Gaston's ridiculous theories

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Rohit

Recruit
4
0
Sep 28, 2012
I registered in this forums reading Gaston's ridiculous theories about fw 190 outturning spitfire, p47 outturning 109 etc.

There are two main things that help a plane to win a sustained turn fight. One is power to weight(Or more exactly speaking thrust to weight). The better the power : weight ratio, the better the plane is in sustained turn rate. This is because the plane can afford to use more of its elevators to help the turn without bleeding off its speed and stalling.

The second thing is wingloading. A plane with high wingloading would be generating less lift for its weight, to stay level in a flat turn. This means the plane is forced to increase its angle of attack, which generates more drag, thus if you want to keep the plane at its sustained turn speed, and not stall off, you must reduce the angle of bank, which decreases the turning rate(sustained).

The spitfire was clearly superior to fw 190 in having a lighter wingloading, as well as a better power to weight ratio. On top of all, the spitfire elliptical wing had a low induced drag which allowed it to use more turn rate without the speed falling off.
 
By 1940 I think Boom Zoom was the preferred way to fight. So I don't think sustained turn rate was as important as speed, acceleration, roll, climb and firepower.
 
Rohit - while I agree with your opinions about Gaston for the most part I really don't want to see this thread turn into an all out flaming and pissing contest. If we keep the discussions civil, this thread will stay alive, if not, things will come to an abrupt halt.
 
By 1940 I think Boom Zoom was the preferred way to fight. So I don't think sustained turn rate was as important as speed, acceleration, roll, climb and firepower.

Turn rate comes in very handy when having to break into a bounce or taking evasive action!
 
Not talking about which is more preferred etc.

Did that guy stop posting or something?
 
He's still around the internet. He uses other usernames though.
Steve
 
Who's Gaston?

Maybe.....this guy?
GastonVillain.jpg
 
Since the subject has more or less come up, does top rudder in a sustained steep bank utilize the fuselage as a sort of flat plate airfoil, i.e. would a P-47 be better in 90 degree bank than something a bit less tubby?
 
What the heck is a vector roll?

I have flown both full scale and RC aerobatics at a competitive level and have never heard of it. Are you talking about a barrel roll, an aileron roll, a slow roll, a snap roll or what?

Gaston was interesting. We had another interesting guy on another forum called "Neoconshooter." Sounded a lot like Gaston, but claimed to not be. Got banned after hijacking too many threads with pointers about "ACM" and his mastery of aerial combat in simulators. Claimed to have huindreds of flghts in real F-15's while wiorking as an Air Force simulator instructor ... but was also somehow in the Army aviation department at the same time. I'm not sure I miss them, but everyone has the right to their opinion ... and the moderators were quite tolerant and tried to turn these guys into contributing members.

Alas, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Nothing in this post is intended as flames toward anyone ... just rambling, so enough ...

Oh yeah, a 90° bank is a descending bank, unless you are flying a dedicated aerobatic aircraft with enough fuselage side lift to maintain knife edge. A fighter won't.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back