fw 190a5 flight model

[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...

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Gaston

I have asked years later of the site owner, surnamed Hitech, to tell me where to find this thread, titled "FW-190A veteran experience" (it went on for about 4 pages the last time I saw it): He actually claimed not to remember it... It is of course deleted from the archives, and he knows nothing about it...

I guess everything the "real deal" had to say just exposed too harshly how current simulations, his and others, were a big pile of claptrap...

But apparently, after all my threads, the Aces high FW-190A got quite a bit better...

Please, post this on Aces High board, I'd like to read Dale's comment when he realize that his FM is "Gaston approved"

Originally Posted by Gaston

The structural limit before permanent deformation on these fighters was typically a factor of two, so way beyond the assumed loads: 14 Gs on the Me-109G and 13 Gs on the P-51, so there is plenty of room for the structure to bend more than the assumed 6 or 7 Gs of assumed actual wing bending load.

Structural limit for deformation is the one listed in manual, for fighter planes, safety factor was typically about 1.5 so plane with 8G limit will be expected to survive 12G. Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage and in case of repeated over-stressing it will break even at values under 12G.
You can see in attachment where is the expected wing failure for one WWII fighter.

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

I don't expect Gaston to really comprehend any of this, this is more for the benefit of others.

There is no aviation board where Gaston didn't post his alternative aerodynamics theories, if he was capable of learning anything he would learn it long ago. He is not even funny anymore, it's just sad.

[Treetop64]

This is entertaining. Even in college, I've never seen anyone who believes their own BS as much as Gaston.

[Rot Bourratif]

Trolls...

Ah well, I remember having to give up on a mechanical science forum because of one of those.

He kept arguing that imperial measurements were far superior to metrics and people were foolish enough to argue with him.

There is only one response to Trolls: ignore them.

Here is some counseling:

http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-a-T...n-the-Internet

http://trollpolice.com/trolls-and-cyberstalkers/

~S~

[Woke Up Dead]

So Gaston, if I understand correctly, your theory is that these previously unnoticed and/or not measured and/or unmeasurable forces you describe are so significant that they make the P-47 and the 190 into good low-speed turners, even though all the known, measurable, and measured forces predict the opposite to be true. Correct?

[Glider]

Gaston
Please don't quote me as agreeing anything you say, without me first, actually agreeing.

No need to do vast research, just pick one combat report from any list and we will see what happens in the ten either side.

Nice, simple and easy for anyone to check.

I strongly suspect that you have not found a suitable example and are going to try and blind me and everyone else with vast amounts of data that will mean nothing

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Glider

No need to do vast research, just pick one combat report from any list and we will see what happens in the ten either side.

He's writing his own list with hand-picked examples (which will all appear to agree with him), he almost said as much in that post.

[MaxGunz]

Based on criteria of fitting the hypothesis in some manner.

Don't say "any" list because you won't get just any list.

Just because there's accounts on a web site doesn't mean there's been no selection of which accounts are presented. Just for example: the pilots who did not come back did not make combat reports. That alone is data selection.

[badatflyski]

Originally Posted by FC99

Please, post this on Aces High board, I'd like to read Dale's comment when he realize that his FM is "Gaston approved"

Structural limit for deformation is the one listed in manual, for fighter planes, safety factor was typically about 1.5 so plane with 8G limit will be expected to survive 12G. Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage and in case of repeated over-stressing it will break even at values under 12G.
You can see in attachment where is the expected wing failure for one WWII fighter.


There is no aviation board where Gaston didn't post his alternative aerodynamics theories, if he was capable of learning anything he would learn it long ago. He is not even funny anymore, it's just sad.

Hi FatCat! long time heuh?!

Wurger's wings broke at 14g continous and fuselage at 20g continous.
the full "monocoque" design was one of the strongest or even maybe the strongest of all planes of WW2.

About the low speed turn from Gaston theory : wtf

yes, the 190could turn faster than other planes in certain conditions, but we can't actually talk about a turn in the sense most think of (180° or higher), the 190 was able to START the turn much faster than most planes due to it's aileron effectiveness (roll rate acceleration) and as Gaston should know, a turn bleeds aircraft energy very bad, and semi laminar wing profile is not so good for low speeds, that's why you do not turn make direction changes of more than 90° in combat with a 190 and you keep scissoring and rolling keeping the speed high, if your fysical condition allows it...

A (real veteran)russion pilot said some years ago after seeing IL2: you make continuesly turns of more than 3G, in real life after a few of those turns, your muscles burns, your vision is troubled and you can't handle the stick correctly,what means you're a sitting duck in a combat area.


PS: an A8 at 6000m is faster in a 90° turn than a P51D, not because of the speed, but because the plane has a higher angle and the pilot, due to his seat pisition, is allowed to endure +1G than any other plane

PS2: how are you FC?

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by FC99

Structural limit for deformation is the one listed in manual, for fighter planes, safety factor was typically about 1.5 so plane with 8G limit will be expected to survive 12G. Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage and in case of repeated over-stressing it will break even at values under 12G.
You can see in attachment where is the expected wing failure for one WWII fighter.

"Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage"

Well, I figure in typical WWII aircraft the upper limit is 6 G (typical pilot limit) plus 2 Gs of engine-caused wing bending... So that is still 8 Gs total, and still within what you say is the start of permanent deformation...

An exceptional case is the P-51, which with G-suit could make the pilot tolerate 7 Gs, and probably added 2 "Gs" or more with the engine leverage...

So that makes for 9-10Gs... Hey, isn't the P-51 well-known for unexpected -and never explained- wing and tail failures? Hmmm... What a coincidence...

Also the P-51's wing obviously bent more than expected given its gun reliability record under turning Gs: Now isn't that another interesting coincidence?

Another interesting case is the Spitfire, which in my view must have added an exceptional amount of wing bending to its 6 G pilot limit: I figure up to 3 Gs, or over 22 000 lbs worth of extra wing bending over the "base" 44 000 lbs at 6 Gs...

This also makes for a total of 9 Gs, but the mutliple spar-inside-the spar wing construction was well-designed to bend, and could probably take that without huge risks... Unlike the P-51, the Spitfire is not known for wing failures, but IS known for wing deformation at high Gs with careless pilots... What a coincidence...

Since the pilot could not take much more than 6 Gs without at least losing his situational awareness in close combat, it does seem a bit strange these things were often damaged...

Gaston