- Thread starter
-
- #81
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I just will not let him skate on this subject of aero/structres when he makes so damn many mistakes - then insults the guy that disagrees with him - 'for not grasping the obvious'.
my name is not bill.anyway,did the 109 not have a tendancy to crash on take off or landing.perhaps only aces could handle this problem.there is no need to get narky if one believes or not whether the said a/c had these inherent design faults.yours,preacher.
You could always look at it the other way. What was the Mk21 most likely to encounter? the 109K
I tried being nice towards you Bill but that went right out the window when YOU starting throwing mud into my face because I misunderstood a computer generated pressure distribution illustration. You were the one who insisted on being rude and calling names, which in my book is childish prick like behavior - I thought you were smarter than that.
Now - it is your turn to present facts and references to support all of your points... but you 'skip' your turn usually so I'm holding my breath.
Education - Experience - and now References.
You do the same thing Soren. You are just blind to you own faults.
We are all waiting...
So you claim atleast..
Soren said:No need to wait, it has already been presented, read my new posts above..
Oh and next time read all of what Lednicer says in his article:
Lednicer:
"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard
So, the above is what Lednicer said. Above is what I said and referenced in other sources
Below is your mangled context inserted in the above quote
[elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneous.
For an untwisted wing, below critical Angle of Attack, your statement while true in THAT context, is irrelevant to the Fw 190 and irrelevant to this discussion.
"Combined with the sharp stalling features of NACA 23000 airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidenced by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise. "
Do you really know what you just wrote? The CONTEXT of the 'sharp stalling features of the 230xx airfoils' combined with 'this would produce the harsh stall found 'in by' (what??) Capt Brown - is missing the important point referenced by Lednicer - namely that the Fw 190 spanwise lift distribution shifted outward due to elastic deformation of the wing.
Here is the entire quote that you selectively parsed as you always do.
"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref 14) indicates that at higher wing loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outward. This would cause more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the sharp stall found by Capt. Brown.
Hmmm.. you turn Bill!
And a majority of this forum as well.
I do not see any actual proof with sources.
Soren, you make up stuff as you go.. I have this vision of Opus and Bill the Cat (or Lucy and Charlie Brown) talking about the Theory of Relativity every time you go theoretical on us.
That's a bold claim seeing how many members there are.
Soren said:LoL! The first is directly from Lednicer's article!
Seriously...
And from Gene (Crumpp):
"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it.
When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall."
What you have a poll or something hidden away which says this or what ?
I'm sure if it was really like you say I would've been contacted by others than you..
No Soren the PM's sent to me by members of the forum because they are tired of the arrogant and insulting way you post tells me this.
Gene is correct..Lednicer is correct.. that is why virtually ALL a/c have twist.
You think you have stumbled onto a fundamental 'aha'??
Having said this a.) All trapezoidal wings have somewhat of eliptical lift distribution, (take a look at plot in Lednicer Report that I pointed out to you many times) b.) the elliptical distribution survives through a range of angle of attack for the trapezoidal wing although downwash varies spanwise with no twist, .c) all elliptical wings have better elliptical lift distributions (take a look at the abovementioned Lednicer plot) , downwash is constant for no twist and d.) elliptical planform has and less induced drag than trapezoidal planform although a tip chord to root chord ratio of .4 will closely approach the elliptical.. as I said in the posts above.
Lednicer specifically cites the Fw 190 spanwise twist as ranging from 2+ degrees at root to zero at 81.5.. then constant from there to 100% (that would be tip root chord for you).
I'm not sure Gene recalls this tidbit in the Lednicer report - or he has information that Lednicer was wrong about the outer 20% where Lednicer cites 'no twist'.
PM from who ?
Sorry but you can't wiggle yourself out of this one Bill!
Here it is DIRECTLY from the article:
So Bill what is a matter ? Are unable to read suddenly ?