactic, even if attacked by many. I can understand a couple of planes getting trapped into the endless turn game, but i am struggling to understand why one of the offensive planes with higher speed would not get into high yo yo at some point and become a real threat (even if gun like slow), especially if the turn is always in the same direction, at same rate and hence totally predictable.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Youtch
Typos

[ZachariasX]

@JeanStravinsky you bring up many interesting reports. That is nice. I would howver be very careful interpreting aerodynamic properies if aircraft into such accounts, as they mainly depict the situational difference of the planes involved, told us by someone just happened to survive the situation.

 

First of all regarding left or right turns:

5 hours ago, Youtch said:

Is there any difference between left and right turn modelled in the game for specific plane?

There is no difference in turning left or right in those aircraft, and neither are turn times to either side different in a Sopwith Camel or Dr.I. There is a RAF report comparing slight differences in such comparing the Tempest II and V, but I really doubt they hold much water. I have flown both the Mustang and the Spit9 and they are absolutely identical in left or right turn, with the only difference in the Mustang requiring rudder to counter slight nose up or nose down during the respective turn. The Merlin Spit, once trimmed out, requires much less footwork. The 109 has only one trim setting that you can set before takeoff, hence indeed if you fly it across a big speed range and power settings, your legs have a workout. It is one if many idiosynchrasies that make some versions of the 109 a particular proposition.

 

Also, if you pull g, induced drag increases drastically. This is the reason why the Thunderbolt (and even the Tempest) do not have great sustained turn times. The Thunderbolt only has those at 10 km altitude where the competition simply runs out of breath.

 

Generally speaking, the heavier the aircraft, the more speed it will lose by the same amount of g pulled in a turn. This means, (I am making these numbers up now, but the principle is valid) if I fly a 3 g turn at 270 km/h in a Thunderbolt, I need 2500 hp to pull me, whereas a 109 only needs 1500 hp to fly a 3 g turn at 270 km/h. This means, If I have 1800 hp in the 109, I have 300 hp that give me a higher flight speed in that same turn and I may end up with flying 290 km/h at 3.1 g. This means, I am pulling up in the circle behind the Thunderbolt and I will win the rate fight.

 

And yes, these numbers are about the ballpark for WW2 fighters.

 

One or two seconds difference in angular rate can actually make quiet a difference here, despite having to wait 180 or so turns to having caught up. Because the slower rating aircraft now has a problem, whereas the faster rating aircraft can just wait for the win and, what usually happens, exploit an error by his victim and finish up the fight.

 

Pure rate fights rarely happen, and when they do, then down on the deck. Before that, combatants in one way or the other trade altitude for angles and what you have is the toilet bowl spiral to the deck. ANY plane can outturn the other, if it can afford to throw away the altitude to get the angles. And this is why combat reports are a bad source for naked plane performance. They are told by winners, and winners rarely start the fight in the crosshairs of their mark. Instead, these are the ones who instinctively maintain a good position and most importantly, know to maneuver according to their bandit.

 

You don‘t need to roll out of a two circle fight to end a one or a two circle fight, that is not how it works. This guy has a great channel, where he very nicely comments on these basics in dogfighting. The means of propulsion are irrelevant as such, they just influence your choices:

https://www.youtube.com/@GrowlingSidewinder

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by ZachariasX

[JeanStravinsky]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:56 AM, ZachariasX said:

@JeanStravinsky you bring up many interesting reports. That is nice. I would however be very careful interpreting aerodynamic properies if aircraft into such accounts, as they mainly depict the situational difference of the planes involved, told us by someone just happened to survive the situation.

 

First of all regarding left or right turns:

There is no difference in turning left or right in those aircraft, and neither are turn times to either side different in a Sopwith Camel or Dr.I. There is a RAF report comparing slight differences in such comparing the Tempest II and V, but I really doubt they hold much water. I have flown both the Mustang and the Spit9 and they are absolutely identical in left or right turn, with the only difference in the Mustang requiring rudder to counter slight nose up or nose down during the respective turn.

 

 

  I never claimed there were large differences in right or left turns for either the Spitfire or the P-51.

 

  If you look at the Data Cards of my board game variant below, you will find the Spitfire Mk XIV and the P-51 are symmetrical, except that the Mark XIV has a slight preference for left rolls, which is based on an actual flight data chart from a Mark XII Griffon, not one of those terrible "calculated" nonsense charts that WWII has deluged us with... (They literally believed, then, that mathematics were as good as the real thing, so they produced reams of those charts that have hardly any mention that the data is entirely calculated speculation: The roll rate chart NACA 868 is unfortunately one of those, resulting in the completely bogus notion that the Spitfire rolled like a FW-190A...)

 

Air Force | Advanced Air Force | File | BoardGameGeek

 

  

  I claim significant right/left turn differences for, above all, the P-47D Razorback, possibly mostly with the needle tip prop in place (and unknown for the Bubbletop). The A6M5 Zero does have those differences both in turn and in roll (as is widely reported from all pilots of the Planes of Fame example currently flying), the FW-190A also has a left preference in hard higher G turns, the Ki-84-I (as reported in the WWII original Japanese document titled "A consideration of Ki-84 performance", an actual wartime document: Turn test results: 17 seconds left, 20 seconds right, which is a huge difference).

 

  And the asymmetry I claim for the Me-109 is mostly dependent on turning at high power while sustaining altitude, and does not apply to harder turns where the rudder does not come as much into play for the turn performance: That is a thing unique to the Me-109's right nose drift above 250-300 mph. Of note is that while the rudder deflection needed is slight, the effort is apparently not, and gets worse with speed...

 

  A Me-109G today would rarely be flown level beyond 300 mph, and that is already close to its maximum level speed at ground level: If pilots today don't complain about the rudder, it could be that over the years something changed in the airframe, which are mostly converted Buchons for most of those flying anyway... 

 

  You will note all 3 aircrafts with what I consider to have "cowl related" asymmetries (as opposed to the likely fin-related asymmetry on the Me-109) have several things in common: All props turn to the same side, all have a left preference, and, most significant of all, all of them have a radial engine.

 

  This is why I did not include several radials I could have made for my game variant. There was little that was specific about their symmetry.

 

  

 

On 7/30/2023 at 11:56 AM, ZachariasX said:

 

 

Also, if you pull g, induced drag increases drastically. This is the reason why the Thunderbolt (and even the Tempest) do not have great sustained turn times. The Thunderbolt only has those at 10 km altitude where the competition simply runs out of breath.

 

  Yeah the Russians claimed a 27 seconds turn time for the their Razorback P-47D... Lol... They also peg the P-51 at 22, which is about right, though it probably did better with the flaps down and less power.

 

  Then all of a sudden, 1989 SETP test, what is that?!?

 

  Heading Change Time (180 deg at METO, 220 KIAS at 10,000 ft.)
FG-1--8.5 sec P-47--9.7 sec F6F--9.9 sec P-51--10.0 sec

 

  AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 210 KIAS at 10,000 ft. (straight & level into a 3g
turn to the left building to 4g followed by a hard reversal into a 4g
right turn.)
FG-1 best, followed by P-47, F6F and, trailing badly, the P-51. Lateral
corrections in the P-51 were difficult thanks to the very high stick
forces. During one run-thru, an effort at a longitudinal tracking
correction that put 4.5g on the plane led to a sudden departure and spin.

 

  While it is true that the above are not sustained turns, given that, if I were to collate them, about a dozen original P-47 Encounter Reports show the Razorback P-47 reversing the Me-109G in about 4 consecutive 360s, and almost none out of 800 show it to be out-turned by anything other than the FW-190A (minding that, even with the victor bias I mentioned, you still get descriptions of what happens to other P-47s, not just that of the narrator), do I really need to go there?

 

  Let's say it was, at worse, equal to the P-51... In combat it was a long way from that, but let's assume all 800 Encounter Reports were filled with hateful bias, and they were equal in turns...

 

  The P-47 depended on how you handled it: If you pulled hard on the elevator, which was not heavy, it would just mush and eat speed. That is a well established fact. That does not mean its actual turn performance is that poor. 

 

 

The Thunderbolt was also, it seems to me, nothing out of the ordinary in turns at high altitudes. But it wasn't bad either: If it ended being used at low altitude, you can assume it was not that bad there either... Pilots questioned on that precise matter say they saw little difference.

 

The Spitfire did turn exceptionally well at very high altitudes, and that is confirmed by Clostermann and many German pilots.

 

 

On 7/30/2023 at 11:56 AM, ZachariasX said:

 

Generally speaking, the heavier the aircraft, the more speed it will lose by the same amount of g pulled in a turn. This means, (I am making these numbers up now, but the principle is valid) if I fly a 3 g turn at 270 km/h in a Thunderbolt, I need 2500 hp to pull me, whereas a 109 only needs 1500 hp to fly a 3 g turn at 270 km/h. This means, If I have 1800 hp in the 109, I have 300 hp that give me a higher flight speed in that same turn and I may end up with flying 290 km/h at 3.1 g. This means, I am pulling up in the circle behind the Thunderbolt and I will win the rate fight.

 

  That principle is clearly not valid if pilots in WWII were constantly cutting the throttle, with no examples of them ever putting the coals back on while the turn was going on... Not one case of up-throttling in a turn, resulting in a gain, that I have seen in 28 years of research. 

 

  Simple: Show me one. Just one case.

 

  In combat, they contested for slowness.

 

  That there is a problem with the math is very visible in the simple fact that the FW-190A, at 45 lbs/sq ft., easily out-turns a Spitfire (of any Mark) at 30 lbs/sq. ft....

 

  Not only does it do that, but it does that only at low speeds below 250 mph, which is precisely the regime that the "math" would expect for it to do the worse...

 

  Not only does the FW-190A overcomes a disparity of 50%, it easily overcomes this disparity with a massive excess: The actual difference to expected "math" outcome is not 50%, but more like 60 to 80% at minimum...

 

  To beat the Spitfire, the FW-190A must generate 9000 lbs X 3 G: 28 000 lbs, PLUS the difference with 7000 lbs X 3 G: 21 000 lbs.

 

  So it must generate 35 000 lbs of lift, an extra 7000 lbs, just to be level on the weight.

 

  Then it must beat 242 square feet with 197 square feet, let's say add another extra 25% to make things round. + 25% on 35 000 is another 8750 lbs.

 

  So now we are at 43 750 lbs of lift, vs 21 000 lbs on the Spitfire, just to make them turn on an equal radius at 3 G!!!!!

 

  I estimate the FW-190A has at least another 10% over that:  So to beat the Spitfire significantly it has to generate 48 125 lbs of lift to the Spitfire's 21 000 lbs ...

 

  So, as observed in combat, the opposite being "a good joke" according to Clostermann, who has watched thousands of gun camera films that probably no longer exist, and gave conferences to fellow pilots on which their very lives depended, the FW-190A generates 20 125 lbs MORE LIFT than we currently think at 3Gs...

 

  That's 71.875 % more lift than we currently think it does...

 

  Do you really think Pierre Clostermann gave advice that KILLED the attendees at his conferences??

 

  Obviously this effect is non-existent after the 220 knots "trim shift" Eric Brown describes below, because in higher speed dive pull-outs, the FW-190A can lift its nose above the horizontal and literally keeps going down, nose up, for hundreds, if not thousands of feet (as related in innumerable combats, the common description being:  "If he does not pull out by 8000 ft., the FW-190A will just keep going down and PANCAKE itself...)

 

  PANCAKE being the visually descriptive word...

 

  

 

  There is only one thing in all of physics that can overcome such a disparity of calculated outcome with a 71% difference: Input reversal. What is an input reversal?: A Leverage ratio.

 

  Is there evidence of an input reversal on the FW-190A?: Well what do you know :

 

  Eric Brown (Duel in the Sky): "The change in trim could easily be gauged in turns (why in turns and not in dive pull-outs?:  Because the prop is more heavily loaded in horizontal turns than in dive pull outs, thus has more force acting on it) The FW-190A had a tendency to "tighten up" in a turn (meaning it pulled its nose up without pilot input, which means, though Brown appears loath to say it, that he actually had to push on the stick during the turn, just to keep it from going overboard nose high on its own), above 220 knots (355 km/h) backwards stick pressure was required." 

 

  And THAT right there, ladies and gentlemen, is called an input reversal.

 

  Which absolutely means leverage is at play on this aircraft (maybe others, maybe the P-40 for instance, given the large puzzled thread here on its turn performance). Which means all bets are off as to what the "math" outcomes might be.

 

  Although not all of what I say in the video below is fully up to date, this video still has an interesting example of how confusing input reversals can be, for people who think they understand physics:

Spoiler

 

The problem with what Archimedes said; that a lever, if big enough, could lift the world, is that it implants (stupidly and wrongly) an impression that something BIG is required...

 

 It's not the "bigness" of the lever that matters at all, it's the "bigness" of the RATIO on that lever.

 

  In the video you see a trolley with a big wheel on top interacting with small wheels on the bottom: Like the propeller car in the video, it moves faster than the beam pushing at the top.

 

  What people don't seem to get is that if the smaller wheels, which reverse the input of the big wheel, were small enough, and yet maintained their function (a big IF if they were microscopic, toothed for no slippage, indestructible etc), then the big-wheel/small-wheel RATIO would be BIGGER.

 

  Smaller wheels at the bottom would mean the trolley would go faster. How much faster? How about a ratio of a 1 mph push at the top, assuming incredibly small wheels, then, mathematically, the trolley would instantly convert that 1 mph into a speed high enough to punch through 20 concrete walls and send the debris flying into space... With smaller bottom wheels.

 

 Because, RATIO you know?

 

  People out there literally think you can't get more force out of something than you put in... They literally believe everything in life is a 1:1 ratio or less... Or that more force cannot result in more energy...

 

  And no, there is no free energy. But that does not mean there is no FREE force... 

 

  Most people have no conception at all of the difference between force and energy... This is what happens when you insist on maths as a solution for everything. Maths do not account well for the complexities of physical bodies.

 

  You know what it would require for everything in life to be an input/output ratio of 1:1 or less? It would literally require physical bodies to not exist...

 

  When people actually believe you can't get more out of something than you put in, that's about as far as their understanding of the physical world goes: Nothing exists...

 

  And that's exactly what is happening when engineers and pilots believe it's not possible for the FW-190A to out-turn the Spitfire in low speed sustained turns... They think it's a 1:1 ratio... Pure math with no bodies...

 

  Or they believe that 1 mph at the top of the trolley cannot equal (in theory) near the speed of light at its bottom (if the bottom wheels were small enough)...: You have in the video above a freaking professor of physics who bet $10 000 because he literally did not believe the wind prop car could go faster than the wind pushing it... 

 

  EVEN with measurements of 2.8 times wind speed...

 

  What?!!!!!!

 

  Do you actually believe you can't get more out of something than you put in? 

 

  And aircraft engineers, in their infinite wisdom, don't notice that the wing being behind the thrust could induce some input reversal somewhere?

 

  Well, that's where we are at apparently. Some freaking sophisticated Science let me tell you...

 

 And yes I know, WWII pilots who fought with 190s, on the deck with no diving, right? do not know anything, because Science you know... Science! With a big S!!!

 

  

 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by LukeFF
swastikas

[ZachariasX]

18 hours ago, JeanStravinsky said:

And no, there is no free energy. But that does not mean there is no FREE force... 

 

Ehm… Your exposé is rather unconventional in terms of as you understand physics. If you show me where I can find the „free force“ then I make you the second richest man on earth, much richer than Elmo (but not nearly as rich as myself; I am noth that generous).

 

But for the time being I congratulate you for the invention of the perpetuum mobile and your Nobel prize. But I am affraid they will take that one back after some due dilligence on your invention. Your statement I quoted is nothing but a contradiction.

 

Trust me, aircraft designers are quiet aware - in a very exact manner even - of the forces that act on their aircraft. In contrast to you, as you demonstrate the old tropes of the „propelled geared by the wheels car“ and „car under the wooden beam“ examples; old tropes that make fun of people that not really understand physics.

 

Your explanation of „lift during turns“ in yout YT vid has very little to do with the actual physics of generating lift. This is actually a more complicated problem than one might think and most - even flight instructors - get that wrong by referring to the Bernoulli principle. For a proper descriptive of that you might want to google „lifting line theory“. This is actually also the base of how most modern flight simulators compute lift to calculate flight preformance.

 

So, after 28 years of researching combat reports, I would suggest you enlist to your local Community College for courses in mathematics and physics. After that, you might want to take courses in aerodynamics. This will certainly change your conclusions.

 

Keep in mind that if you are the only one getting a specific solution to a problem while the rest of the world deals with that particular problem sucessfully for years doing something else, that is usually a definitive indication that you are wrong.

Edited August 6, 2023 by ZachariasX

[JeanStravinsky]

On 8/6/2023 at 12:38 PM, ZachariasX said:

 

Ehm… Your exposé is rather unconventional in terms of as you understand physics. If you show me where I can find the „free force“ then I make you the second richest man on earth, much richer than Elmo (but not nearly as rich as myself; I am noth that generous).

 

But for the time being I congratulate you for the invention of the perpetuum mobile and your Nobel prize. But I am affraid they will take that one back after some due dilligence on your invention. Your statement I quoted is nothing but a contradiction.

 

Trust me, aircraft designers are quiet aware - in a very exact manner even - of the forces that act on their aircraft. In contrast to you, as you demonstrate the old tropes of the „propelled geared by the wheels car“ and „car under the wooden beam“ examples; old tropes that make fun of people that not really understand physics.

 

Your explanation of „lift during turns“ in yout YT vid has very little to do with the actual physics of generating lift. This is actually a more complicated problem than one might think and most - even flight instructors - get that wrong by referring to the Bernoulli principle. For a proper descriptive of that you might want to google „lifting line theory“. This is actually also the base of how most modern flight simulators compute lift to calculate flight preformance.

 

So, after 28 years of researching combat reports, I would suggest you enlist to your local Community College for courses in mathematics and physics. After that, you might want to take courses in aerodynamics. This will certainly change your conclusions.

 

Keep in mind that if you are the only one getting a specific solution to a problem while the rest of the world deals with that particular problem sucessfully for years doing something else, that is usually a definitive indication that you are wrong.

 

   

 

 

 

  The actual shape and physical existence of bodies implies a potential mismatch between input and output. This is not a perpetual motion machine, and the fact you even bring this up means you do not grasp the difference between energy and force.

 

  You did not even mention if you believed it is theoretically true that, with a huge big wheel/small wheel ratio, 1 mph at the top of the trolley could -in theory- mean 600 000 000 miles per hours at the bottom, given microscopic bottom wheels. Again, I am not speaking here of practically accomplishing this.

 

  Yes or no? 

 

  Please answer that question if I am to keep bothering with this.

 

  The reason I bring up the trolley is because people have this mental bloc with the FW-190A generating 71% more lift (than assumed) in sustained low speed turns, meaning that it turns tighter at low speeds than the Spitfire, despite 50% more wing loading, as all first hand WWII accounts show.

 

  (Or... Maybe, just maybe, find me one instance of the Spitfire out-turning the FW-190A in prolonged low speed turns on the deck... Not one circle after a dive, or at high speed/high altitudes: Multiple 360s on the deck, ensuring slow speed, as Clostermann described... Oh I know: The Spitfire out-turns it so badly there are no multiple 360s accounts, ever... Riiiight. That must be why I never found one in 28 years...)

 

  This is the exact same problem as the trolley, but the difference is the ratio is here expressed in a fluid, not through a solid object like the trolley.

 

  The thing to accept is that generating extra lift is not a violation of the laws of physics (as you are implying), just like the trolley is not free energy.

 

  The difference is this: Unlike the small wheels of the trolley, the smaller wings of the FW-190 obviously do not generate more lift from being smaller (although having a lot less chord could be a factor)...

 

  So where would that extra lift come from?

 

  If you look at a diagram of the distribution of lift forces, you see most of the positive action takes place at the leading edge: It would only take a slight change of angle in the airflow (from a small change in local air density) at the leading edge to radically change the lift over at least the wing area behind the prop (and possibly having effects spreading further outwards).

 

 

 

 

  But that would inevitably induce extra drag, which would definitely slow the aircraft down in proportion to the extra lift.

 

  However, let's assume a process I have no real way of visualizing: If more air is drawn in between the propeller and the wing leading edge, then the propeller would get increased thrust, which would cancel out the extra drag from the extra lift. Air would, in effect, be compressed between the prop and the wing.

 

  No wind tunnel could replicate this, since neither the prop disc loads, nor the air curvature of a turn, is replicable. 

 

  The extra forces involved in generating extra compression between the prop and the leading edge would not violate the laws of physics, any more than the extra speed generated by the trolley.

 

  The loss of speed from the extra lift would, in effect, be compensated by extra thrust from denser air behind the prop. This would explain why WWII pilots could afford to reduce the throttle when at lower speed: First, the turn drag, causing an increased prop load, would shift the CL forward of CG (forcing poor Eric Brown to push on the stick while turning, as in the case of the FW-190A), then, reducing the throttle would move the CL back towards the CG, drawing more air behind the prop as it moves, compensating part of the throttle power reduction while increasing the lift: In theory, it could be that (speculation here) the more initial forward distance the CL moves forward of the CG (when the turn is initiated), the more extra air is drawn behind the prop when the CL is moving back towards the CG as you reduce the throttle.

 

  (Since the FW-190A has this unusual push behaviour in low speed turns, it could mean the CL moves a GREATER distance forward of CG upon turn initiation, so much so that the extra load on the prop (from turn drag) is unable to keep the attitude normal... Thus requiring the push. But that would ALSO mean the FW-190A benefits MORE from cutting the throttle... You'll NEVER guess what actual FW-190A pilots tended to do. Neeeever, I tell you...)

 

  The initial forward move of the CL (ahead of CG) would not affect stability (as is often objected to me), because the turn's backward pull from extra drag would also have increased the load on the prop: The prop's extra load is, in effect, what is holding things straight... But not quite enough on the FW-190A, apparently, maybe depending on how you enter the turn: Hence pushing on the stick in a turn...

 

  This "pushing the stick" behaviour does indicate the FW-190A is different from other types at low speeds, which could explain why it is such an outlier in proportion to its wing load. Remember that pulling on the stick becomes necessary in turns above 220 knots (E. Brown), precisely where the FW-190A seemingly starts to become the worst turning fighter of WWII... What a coincidence.

 

  To sum up, what is expressed as extra speed on the trolley is here expressed as extra air compression between the wings and the prop.

 

  Possibly because of its fatter cowl, shorter prop-wing leading edge distance, or shorter wing chord, whatever the reason, the FW-190A compresses more air between the prop and the wing than the Spitfire does. 

 

  And you can see that something like that is going on, because at least ONE fighter aircraft was put into service with a pusher prop, and it turned like poo:

 

 

 

 Quote: "Despite the original intention for the type to be principally used in air defence roles, in service, the J 21 was utilized mainly in the light bomber role." 

 

  So my predictions seem more in line with real-life outcomes than what SAAB engineers anticipated...

 

  

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by JeanStravinsky

[ZachariasX]

Holy guacamoly... I didn't plan on taking this further but since you bring up SAAB engineers and I have my coffee break as time replying... We should ask @Holtzauge (he would know) if the J21 could be assembled with a 5 mm hex key, but I found evidence that is was, hence he doesn't really need to reply unless absolutely must:

 

And this...

On 8/15/2023 at 5:29 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

The actual shape and physical existence of bodies implies a potential mismatch between input and output.

This is actually signature-worthy. Can I keep that?

 

I would use that sentence if I have someone getting something for me and and they come back with something that does not at all look like what I ordered. Like ordering steak and getting fish. Then you can tell the waiter that surely, in this case, the physical excistence of that body on my plate implies a potential mismatch between input and output.

You know, it can be a delicate affair telling someone that they screwed up, if them wisen up would be at lest somehat desireable.

 

Bust since you asked

On 8/15/2023 at 5:29 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

Yes or no?

Well yes, but only because your trolley is nothing but a gearing that multiplies your pushing distance. But all you get is that you don't have to move your arm less than the trolley goes, yet you have to do the same work.

 

It is of note that your physics don't really apply anymore at the speed of light (as you suggested), there are limits to where Newtons pysics make good predictions. On both ends of the scale. So 600,000,000 mph is usually a tad too fast for just the meaning of "very, very, very, like haul *ss fast".

 

On 8/15/2023 at 5:29 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

The thing to accept is that generating extra lift is not a violation of the laws of physics (as you are implying), just like the trolley is not free energy.

It is. And what you refer to as a "trolley" is nothing lie a disguised gearing mechanism to dupe intellectually unarmed people. A hoist is a similar gearing. And also there, you're still lifting the same weight.

 

On 8/15/2023 at 5:29 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

Air would, in effect, be compressed between the prop and the wing.

 

  No wind tunnel could replicate this, since neither the prop disc loads, nor the air curvature of a turn, is replicable. 

Of course not. There is no such compression.

 

You know, I suggested that you do take serious MINT courses, becasuse you know, knwoing stuff is great. Only education gives you the context to sort in your extracuricular readings. Otherwise, rather fantastic conclusions become reasonable. It's context that makes you realize that your diagram

 

 

is an illustraion for discussing shear stess on a wing. This is not lift. For a reference of lift, see here, this is the lift for the Fw-190 wing root:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca23015-il

 

I know it looks complicated. And that is, because deep down it is. Going to school enables you not only to read such charts, but also make them for your wing in question. It's great having a teacher for such. Then you learn. Then you can do it. That is how it works. It lets you plot with good accurancy how much lift you will get from your aircraft. And I can't think of lesser sources than anectotes to compute wing lift. Because... they require knowing context that you need to know beforehand.

 

Coffee finished... Hope that helped.

[AndyJWest]

Ah yes, made-up 'physics' to explain why someone's board-game Fw-190 out-turns a go-cart. Brings back memories. Maybe 15 years ago on the Ubisoft IL-2 forum.

 

Don't believe in 'stress risers' any more, JeanStravinsky?

[Holtzauge]

As @ZachariasX has been patiently trying to explain @JeanStravinsky, you need to read up on basic aerodynamics. Your theory about how the Fw-190 beating the Spitfire at low speed turning is simply wrong.

 

In general, I think throwing titles around is bad form, but under the circumstances it seems warranted. And since I do happen to have an MSc in aeronautical engineering specializing in aerodynamics and structural engineering, this gives me a foundation to stand on, and based on this I can say that your theories are simply wrong: While the propeller slipstream does interact with the wing to produce more lift, this is not happening in the way you think. In addition, this effect is present just as much on the Spitfire as on the Fw-190. So both benefit from it in the same way meaning the Spitfire keeps its advantage at slow speeds as well. In fact the situation only gets worse for the Fw-190 when it slows down. So no Fw-190 ever did, nor will, ever out turn a Spitfire.

 

There are lots of NACA and RAE reports on this (the propeller thrust interacting with the wing resulting in higher total lift) and it has all been exhaustively investigated both in flight trials and in wind tunnels. You are wrong about the latter as well I’m afraid: It’s perfectly possible to test this in wind tunnels and in many cases small electric engines have been used. Added to this are all the flight tests where turn and stall speeds have been meticulously recorded in power on and power off conditions. Invariably, power on produces more lift and consequently higher turn rates. This is established science. But it simply does not work in the way you have outlined in your posts. So I advise you to read up on it. You can find tons of information about it in books and on the internet.

 

Finally, I do not know if you made the picture with the pressure distribution yourself or if you got that from somewhere else. But anyhow, this picture is wrong as well: It shows an over pressure on the nose when in fact it should at that angle of attack instead be an under pressure (so-called leading edge suction) due to the stagnation point being below the wing and air flowing around the nose. Again, I encourage you to read up and goggle these terms.

 

I have no doubt this will not be the end of it and you will probably persist and post more on this. However, I will not reply because seeing the post history here in this thread that would be tilting windmills. But my parting advice is this: Take a step back and consider that aerodynamics is a mature science and either you are wrong, or all established science is. Then apply Occam’s razor on that thought.

 

And @ZachariasX: I don’t know how the J21 was serviced back in the day, but as a former SAAB employee I can tell you that all SwAF conscripts today have extra IKEA hex keys in their pockets so they can tighten up the wings on our Gripen’s which tend to sag after missions. 

[JeanStravinsky]

 

 

 Let's just start, again, with who is on my side: 

 

 "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Aaaah the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

 

  Clostermann had 18 kills, was a Caltech trained engineer, and gave conferences on German aircraft to fellow pilots. He was the RAF mission record holder at 432 and had 10 FW-190 kills, of which at least 8 were radials.

 

  He thinks that if you think the Spitfire out-turns the FW-190A at low speeds, you are a joke. You are a joke who believes in legends...

 

  This, if true, would requires the FW-190A to have 71% more lift in horizontal turns, relative to the Spitfire, to make the Spitfire's turn superiority at low speeds a legend.

 

  Therefore, I conclude that this extra relative 71% lift exists.

 

  I mean, he gave freaking Wartime conferences on German aircrafts, where actual lives depended on the outcome, that he prepared by watching hundreds of gun camera films... As far as I know, no one has accused him of providing false information that killed pilots...

 

  

  Oh, and Johnny Johnson also appears to agree with Clostermann: Multiple 360s at sea level:

 

  "and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: 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 like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."

 

  Oh and the RUSSIANS, let's not forget the Russians...: A summary of one year of front wide observations:

 

  -"A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

-"Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

 

- "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."

 

 

 

 

  So I have Clostermann, an unknown number of Russians, the top Spitfire ace, plus many others I won't bother with.

 

  Meanwhile, on your side:

 

  You have Eric Brown (2 kills from a Wildcat on four engine FW-200s, plus one other from a Gladiator biplane?)

 

  Aerodynamic theories that don't predict any of the above, Warbird flight time etc...

 

  Oh and, let's not forget the US Navy trials... The US NAVY trials...

 

  Do I sense a slight mismatch here?

 

  Is what is going on here really what you think is going on?

 

  I notice you steer clear of addressing any of these quotes directly. Mmmmm... Why would that be?

 

 

  

 

15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Bust since you asked

Well yes, but only because your trolley is nothing but a gearing that multiplies your pushing distance. But all you get is that you don't have to move your arm less than the trolley goes, yet you have to do the same work.

 

  Not really clear to me you understand the relationship this has to output reversal... Not feeling it here.

 

  The important part is what the Veritassium video emphasized without quite saying it: Force reversal. This is what brings the whole house of cards down...

 

  I noticed you don't address, either, that your beloved Eric Brown is having to push in low speed turns... That's just a minor trim issue right? It couldn't possibly mean the CL is in front of the CG right? No way....

 

  They badly balanced it, there... It's all the fault of the Brits...

 

 

15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Of course not. There is no such compression.

 

  And you know that exactly how? Do you have wing bending measurements in horizontal turns for the FW-190A? Or any WWII fighter?

 

  Because I looked, and the only data available was done, you'll never guess, while doing dive pull-outs.

 

  That's how the inaccurate P-51 flight manual G limits were done.

 

  And you know what happened, in 1989, when the SETP tried to replicate the P-51D Flight Manual G data horizontally in actual horizontal turns? You'll never guess: The Society of Experimental Test Pilots could not replicate the manual's G vs Speed values in ACTUAL horizontal turns...

 

  The lowest they got for 6 Gs on the P-51D was 279 mph spiralling down, not level (around 30 mph above manual values). On true level turns it was more like "Very close to the maximum level speed", which was 320 mph at METO and 10 000 ft. That is more like 50-70 mph above manual values.

 

  

  Given what I said about the prop being loaded from the turn drag, do you understand what that implies if the G measurements are assumed to be the SAME when the prop is unloaded by a dive? 

 

  Which is exactly why you are saying "There is no such compression." 

 

  You know of what else there none of?   Agreement of the SETP with the P-51D Pilot Manual minimum speed/G data...

 

 

  Can you explain why the SETP could not match the P-51D's manual values for the lowest speed to reach 6 G horizontally?

 

  Or, can you give me wing bending measurements vs Gs in actual horizontal turns for a WWII fighter, at different power levels?

 

  I would be very curious to see this data that would shatter all my theories... And make an absolute ass out of Clostermann...

 

  But you know what? I already did contact engineers working at Warbird operators: They all told me measuring wing bending in flight "Is not on our radar."

 

  With such rabid curiosity, we are set for a long haul...

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[AndyJWest]

'Everyone is wrong except me'....

[JeanStravinsky]

8 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

You are wrong about the latter as well I’m afraid: It’s perfectly possible to test this in wind tunnels and in many cases small electric engines have been used.

 

  I'm sure it is of immense value compared to in-flight observations...

 

 

8 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Added to this are all the flight tests where turn and stall speeds have been meticulously recorded in power on and power off conditions. Invariably, power on produces more lift and consequently higher turn rates.  i

 

 

   Apparently no one cared about turn rates in WWII, except test pilots. A higher turn rate basically means death if you are on the outside of the turn (except maybe for the Spitfire, if it succeeded in stall shooting across to the smaller -German right?- circle)...

 

  Front line pilots only cared about turn radius. And going slow in turns.  "A race where the slowest wins." remember?

 

  I'll bet you believe the FW-190A was a high speed "energy" fighter, best used at full power, in high speed turns, or on the vertical.

 

  Which basically means you know nothing about the FW-190A. What you have, if you believe the above, is literally anti-knowledge...

 

  I really wonder sometimes how can mere mathematics have accomplished such an absolute destruction of historical knowledge... Descartes really has a lot to answer for: He was the first to claim his mathematical models were just as valid as the real world...

 

  None of you address the quotes directly, and what you are doing is literally the destruction of History.

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

Edited August 18, 2023 by JeanStravinsky

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, JeanStravinsky said:

an unknown number of Russians

You know what? This „source“ just made my day. I also keep that for further use.

 

Look, nobody expects you to suddenly come to your senses from just a couple of well meant replies after dug yourself in that deep over years. But got to understand that what you say doesn‘t look that good for some that actually learned the mechanics you are talking about in school.

 

So for your own sake (especially since you seemingly exhaused what you consider source material) drop the ball here. Any maybe take science classes. You can do so at any age. Knowledge is cool. Trust me, Youtube gets much better once you have at least a basic understanding of what they are talking about. Also your blocklist will grow exponentially. Which is also a good thing in all things social.

 

Anyway, this is the thread for the 109G+ aircraft, we should keep it that way from now on. Else, we will call @LukeFF for a horse.