:?


It does just mean sea level.

You would have to understand that True Airspeed at Sea level equals EAS.....

:rolleyes:

I see your comprehension is as good as it ever was.:rolleyes:

And you were wrong as Bungay didn't do the graphs.:) I don't have to prove you wrong as you do that very well all by yourself.

But do continue making a Olympus Mons out of a mole hill if it helps your ego.

I know...

Why do you assume I don't know that? I am merely trying to clear up some confusion on what the figures on the left side of the graph mean...some people seemed confused by it's meaning....:rolleyes:



your zeal is eqally as predictable.

It is scientific and all my calculations agree with the results. Unfortunately, radius of turn is not the best indicator of actual turn performance.

Because your statement is contrary and wrong.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=107

It is cut and dry and requires no interpretation. You are just plain wrong.

That is why anyone would assume you don't know that True Airspeed equals Equivilent Airspeed at sea level. If you did know, then you are just lying about it in your above reply.

The performance is radius of turn in EAS.

I will let you guys mull over it and post some calculations with graphs. Not to define any specific performance but to see how the relative performance of these airplanes makes them very equal dogfighters.

We can look at the whole picture and examine various performance improvements in each design along with their effect on the combat performance.

We can see how the relative performance in the game stands up.

No my statement is 100% correct, the graph is turn radius at sea level, would you care to show me exactly where any reference to speeds are made on that graph.

Now kindly remove claims of me being a liar and other accusations....thanks :rolleyes:

Actually the graphs were done by an engineer..

Which is something I pointed out in the first response to this graph where I took the time to read and than quoted the graph's source, i.e.

Thus proving that humans (pilots, engineers, etc) can make mistakes..

As for the graph, as I initially noted, I questioned it's purpose..

Initially it seemed like it was done to give the impression that the 109 turn circles are far worse than the Spit and Hurri..

Which they well may be!

But, if that is the case this graph does not do a very good job of showing it!

It actually raises more questions and cast doubt for those who are use to looking at performance graphs (like myself)

If the purpose was to convey the turn radius (circle) at sea level than there is no need to provide an X (radius) vs. Y (alt) graph in that there is no X (radius) vs. Y (alt) taking place..

It is just X (radius) @ Y (alt)

IF that is the case, than placing 'Altitude (000ft) along the Y axis was wrong!

A better way to 'graph' this 'data' would have been to draw circles inside of circle with the radius associated with each circle and title the plot turn radius (circle) at sea level

like this one...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

Bingo!

Now looking at this graph..

We can see that the P51 and Spitfire both have a tighter turning circle (smaller radius) because their circles are inside the outer circle that

Also note, the outer circle (bigger radius) contains the the Bf109 along with the Tempest, Fw190, P47

The only info left off here is what is the speed and altitude?

Because these relationships can change with altitude

Also we can safely assume that this are the best turn circles at the best turn rates, but what is the rate?

Which is important, because what you really care about is the time it takes to do a say a 180 (reverse direction).