The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Crumpp]

drag inceases lift.

Look at the AoA chart. If the wings AoA increases, then our lift co-efficient increases and so does our drag coefficient.

If we add drag, then our wing will change angle of attack to compensate because it requires more power. Our lift coefficient will increase.

The relationship of lift to drag is fixed by design.

[taildraggernut]

Yes it is because it does NOT accurately describe what happens in the real world.

But is 'does'

As a general rule though, it is the buffet.

It is not good design to put the tail in the wings wake.

the buffet as a result of the turbulence impinging on the tailplane yes, we are talking about conventional aircraft here, you know the ones with the tail at the back like almost every aircraft flying even today has it, where the empennage is very much in the wake of the wings.

I certainly did explain it. What part did you not understand? Exam these graphs and maybe you will understand.

I see a Cd curve which continues on a smooth path and seems unaffected by anything, a Cl curve falling off at the stall and a standard L/D arc that also seems pretty unremarkeable but nothing showing how drag increases lift.

If we add drag, then our wing will change angle of attack to compensate because it requires more power. Our lift coefficient will increase.

the wing changes AoA all by itself? where does the 'more power' come from, these things don't happen unless demanded by the pilot and you certainly don't seem to be suggesting that.

The relationship of lift to drag is fixed by design.

yes it is, the L/D curve is the combined effect of Cd and Cl, in all your little graphs all I can see is the drag continually rising but lift dropping off at the stall, where exactly am I supposed to be looking if I want to see drag increasing lift.....am I being too litteral? I am only asking because you said verbatim 'drag increases lift'

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

the buffet as a result of the turbulence impinging on the tailplane yes, we are talking about conventional aircraft here, you know the ones with the tail at the back like almost every aircraft flying even today has it, where the empennage is very much in the wake of the wings.

Do you actually even read what gets posted or do you just pick out bits and pieces? It's blatantly obvious that "putting the tail in the wake" was referring to the wake of a wing at high AoA, where the elevators won't be able to get you out of a stall.

Same with your post in the other thread. "Are you equating combat flying with flying a circuit pattern?" Ummm... NO. Read all the sentences that are posted, not just bits and pieces, and then maybe you won't get so worked up about it.

[taildraggernut]

Do you actually even read what gets posted

Very much so.....do you?

It's blatantly obvious that "putting the tail in the wake" was referring to the wake of a wing at high AoA, where the elevators won't be able to get you out of a stall

is that so?.......why are we discussing a condition that does not relate to the Spitfire then? Crumpp said it himself 'deep stall' (that's what it's called) is a condition relating to T-tails......name me a common T-tailed WWII fighter, either way the tailplanes on conventional aircraft feel the turbulence from the stalled wing and that is the heavy buffet, this will vary according to aircraft but it's the more common situation.

Same with your post in the other thread. "Are you equating combat flying with flying a circuit pattern?" Ummm... NO

Then why did he say anything about flying a pattern?......oooohh sarcasm of course....well in which case I had the right to treat it with contempt.

NO. Read all the sentences that are posted, not just bits and pieces, and then maybe you won't get so worked up about it.

Don't tell me what to do, I read everything I need to, what is your excuse for getting worked up?....now back on topic please.