Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
-"He stopped cutting me off after I cut throttle"
-"I commenced to turn inside him after I decreased throttle settings"
I bet dollars to donuts IN A REAL AIRPLANE I'd be up your ass before you banked more than 10 degrees.
Gaston, you're an ARMCHAIR in more ways than one
A Friend of mine, Ten. Alberto Scano, of wich in this post
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/scuola-caccia-elmas-32016.html
told me an amusing little story about his training.
One Colleague of his was having an instructional session in a Link-Trainer.
The Chief Instructor, from outside, set the instruments in a position that simulated a flat spin and started shouting trough the intercom:
"You are in a flat spin!You are in a flat spin!You are in a flat spin!
Jump! Jump! Jump!"
The student pilot inside opened the canopy in a hurry and.....parachuted himself out of the linkTrainer....
The poor fella had to pay drinks for a whole month at the Officer's Mess......
So I think other people here are parachuting themselves out of their armchairs.........
I realize some people used the Lufbery in WWII, but it wasn't anywhere near as prevalent as in WWI.
And I seriously doubt anyone would engage in consecutive 360° horizontal circles for 10 or more turns. If they did, they would never live to be a veteran.
Actually it was the Sparrows that had an issue. The sidewinder had limitations on where and when it would work.The non-gun F-4's had sidewinders. If they worked, they were immune to the Lufbery circle, not have pilots and being very quick. Alas, the "working" missiles in VietNam were in the minority.
Gaston:
1. Thrust in pounds does not equal Horsepower.
Dynamic Thrust (lbs) = Power (HP) / (Velocity (knots) * (6076/(3600 * 550)))
By way of example, a Grumman Hellcat at combat was about 12,325 pounds at combat weight. It had 2000 HP, but let's say he was using 1800 HP to stay with your example. The equation above is NOT for static thrust, it is for dynamic thrust. At 174 knots (about 200 mph) the thrust is 3,371 pounds for a thrust to weight ratio of .2735, which is typical for a WWII fighter. You aren't even close. There are other ways to calculate this force within a few percent, but they won't equal the horsepower being used....
2. I do not know what "80% of it pivoting back compared to the trajectory" even means. It doesn't make sense to me, but I am not dismissing it. Perhaps the words are just not quite right for me to see it. But, the thrust is the thrust. It does not act along the line of wing incidence. Most engine mounts were canted downward several degrees and had several degrees of side thrust compared to the fuselage datum line The wing usually had several degrees of positive incidence.....
3. The angle of thrust to the angle of attack is NOT the same as the angle of wing incidence due to down and side cant, but is reasonably close. The actual angle of thrust in a propeller fighter is almost always less than the angle of attack due to down thrust built into the engine mount. The component of thrust along the angle of travel is the thrust times the cosine of the angle of attack, and the component that adds to lift is the thrust times the sine of the angle of attack. It is not constant but varies with the angle of attack..
4. The Center of lift does not move unless the airflow goes transonic or supersonic.
5. The pilot cannot feel the thrust in the stick at all. He feels the elevator and aileron out of trim forces only. That's why he needs trim tabs. He feels the rudder out of trim force in the rudder pedals if he keeps the ball centered. If he doesn't, he just slips or skids through the air without feeling it … Unless the slip or skid is enough to induce a spin.
6. A 10,000 pound airplane at 3g needs 30,000 pounds of lift to fly at 3 g, not 54,000. Any added lift from the propeller thrust just decreases the amount of lift the wing needs to produce. 3g – 3g. In Algebra, the "=" sign means EQUALS. 30,000 pounds does not equal 54,000 pounds … it equals 30,000 pounds. The real only "extra lift" needed is to counteract the tail downforce. So the 30,000 pounds turns into a bit more in a conventional wing-first aircraft and bit less in a canard aircraft (because the forward tail lifts upward instead of downward) but not an extra 24,000 pounds.
7. There is no void created above the wing; the center of lift doesn't shift since the local airflow is not either transonic or supersonic.
8. Your theories are so far off from the aerodynamic formulas that produced the actual aircraft as to be out of the ballpark ... they're craptacular, to quote Bart Simpson. Gaston, the WWII fighters FLEW AS DESIGNED, meaning the designers knew what they were doing and their formulas were correct. As I said before, you need to take a course in aerodynamics, not try to reinvent the science.
And did you ever consider that the prop bends too?Imagine the vertical height of the prop, then put the micro-second initial pivot point at the bottom 20% height... If you increase AoA, the top of the prop by definition moves back compared to the trajectory, but here it does so for a micro second by dipping the CL and pivoting within the prop's face...
While strain gauges did a lot to enhance gaining in flight stress information one could calculate very accurately the amont of bend a wing would experience in flight based on static testing. Strain gauges provided a reality check of what was calculated. Strain gauges in the bigger picture is a tool used for fatigue calculations rather than load testing. Read about Anne Burns and her work on the de Havilland Comet.You would know that if you knew how much the wings actually bend in flight, but you don't. Hence my inquiry about methods to find that out with strain gages, full scale in case the effect is not scaleable, and matched to static values with wings bent on the ground to evaluate the extent of the actual bending in flight... All of which we now seem to agree was never done on WWII fighters (except for the static on-the-ground part).
I believe there was also a lot photography work done, both movies and stills, of wings both on aircraft in flight and in wind tunnels. Wind tunnels used both the wool tuft and smoke to study air patterns while in flight tests used the wool tuft.
Some aircraft were tested with different airfoil sections on parts of the wing. I would think that somebody might have noticed if the lift,drag and airflow in all these experiments didn't go along with the calculated values. Or if it didn't that th e calculations were sometimes modified.
And did you ever consider that the prop bends too?