fw 190a5 flight model

[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!

[K_Freddie]

Yeah, and those reports are not relevant to the envelope Gaston is talking about.. You really showed us haven't you !!

A matter of fact that none of you have come up with a decent counter argument, or proof therof, beyond reasonable doubt that Gaston is talking tripe.
You all revert back to aerodynamic formulae and charts, most of which are from pilots that you wish to discredit, so where does that leave your argument.
While aerodynamics does play a significant role, most of you are not willing to remotely admit that there might be a problem with the data, in the area that is in discussion.

If I were a test pilot, I'll be crying with laughter.

[JtD]

K_Freddie, over the years I've brought up dozens of arguments. All of which were chosen to be ignored. Why should I bother to continue a discussion that in fact is just a monologue by someone to justify an alternate reality?

Again, why does a turn-fight at 3000m not count? Other than it not suiting the theory.

[MaxGunz]

Same reason why Gaston's claptrap fails, lack of full information.

In the meantime Freddie has joined Gaston in claiming that none of their BS has ever been shown false. It goes along with Gaston claiming that there is no historic information that counters his view. They have 2 standards and the old crank-loser's tactic of waiting months or longer after getting beat; put the same BS up again as if nothing happened before.

I see "wing bending" getting dragged in again. Please, QUALIFY THAT!

How many remember the "stress risers" championed by Gaston in post after post. Not a solid value to any of it and then the term got looked up. Gaston pushed a non-applicable term that has NOTHING TO DO with aerodynamics as if it does, complete with BS diagrams that NEVER QUANTIFIED A THING as some magical force that keeps planes from turning. Oh yeah, he really knows his BS and at least one player not only eats it but says how good it tastes!

FW190's have higher stall speeds than Spitfires. No amount of playing with partial factors and effects changes that. If -ignorance- was all you need to fly then those two would be posing for photos by the Mars Rover.

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

There is plenty of information. Much of it is speculative, subjective and very selective.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Yeah, and those reports are not relevant to the envelope Gaston is talking about.. You really showed us haven't you !!

A matter of fact that none of you have come up with a decent counter argument, or proof therof, beyond reasonable doubt that Gaston is talking tripe.
You all revert back to aerodynamic formulae and charts, most of which are from pilots that you wish to discredit, so where does that leave your argument.
While aerodynamics does play a significant role, most of you are not willing to remotely admit that there might be a problem with the data, in the area that is in discussion.

If I were a test pilot, I'll be crying with laughter.

Interestingly I have not gone back to aerodynamic formula or charts. All I have done is go back to what Gaston has put forward as his evidence and offerred to debate his theory using the data that he claims supports his theory.
It is notable that he has not taken up that challange. The question I put to you is why hasn't he taken up the offer which is more than fair.

Just to remind you. He has said that 95% of all combats involve sustained turn and that the combat reports support this statement.
My challange is that he picks any combat report, from any of the lists of combat reports and we will analyse the ten either side of the report that he has chosen and see the percentage.

Why do you think he hasn't taken up that offer. Or indeed can you see what is wrong with that offer

I await your observation with interest

[MaxGunz]

Personally, I found that flying sims, once I got past rookie level, gave me a lot of insight into what many combat stories and Robert Shaw were saying.

When you include superior energy and tactics, like what accounts of FW-190's vs Spitfire V's over the channel tell, even EAW delivers.

But don't just take my word for the modeling in IL-2 when there's been a whole trail of aerobatics pilots and at least one test pilot say it's good.

The actual historic test data of the real FW's have been used is both table-driven and model-driven flight sims (as opposed to arcade games) and the FW's behave pretty much the same on turning, they won't turn inside Spits with both planes at low speed and co-alt but they will at higher speed, see IL2Compare for an idea where.

Look up clean stall speeds; FW at 110 mph to 130 mph and Spitfires at 80 mph to 95 mph. Spits have the power to sustain over 3 G's, I expect the FW to be in the same range but have to be faster to do it *or* simply use the vertical and occasionally be able to pull lead instead of the constant lead you can hold when turning inside a target. You don't have to have the better turning plane to get inside a target, you just need more energy.

[Glider]

K Freddie
I am still awaiting your views as to why Gaston refuses to debate his theory using the evidence that he says supports his case.