fw 190a5 flight model

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Glider

So to sum up you agree that all the test reports, from all nations, disagree with you, but you insist that you are right.
Also you don't have any evidence but you don't hesitate to twist what a real pilot said to make it fit your fantasy in particular Hauptmann Heinz Lange.

And as for the one example

P/O J. Stewart (Rhodesian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942:

I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron. I shouted a warning and stall-turned to port to attack the rear two F.W. 190's. They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one.

That should do it

Well KG 200 did do tests and they did say "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", but you do choose to ignore them don't you?

Or maybe I misunderstood your position, and you actually understand the Me-109G is ridiculously out-turned by the P-47D?

You also choose to ignore what all combat reports are saying, including your own quote:

"I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me"

Well, if you want to make sure it is not high speed, you better exclude diving from the equation don't you?

On top of that we don't know how far below, or how fast they were going...:

"in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron."

"Attacking" and "opposite direction" implies they are neither slow nor, more importantly, turning...

Maybe "Stall-turned" confused you: It does not mean that the turning was close to level flying speed stall, but it could instead very well be close to a 350-400 MPH 6 G "stall-turn"... In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns"...

Finally: "They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one."

Well "several" burst is good for your argument, but still there is no suggestion of low speed or multiple level turns is there?

In fact, "broke and turned with me", combined with "attacking" and "opposite direction", pretty much implies they were previously going fairly straight, which in turn suggests fairly fast...

But maybe you don't quite get the distinction I make between high G turning performance and low-G sustained turning performance? Well, consider that just because it's all the same for our "sophisticated" current flight physics (assuming similar needed stick effort per G at high speeds), it doesn't mean it's all the same for my theory...

But since you don't accept, not even momentarily for the sake of an argument apparently, the basics of my theory, that explains the unconvincing example you chose...

Hey, have you heard of the multiple turns level fight by Johnny Johnson? "Opposite side of an ever diminishing circle"?: That's more like the ticket...

"It was only a matter of time", and one will come up...

Gaston

[Glider]

Oh Dear

Originally Posted by Gaston

Well KG 200 did do tests and they did say "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", but you do choose to ignore them don't you?

Or maybe I misunderstood your position, and you actually understand the Me-109G is ridiculously out-turned by the P-47D?

I wasn't talking about the P47

You also choose to ignore what all combat reports are saying, including your own quote:

I ignored nothing, you asked for an example I gave you one. You are the one ignoring the test reports, test pilots and so on.

"I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me"

Well, if you want to make sure it is not high speed, you better exclude diving from the equation don't you?

On top of that we don't know how far below, or how fast they were going...:

"in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron."

"Attacking" and "opposite direction" implies they are neither slow nor, more importantly, turning...

I give you credit for recognising that one side was attacking.

Maybe "Stall-turned" confused you: It does not mean that the turning was close to level flying speed stall, but it could instead very well be close to a 350-400 MPH 6 G "stall-turn"... In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns"...

I know what a stall turn is. In brief you put the nose of the aircraft up to kill speed and then I used to turn the glider using the rudder before the speed drops to a level where you lose control authority. I have done these a number of times and it has absolutely nothing to do with speed or high G. If you have been to an air show you will have seen a tail slide which is an extension of this where the aircraft lets the speed drop to zero and slides back before turning.

If you believe for a moment that quote In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns" it proves beyond any doubt your level of understanding on this subject

The important part is that the speed is lost

Finally: "They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one."

Well "several" burst is good for your argument, but still there is no suggestion of low speed or multiple level turns is there?

As covered by my pevious statement it has everything to do with low speed. Also note that the 190 turned with him, so the 190 must have been going slowly or he would have overshot. Also note several bursts, not one or two, which means that this went on for some time.

In fact, "broke and turned with me", combined with "attacking" and "opposite direction", pretty much implies they were previously going fairly straight, which in turn suggests fairly fast...

All this proves is that you have no idea about the manoeuver you are talking about. It is about losing speed, which turned into a turning fight and the 190 was lucky to get away with it

But maybe you don't quite get the distinction I make between high G turning performance and low-G sustained turning performance? Well, consider that just because it's all the same for our "sophisticated" current flight physics (assuming similar needed stick effort per G at high speeds), it doesn't mean it's all the same for my theory...

Oh I do

But since you don't accept, not even momentarily for the sake of an argument apparently, the basics of my theory, that explains the unconvincing example you chose...

Just a small reminder, you asked for one example and I supplied it. Now I recognise that you may not like your challange being taken up but be fair, you did ask for it and it is a good example.

Hey, have you heard of the multiple turns level fight by Johnny Johnson? "Opposite side of an ever diminishing circle"?: That's more like the ticket...

Yes I have, the Johnny Johnson in a Mk V who was up against the 190 which was a much better aircraft almost certainly being flown by a very experienced pilot and it was JJ who was the lucky one.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

I know what a stall turn is. In brief you put the nose of the aircraft up to kill speed and then I used to turn the glider using the rudder before the speed drops to a level where you lose control authority. I have done these a number of times and it has absolutely nothing to do with speed or high G.

I've always maintained that slow speed turning is best done with full elevator and only rudder. The ME109 and FW190 are best suited for this as they are the more stable low speed platforms, compared to the allied a/c.

Depending where and how you execute these moves they can have a high-G component if the move is sustained long enough. Remember that this is powered flight whereas in a glider you will slow down such as to make G forces much less effective.

[Glider]

People often mistake a glider which clearly goes slower in level flight than a powered aircraft with corresponding low G forces.

I was taught advanced aerobatics in a Fox glider which I was told had a higher performance/stress limits than a Cessna areobat. Most gliders at least match most private aircraft and in a climb depending of course on conditions, easily exceed the average. When in the Navy one of our gliding club members won a bet against an F4 crew as to which could get to 2,000ft from a standing start, which on a winch launch he achieved in 30 seconds. Air tows are for wimps.

I suspect you knew this, but there may be some people on the forum with limited experience in a glider. My advice to one and all is go to a gliding club and have a few trial flights, but it comes with a health warning. Its very, very addictive.

Re the best way to turn, in a glider you always, always use all the controls. If you don't the secondary control effects will turn you inside out. At 18 I was young to take up people on air experience flights and sometimes experienced PPL pilots would look at me, think they knew it better and not listen to what I was saying. All I used to do was take them up, which normally shook them up and then ask them to make a turn. Almost always we ended up doing the most alarming things in the sky at which point I would take control back and after that, they listened.

I did have a few flights with a friend in a Cherokee and didn't like it at all. I eventually left the rudder well alone and flew using the elevators and the ailerons. In the Hunter you used all the controls and that was a pretty agile aircraft, so I tend to be in its best to use all the tools available to you. The designers put them in for a reason

As to the best way who knows but it probably differs by aircraft. One thing though, the best fighters were those which are considered to be borderline unstable. To be too stable is a disadvantage and modern fighters are of course designed to be unstable and its only computers that keep them in the air.

[K_Freddie]

My son is close to CPL.. and of course he gets upset when i explain to him how to fly on the edge.
I mean, really, I'm only an experienced parent who knows sweet f-all BUT.. he is an excellent pilot. Must have the same attitude like the old man ??

One must consider that in a glider you do not have to worry about any engine and it's side effects, but at the same time you're more experienced at the finer points of flying with regard to non-powered flight(or pure flight), which is something that should be taught at PPL level on powered a/c.

Maybe PPLs should start with gliding after all .. the Luftwaffe aces all started here !!

Edt: there have been some raised eyebrows here, when I've mentioned cross-the-controls to get the best turn performance out of a FW .. i just laugh away.

[Glider]

I agree about learning in a Glider for most if only because in the UK you have to learn how to spin in a number of different scenarios before you go solo. A PPL doesn't get taught how to spin which I always thought was risky.
Your confidence increases as you are taught how to land out and when you go cross country, you can be certain that sooner or later you end up having to find a field or whatever to land in. On average landed out once a year.

I also have a strong belief that as Gliders often fly in close proximity to each other the pilots learn how to keep a better lookout. A small but often ignored point.

PS you are never too old. Our club had one man who went solo aged 84.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

... the best fighters were those which are considered to be borderline unstable. To be too stable is a disadvantage and modern fighters are of course designed to be unstable and its only computers that keep them in the air.

Computer systems.... only as good as the goons that program them.
NEVER rely on any computer/system... always have an EXIT 'procedure'
Always keep a copy of your financials offline or more importantly, on paper.