fw 190a5 flight model

[MaxGunz]

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.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

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...

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?

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

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

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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...

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.

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 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.

. 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...

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.

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...

You're wrong about that too.

You are to aerodynamics what Niburu cranks are to astronomy.

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...

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

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

Gaston

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.

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

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.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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...

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.

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

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.

There definitely is suction ahead of the propeller blades though: That is how the prop works...

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.

[K_Freddie]

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

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

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

[MaxGunz]

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.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Gaston

...

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.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Molecules can push. They can't pull.

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

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

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

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