fw 190a5 flight model

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Another 2c worth as we're on a roll.

The Spit wing is narrow in thickness and long in chord, designed for speed.
Take this to low speeds

If you rotate the spit the chord length now presents a larger area for drag (but producing momentary better lift) compared to the shorter chord of the FW, which has a thicker wing producing better lift and less(or equal) drag than the spit for the same rotation over longer time. Not forgetting the FW weight, but it's further from it's takeoff weight (Yes.. we're now in this region as I hinted before) than the spit, so it can probably be pulled harder.

The thing in the spits advantage is it's power-to-weight ratio which could help it in the climbing turn, but is an inline engine more advantaged against a radial at low speeds. From what I can see and have read, the inline is a bugger to control at low speeds.

I'm willing to take a bet that the Spit had very little advantage (if any) over the FW and such low speeds, which would account for Gastons 'research results'

Your turn

Take it down to stall and lose your bet.

Your 'givens' about the Spitfire are wrong. Why not just say the Spitfire won because it bestowed 'gifts' upon the British pilots, or some other statement made from denial?

[ElAurens]

Please keep going Gaston, I've never laughed so hard about an FM girlie fight in my entire time with IL2.

Just remember, if you keep repeating untruths enough people will grow tired and leave the discussion and you can claim a "win".

It's called the "big lie", and it was invented by the Germans as well...

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

It's called the "big lie", and it was invented by the Germans as well...

You sound like the PR guy sending the 8th or any fighter command to Germany 1943-5.. I'm sure they just loved you

[K_Freddie]

JtD...
It seems like Gaston has done a few years of research into combat reports (if he claims right), maybe on a project of sorts.

Aerodynamics and models are accurate, no doubt to a certain %, but have they been verified under certain and specific conditions.
For the aircraft under question, most likely not, considering the conditions of the time. That leaves us with what... theoretical values, or 'real experiences'.

Every research into the past relies on Current Knowledge and Statistics. Gaston is the Statistics of this research.
What aerodynamic proponents are arguing are static test results, if you can call them that, and not dynamic as they quiet simply do not have the same aircraft in question.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

JtD...
It seems like Gaston has done a few years of research into combat reports (if he claims right), maybe on a project of sorts.

Must be the worst research I have ever seen. None of his claims stacks up and he will not tell us where in the 'research' the evidence supports his claim.

[K_Freddie]

You must have missed it...
You must also clarify his claim ?

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

You must have missed it...
You must also clarify his claim ?

Every one of his claims have been shot down multiple times on presentation, that's a fact.

Both of you have weird ideas on how much is not known and fail to acknowledge not only how much is known but the nature of that knowledge. But then both of you live in special worlds where physics is only what you choose to understand. Nothing is true until you make the mistake of admitting it.

JTD can in 2 minutes find multiple accounts of what Gaston swears there are none.
To which your answer is that you have been around longer than that.
Yeah, you really showed HIM!