Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - fw 190a5 flight model

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - fw 190a5 flight model (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=32434)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaston (Post 497987)

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...

So much for apples to apples comparisons.

Quote:

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...:roll:

It's what's called an ignorance of the physical laws violating itself.

Look up 'inertia' and tensile strength.

Quote:

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...

Gee, it must be accurate then? About as accurate as the never yet supported claim of props resisting realistic curved trajectories. But at least you left out the "stress risers" "explanation".

Just because you can make claims based on you-think-so-it-must-be doesn't make them real. Just because you can tack off-hand numbers on them doesn't make them any more real. BTW, last time the numbers were on an order of magnitude higher than now.
Sorry but you have no ballpark to say the numbers are in so why bother?

Quote:

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.

Again, something you made up.

Quote:

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.

In the world of imagination, there are flying unicorns in different colors too.

I won't bother with the rest as it is just as unfounded.

Even before WWII they built planes, propped them up under the wings and pulled the fuselage down with hydraulic rams to test the structure in fact, not imagination. With you, it's all imagination 'backed' by psuedo-related, incomplete 'data' gleaned from cherry picked combat reports, ie useless information for determining flight comparisons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igo kyu (Post 497996)

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

There is the Gaston's explanations suck force.

Next thing you know people will be saying that cold is just a lack of heat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jameson (Post 498000)

A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.

From here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-soviet-pilot?

As always, maneuverability is -relative- and not just plane to plane.

Below 4,000 ft a BoB Hurricane was able to out-turn a BoB 109 given similar starts and pilots. Above 8,000 ft the same Hurricane was hopeless in a turning fight with the same. The difference was made by relative power of both at different altitudes.

Quote:

But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.

It's because those Germans knew that you need to keep speed up to make the fight about energy and the vertical. That is what the roller coaster is all about. Hard turns are anathema to energy fighting.

Gunz, if I ever get to meet Major Kozhemyako, I'll be sure to pass on your thoughts, he will, i'm sure, be impressed by them.

And you are not.

I have run the roller coaster fight in a few sims since 1990. A wingover, which requires excess speed will beat a flat turn every time.

But I did not invent these things. I learned from others who learned from others (in some cases, their Air Force instructors). AFAICT the first to effectively use the vertical in combat was Max Immelmann in 1916.

Robert Shaw covers this in his book as well, right down to the foundations.

The 'rollercoaster' was used by the WW2 FW190 pilots too. It's in that report of ''~Arrgg!! forgotten his name) when the Spit-V first encounted the FW190.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxGunz (Post 498032)

There is the Gaston's explanations suck force.

Next thing you know people will be saying that cold is just a lack of heat.

well... if you said that heat is lack of cold I will accept it as an absurd... but cold is really lack of heat! From physics point of view!

I guess he knows that, it was just irony.... (the lack of heat)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxGunz (Post 498038)

How many ww2 pilots had read Shaw?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jameson (Post 498133)

How many ww2 pilots had read Shaw?

Obviously none. However, most of them had probably heard of the dicta:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke

or read Malan's rules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_...f_Air_Fighting

Shaw's work is a superb compilation of what went before.