[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.