Surprise surprise, I get jumped by Adler, again, despite me AGAIN not starting throwing the mud and AGAIN after another member has been talking the same tone for quite a while.
Check my tone recently, check yours
I don't enter pissing matches, they're childish ridiculous.
You start them Soren and you usually start by denouncing someone as 'clueless'... drop back to some of our classic battles and look at the pattern. I have lost the high ground in the past because I drop into the mud with you. I think I have apologised to other members quite a few times for taking the thread off course with you. Have you done so?
And what do I know ? Well I know that aerolasticity was a very well known science before WW2, that the effects of aerolasticity is taken advantage of by a/c designers to improve a/c performance in certain flight envelopes, that the Spitfire didn't have an elliptical lift distribution, that the Bf-109 Spitfire both turned allot better than the P-51, that the Fw-190 featured elliptical lift ditribution in turns. And most importantly I can prove it, Bill can't.
Taken one at a time. I said in a previous posting some time back that Aeroelasticy was an art in WWII. It was still somewhat of an art when the Comet was designed and the wonderful physics of resonance and aeroelasticity as in (too stiff can be bad for you)..IIRC - the Comet fatigue failures of the 'square' windows was a result of the resonance vibration and subsequent repeat/reverse harmonic loads on the airframe
Aeroelasticity was not considered in the design of the F-4 wings, that had to be replaced for the same reasons - over stiff structure leading to fatigue failures... or in the case of the early Spitfires, understiff wings leading to torsion caused by aileron loads further leading to control reversals.. or in the case of the 190, too much wing torsion (undesigned or anticipated) in the wing (according to the reference Lednicer cited) under high G turn causing the violent stall.
Note - I Have NOT read the actual German 1944 report and I so stated. Lednicer references both the report and the gist of the report in his report.
I'll deviate on the lecture briefly to explain to your genius level knowledge that resonance leads to harmonic reversible loads (and/or outright structural failure) - which leads to much lower DESIGN limit stress thresholds, which if ignored leads to fatigue failures
Are you with me still?
A helicopter is a classic example but anything designed at a structural frequency near the persistent input force (for you, an example is the two per rev beat of a Huey rotor). Anything associated with the Pylon Structures on a Huey or Cobra, for example, were designed to Limit loads often as low os 1/3 of the capability of 2024 and 7075 under normal conditions
Next - the Spitfire, with an eliptical wing, does not have a pure elliptical lift distribution, but a lot closer than the 51 and the Fw 190A and D.. I pointed out examples of the spanwise lift distribution presented in one of Lednicer's plots. Had you been able to comprehend his points or even the plot you would have possibly avoided jamming your foot into your mouth
Next - to even the least knowledgable but enthusiastic studiers of the art of wing design, the twist at the tip for the wing chord is to ensure that the tip region (simply for you, the aileron area) of the wing stalls last, with stall starting inboard and moving out board. To those pilots on this forum that means when we screw up and lose ability to fly say, on final approach, we want to sink - not roll.
You are free to be you, Soren, and think it is all about giving the Fw 190 'elliptical lift' distribution in high G turns. You are equally free to 'prove your thesis' and now that you have said you can, please do not complain when I follow you around on this commitment.
Very specifically - we do NOT design twist to develop 'elliptical' lift distribution as you posed for the Fw 190 a week or so ago. And last on this subject the twist is to SPECIFICALLY alter the chord angle of attack Downward so that the relative angle of attack in the outer wing doesn't stall when the inboard region reaches the stalling angle of attack.
With me so for?
Bill has made ridiculous claims such as the P-51 was close to as good a turn fighter as the Bf-109 Spitfire, that aerolasticity was seen as witchcraft by aerodynamicist during WW2 etc etc.. Which to me sounds like he hasn't opened a book on aerodynamics for quite some time and has become clueless in many of its fields, he's just playing clever.
Go back and find any post in which I ever said that a 51 Out Turns or is even equivalent in turns, to a Spitfire. You won't find it, like your academic and industry 'credentials' - simply because they don't exist.
Further, I have said that the 51 is equivalent in turn to the 109, sometimes better depending on high altitude and speed, sometimes not quite as good at medium altitudes. You have shouted everyone down on this subject but never presented one shred of proof to justify your claim that the 109 is superior... btw your 'math' does not constitute proof of anything
And as for my credentials they were posted long ago.
As now a buried treasure with no map? Can you find the treasure again?
And finally as for me not practicing what I preach, examples please, it always seems hard to find these for some reason...