The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
- Thread starter wrathofatlantis
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,718
- Mar 26, 2007
I want to put a penny in
So right turning and getting slowed down yes?
Because that a turn fight.
Now. Either you shot the other slow one or didnt.
But.
You is slowww. Burned of your energy.
One thing in ww2 you did not want on any front is that. Being slow ~ low energy. Because you will be dead.
That i think a good reason how ever good your plane is in turning, if it can not get its energy up .. you dead.
Its not ww1. Its number 2 with vicious guns and cannons. In every nations fighter. Potent guns
The slow are the near future dead.
So right turning and getting slowed down yes?
Because that a turn fight.
Now. Either you shot the other slow one or didnt.
But.
You is slowww. Burned of your energy.
One thing in ww2 you did not want on any front is that. Being slow ~ low energy. Because you will be dead.
That i think a good reason how ever good your plane is in turning, if it can not get its energy up .. you dead.
Its not ww1. Its number 2 with vicious guns and cannons. In every nations fighter. Potent guns
The slow are the near future dead.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
re
It can still be and is temporary - how much excess power you have and/or how much kinetic energy the aircraft currently has will determine how long the turn can be sustained - either temporarily (while trading speed and/or altitude) or sustained (in the sense of not losing altitude and keeping the same turning circle radius/G-load while maintaining speed). If trading speed for turn rate the need for 'easing up' or 'pushing' forward on the stick will lessen until you need to start pulling on the stick again. In effect there will be a speed range in which the need to 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will occur, but below and above that speed range you will have to pull. The only aircraft that can still be pushing forward on the stick when approaching stall are relatively low AR deltas and aircraft that use canards instead of conventional elevators for their main AOA control - the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 Flanker 'riding on their tails' at AOAs of +70° are examples of the 2 situations respectively.
In other words, as you lose speed in a turn, you will no longer be able to sustain the turn and your AOA will gradually decrease until you have to start pulling on the stick again. Do you think the Fw190 pilot had to 'push' on the stick when pulling 1.1G at 90 knots IAS? Based on your statement in the quote above, since 90 knots is less than 220 knots the pilot would have to still be 'pushing' on the stick. How about 1.2G at 94 knots IAS, or 1.3G at 98 knots IAS . . . ? What about at stall (1.0G at 85 knots IAS)? . . . that is less than 220 knots is it not? . . . would the Fw190 pilot still have to 'push' on the stick?
As has been mentioned in the "The Zero's Maneuverability", when the center of lift moves forward and back the need to pull and/or 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will change.
When an aircraft is trimmed for level flight, the center of lift will be in an airframe specific relation to the same airframes CoG, and there will be little or no stick force needed to maintain level flight. Entering a turn will change the center of lift to one degree or another (depending on the airframe) and may require a change in trim in order to maintain the turn with little or no stick force. If the airframe is of the type where the center of lift moves forward when entering a turn - and you do not trim the airframe for turning flight - you will need to either 'ease up' on the stick or 'push' on the stick to keep the airframe from continuing to tighten in the turn. NOTE that 'pushing' on the stick in this instance does (necessarily) mean that you have to move the stick forward of the neutral position - it just means that you have to resist the backward movement of the stick due to aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces. As already mentioned in the other thread, this is the same phenomena that occurs on some airframes when pulling out of a dive - it is just happening when you are pulling Gs in the horizontal instead of the vertical.
Moving the discussion to another thread (or forum) will not change the "science" (ie physics).
It can still be and is temporary - how much excess power you have and/or how much kinetic energy the aircraft currently has will determine how long the turn can be sustained - either temporarily (while trading speed and/or altitude) or sustained (in the sense of not losing altitude and keeping the same turning circle radius/G-load while maintaining speed). If trading speed for turn rate the need for 'easing up' or 'pushing' forward on the stick will lessen until you need to start pulling on the stick again. In effect there will be a speed range in which the need to 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will occur, but below and above that speed range you will have to pull. The only aircraft that can still be pushing forward on the stick when approaching stall are relatively low AR deltas and aircraft that use canards instead of conventional elevators for their main AOA control - the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 Flanker 'riding on their tails' at AOAs of +70° are examples of the 2 situations respectively.
In other words, as you lose speed in a turn, you will no longer be able to sustain the turn and your AOA will gradually decrease until you have to start pulling on the stick again. Do you think the Fw190 pilot had to 'push' on the stick when pulling 1.1G at 90 knots IAS? Based on your statement in the quote above, since 90 knots is less than 220 knots the pilot would have to still be 'pushing' on the stick. How about 1.2G at 94 knots IAS, or 1.3G at 98 knots IAS . . . ? What about at stall (1.0G at 85 knots IAS)? . . . that is less than 220 knots is it not? . . . would the Fw190 pilot still have to 'push' on the stick?
As has been mentioned in the "The Zero's Maneuverability", when the center of lift moves forward and back the need to pull and/or 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will change.
When an aircraft is trimmed for level flight, the center of lift will be in an airframe specific relation to the same airframes CoG, and there will be little or no stick force needed to maintain level flight. Entering a turn will change the center of lift to one degree or another (depending on the airframe) and may require a change in trim in order to maintain the turn with little or no stick force. If the airframe is of the type where the center of lift moves forward when entering a turn - and you do not trim the airframe for turning flight - you will need to either 'ease up' on the stick or 'push' on the stick to keep the airframe from continuing to tighten in the turn. NOTE that 'pushing' on the stick in this instance does (necessarily) mean that you have to move the stick forward of the neutral position - it just means that you have to resist the backward movement of the stick due to aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces. As already mentioned in the other thread, this is the same phenomena that occurs on some airframes when pulling out of a dive - it is just happening when you are pulling Gs in the horizontal instead of the vertical.
Moving the discussion to another thread (or forum) will not change the "science" (ie physics).
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #45
wrathofatlantis
Airman
- 39
- Oct 2, 2023
Question: Do you understand why this dogfight with a P-51 ace went on for 90 consecutive level or near level circles for over 30 minutes?
Do you think that ace pilot, or his opponent, did not understand what they were doing?
View: https://youtu.be/wkaTGSpRuJI?si=BBna6cWcPTWo5j0I
This is puzzling only to people who have no understanding of WWII prop fighters. Which is just about everybody I'm afraid.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
What's puzzling, is how someone who's never flown an aircraft, let alone studied how an airplane actually functions, believes and promotes impossible physics.
- Thread starter
- #47
wrathofatlantis
Airman
- 39
- Oct 2, 2023
Why are you addressing me? Address them. One by one...
-Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943 (US Army translation of one year of Russian front-wide observations): "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at
a minimum speed."
-Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace, 36 kills) My duel with the Focke-Wulf: (FW-190A-4 vs full wing Spit V) "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire
[V] in the tightest of turns. We were on the opposite sides of an ever diminishing circle. I could not see him, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would
have me in his sights. I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn [but he stayed with me]. In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights. It could only be a
question of time..."
-James E. Reed 33 rd FG (P-40F, Casablanca): "The FW-190 was tough to out-turn. I could out-turn the 109, but
it was hard to do. I, at times, had to drop a few degrees of flaps and slow down to out-turn it. I understand that
the FW-190 was harder to get away from than the 109."
-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs: "The Hurricane was more maneuverable than the Spit. But
the Focke-Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up, you know."
-Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3: "Never had I seen [the Kraut: Me-109s] stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf
pilots were doing. We lost 8 to their one that day."
219 kg/m 2 vs 146 kg/m 2
-Audio from the past [E16], Pierre Clostermann (18 kills, 432 RAF missions): "Aaaah the legends…
Legends are hard to kill (you don't say!). One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or
the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... Why? First and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and
down, and there comes a time, when the speed has dropped below 220 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."
I get it. This is a post-modern world where words don't actually mean anything.
- Thread starter
- #48
wrathofatlantis
Airman
- 39
- Oct 2, 2023
Which means you don't understand basic physics, in particular the difference between Energy and Force. You see, the world actually has unyielding shapes, and those shapes influence the Energy outcomes.
Do you actually think Force-Energy outcomes are never above 1:1?
It's what they desperately try to convey to you with those pulley lifting weights in tech museums, showing how when you multiply the pulleys the weight becomes lighter to pull up...
This applies in an infinity of different ways, not just with pulleys.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yep...
There is a pount where fantasy has it's limits versus reality.
At this point, your "argument" is full of shit, but by all means, please carry on - it's rather entertaining.
There is a pount where fantasy has it's limits versus reality.
At this point, your "argument" is full of shit, but by all means, please carry on - it's rather entertaining.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Didn't Vejtasa get two of those?
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,718
- Mar 26, 2007
No he was forced out.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
No, but I understand that Leppla got one.
