fw 190a5 flight model

[K_Freddie]

The race is on.....

[Treetop64]

...as an outsider looking in to an interesting discussion, Gaston, you might wanna consider giving up. You're equivocally arguing over semantics, to no constructive end, just for the sake of salvaging and continuing an argument.

It's not working.

[Gaston]

It is not pointless, because now after a few years of looking for wing-bending data, I realize wing bending measurements were not done in turning flight for WWII fighters: I am told by those who know that the -apparently- rare times during which wing bending data is gathered in flight, it is done by dive pull-outs only...

Would the P-51 have had jamming guns at three times the normal rate, particularly in turning battles, if they had done these tests?

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...


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...

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...

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.

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.

And, like the steel bar, the wing will know those extra forces are there, but won't really show much if you don't measure bending...



Of course, on a nose-pulled aircraft, for the two "extra" forces to be balanced, the CL must move in front of the CG (in addition to becoming greater in force), or the pilot would feel an extra effort in the stick to lean back the prop, which he clearly doesn't...

The forward displacement of the CL might seem to involve a significant effort*: But the CL is made of air, wind tunnels do not replicate a curving trajectory, and they do not replicate an object being held in the air entirely by the speed of its propulsion from the nose...

Or you can cling to the notion that the Me-109G out-turns P-47s...

Gaston

*I think the faster "outside turn" air leaks from the bottom of the wing, from the trailing edge, maybe a long way forward into the upper wing area, in any case gradually increasing and deforming the void above the wing, as well moving the CL forward, as the AoA increases. That would explain the larger lift forces which the greater they "increase", the more they demonstrate the wastage incurred from the nose leverage: That waste from the nose leverage increases the less the CL moves forward, because the CL moving forward is the wing's own opposing lever, and the less lever it has the more the upper wing void will deepen.

Hence the deeper the void above the wing, the less the CL has moved forward of CG...

[Igo kyu]

There is no suction, there is only pressure.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

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!

[Bolelas]

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

[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?

[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.