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...
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...
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...