|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: do you know flugwerk company a her real one fockewulf a8? | |||
| yes |
   
|
2 | 33.33% |
| no |
  
|
4 | 66.67% |
| Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-11-2012, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Well, I'm just pretty sure no pilot flying ANY PLANE would have ever wanted to enter a prolonged turning fight with any fighter, if they had alternatives... Quote:
To be sure, I personally think IL-2 does not sufficiently model the control forces required to maneuver at high speeds. An FW-190 would very likely out-turn a Bf-109 if the pilot in 109 could not use full control deflection due to excessive control forces. Same applies to P-51. Additionally in the Bf-109 we can use both the trim wheel and flaps fast and with no difficulty; I would love to see the octopus pilot that can juggle all that in combat. The flaps in 109 were very slow to actuate and fully manual - you turn a wheel in cockpit and the flaps go down, you couldn't really actually use "combat flaps" as a quick decision - you would have to set combat flaps position before hard maneuvering. The pilot makes an incredible difference in these birds. Especially in Bf-109 where not only pilot's skill but physical constitution and strength would definitely affect the aircraft's turn performance at high speeds. Just as A6M would roll better when pilot could exert higher force on the control column. Every virtual pilot has identical strength to move the controls, when comparing two pilots in two identical planes. Whether that strength remains constant from plane to plane is anyone's guess. The actual physics of the matter are not exactly up for debate, though. The comparative weighs, lift capabilities of the wings, thrust from the propeller... all these factors are well documented and can be modeled quite well, physical testing notwithstanding. Fact of the matter is that the 109 had lower wing loading, better thrust-to-weight ratio, and very similar wing chord profile as the FW-190. That means at similar airspeed and angle of attack, the Bf-109 wing would be able to produce better centripetal acceleration, reducing in better turn rate and (at same airspeed) smaller turn radius. To me that tells that when flown to their capabilities the 109 would probably have no problems out-turning FW-190 in a prolonged horizontal plane turning fight, and moreover would have no problems controlling the engagement in vertical plane due to better turn rate. The FW-190 pilot would be insane to offer such fight when the plane is faster anyway (at low to medium altitudes). Last edited by Herra Tohtori; 11-11-2012 at 06:19 PM. |
|
#2
11-11-2012, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stall speed shapes the low speed limits of flight and maneuver. Those stall speeds are historical qualified and quantified facts, not unqualified comments or unsupported opinions taken further for an agenda.
Of course you can always bring up "stress risers" again, or find some other fake buzz word to crank that cracked theory along. 15 years of playing with words and discounting everything that says the 190 wasn't a great stall-fighter vs people who model the planes based on REAL parameters and full educations in aerodynamics who say different. Hmmmm, boy, ain't dot tricky eh? |
|
#3
11-11-2012, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah! it's good to have all back again...
As we've settled down to the aerodynamic theorists, who professes to know everything, and the pilot who experiences everything.... Is there any pilot report that can explain the different facts explicitly - probably not. On the other hand is there any aerodynamic 'theorist' who has explicit flight knowledge of the aircraft in question - Zippo  So who are we to trust in this scenario - I'll take pilot experience any day, tempered with a bit of common sense The biggest difference on all aircraft designs was that Kurt Tank, was a pilot, beside FW190 design engineer..  Yup.. I'll still stick with Gaston's theory
__________________
Last edited by K_Freddie; 11-11-2012 at 08:43 PM. |
|
#4
11-12-2012, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
11-12-2012, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The pilot who experiences everything... LOL! What poetry! What utter nonsense!
What's behind stall and low speed turning is well within demonstrated facts. It's something that -all- those pilots had to learn right at the start. If you don't think so, find an old ground school manual. If you want to quibble 2 or 3 places past the decimal and offhand say that makes aerodynamics knowledge of flight less than that of not a combat pilot but of some non-pilot, crap-math-and-science gamer's interpretation of what the combat pilot wrote as an after-action report or war story then go ahead if it lets you feel better about yourself but you're wrong. |
|
#6
11-12-2012, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Herra is making a good point about control stiffness in certain flight configurations.
There is also the issue of G load on the capacity to effect the controls as your limbs are pulled in another direction. High G load sustained turns will tire the pilot out and make him dizzy. Maybe a Spitfire pilot who just escaped a couple of passes by a 190 through pulling as hard as he could on the stick will be tired out. Maybe the 190 pilot would notice that the turns are not as sharp any more and now easily turn with him. Nothing to do with actual Aircraft performance, though. Just my tuppence. |
|
#7
11-13-2012, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, aerodynamic maths explain 100% of flight, a 100% of the time and the pilot's always wrong, according to the 'propellor head' on the ground.
You sound like an aircraft crash investigator out to needle the pilot, as they usually do. Not that they always wrong, but they not always right and in this situation not likely to accept this.
__________________
|
|
#8
11-15-2012, 01:42 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
When they avoided dogfights was when they flew Spitfires... I've never seen any aircraft type that avoided dogfighting as consistently as the Spitfire... In fact the avoidance of dogfighting by the late Spitfire marks is so consistent and so extreme I had a hard time believing it, thinking as I was that the weakness of guns forced turnfighting even on 1944 pilots: Because only 2% of shots are on target, the target has to be peppered for a sustained time to be brought down, which doesn't help diving and zooming... It turns out the Spitfire's 20 mm are really long-range and powerful, and allows the Spitfire to avoid turnfighting where it is at a disadvantage compared to most types, except the Me-109G or P-51 which are roughly equal or slightly inferior to it... Quote:
Same with the P-51 vs the P-47D, despite the P-47 having much lighter high speed elevator controls and the P-51 being described "as a real two-hander"... So heavier controls are here inversely related to high-speed turn performance... Just because it is counter-intuitive doesn't mean our eyes have to be glued shut to what actually happens... The FW-190A easily out-turns the Me-109G at low speeds sustained turns despite a much higher wingloading... My theory explains perfectly well why those counter-intuitive things are the way they are.... And that includes how reducing the throttle reduces the wingloading... Quote:
At high speed in a FW-190A, it might have better paid to have a light perceptive touch to avoid having the aircraft drop a wing or slip tail forward, if the aircraft's high speed turn/dive pull-out performance had not been so poor... However the constant vibration in the FW-190A's control collumn killed the pilot's hand sensitivity to pressure anyway (like in the controls in the Black Hawk helicopter today), and this happened to a more or lesser extent on many types, and so the fine touch was just not available to a FW-190A pilot hoping to survive on this delicate touch at high speed: Better to fly at low speeds where the aircraft performance was far more capable of compensating the numb hands of the pilot... Quote:
As far as I know nada... And if they had done any, the relationship between engine power and wingloading would be well established: The fact that it isn't shows it was never done in flight on big-engined nose-driven low-wing monoplane types... Quote:
Quote:
And how come KG 200 unequivocally states "The P-47D (Razorback needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G"? And when they don't bother specifying the "turn", is intended to mean sustained low-speed, not short-lived high speed, where the term "radius" is used instead... You just have to close your eyes on a lot to cling to more intuitively easy concepts. More often than not, reality defeats intuitively easy ideas... Gaston |
|
#9
11-15-2012, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And this, ladies and gentleman, is why I and most other aeronautical engineers stopped posting on these forums.
Quote:
There is no point trying to argue with you. You will believe what you want to believe, make up your own version of physics as required and suck random statistics out of your thumb - whatever. I have made my two posts for the decade. |
|
#10
11-15-2012, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How come then most of the time they did dogfight, and even more so if they were flying a P-47D or a FW-190A?
"When they avoided dogfights was when they flew Spitfires... I've never seen any aircraft type that avoided dogfighting as consistently as the Spitfire... In fact the avoidance of dogfighting by the late Spitfire marks is so consistent and so extreme I had a hard time believing it, thinking as I was that the weakness of guns forced turnfighting even on 1944 pilots: Because only 2% of shots are on target, the target has to be peppered for a sustained time to be brought down, which doesn't help diving and zooming... It turns out the Spitfire's 20 mm are really long-range and powerful, and allows the Spitfire to avoid turnfighting where it is at a disadvantage compared to most types, except the Me-109G or P-51 which are roughly equal or slightly inferior to it..." Gaston, I begin to wonder if you actually comprehend the difference between what people do in the real world, and what people do in simulations. No one in their right mind is going to chance their future on the outcome of a sustained dogfight with an unknown enemy - unless forced to by circumstance. Combat pilots aren't there to test the capabilities of their aircraft or match their skills against those of the enemy. Their job is simple, it is to destroy the enemy as quickly and safely as they can. All sorts of crazy stuff may happen in war comics and movies but in real life where real ammunition is being used (by both sides) that sort of stuff is a no no. Get yourself into a sustained turn-fight with another aircraft and in all probability someone else, someone you haven't seen, will end the fight for you. |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
