drgondog
Major
ah DG, ever the gentleman....why dont you say how you really feel....
You are correct, I should have tempered the remarks.
Spitfire IX v. FW 190A
- Thread starter Medvedya
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
You are correct, I should have tempered the remarks.
drgondog
Major
The rudder/elevator combination creates some interesting (potential)theoretical holes in applying Oswald efficiency factors to the manuevering models at low speeds versus cruising conditions in perfect trim.
It is the substance of my taking opposite sides from 'well known' applications of the Induced Drag portion of the Thrust=Drag equations.
Beginning with Oswald's 1932 NACA papers through various texts applying 'e' to account for increased viscous/paraite drag due to planform and Lift Coefficient (changes to AoA) through many different derivations to better model theory to wind tunnel tests - I have never seen an extension to better account for an airplane in asymmetrical flight conditions at high AoA... such as a 360 turn.
I suspect that increasing contributions of lift and drag surrounding a tail at a different AoA from the wing (immersed in downwash), which must change as the required deflections increase to maintain equilibrium, and are further subjected to the increasing turbulence (beyond normal flight rotating stream tube of prop wash) as separation inevitably increases on the wing - and vortex drag increases behind the wing - must change any previously accepted value of 'e' for that wing/body combination in level flight.
Ergo - applying 'e' = .8 or .85 (or any value), so many use to start a Performance discussion, has roots in level flight dash or cruise but must be carefully re-examined starting with level flight stall and really questions in high G asymmetric flight conditions.
Probably a better approach is to first examine 'e' when Thrust is supplied by jet engine so that variations in propeller efficiency may be eliminated at the beginning of the study.
Any thoughts?
parsifal
Colonel
I was "serious"....I thought you have excercised a great deal of restraint to be honest
drgondog
Major
Perhaps the archtypical Aussie and Texan have different views regarding 'restraint' than others on the thread.. I have tried to not unleash the dreaded 'bonehead' accolade for Gaston..
cocky pilot
Airman
- 40
- Dec 21, 2010
This is not only a combat betwen two machines but between two men, the typhoon pilot was clearly suffering from the effects of "G" forces, he was the hunter but struggled to keep the FW in his sights. The pressure is on the persued aircraft since one hit from a cannon at sea level is almost certain death, as is blacking out, stalling or just hitting a wave. He saw the wings wobble is that a stall or the pilot blacking out? The persuing pilot was losing vision, the persued must push harder he may have stalled or he may have just lost conciousness. These two men wernt playing a video game you can re load it was a fight to the death where the typhoon pilot had the advantage, if the positions were reversed the outcome would possibly be the same. Even in 1944 (and much earlier) a fighter could turn fast enough to render its pilot unconcious, flying on the limit was a skill learned by the lucky ones and it isnt a constant. The g forces a man can withstand arnt constant between men and with one man on different days it can vary.
To say the typhoon out turned the FW is reading something that may not be there, reverse the situation and the same may have happened since the FW190 certainly downed a huge number of allied fighters of all types (in the quoted engagement the typhoon started with height advantage). An ace pilot in an fw190 could out fly a novice no matter what allied plane they were flying and vice versa.
Having read the above and many other accounts like them I treat discussion of 15 minute individual turning fights as pie in the sky not only would the combatants be delirious and dizzy but since all aircraft had radios any friendly aircraft (from either side) within 100 miles could intervene with a free shot.
To resolve all the vectors on a turning aircraft is an impossibility, even with todays computer programmes aircraft and cars still have a test programme. Thrust is the pilots choice, weight is constantly changing everything changes with altitude and air pressure. If you use the same values you can approximate which is the better plane under most conditions but not all and factoring in pilot skill is pure guess work. I have read many times that during the B o B a hurricane was a better plane for a novice and spitfire was the better plane for an expert.
The turning performance of an airplane is the least significant and most readily sacrificed attribute of a combat plane. A plane turns better with no armour oxygen bottles radios ammunition or parachutes. Any plane of that era gave its best tuning performance with only one bullet left in its guns and on its last pint of fuel. The last models of the spitfire were almost 2 times the weight of the first but no pilot would want to fly a Mk I into battle in 1944, however many would like to fly a Mk I for the joy of flying it, it was by all accounts I have read the most pleasant to fly.
Since the poll is about a report compiled by people who forgot more than I could hope of knowing I agree with it.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Good post cocky pilot.
Glider
Captain
It is clear that this combat was very very close and the difference marginal. The reason why one should be able to take more G than the other could be as simple as their build. A shorter stockier person is able to take more G than a taller slimmer person. We do not know but something as simple as this which had nothing to do with the turning ability of the aircraft may well have been the difference.
what comes this idea from?
the wurger has no pb pulling out of a dive, he had just a tendendy to "sink" when pulled too fast from a dive. it was still responsive without any heavy load on the stick till at least 850 KMH TAS, but there was also a need of enough "air" under the plane to be able to pull out, but that's sometinhg common to all airplanes.
If you pull out frome a dive at 5,6 or 7 hundreds kmh, you need some Km's alt to do that.
About the G's, i would like to know the real numbers about the 190's seat position that allowed pilots to sustain more G's than other fighters. I've read numbers from 0.5 till 1.2 G's .
Maybe it was just my impression. I read somewhere that the Spitfire was able to pull out of a dive better.
Lerche wrote that the La-5 was able to escape german fighters by going into a straight dive at 800 m altitude. Me 109 and Fw 190 were not able to recover from a dive at that height.
Lerche wrote that the La-5 was able to escape german fighters by going into a straight dive at 800 m altitude. Me 109 and Fw 190 were not able to recover from a dive at that height.
I did not reply for a while because I realized there were still areas of my theory, and the accepted theory, that I did not fully understand...
I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is much clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable...
The idea that sustained turn outcomes all depends on mythical "pilot skills" is exactly what has kept things in the dark for so long, and in fact it is hard to see how it could do anything to clarify things...
Especially when some of the said "skilled" pilots mention reducing the throttle for long periods as being a key part of their success...
See you soon...
Gaston
I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is much clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable...
The idea that sustained turn outcomes all depends on mythical "pilot skills" is exactly what has kept things in the dark for so long, and in fact it is hard to see how it could do anything to clarify things...
Especially when some of the said "skilled" pilots mention reducing the throttle for long periods as being a key part of their success...
See you soon...
Gaston
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Well, this the appropriate day for this "revelation" 
Glider
Captain
Its April 2nd here, a day late I believe.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Well, what we need then is a Cyberdyne T-800........
parsifal
Colonel
That one flew past me NJ. Can you explain?
drgondog
Major
Please don't.
parsifal
Colonel
I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is much clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable...
What is this??? are suggesting that the principles of powered flight are not understood??? that seems ridiculous. Please explain
What is this??? are suggesting that the principles of powered flight are not understood??? that seems ridiculous. Please explain
Wrong thread?
I was refering to this:
Since the engineers were making so many mistakes in one field, guess they weren't exactly shining in another ones. Hence 747 flying with one engine, with Gaston's knowledge applied.
Since the engineers were making so many mistakes in one field, guess they weren't exactly shining in another ones. Hence 747 flying with one engine, with Gaston's knowledge applied.
- Status
