Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm in no way trying to gloat, that is again prick like behavior.
However I do often talk in absolutes, it's not the first time I've been accused of that and I know it.
But infact believe it or not all I want is for me and Bill to agree on this. And I was hoping that after Bill showed the good will by posting in my "Help me out finding a new rimfire rifle" thread, I thought we were starting to get some progress.
Bill said:Soren said:Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!
Uh, no they don't say that.. and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn.
Nothing about G forces 'achieve' elliptical lift in turns, they (G forces) only tend to shift lift distribution based on aeroelastic effects.
My vote goes to the Spit. If the contending pilots of the Spit and '109 are both exceptionally skilled, it seems rather problematic. OTOH, if we're talking about AVERAGE pilots of 'equal ability', then the friendlier handling of the Spit would give it the edge.
In the words of Captain Eric Brown, RN...
"The Bf 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for wartime pilots to overcome."
JL
Then take Gene's comments against my Post 77 and do the same thing to disprove what I said.
I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.
Crumpp said:Soren said:I see, so I was wrong when I said that Fw-190's wing achieved basically fully elliptical lift distribution in turns ?
No you are right. That is what causes the harsh stall. It is not a design feature however. It is just and explanation for the two different stall characteristics of the design.
Soren said:It was my understanding that the Spitfire's wing didn't achieve fully elliptical lift distribution because of the washout applied to the wing all the way out to the tips.
You are right on this too. The Spitfire does not achieve the full efficiency benefits of elliptical wing construction due to the washout. At the same time though it is probably the most efficient of the three. If we examine the aircraft at a design optimum point, you will find little to no difference.
Nah - I have enormous respect for Crumpp, and as I noted I AGREE with the comments contained. The reason I keep drawing Soren back to my Post 77 is I sate several of the same things - then go on to explain how aeroelasticity affects load distribution over a wing - to tie into the Lednicer speculation.
I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.
Soren - I am ready to discuss why I said Aeroelasticty was more an art than a science in WWII. But first I want You to start by describing the analytical problems to be solved to get an accurate model of an airframe as a system.
Absent your understanding of That - you will be like a goose in a barnyard when I get into the what's and the Why's??
Your ball.
As I just noted I was more interested in what Soren said to Gene?
... I wonder if the last couple of pages containing the Soren vs. Bill stuff could be moved to the Soren vs Bill thread..?
Again the second mail in its entirety:
This is what I've been saying all along, which I think everyone following this thread can testify.
Hello Hunter 368,
I guess you didn't get the message, Soren unfortunately didn't get it either. My Momma post just pointed out that bringing in a third party doesn't solve the problem since it is about Soren and drgondog who present opposing interpretations of their posts which are not relevant to their individual accounts towards a third party who isn't even involved in the dispute regarding of interpretations of posted opinions by the other two parties.
So a confused Soren is now trying to back up his dispute with other participating posts.
Am I wrong? Well then I would have no problem to apologize to Soren, but what interpretation of my Momma post on your behalf makes you legible to call me a mud slinger?
Regards
Kruska