He says historically the FW out-turned the Spitfire at low speed something on the order of all the time. That's while avoiding details like were they co-speed or co-alt, a 50-150 ft drop can do wonders for a turn. ;)

This is a plane with 1G stall 110-130 mph (depending on weight) going to turn better than a plane with a 1G stall 80-95 mph. That's the first order difference and it gets wider when you start to turn. The Spits are able to pull 2G's at speeds the FW's can't begin to turn without losing alt. And the difference gets wider with speed. You have to pull more G's at speed to turn tighter, if you go slower your lift will wane faster than the speed reduction would effect any tightening. Go slow enough and you fall. So where under 300 kph will the FW find some turn advantage given both planes in similar, directly comparable situation?

I wish that someone claiming he's researched a plane for fifteen years would at least be able to spell the designation properly: Fw 190 A. I'd excuse a FW 190 because early documents also show the capital W, but there's never been a FW-190A, or a Me-109G, for that matter. German plane designations never used a minus between manufacturer and number.

Although, to be super picky, as far as I'm aware, there never was a 'Me-109 G' or a 'Me 109 G'. The correct designation is Bf 109 G.

I would be interested to know how someone who has studied aircraft and their tactics in aerial combat for 15+ years, had no idea what a stall turn was and thought that a horizontal turn was a vertical manoeuvre.

But maybe I am being picky

Both designations exist and have been used in official German documents.

Before the war, the aircraft type codes were designated by their manufacturer rather than designer. The 109 was designed by Willy Messerschmitt (primary designer, obviously) but originally manufactured by Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, which made it's designation "Bf-109". Same applied to the Bf-110 which was also designed in the inter-war period.

When Willy Messerschmitt founded Messerschmitt AG in 1938, he tried to get the designation changed to Me-109 and Me-110, and sometimes got his wish through, but there was no consistent policy on whether the 109 and 110 should be called Bf or Me. When Messerschmitt started producing new planes (Me-310, Me-410, Me-262 etc.) the tendency in RLM was to mark the 109 and 110 also as "Me-109" and "Me-110".

Of course, these aircraft - especially the 109 - were manufactured by several companies (Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, Messerschmitt AG, Erla Maschinenwerk G.m.b.H.) just like several companies in the US manufactured planes such as F4F (Grumman, General Motors) and F4U (Vought, Brewster, Goodyear), and these sometimes had their own designations on different versions: General Motors Wildcats were marked as FM-1 and FM-2; Goodyear Corsairs were FG and Brewster Corsairs F3A.

I don't really see what the formatting of the name matters as long as we're talking of the same aircraft...

Hi FatCat! :o long time heuh?!:rolleyes:

Wurger's wings broke at 14g continous and fuselage at 20g continous.
the full "monocoque" design was one of the strongest or even maybe the strongest of all planes of WW2.

About the low speed turn from Gaston theory : wtf:confused:

yes, the 190could turn faster than other planes in certain conditions, but we can't actually talk about a turn in the sense most think of (180° or higher), the 190 was able to START the turn much faster than most planes due to it's aileron effectiveness (roll rate acceleration) and as Gaston should know, a turn bleeds aircraft energy very bad, and semi laminar wing profile is not so good for low speeds, that's why you do not turn make direction changes of more than 90° in combat with a 190 and you keep scissoring and rolling keeping the speed high, if your fysical condition allows it...

A (real veteran)russion pilot said some years ago after seeing IL2: you make continuesly turns of more than 3G, in real life after a few of those turns, your muscles burns, your vision is troubled and you can't handle the stick correctly,what means you're a sitting duck in a combat area.


PS: an A8 at 6000m is faster in a 90° turn than a P51D, not because of the speed, but because the plane has a higher angle and the pilot, due to his seat pisition, is allowed to endure +1G than any other plane;)

PS2: how are you FC?:cool:

I tend to agree that once everyone knows what we're talking about the official designations can be relaxed somewhat. For example, we can talk about a "109" instead of a "Bf 109". However, if you're going to go to the extent of actually criticizing someone for not strictly adhering to accepted form, then I think it is just a little rich to then refer to another aircraft type using a designation that isn't strictly correct either. The fact that the abbreviation "Me 109" is included in some official German publications is interesting but only to the extent that it demonstrates that officials and employees make mistakes and are guilty of sloppiness, just like everyone else. Once Bayerische Flugzeugwerke became Messerschmitt A.G., and all new aircraft types were designated with the abbreviation "Me", it is hardly surprising that some people started to describe Bf 109s as Me 109s. Understandable perhaps, but certainly not correct. As far as it is known, all 109 identification plates carry the designation "Bf 109", the correct designation for this type.

I quoted another one of Gastons errors, I wasn't referring to anything. What you say is correct, but since Me 109 was used occasionally, it's just odd not wrong to refer to the aircraft as Me 109 (like ME 109, BF 109 or FW 190).

Actually in all the interviews with the guys, who flew the bird I never heard them adressing them other than Me 109. Same in all the books I read, that were written by Luftwaffe pilots (not too many, alas). My parents, who both experienced the war (my dad as a soldier from 39 to 45) wouldn´t have had an idea what "Bf" could mean, but "Me" was perfectly common. So there is also a difference between a technical correct denomintion and a popular name.

It's just the world of officialdom conflicting with what was sometimes used on the ground. Many a confused book has mixed up Spitfire official designations with log book information as sometimes the aircraft modification arrived at the field before officialdom had caught up. I.e. the Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) being listed as the IX-B in log books because they needed some way of designating the revised IX.

Bf109 may have been what was stamped at the factory but in the field equipment picks up all sorts of different names. Or two different levels of bureaucracy don't talk to each other :) WWII is full of these weird little stories.

Hello guys,
I am reading the posts carefully. There are very useful infos about my favorite plane FW 190, thank you. I have a question about real FW 190 performance. How was the acceleration of FW 190 against Spitfire and P-51?
Regards

I don't know for sure. It would depend a lot on the exact models in question, fuel loadouts, altitude and initial airspeed.

However: Climb rate comparison typically gives pretty good relative information about acceleration at slow speeds, because it fairly directly corresponds to thrust/weight ratio (although wing loading has some effect on it as well). If you have higher thrust/weight ratio, it means at level flight your engine provides better acceleration.

As a gut feeling I would say at slow speeds the Spitfire accelerates best. The difference between a P-51B/C/D and contemporary Focke-Wulf 190 Anton would be smaller, but I would say it's likely that the P-51 would in most conditions accelerate better.

FW-190 Dora has climb rate that is a close match to most contemporary Spitfires, excluding perhaps the Spitfire Mk.IX with 25 lbs manifold pressure, as well as Griffon engined Spitfires. The D-9 out-accelerates the P-51 at low speeds, and would come very close to the Spitfire's acceleration or better, I think. I have a slight impression that Spitfire (contemporary to a D-9) would still initially accelerate better, starting from low airspeed.


At high speeds, things get different as the planes approach their top speeds. The FW-190 Anton had higher top speed at low to medium altitudes than most contemporary Spitfires (at least until Mark IX), so at high speeds the 190 would accelerate better simply by the virtue that it would be capable of reaching a higher top speed - the Spitfire's acceleration would end at its top speed earlier than the FW-190's. At high altitudes, the Merlin engine of Spitfire would likely outperform the FW-190's BMW engine.

At high speeds, the P-51 would out-accelerate both Spitfire and FW-190 Anton, because it had the highest top speed of these planes. Or, its acceleration would continue longest, however you wish to look at it.

Again, bringing the Dora into the equation mixes things a bit. I would expect it to out-accelerate the Spitfire and 190 Anton easily at high speeds and depending on altitude it might even out-accelerate the Mustang. At high altitudes, the Mustang would accelerate the longest, reaching highest top speed. At low to medium altitudes and high initial speed, the FW-190 D-9 would likely accelerate the best out of these four planes.


Note: None of this is based on any flight performance data or even IL-2 Compare, just my impression and gut feeling about the capabilities of each of these planes.


Dive acceleration would be another thing yet again...

Long ago there were questions about acceleration and climb with charts pulled out when Oleg commented that the chart was for a wide-blade prop while the IL-2 FW (just which one, I forget) models the thin-blade prop optimized for speed. Worst part, there were guys waving charts made of climb numbers for one plane matched with speed numbers from another, nuthin' but the best for the precious!

I don't recall seeing prop type in the official Aircraft Guide.

Dive acceleration yes but after reading Gunther Rall in Finland I think that top speeds rule.
Problem is what he was reading includes error, his P-51 did not dive any true 1400 kph. I am sure he had appreciation for how fast the ground approached so I believe when he says the P-51 and P-47 dived much faster more solidly.
And that's about how it works in IL-2. Eventually 80-100 kph faster can close a lead.

It's important to note that the Fw 190A was noted to have very good acceleration and to for instance out accelerate a Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) under most conditions. Imo this can be attributed to the Kommandogerät, which allowed a quicker change of power settings, so the Fw 190 was already on it's way where the Spitfire was still getting the mixture right.

Was that the A-6 or the A-9 by any chance? Not the A-8 in full knight gear?

Most Antons I know of can match the top level speed of most Spits and spiral climb at the same time.

I think the comparison with the early Spitfire IX was most probably made with an A-4.

Is torque power a big difference if climb and acceleration with the Fw190A3 and Spit Vs and IXs?

(Looking at Farnborough July 1942 test)

Thanks!

it was an A3 (Fabers).

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1/File0028.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1/File0026.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1/File0027.jpg

Sounds very much like what we have in game.

The main discrepancy would be the climb rate and acceleration differences between Spitfires and FW-190 models. In IL-2, it feels that the Spitfire easily climbs and accelerates better than the FW-190. That report mentions that the FW-190 is more maneuverable - except in turning circles, and that applies to both Spit Vb and IX.

However, it's hard to determine whether the FW-190 A climbs/accelerates too slowly, or if the Spitfires tend to climb/accelerate faster than they should (I am slightly inclined to the latter). The problem is that there are certain aircraft in the game that seem to climb far better than you'd expect.

Bf-109 G-2 has much better rate of climb (and maneuverability and acceleration) compared to Bf-109 G-6, and it's pretty hard to remain convinced that the aircraft's weight would have grown quite that much from G2 to G6. Anecdotal evidence from Finnish Air Force pilots would indicate that the pilots did not feel much of a difference between the G-2 and G-6, but as a matter of principle I don't really put that much trust on anecdotes. However, as much as I can try to convince myself that in reality the pilots may not have noticed that much of a difference between G-2 and G-6 because they would have flown them both fully with energy tactics... the matter of fact remains that when I fly them with energy tactics in IL-2, there's a very noticeable difference in zoom climb performance and acceleration, as well as turning performance. And I can't help but think that if I can notice the differences, surely the Finnish Air Force pilots - arguably the best trained pilots in the world flying Bf-109 G-2 and G-6 both - would have noticed and reported the differences.

Then again it's possible that they were simply referring to the fact that both aircraft were operated the same way since they shared the same engine and same general flight characteristics, I don't know. Without talking to the pilots it's hard to know what they mean by fragments of interviews sometimes taken out of context.

Moving on; Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs versions have incredible climb and acceleration compared to Spitfire Mk.IX 18lbs versions; In fact the jump from Mk.Vb 16lbs to Mk.IX 18lbs version is about the same as jump from Spifire Mk.IX 18lbs to Mk.IX 25lbs regarding climb performance, and I'm just not quite sure that the maximum engine thrust would have increased that much. I suppose it's possible, though.


This, if anything, is something that makes me wonder about the veracity of some flight models. I doubt some things I see in the simulation, and some flight models actually have obvious errors in them (although those tend to be AI planes made flyable with mods), but typically I see exaggerated differences between planes, rather than complete reversals in performance. Gaston's argument that the FW-190 A series planes would have had better sustained turn performance than Spitfires would be a reversal of the planes' relative turn performance, while the differences between G-2 and G-6 are more of an "exaggeration" in my estimation.

Thanks for the correction, fruitbat.

In game figures for climb for both the Fw 190 and the Spitfire are very close to real life performance. Actual test figures do not quite agree with the relative performance stated in the comparisons.

Take a fully loaded Merlin 61 Spitfire, climb it at 2850 rpm / 12 lb boost (100% power, 90% pitch iIrc) and compare it with a Fw 190A-4 fully rated at 75% fuel and 85% power. Both planes with radiators open. Historically, the British achieved a bit less than 13 m/s with the Fw 190 and a bit more than 16 m/s with the Spitfire at about 4000m altitude. Not sure how they got to "slightly better".

The 25lb boost models are conservative if anything, climb rates in excess of 25m/s in 2nd charger gear having been measured in two different tests, though I know little about the exact conditions of the test. The performance in game in accordance with a very well document RAE test. In a summary, the relative performance increase between 18 and 25 lb is stated to be 5m/s in climb, which again is pretty close to what we have in game.

G-2 and G-6 are off, though.

Well, Im not sure about climb rates, they seem OK, but the acceleration of the Spitfires in level flight is waaay too good. They can do a lot of crazy turns and evasives and then go to full speed in 5 seconds. Many times I crossed a Spitfire in a head on without guns blazing at each other in my Fw-190, so I keep extending on level flight, the Spit just hard turn 180 degress and is on my tail very close, if I dont even touch the rudder controls I can extend safely in 3 or 5 m (they usually break pursuit), minor movements drop my speed too much and the Spit close in.

And this is the norm online, a couple of weeks ago I was in a Fw-190D9 at 5km altitude, spotted a Spitfire heading away from me at 1km of altitude and maybe 3km of separation, I dived, reached max speed (plane stuttering) and close on him, he saw me and started a loose (not tight 180 turn) I followed it on my dive, he finalized the turn heading straight full throttle towards a Me-110 in a strike sortie, at that point I was on his 6 but I loosed a lot of speed in the turning dive AND HE WAS OUTRUNNING ME!!!! When I reach full speed and start to close in He already killed the Me-110 and I was still 1KM from him, all the energy on me planes was wasted in a slight turn BUT GREAT DIVE, and the plane accelerated to full speed in maybe 30 seconds, meanwhile the Spit was already at max speed around 20 or 25 earlier, so he got a good separation from me.

I have fighted every allied plane with the Me-109 and Fw-190 and no other plane seem to accelerate that good, not even the Yak-3, Yak-9U or La-7. So, when you are closing on him, if the spit pilot sees you, just need to turn a little to avoid your fire, and your only move is just extend away, dont even try to adjust your fire, if you miss, he is already at your 6 at max speed and you will die before can reach you max speed again.

I've never found the Antons to be great climbers. Nevertheless, they are fun to fly and I've had my a** handed to me often by a well flown 190, no matter how good my kite is supposed to be.

The AI-only planes fly a relaxed FM. I emailed Oleg once why not run them with small & fast table-driven FM? Then they would fly within limits and be predictable moves for AI computing. I guess he didn't like the idea. So when you hack an AI-only plane, it's a UFO.

The rest of the planes have the same FM with different parameter sets, the parameters being factors for equations not end-speed/height/etc of table-driven sims.

The FM seems to climb a bit easily. Find the slowest you can go at level flight, it will be at low power. For the P-40B I can hold 1000m alt with about 32% power pedal-dancing along flaps and gear up about 145kph. The level-flight power curve U left side only goes 32% high.

If I hold that speed and bring the throttle up, I climb quite well and very steep but can't get out of my own way for lack of speed.

The FM and data set is an approximation of flight that runs as the heart of a game with much going on. It's not going to fit charts without some stretching and balancing that all compared does have some weird spots. But they are spots, differences between chart and game rather than cracks where the game has new or different properties. I don't see any canning of stall behavior either, the FM is a very robust code and data engine.

Some of the planes are on steroids because the reals were hotrods. The Spit 25-lb is a hotrod even more than the FW 190D-9. It's about power to weight and thrust being highest at low speed, and excess thrust being what changes your momentum. That plane is the Frankenfire, not a good meter for the name Spitfire. You want to hunt Spit VB's that crossed the channel down low and are at low combat speed climbing to get the proper FW experience. But do it in an A2 or A3.

I have video of a British ace who talked about the Spit IX's and how before it was always the Spits at a clear disadvantage, when the FW's crossed with Spit IX's and thought they were dealing with Spit V's, the Spit IX's "took the pants off the Focke Wulfs" and kept on doing so. After that when FW's spotted Spits below they took time to check.

What that tells me is that with any Spit IX you will not have an easy walk in your Dora 9. You have edge to build on.

Turn in the vertical where roll changes direction and is close to zero energy cost. use short zooms or dives to achieve change in direction and speed at the same time; from high speed to moving 60+ degrees different direction you zoom climb to store speed into height while rolling to the new vector then pull out as you approach corner speed, using gravity to assist you going back to full horizontal, drop to get your speed back.
Pulling hard turns at full speed is a non-no. Even to zoom, you can zoom in a 30 degree climb and let the plane slow down to maneuver speed, even roll and take a new direction off that at little cost in speed.

There's a flight pattern to practice that's good for learning energy. Fly tilted circles for speed along the bottom and height with fast angle change across the top. You want to top at pretty good speed to bring the nose around best. The circle is more egg shape and the egg turns every time the plane crosses the top, I bet that's how the cloverleaf turn spoken of by P-38 pilots is done, it uses the vertical.

Boom and Zoom, don't strike from direct 6. Come in from the side with high closing speed -just because of that side vector- and shoot deflection starting from 400 meters out. Your closing speed effectively shrinks that range closer to 300m, aim as if 300m shot. You will soon be 300m and closing anyway. Hartman did the real version, turning into a target he flew 50m off the wing of, turned and fired into the target point-blank and exited behind the target all in one move. Try that in sim! I start at 400m, correct aim if need and start fire again by 300m. Less than a second later I am at 200m and need to turn to avoid ramming. I am -NOT- Erich Hartmann, even in sim!

Really. side approach cuts the number of evasions. If you have a wingman about 600m or so back, that should cut his workable evasions even more.
You just have to get good at deflection shooting, a matter of practice.

I was at a Korea vets meeting, where the old guys were talking about pulling 12Gs in P51s and not blacking out ??? Maybe we're a lot tougher down south - Something to think about :grin:
Or maybe our blood pressure goes up radically when we have to deal with crap :) :)

Good advices MaxGunz, I knew most of the tactics you explain and I follow them, been flying this sim since 2001, and many others before. My point was that after I loss all my energy from that turning dive I couldnt close in the Spit, meanwhile it just speed away after a hard 180 level turn. Yes, it was a Mark IX 25lbs but the standard VIII and IX are similar against same year AXIS planes.
They loss the energy same as other planes but regain it too quickly, being the Fw-190 much slower to accelerate (and before 4.11 they were even worst, now they are better, but 20-30khm slower at max speed) against a 109 the difference is still there but too a lesser extent. Well, gauging by experience not numbers the Spit seems to accelerate 3 times better than a 190 and maybe 1.5-2x better than a 109, alway speaking of level acceleration and same year enemies.

You need to get numbers, record tracks, etc. Anything predictably so wrong should be recorded, analyzed, and presented with docs backing up the reasons. And then comes criticism without which you have only 1 opinion presented.. yours. Maybe someone changes their mind based on what all can see? It beats the Gaston game.

Do you know what speed you had after your turn? I've pulled some bleeders before, it's real easy to get too far inside and watch your speed go down fast. That's what practicing the tilted circle for, to teach you where the edge between just before stall is.

Make tracks so you can at least get alt/speed/etc, change the view around and see what happened more clearly.

I made tracks just to see where my shots were going and how my sight picture looked just before, my gunnery got better. Suddenly the DM's of enemy planes wasn't so tough as before.

Can you tell me the power to weight of these planes?

Can you tell me the clean stall speeds? What speed before each is no longer nose-high just to maintain alt, and what that means about acceleration? You may find a low speed zone where the FW should not do so well that no FW pilot in combat should ever get so slow.

Do you cross-control? That is using the joystick on diagonal. It makes more drag. Watch air racers, the move their sticks in + motions.

I shoot from long distance because if the target turns, I need turn much less to get a lead on his motion. I won't be able to keep that but I get my shot without losing much speed. Coming from a side, not 6, helps all that.

Given that at some altitudes the Spitfire climbs nearly twice as fast as the Fw 190, acceleration should also be nearly twice as good.

Yes Freddy, bumpy air shakes planes. Safe speed is lower in bad weather.

You can probably survive a 25G impact FWIW.

That's momentary G's. Tell me about 12G turns because someone said they saw 12 on the G meter. That's cause he's twice as much as any ordinary man!

I remember the Army machinegunner who claimed that 50 cal bullets speed up after they leave the barrel. LOL, he should know, right?

Transient lateral acceleration limits of humans vary from person to person and short spike of 12 g, I reckon it's possible but right about at the limit of human performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I

What's impressive is if they actually had the time to look at their g-load gauges, or if they had some sort of flight recording systems (like a small needle in the g-load gauge, pushed by the indicator needle and showing the highest peak force)?

How reliable were these g-load indicators?


Did Mustang pilots in Korea era use any sort of G-wear? When did G-pants and G-suits make their appearance?

Impact g-forces are very short duration and with the right equipment (appropriate harness) you can survive impressively high decelerations. Empirical test results have shown that human beings can survive at least 45 g's of deceleration in forward/backward axis and 35 g's in sideways acceleration. Lateral acceleration limits would probably be a bit lower due to the massive stress on the neck and the spine in general, and you'd most definitely lose consciousness due to lack of blood pressure, but again I expect with proper harness and head/neck support surviving lateral decelerations above 25 g's would be quite possible.



This is exactly why anecdotes are such a reliable way of assembling a mental picture of the comparative performances of combat aircraft of 60 years ago.

Hi!

Im asking this because Im not an expert of german planes: Is the acceleration of the Fw 190 ingame is realistic or not? The plane is fast, but its short term acceleration looks quite weak. I shot down quite a few 190s even in a LaGG-3S4, he couldnt get away in time, the LaGG accelerated faster, sometimes even in a dive. So it is a bit suspicious for me. LaGG-3, especially early versions accelerated sluggishly. The 190 was really that bad IRL? Correct me if Im wrong, but as far as I know high wing loading means less drag in level flight, so plane should accelerate better.

The answer depends on the speed, same as when the US ran a test condition competition and found the P-47 they had accelerated poorly up to a certain speed where it did the smack the head on the rest thing. With that plane, you learn that speed and don't go slower in combat.

It's about efficient air speeds for each plane, high wing loaded planes are inefficient at lower speeds to gain efficiency at higher speeds.

It's about induced drag as a percent of total drag. Until you can get your nose down, just staying aloft has a high price while at top speed it is 1% to 2% of the total. So you got to get to efficient speed before you can get your best acceleration. When another plane is already in that speed zone for his plane and you are not for yours, he may leave you behind.

Nobody pwns everywhere. When short test conclusions say at all speeds; read it to say all the speeds and conditions they tested, the ones that made sense to the testers at the time. That was AFDU, the tests would set up current combat conditions, the speeds appropriate.

You still need tracks to talk about specific online events. Impressions are not always right.

Some things just never stop.

What are the problem trying to create "realism" in a simulator.

1. Numbers is only 90% of it, the last 10% are pilot experience. Numbers cant me made for individual pilot skill. Any pilot fly hes way and even a test pilot is stil something you cant calculate with hard numbers.

2. History. As a sim pilot you have a huge benefit. You can read and learn both sides tactics and perfect any manouver. In those day you couldnt.

3. You dont die for real of a pilot mistake. You stall and crash, you just hit re-fly. They couldnt. You can fly any plane in the game at 110% percent. They couldnt. They had to stay as close to 95% as posible to make sure they got out of the flying alone alive. Put in some combat and a bad mechanic and you have death.

Remember this is a simulation, and that gives some problems to hit a RL experience mark. Some 109`s turned better than some allied planes. In many situations it didnt come down to some math numbers, but to the individual skills.

I bet you could take a combat pilot and let him fly a 190 and then a test pilot and you would end up with something that is max 80% identical.....the last 20% is darn important...even 5 different pilots would give 5 different sets of data....what pilot have the best day must then be the most acurate...

Thanks for the explanation!

Now I understand why it was so easy to out-accelerate a 190 in a LaGG. It always occured between 250-350 km/h. So then the efficient air speed of the 190 is above 350 km/h.

The 190 may be stepping the pace out before 350 even as the La 5 is farther along in his curve.

I would rather say it's related to a better prop efficiency, what is awfully modelled in il2 just like the kommanda gerrât that is much too slow in response and also not able to keep revs in climb (back to response time)

If it was related to prop efficiency, climb would suffer, too.

Get someone who can fly a 190 at full throttle and hold it level from 240 kph to top speed and record an online track. Get a few of those for different alts.

If the ride isn't too bouncy like the autopilots tended to do years ago then change in speed second to second will give a good idea about acceleration. But the flights need to be smooth and as flat as possible or the result will be less, and yes the way the AI's kept level dragged, fly combat like that and see how you do.

So nobody objects to FW acceleration enough to gather data?

Of course not. In a few months or a year the "issue" will be raised again as "fact".

typhoon anybody?http://www.ebrr.info/2.jpghttp://www.ebrr.info/wanhuan1-2.jpghttp://www.ebrr.info/huantest.jpg

I was flying an A-5 (not the fully rated 1.65 ATA version or whatever) on Spits vs 109's server the other day, and I accelerated away from a Seafire Mk.III that tried to get to my tail... It was mostly level, though initially a very shallow dive.

I'd say that's good enough for me.

There is a lot to read through... Sorry but many have argued the current FWs are starting to match up with real world performance numbers. Who's performance numbers? There is always some sort of axe to grind here and I'm sorry but trying to burn off speed from 500 Kmh to 200 Kmh while landing is a tough task even with gear and flaps down which tells me there is something goofy about the current FM. Of course this is anecdotally speaking but when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it’s a duck. For whatever reason I can’t seem to pull this off during a fight either.

+1


Flying Spits vs 109s: I've had Spit IXs situated below me in a FW190 A8 at least a 1000m difference both of us flat out level flight and opposite directions... Pull vertical from below and execute an immelman turn and easily catch me without me manuevering flat out. In fact I couldn't even dive away with the current version of HSFX.


I agree with some of the results in turn testing, she does turn a little better and climb a bit better. Top speed seems to take forever to get to now and you can be hunted down by Spits easily if you aren’t extremely careful. Is this historically correct? Who knows… I will leave that to the guys that want to argue performance charts and which ones are correct. The current FW we have been neutered IMO and It’s true the FW has been one of the most altered FWs in the game

There must something wrong with Spit IX flight models, HSFX itself or both.

There's something wrong if you come to conclusions without so much as a single track file.

Well the Spits seem to be flying as normal and I don't recall seeing that the Spit FM has changed. The FWs have certainly changed and it doesn't take a track to prove that. Just fly it and it becomes very obvious.

I will start to take some tracks of some of my engagments if it will help people see the light.

Both TD as well as HSFX have changed the original Oleg FMs for the Spitfire family

Spits fm's were changed in 4.10 by TeamD, Fw's in 4.11 by TeamD.

(both for the better imo).

Perhaps I wasn't aware of the change back in 4.10 but since I've been flying UP now for the last couple of years I didn 't notice any changes or at least obvious changes to FMs in HSFX.

Is there any documentation on what specifically was changed? Either way the new FW has been nerfed IMO.

You don't seem to show much understanding either: Since the engine is obviously grabbing a huge volume of air (hundreds of tons of curving high-speed air, while itself with a contrarian "inner" passive desire to go straight, I might add), where does your restriction stand that the applied force must come entirely from within the aircraft?

I dare say my analogy of pressing down on a flying block with a lever while standing was more apt...

In your view, the aircraft can operate without an environment... This is what spaceships do... They have space around them: That's why they are called spaceships: And the maneuvers they do do indeed come entirely from within...

But this is not how aircrafts work...

Gaston

First of all it is not 13 or 14 Gs, but 6-7 Gs plus 3 "Gs" worth of bending: So 9-10 Gs of structural load at most.

(It would explain some unexpected breakage and, interestingly enough, the failure of the P-51s guns to work properly despite likely ground wing-bending testing...

They never tested those guns in actual turning flight, and, as a result, the P-51's gun jams under G load were always triple that of the P-47: Going from 500 mrbf in early '44, to around 1000 in 1945, while the P-47 went from 1500 in early '44 to 3000 + in 1945... The improvements might have been in part due to lower late-war altitudes for both types)

In any case, those Gs are for the airframe's wing bending value, not Gs that the pilot actually feels, or are you just pretending?

Gaston

"Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage"

Well, I figure in typical WWII aircraft the upper limit is 6 G (typical pilot limit) plus 2 Gs of engine-caused wing bending... So that is still 8 Gs total, and still within what you say is the start of permanent deformation...

An exceptional case is the P-51, which with G-suit could make the pilot tolerate 7 Gs, and probably added 2 "Gs" or more with the engine leverage...

So that makes for 9-10Gs... Hey, isn't the P-51 well-known for unexpected -and never explained- wing and tail failures? Hmmm... What a coincidence...

Also the P-51's wing obviously bent more than expected given its gun reliability record under turning Gs: Now isn't that another interesting coincidence?

Another interesting case is the Spitfire, which in my view must have added an exceptional amount of wing bending to its 6 G pilot limit: I figure up to 3 Gs, or over 22 000 lbs worth of extra wing bending over the "base" 44 000 lbs at 6 Gs...

This also makes for a total of 9 Gs, but the mutliple spar-inside-the spar wing construction was well-designed to bend, and could probably take that without huge risks... Unlike the P-51, the Spitfire is not known for wing failures, but IS known for wing deformation at high Gs with careless pilots... What a coincidence...

Since the pilot could not take much more than 6 Gs without at least losing his situational awareness in close combat, it does seem a bit strange these things were often damaged...

Gaston

Sorry for the long delay, but re-reading all those P-47Ds accounts is a large "investment" of my time, and you'll understand I have other things to do than to convince people...

I'll just post part of the long rambling post I prepeared, and yes there will be P-47 accounts to debate...

I did find TWO account of Me-109Gs causing some trouble in turns to a P-47, both by the same P-47 pilot, Covelle.

They are sustained turns, but they are hardly a show of crushing Me-109 superiority... That they are both from the same pilot, out of hundreds of accounts of P-47s beating Me-109s in typically 2-3 turns, is hardly convincing, not to mention the content of the reports.

Rare, rare, RARE case of the Me-109G causing the P-47 trouble in a Luftberry: Only one of two I am aware of so far...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...er-11feb44.jpg

Another rare case of a P-47 in trouble vs a Me-109, by Covelle again, despite him having no trouble with his tanks full previously, now had trouble with one out 109 out of several (but equal to the others): Then, out of ammunition and still fighting(!): "I broke into this 109 and he tacked on to me, but I managed to out-turn him until I reached the clouds":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...le-7june44.jpg


Note this, however, before the nay-sayers start singing in the streets over these two accounts...:

I have no doubt a reduced-power ME-109G will out-turn a full power paddle-blade P-47D, especially a Bubbletop and especially to the right...

So I'll get back to those later...

With that out of the way, let's try once again to inject a bit of observed FW-190A reality into this... (And I will spell it this way...)

Tactical and technical trends, Nov. 5-11 1942:

-"Maneuverability--Except at lower speeds-around 140 MPH(!)- The FW-190 is superior and will out-turn the P-38" (A FW-190A-4)

-1943 British test: "The P-38G and FW-190A-4 are roughly similar in turning ability"


Note this combat of a P-38G against a Me-109G:

Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944

“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.” [!!!!]

Well Ok it is all meningless etc...

Anyway, here are a few P-47 combat reports with my comments:

-Poor FW-190A high-speed handling (400 MPH speed, elongated loop, abrupt pitching-up, blacking out the pilot as in the "tendency to black-out the pilot" in the P-47 test two links above (nose high deceleration in a broad curve of course), snapping completely out in 400mph turns etc...):

http://www.spitfireperformance...0-murrell-2dec44.jpg

Inability of the FW-190A to make turns at 500 mph: "He tried short sharp turns right and left, and what seemed skidding turns down. There was no violent evasive action at all.":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...l-2march44.jpg

Superior P-47D turn rate against Me-109G (contrast later to FW-190A):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../56-mudge-1dec43.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-covelle-19may44.jpg

Lesser or nil P-47D superiority in turns to right vs Me-109G (as example of why the opposite could be demonstrated: It seems the P-47D out-turned the Me-109G severely to the left mostly):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...truluck-27sept43.jpg

Now contrast this to the FW-190A-8, late in 1944 (The P-47 has to escape in a zoom...):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ke-19dec44.jpg

More Me-109G turnfight-beating links

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...cdermott-25may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...8-luckey-19may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-covelle-19may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rth-7oct44.jpg

"I easily out-turned them (2 Me-109Gs) from 9000 ft to 2000 ft":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-15march44.jpg

"We started turning with several 109s, and were having no difficulty doing it at 23500 ft. with full tanks"

"About 4 (109s)across the circle from and five pulling in on us from six o'clock. But as we pulled deflection on the others across from us, the rest seemed to lose interest in the fight and disappeared"

10 000 ft.: "The e/a started trying to turn, and we out-turned them immediately"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...le-19may44.jpg

Earlier needle-tip prop (pre-Jan-1944) P-47Ds also showed a significant superiority in sustained turns to the Me-109G, except that to the right the margin is closer: "My excess speed was about gone but I was gradually getting inside and nearer to him" ---Despite being in a right-turning Luftberry: Close to stalling but still gaining...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ke-19dec44.jpg

Luftberry

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e-8april44.jpg

Turning`

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-22feb44-b.jpg

two turns around hangar and "I was continually out-turning him"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-8april44.jpg

two luftberrys. I closed on the last E/A

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tz-29nov44.jpg


"tight luftberry. My excess airspeed was about gone, but I was gradually getting inside and nearer to him (Me-109)"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...k-27sept43.jpg

"In this engagement we succeeded in out-diving and out-turning the enemy (Me-109) at any altitude"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...on-12may44.jpg

8000 ft-"We had no difficulty turning and climbing with them":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ey-19may44.jpg

In another example, which I could not find, a gondola Me-109G holds its own to the right with a P-47D at high altitude. (Altitude seem to matter little in relative P-47D vs Me-109G turn performance)

In another example of P-47D turn assymetry vs the Me-109G, notice how, against the very same Me-109G, the contest is a LOT longer and closer when to the RIGHT (several P-47 pilot quotes confirm the strong preference of the P-47D for the left turn)...:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...wilkinson-1dec43.jpg

Interesting mixture of turning and dive/zooming by a FW-190A: I would call it an unusually equitable use of both turning and dive and zoom: He gets killed in a zoom:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-23march44.jpg

Against a late FW-190A-8, no so easy...: "We fought a long running and turning fight eastward, during which which I was out-turned several times which necessitated climbing and allowing the e/a to run" Just before that a Luftberry alone with 3 Me-109s had resulted in a kill...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ke-19dec44.jpg

Against the FW-190A? Not so easy...:

Again, long turning battle with the FW-190A, a rough match:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-22april44.jpg


Again,"not being able to hold any more deflection" against a FW-190A:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...l-8march44.jpg

"Not being able to tighten my turn any further" against a FW-190A, and "overrunnning" him twice in the same sentence:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...l-8march44.jpg

Now... For a fair comparison, wouldn't you agree a first step would be similar amount of combat accounts showing the "superior turn-fighting" Me-109Gs out-turning the poor helpless P-47? (And this at low speeds in sustained multiple circles, I might add, since high speeds did seem to favour the Me-109G vs the P-47 at least a little...)

Very noteworthy in these accounts is that altitude seems to matter little when the Me-109 goes up against a P-47: On the deck, very high, pretty much the same...

I collated this from a larger post, sorry if there are repetitions...

I imagined all of it anyway you know...

Gaston

All of it? Even the parts you took to misuse from history? Nahh, you take too much credit, you only added your own completely infallible interpretation.

Why, those aerp-engineers and scientists... all they know is some numbers, not the truth while you alone are able to adjust things back. They are just ignorant children compared to your dazzling insight. For example, they don't even know what "stress risers" are, and they invented the term! The Fools!

Really? Or did you just pull that out of your ear? Because the people who did the actual testing got higher values without guessing at all. They tested the structures to the breaking point.

Interestingly enough the failure of different ammo feeds to have failed under turning G's was known and written into the very histories you claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of.

Never? Anywhere? Not like you can't remember or find but actually never?

That and actually changing the ammo feed on the P-51. They had to do a change in the gear doors too and a whole list of fixes.

First of all, you should learn about human G testing and G's. It's not just the G's, it's how long you are *at* the G's.

* Go through disturbed air and your plane maybe shakes, that is momentary G force. At higher speed the shake is more. In fact there are actual reference maximum speeds for flying in such conditions because you can break the airplane especially if you also try and maneuver in such conditions, like trying a hard pullout while buffeting.

As for cantilever wings, they are made to flex a certain amount, it's part of the design. It beats breaking. But even short-term G's can overload the wings, they do not fail the same way that humans do.

Watch a pilot pull 11.2 G's in the Red Bull Air Races.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I

They just make it all up, you know?

The race is on..... :cool:

OK, Seriously...
 

...as an outsider looking in to an interesting discussion, Gaston, you might wanna consider giving up. You're equivocally arguing over semantics, to no constructive end, just for the sake of salvaging and continuing an argument.

It's not working.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/up...y/00000016.gif

It is not pointless, because now after a few years of looking for wing-bending data, I realize wing bending measurements were not done in turning flight for WWII fighters: I am told by those who know that the -apparently- rare times during which wing bending data is gathered in flight, it is done by dive pull-outs only...

Would the P-51 have had jamming guns at three times the normal rate, particularly in turning battles, if they had done these tests?

As for the challenge I was issued by Glider, the ratio of P-47s out-turning Me-109s vs the opposite is pretty telling: I am sure Glider will have great trouble matching even one tenth of the P-47/109 outcomes I presented above...

Or one third for the dive and zooms vs multiple consecutive 360s examples...

So much for a great theoretical advantage...


I also wanted to adress the claim of violation of physical laws:

Imagine a situation where you have in each hand a pulley system that multiplies your pulling force by 100.

Imagine each system is connected to opposite extremities of a steel bar: Leaning back you pull say 50 lbs in each hand: 5000 lbs of pulling force at the other end of each pulley system.

If you alternately vary the force in each hand, would the steel bar offer any resistance to your moving it back and forth? Does no perceptible resistance mean the steel bar is not being pulled apart by 10 000 lbs of force?

This is what is called a violation of physical laws here...:roll:

My claim is that two large forces cancel each other out: One force is the resistance of the propeller to a curving trajectory, which I figure is around 100 lbs for each degree of angle of attack -hardly an outlandish figure...

The other force is a deformation of the void above the wing, which is linked to the above: This force has to be proportionately much greater because of a very unfavourable leverage relationship to the nose, where the prop is.

So the deformation of the void above the wing is the equivalent of having a much larger "pulley force multiplier" within the wing, faced at the other end by a much longer "lever" in the nose, both cancelling each other out proportionately as the AoA increases.

And, like the steel bar, the wing will know those extra forces are there, but won't really show much if you don't measure bending...



Of course, on a nose-pulled aircraft, for the two "extra" forces to be balanced, the CL must move in front of the CG (in addition to becoming greater in force), or the pilot would feel an extra effort in the stick to lean back the prop, which he clearly doesn't...

The forward displacement of the CL might seem to involve a significant effort*: But the CL is made of air, wind tunnels do not replicate a curving trajectory, and they do not replicate an object being held in the air entirely by the speed of its propulsion from the nose...

Or you can cling to the notion that the Me-109G out-turns P-47s...:roll:

Gaston

*I think the faster "outside turn" air leaks from the bottom of the wing, from the trailing edge, maybe a long way forward into the upper wing area, in any case gradually increasing and deforming the void above the wing, as well moving the CL forward, as the AoA increases. That would explain the larger lift forces which the greater they "increase", the more they demonstrate the wastage incurred from the nose leverage: That waste from the nose leverage increases the less the CL moves forward, because the CL moving forward is the wing's own opposing lever, and the less lever it has the more the upper wing void will deepen.

Hence the deeper the void above the wing, the less the CL has moved forward of CG...

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.

From here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-soviet-pilot?

You still haven't answered Gliders challenge. I know you think you do, but you actually haven't. It's your task to simply pick one combat report you like. Nothing more. Not to post a dozen or so selected examples.

So much for apples to apples comparisons.


It's what's called an ignorance of the physical laws violating itself.

Look up 'inertia' and tensile strength.

Gee, it must be accurate then? About as accurate as the never yet supported claim of props resisting realistic curved trajectories. But at least you left out the "stress risers" "explanation".

Just because you can make claims based on you-think-so-it-must-be doesn't make them real. Just because you can tack off-hand numbers on them doesn't make them any more real. BTW, last time the numbers were on an order of magnitude higher than now.
Sorry but you have no ballpark to say the numbers are in so why bother?


Again, something you made up.

In the world of imagination, there are flying unicorns in different colors too.

I won't bother with the rest as it is just as unfounded.

Even before WWII they built planes, propped them up under the wings and pulled the fuselage down with hydraulic rams to test the structure in fact, not imagination. With you, it's all imagination 'backed' by psuedo-related, incomplete 'data' gleaned from cherry picked combat reports, ie useless information for determining flight comparisons.

There is the Gaston's explanations suck force.

Next thing you know people will be saying that cold is just a lack of heat.

As always, maneuverability is -relative- and not just plane to plane.

Below 4,000 ft a BoB Hurricane was able to out-turn a BoB 109 given similar starts and pilots. Above 8,000 ft the same Hurricane was hopeless in a turning fight with the same. The difference was made by relative power of both at different altitudes.

It's because those Germans knew that you need to keep speed up to make the fight about energy and the vertical. That is what the roller coaster is all about. Hard turns are anathema to energy fighting.

Gunz, if I ever get to meet Major Kozhemyako, I'll be sure to pass on your thoughts, he will, i'm sure, be impressed by them.

And you are not.

I have run the roller coaster fight in a few sims since 1990. A wingover, which requires excess speed will beat a flat turn every time.

But I did not invent these things. I learned from others who learned from others (in some cases, their Air Force instructors). AFAICT the first to effectively use the vertical in combat was Max Immelmann in 1916.

Robert Shaw covers this in his book as well, right down to the foundations.

The 'rollercoaster' was used by the WW2 FW190 pilots too. It's in that report of ''~Arrgg!! forgotten his name) when the Spit-V first encounted the FW190.

well... if you said that heat is lack of cold I will accept it as an absurd... but cold is really lack of heat! From physics point of view!

I guess he knows that, it was just irony.... (the lack of heat)

How many ww2 pilots had read Shaw?

Obviously none. However, most of them had probably heard of the dicta:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke

or read Malan's rules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_...f_Air_Fighting

Shaw's work is a superb compilation of what went before.

Exactly. Shaw uses many historic quotes to begin his explanations. Shaw read them.

Did the Russians ever have the speed and altitude advantage to fly that way against the Germans?

Was it ever their -doctrine-?

Look into their evaluation and use of the P-47's sent to them and tell me they flew as Gabreski taught his pilots.

I have great respect for the Russian pilots but in all my reading have not seen examples of Russians using energy fighting in the GPW. Perhaps towards the end some did. The Germans OTOH kept their traditions alive and didn't have to learn the hard way what killed so many Allied pilots.

Sorry, but most of the "activity" is actually on the back of the wing: I wondered about this myself: The issue here is that the CL collapsing down and moving forward of CG (as is absolutely necessary for the theory to work without perceptible pilot effort) does introduce the issue of suction...

I doubt the turn-induced imbalance accross the propeller face would introduce greater pressure on the wing, so it has to be greater suction...

There definitely is suction ahead of the propeller blades though: That is how the prop works... And slower incoming air on the inside-turn side of the prop does create a greater suction ahead of the inside-turn area of the disc as the blades go through it... An actual aeronautic engineer agreed with me on this, just not on the amount and significance...

It would be interesting to know if this imbalance was looked at and quantified: Given the low-tech nature of the prop era, I sort of doubt it...

As for Shaw, his evaluation of how the P-47 was used tactically in WWII is laughable: Even if you added up all his examples of "significant" dive and zoom "energy" tactics, you still barely end up with one quater the amount of 109-beating multiple circles combat quotes I have come up in one post... Including down on the deck at 140 mph...

Remember, for Me-109Gs out-turning P-47Ds in sustained turns, I only ask for one tenth of the amount to be impressed... :grin:

I came up with two from the same pilot, remember? Let's not count those in right away...

Gaston

P.S. About Hurricanes being magically out-turned by Me-109s, have you asked RCAF Hurricane pilot John Weir?

Predictably, this inconvenient fact of physics has to be denied.

The main event is at and past the trailing edge where the fast air stream from above the wing gets mixed with the slower stream from under the wing and forms the downward-moving and wing tip vortex which is dragged along by the plane. The air above and in front of the wing feeds that because it is at higher pressure. Suction is just a backwards-view of pressure difference dynamics, same as cold it is most often perceived as something it is not.

And has nothing to do with the vortex at the trailing edges of the prop blades and the vortex moving back off the blades? The air in front isn't just moving to to fill a lower pressure space created by the air in that space being moved back over the plane?

Here's a secret no one told you: low pressure does not "reach out and pull", it is only higher pressure that pushes. There is no perception of suction without that PUSH that is the real force. And we can be thankful for that.

That is because that engineer knows the force triangle, that the difference from one side to the other is the SHORT LEG, not either of the long ones. That would be the length of a prop radius times the sine of the degrees the nose is pitched off the path of the plane, a SMALL PART of the total.
There is also the P-factor, also SMALL.

You're wrong about that too.

You are to aerodynamics what Niburu cranks are to astronomy.

Oh yeah, the stories that leave out more conditions than they state including the most important, the relative NUMBERS and SKILL on both sides of the combat.

Remember that the losers don't get home to make reports. Your data selection process ensures the bias and ignorance that your twisted explanations have been built to fill.

At what altitude, whizzo? At what starting speeds and altitudes? Were these 109's the initially slow, close-by-order bomber escorts being bounced by Hurricanes from above before they could get their speed up?

You keep throwing out these story pieces and accounts giving fragments of the total relevant information and then playing that they represent two planes in their best turns under equal conditions. Your story-fest conclusions are full of it.

The activity may be on the top of the wing, however the pressure difference is what does the actual work, and the higher pressure is below the wing.

If you're trying to say that the air through the propeller affects the wing, then you may be correct inboard, however there is no way you could be correct with respect to the outboard section of the wing. Aeroplanes of this era flew at up to half Mach, so there isn't time for the air from the propeller to get to the tip of the wing before the wing has moved forward.

No. Gravity is an attractive force, magnetism is both attractive and repulsive, pressure is purely repulsive. There is a pressure imbalance between the front and back of the propeller blades, and the pressure behind the blades pushes the blades forwards, that is how a propeller works.

Not sure of either of your 'angles'.. but surely it's relative ?

Molecules can push. They can't pull.

Prove (as opposed to reason-up using loose word definitions) different and there's got to be a big prize for that.

I know there's Darwin Awards but I think there needs to be Aristotle Awards for the dumbest believed explanations of any particular year.

Rarely have I seen anyone demonstrate such a fundamental misunderstanding of basic aerodynamics, while at the same time voicing such a high opinion of themselves on the subject.

Low Pressure and High pressure... no pushing or pulling but establishing equilibrium.
Low pressure's relative view of High pressure and visa versa..
:)

Maybe he has a point... after all even engineers/professors don't know it all.. as much as they think they do. ;)

That would be if the world ran according to subjective impressions. Then we could have -magic- and the world would be flat because so many people believed so that it would have been true all along.

So now the people who DO THINGS and TEST THINGS and MAKE THINGS THAT WORK must be COMPLETELY WRONG because there's some tiny thing they may not know or be unable to explain to IDIOTS ....

and in a Creationism MUST BE RIGHT if Evolution can be objected to at all way,

the IDIOTS who JUST SIT AND MAKE STUPID CLAIMS must know better!

Guess this topic has become bad enough.