PDA

View Full Version : FW 190 performance sucks...



zebulon64
12-22-2006, 09:09 AM
Compare the performance of the 190 in the game against a Spit with this report: You will find not much realism in the game - sadly because I love to play it:

In early 1942 RAF fighters first encountered the Focke-Wulf 190 in numbers, and it became evident that the formidable German fighter was overwhelmingly superior in performance to the then current variant of Spitfire, the Mk VB. The Mark IX Spitfire was developed as an emergency response to this crisis.

SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A


The account below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942.
The FW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet.

The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows -

At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB

Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions
of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.
Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions.
Ifthe Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.

The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise.

Spitfire IX v. FW 190A
In July 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke-Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report.

SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A

The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres].

At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190


Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.

Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m].

The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.

The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.

ploughman
12-22-2006, 11:56 AM
Got track?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

Manu-6S
12-22-2006, 12:02 PM
zebulon64, leave this argument and pray for SoW... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/banner.gif (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

JG14_Josf
12-22-2006, 12:07 PM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg

Tracks are easy to make.


Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Time 0 to time 11 on chart.


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.


Time 21 to 52 on the track file chart for on-line test results after many one on one comparative half roll, dive, pull out, zoom climb tests.

I flew the Spit for half the flights. My wingman flew the Fw190 for the other half of the flights. At no time did the variations in performance constitute and advantage.

Nothing like the ADFU report where the British fighter pilots tested a captured fighter and used the wrong gas making the Fw190 run rough during the whole testing process - according to the British reports written in WWII

Note: That was two patches ago.

Had track ? still may have it ? but such information is of no interest to gamers ? end of story.

VW-IceFire
12-22-2006, 12:40 PM
This always comes up.

Test the FW190A-5 versus the Spitfire V to get a decent picture of the actual performance between these two fighters. The A-4 I believe to be modeled mostly after a East Front Jabo.

The FW190A series is more maneuverable, faster, better armed, and tougher than the Spitfire V and easily beats the Spit V in all respects (this is in game) except for turn and perhaps ease of handling (the Spit is far more forgiving).

Given the proper application of tactics a small group of FW190s and a small group of Spitfires, when met in battle, will see the Spitfires have a very rough time of it with the FW190s having a much higher initial turn rate, massive roll rate advantage, and ammo to spare and the FW190s can just stay and fight. It'll be the Spitfires, with their low ammo load for cannons and lack of durability that will have problems staying in battle over a prolonged engagement.

The Spit IX redresses the balance significantly (as the real one did) but it still can't match the FW190 (even the clipped models) in overall ability to change direction, wheel into a turn or climb, and blast their way through virtually anything. What the Spitfire does well is its incredible turn rate, decent speed and structural strength in a dive, and in the IX decent enough firepower to put the hurt on. The Spit is easier to handle at the edge while the FW190 takes more work...but its been many many patches since I felt that the FW190 was at a serious disadvantage.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

anarchy52
12-22-2006, 12:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The A-4 I believe to be modeled mostly after a East Front Jabo.
[QUOTE]

Didn't jabos have their engines tuned for max performance at low alt?

lbhskier37
12-22-2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The A-4 I believe to be modeled mostly after a East Front Jabo.
[QUOTE]

Didn't jabos have their engines tuned for max performance at low alt?

Well the word is they had their engine and prop tuned to carry heavy loads, like a tractor almost. So that probably explains the poor acceleration and sluggishness we have in game.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2006VRSCSE2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
NJG26_Killa
Official "uber190n00b"

Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
Hey LStarosta, what did you do all last summer again?
-I told you, I spent it on Forgotten Battles hunting Tiger tanks.
Did you shoot any?
-Yes like 50 of them. They kept trying to attack my Shermans. What the heck would you do in a situation like that?
What kind of gun did you use?
-A fricking .50 what do you think!

VW-IceFire
12-22-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The A-4 I believe to be modeled mostly after a East Front Jabo.
[QUOTE]

Didn't jabos have their engines tuned for max performance at low alt?
Thats more the specialized FW190G and F models. You'll notice for instance that the FW190F-8 and A-8 have a different performance curve with the F-8 maxing out at a much lower altitude.

The early A models were used for fighter-bomber attacks on the east front but were basically tuned as the normal fighters, just with less strain on the engine.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Grey_Mouser67
12-22-2006, 03:41 PM
I really never understood what the beef was between the A-4 and the Spit Mk V. They are so different and I find the A-4 Superior in every fascet except turning circle. I believe you have to climb at a higher speed than the spit to "outclimb" it but other than that there is not MkV that can touch a Fw unless the Fw is bounced...and frankly speaking, any plane can be bounced especially if it low and slow. I can extend easily, especially if I get speed and roll...like high speed scissors on the way down.

Kinda reminds me of the Hellcat vs Zeke argument...even though the Hellcat isn't quite right (the zeke for that matter too) it is still vastly superior if you fly the correct tactics.

I agree too with those that talk about the A-4 being underpowered...so I think of the A-4 as an A-2/3 which was the version that the MkV first encountered.

Brain32
12-22-2006, 03:58 PM
Guys please from the unofficial #1 Spithater and Fw-whiner, drop it, it's pointless.
I participated and even started dozens of threads such as this and every single one was a flamewar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.
Look at the bright side you do have SOME advantage over Spits and most people that fly them are mega-noobs anyway, there's maybe 5% of those that know WTF are they doing with it, 10% mindless suicidal veterans that will irritate you, and the rest is cannon fodder. Besides you can always call them n00bs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BTW: FW190 has never been as good as in v407, atleast from the limited expirience I aquired in the past two days.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
12-22-2006, 04:37 PM
I really never understood what the beef was between the A-4 and the Spit Mk V.

Perhaps you are reading too much into the 'beef' part.

Whining and moaning about getting your butt handed to you in the game is one thing. Historical accuracy is a simple matter of one fact not being modeled in the game accurately. No big deal eh? FYI perhaps with a touch of opinion sprinkled in for good measure. Sucking is a common enough term. It?s raining on our picnic; man that sucks ? let?s watch T.V.

That isn?t quite the same as waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa someone dumped a load in my cereal and I ate some of it.


I agree too with those that talk about the A-4 being underpowered...so I think of the A-4 as an A-2/3 which was the version that the MkV first encountered.

The British combat evaluation do***ents a 450 ft/min steeper angle climb advantage for the Fw190A-3 over Spitfire VB (June/Aug 1942)

The game models a later model Fw190A-4 and an earlier model Spitfire VB (1941).

One might think that the British report would be under reporting what would be expected in the game. In the game, as many have observed, the Fw190 is faster in top speed and apparently the newer patches are changing the relative rates of acceleration in increments as the Spitfire?s top speed appears to be getting slower and slower. Game experiences vary ? of course.

Leaving what remains an obvious disparity as:

Item: 1

The games Spitfire VB (1941) climbs at higher angles and at higher rates than the games Fw190A-4 (unless the player chooses not to climb the Spitfire at the higher rate ? of course). Climb rate is somewhat proportional to acceleration ? in reality.

Item 2:

The games Spitfire VB (1941) has an initial acceleration that is better than the Fw 190A-4 (September 1942) in the game.

The British evaluation of the June 1942 Fw190A-3 was reported to accelerate faster than the June 1942 Spitfire VB under all conditions of flight and many references do***ent significant advantage in initial acceleration for the June Fw190A-3 over the June 1942 Spitfire VB.

Those two items combine to turn what was a superb energy fighter fighting a superb angles fighter into a hit and run Jabo plane fighting a superb angles fighter with a higher climb rate and better initial acceleration or in other words the actual Spitfire in reality was a poor energy fighter compared to the real Fw190 while the game manages to model an advantage in energy fighting (at speeds where the Spitfire continues to hold acceleration advantages) for the Spitfire VB (1941) over the Fw190A-4 (September 1942).

In other words the earlier game Spitfire performs even better than the actual later Spitfire against the earlier real Fw against the games later Fw; as if the Spitfires need a little creative boost in early performance and, at the same time, the Fws need some kind of handicap in order to make the game more, ah, user friendly.

It isn?t any real big deal, just a simple matter of historical accuracy, and somewhat of a shock for those who manage to stumble upon the historical record after playing the game or visa versa where the person stumbles upon the game after reading the historical record.

No big deal. It sucks from a historical stand point. It isn?t really that big of a deal since the game still offers a fight even if it isn?t a historically accurate one. All is not fair ? one must take what one gets and use it to advantage. I?m sure the British and German soldiers understood those facts much better than most people can imagine. Remembering history accurately does help in avoiding a repeat; or so the story goes.

Perhaps these new players (and even the old ones) wouldn?t have any ?beef? after playing the game and reading the British evaluations if the game producer corrected the game labels as such:

Spitfire VB (1941 fantasy plane with 9lb boost level flight performance and 12lb boost climb performance)

Fw190A-4 (De-rated and poorly tuned Eastern Front Jabo Version September 1942)

Or something less descriptive but still accurate:

Spitfire VB (Play Balanced)

Fw190A-4 (Play Balanced)

I think everyone would then be sufficiently educated to avert any further confusion both new and old players all in one simple text adjustment. No need to adjust the FM at all. What you see is what you get.

VW-IceFire
12-22-2006, 04:46 PM
Josf...the Spitfire Vb in game is actually climbing at 1942 boost levels but with a top speed of 1941 boost levels. Its a very conflicted Spitfire that isn't performing correctly but it will throw off any comparison of Spitfire VS FW190 you can make. Again...you need to compare it against a FW190A-5 and not the A-4 as previously mentioned.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

msalama
12-22-2006, 04:54 PM
You will find not much realism in the game

OK. Now go and prove that, boyo, so that even dimbulbs like myself actually _buy_ this claim of yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. Got track?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!

JG14_Josf
12-22-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Josf...the Spitfire Vb in game is actually climbing at 1942 boost levels but with a top speed of 1941 boost levels. Its a very conflicted Spitfire that isn't performing correctly but it will throw off any comparison of Spitfire VS FW190 you can make. Again...you need to compare it against a FW190A-5 and not the A-4 as previously mentioned.

VW-Icefire,

Yea; I got the part about the Spitfire being a fantasy plane. Comparing an Fw190A-5 with a fantasy plane isn't much different than comparing an Fw190A-4 with a fantasy plane.

Besides; the initial acceleration on the Fw190A series gets worse, not better, as the power to weight ratio gets better from the Fw190A-4 with the worse power to weight to the Fw190A-8 with the best power to weight so as far as the ability to do anything but hit and run against the fantasy Spitfire, as far as initial acceleration goes - the 190A-4 is the better plane.

Note: The 190A-5 1.65 is another fantasy plane ? apparently. What do I know? Nothing.

I read the British evaluations and many other germane evaluations.

I have played the game since day one.

Some plane match-ups do simulate an energy fighter (vertical maneuvering) against an angles fighter (horizontal maneuvering) just like the historical record and Robert Shaw describes. It is a blast to have those types of fights. Does it really matter what skin is on the simulated plane?

Perhaps it matters to the model builders and the amateur historians; the grown up kids.

The fights in the game (and each new patch appears to offer diverse new match-ups) are a blast to simulate.

I have fun. Lots of fun.

Hertt and I went for a one hour flight with 190A-5s last night in Warclouds. I got a P-51 set up by Hertt in a drag. The 51 never saw me coming. Hertt got two Spits. One on a head-on and another one at the top of a loop as we and a friend took turns hitting and running. I bagged a P-38 the same way ? on the top of a loop.

We got 2 each for no loss. We used hit and run team tactics ? drag and bag. I remind Hertt or he reminds me every time we change back to the Fw from the 109 that any turns greater than 90 degrees will kill us off. We remind each other, proven time and again, that the Fw190 can only go down. There is no use in climbing during combat ? none. When fighting, not extending mind you, the nose must be pointed down otherwise the opponent gains energy ? especially against maneuvering spitfires.
You guys think I?m some bumpkin. I don?t know why. Perhaps I?m a poor writer.

Once in awhile I check scores.

Look here:

Warclouds Sortie Completion (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&op=targetsortiecompletion)

I was surprised to see that since I?ve flown this scoring round carelessly. Discos lower the score; scored as MIA.

I have fun with the game; always have. I don?t whine. I don?t cry. I don?t moan. I question the disparity between the historical record and the game record. They don?t match up and the disparity between historical record and the game changes every single patch so the notion that the game is accurate is absurd. It can?t be accurate and different every single patch.

On the whole the game has improved.

How?

That is easy. Ask any P-47 dude who struggled with every version of P-47 until the latest one.

Finally the P-47 resembles a fighter plane. It isn?t the best. It appears to have a generous sustained turn rate, I can?t be sure I don?t fly it, I do fly against it, and it appears to be something resembling a fighter plane.

I once listened to a speech by Gabby Gabreski. He was a real person that shot down some 28 fighter planes and lived. He shot down fighter planes with a fighter plane. Fighter planes are fighter planes. They have strengths and weaknesses. A double inferior plane is not a fighter plane. That is a target.

The game is improving.

No?

The game has always been accurate?

Sure thing - it is great.

VW-IceFire
12-22-2006, 09:40 PM
I still object to the fantasy remarks but the rest I agree with. The Spitfire Vs just need to perform to one boost level or the other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do agree especially about the P-47. I've been trying to make a fighter out of that one since 1.0 and its been a rough ride but its doable now. The D-27 is actually quite good.

Cheers!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Kwiatos
12-23-2006, 03:27 AM
The only thing which is poork in Fw190 is ACCELERATION!!!
Fw190 accelerating in game like bus not a fighter plane.

Bartolomeo_ita
12-23-2006, 05:32 AM
sec 21 : FW died<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
6S.Bart - www.diavolirossi.net (http://www.diavolirossi.net)

JG4_Helofly
12-23-2006, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
The only thing which is poork in Fw190 is ACCELERATION!!!
Fw190 accelerating in game like bus not a fighter plane.

And turn time according to russian tests.

alert_1
12-23-2006, 06:51 AM
Problem with "our" Fw190A4 is it's :derated: versin with witout C3 injection in supercharger (Notleistung] with onlz 1580hp max, wile "real" western frn A4 or A3 was full rated at 1780hp max for 3 min.
Also performance comaprison between A8 and D9 is very suspicious. Both were almost identical planes with different but in power equal engines (up to cca 6000m) BMW801D2/Jumo 213 had approx. the same max, output - 2050ho with Notleistung, btu A8 flyes like brick in comaparison to D9. How is that possible?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I'm dislectic, so please bear with me...

JG4_Helofly
12-23-2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Problem with "our" Fw190A4 is it's :derated: versin with witout C3 injection in supercharger (Notleistung] with onlz 1580hp max, wile "real" western frn A4 or A3 was full rated at 1780hp max for 3 min.
Also performance comaprison between A8 and D9 is very suspicious. Both were almost identical planes with different but in power equal engines (up to cca 6000m) BMW801D2/Jumo 213 had approx. the same max, output - 2050ho with Notleistung, btu A8 flyes like brick in comaparison to D9. How is that possible?

Very good point.

The 190 A seem to loose more enegery in manoeuvres than the dora. The same for acceleration. An other thing is the loose of rpm in the Anton. When you do manoeuvres like loopings you will loose about 500 rpm, the d9 will loose only 100 rpm.

I would say that the D9 has a completly different FM compared to the 190A.

ULTIMA_LATET
12-23-2006, 07:26 AM
FW A4 is superior the Spitfire, learn to fly it!

Codex1971
12-23-2006, 08:06 AM
Isn't the A8 in game is modelled on the R2 variant, much heavier due to extra armour?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/OnlineSig.jpg
http://www.deysquad.com/

3.JG51_BigBear
12-23-2006, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
Isn't the A8 in game is modelled on the R2 variant, much heavier due to extra armour?

I've heard this before and it makes sense but its a bummer if its true seeing as there were only two sturm gruppe on the Eastern front and that was only at the very end of the war. If it is the sturmbock we should at least get the cockpit armour and canopy blinkers to help protect the pilot a little better.

JG4_Helofly
12-23-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
FW A4 is superior the Spitfire, learn to fly it!

Yes it is, but not as much as it was in RL. Just compare dive acceleration in game vs RL.

The problem is that heavy planes are disadvantaged in energy fights ( p51, fw 190, p47,...). Look at Josf's screenshots. It shows clearly what's wrong, but maybe it's better in 4.07.

La7_brook
12-23-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Isn't the A8 in game is modelled on the R2 variant, much heavier due to extra armour?

I've heard this before and it makes sense but its a bummer if its true seeing as there were only two sturm gruppe on the Eastern front and that was only at the very end of the war. If it is the sturmbock we should at least get the cockpit armour and canopy blinkers to help protect the pilot a little better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> does any know if there was difference in acceleration between A8 and the A8 R2 in bottom end power in RL? did use the same prop or what ever? if this is the case then olges just mod the antons the same way as too carrie the full bomb load out and not having too mod the difference between A8 and the R2 etc, 2x the work for all the antons in game ,if so olge knows this ,or he as not looked deep into the data on this , does any know one know more on this because this were the whole thing on antons acceleration could have gone wrong with RL

La7_brook
12-23-2006, 10:51 AM
and if im right on this would it not help with the turn rate differences we have in game too RL?

IvanoBulo
12-23-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The 190 A seem to loose more enegery in manoeuvres than the dora.
Spitfire looses energy faster then any FW-190. Don't beleave me? Try it - dive from 1000 meters to the ground then pull the stick as hard as plane can do without stalling and on the highest point flip it. The result:
- FW-190A4 on 550 meters with 330km/h speed
- Spit Vb(41) is on 250 meters with 300km/h speed

So Spit bleeds energy twice faster!!!

In RL spit should be higher because it is famous as a plane with good E-retension...

Hope in SoW spit will hold energy better...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<hr>
Good, Bad... I'm the guy with a gun.

badatflyski
12-23-2006, 12:50 PM
YvanoBulo[Spitfire looses energy faster then any FW-190. Don't beleave me? Try it - dive from 1000 meters to the ground then pull the stick as hard as plane can do without stalling and on the highest point flip it. The result:
- FW-190A4 on 550 meters with 330km/h speed
- Spit Vb(41) is on 250 meters with 300km/h speed
So Spit bleeds energy twice faster!!! ]

Lool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hmm a test on a straight line....hmmm, true is combat flying is staying as much as possible on a straight line.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

YvanBulo: [In RL spit should be higher because it is famous as a plane with good E-retension...

Hope in SoW spit will hold energy better...]

How havier the plane, how more E-Retention is it capable of (damned i sound like freaking-Yoda)and if you add the cleaner aerodynamics and wingload and engine power, you will see something rather different from your opinion on Ze Zpitvire.
There are some rather good posts here about the E retention and how it really works in RL. Use the search tool for posts like :"190 is porked","spitfire is über", "p-47 Sucks"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Once I saw a smoking hurricane over the French making it's way back towards England and gave it an escort over the channel. Three weeks later I was escorted by three spitfires towards France.
This would never happen in Russia...never."(Me109 pilot)

"I noticed, that you were doing high Gs for 6 minutes now, and in real life it was no more than 3 Gs for most turns, and in 2 minutes you were not able to see what gauges showed!?
Viktor Alexeevich Tikhomirov

Slap (addicted il2 player) on SimHq Forums:
I built up enough courage to go out to the local shop this morning and on my way I saw a squadron of FW 190's flying low and fast; my immediate reaction was to rugby tackle an old lady who was close by as I shouted "BANDITS! INCOMING! 1 O'CLOCK LOW!"...How was I to know they were pigeons?! They had the sun to there backs!

Support WhiteOneFoundation!:
http://www.white1foundation.org/

LStarosta
12-23-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:

I would say that the D9 has a completly different FM compared to the 190A.

No sh*t...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

zugfuhrer
12-23-2006, 01:49 PM
This issue is very well debated before.

Accept the game as it is. UBI-Soft has produced a very good game.

The calculations of virtual aircrafts in this game don?t match to 100% the real aerodynamics of the aircrafts they are supposed to simulate.
There seems to be some anomalies in the performance but I don?t know, haven?t flown neither a FW-190 nor a Spit, or have the knowledge of aerodynamics to say if the flightmodel is right or wrong.

Those who says that they got inside information about this tells us that it cost to much to change even the smallest detail, like adding the radiators to the damage profile for inline engines.

Xiolablu3
12-23-2006, 02:29 PM
Ahh come on guys, the FW190A4 owns the Spitfire Vb in everything except turning circle.

Zebulon, you need to learn how to fly the FW190 properly if you are having trouble with SPitfire MkV's.

The FW190 can outclimb, outzoom, outrun, outdive, outshoot the SPitfire Vb.

If you need some tips on how to fly it properly then I can help you out. You must be trying to outurn the Spitfire Vb if you are losing to it in a FW190A4, thats the only advantage the Spitfire has, dont let him use it.

High speed slashing attacks using your superior speed, climb, dive, everything really except turn.

The later MkV Clipped, Clapped and Cropped Spits were quite close to the FW190, especially at low level.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-23-2006, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
FW A4 is superior the Spitfire, learn to fly it!

Yes it is, but not as much as it was in RL. Just compare dive acceleration in game vs RL.

The problem is that heavy planes are disadvantaged in energy fights ( p51, fw 190, p47,...). Look at Josf's screenshots. It shows clearly what's wrong, but maybe it's better in 4.07. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In Josfs screenshots he is turning, why? Turning enables any chasing plane to cut the corner a little and catch up.


I am absolutely against the 'FW190 sucks' argument.

It is arguably the best plane in the game and definitely the easiest to stay alive in.

If people are finding it sucks then they just dont know how to fly an energy fighter, I can help you out if oyu need some pointers.

The FW190A4 sh*ts all over the Spitfire Vb in game and in reallife. I always feel sorry for the guys in Spit V's.

The SPitfire IX is much closer to the FW190 and climbs and turns much better, as it did in real life. The FW190A6 is faster however.

Used with historical Luftwaffe tactics (ie a wingman and B&Z tactics) the FW190 is formidable vs any contemporary Spitfire. Just dont expect to TnB with Spitfires on your own in a dogfight server and win. Trying to turnfight with SApitfires in a FW190 means you deserve to die.

If anyone needs any help in learning to fly the FW190 then give me a shout.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Xiolablu3
12-23-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by zebulon64:
Compare the performance of the 190 in the game against a Spit with this report: You will find not much realism in the game - sadly because I love to play it:

In early 1942 RAF fighters first encountered the Focke-Wulf 190 in numbers, and it became evident that the formidable German fighter was overwhelmingly superior in performance to the then current variant of Spitfire, the Mk VB. The Mark IX Spitfire was developed as an emergency response to this crisis.

SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A


The account below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942.
The FW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet.

The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows -

At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB

Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions
of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.
Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions.
Ifthe Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.

The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise.

Spitfire IX v. FW 190A
In July 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke-Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report.

SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A

The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres].

At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190


Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.

Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m].

The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.

The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.

Sounds just like the game to me, except for maybe the FW190 should pull away faster in a dive, but it already pulls away in the game.

Just what are you finding is different exactly?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Codex1971
12-23-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
This issue is very well debated before.

Accept the game as it is. UBI-Soft has produced a very good game.

I agree...Oleg's not going to spend time or $$$ on fixing the IL-2 series now.

Better hope the FW and others are tweaked to resemble RW performance in the BoB series....but I'm sure there's going to be debate even after BoB comes out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/OnlineSig.jpg
http://www.deysquad.com/

Viper2005_
12-23-2006, 03:16 PM
Test data is only useful if it includes information relating to the specific aeroplanes involved.

Both the Spitfire V and IX could be fitted with a variety of engines, which provided a wide variety of performance.

And then of course one should consider the wings, which could be clipped or extended.

In addition, Spitfires were often modified by operational units. These modifications could have a dramatic effect upon performance.

Meanwhile Fw190s came in a number of variants, and just to make things more complicated were often not used as the manufacturer intended when they were captured, with non-standard manifold pressures often being used in an attempt to "future-proof" the test results obtained.

Before complaining, it would be sensible to carry out some basic research as to the assumptions implicit in the test data you are using as your basis for complaint. It would also be sensible to carry out some testing in order to attempt to pin down the assumptions implicit in the game.

Then you can post your test methodology, data and tracks together in a nice neat thread and perhaps hope to see any errors thus illuminated corrected in the next (final?) patch.

JG4_Helofly
12-23-2006, 03:33 PM
I do not agree with you Xiolablu3.

The 190 has problems in acceleration espacialy in the dive. There are some tests with a 109 f4 vs a fw190 a2 which are quite precise so I reproduced the test online with an other pilot. In the RL test the 190 was several hundred meters ahead after a dive of about 20? and an alt difference of 2000m. The steeper the dive the greater the advantage in RL. Well, in the game there was not such an advantage and it was a 190 A4 vs 109 f4 and not a 190 A2 like in the RL test, so the advantage should be even greater.

One more thing is: "Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages."

Is that the case in the game?

maybe things changed in 4.07, but otherwise I would say that the fw 190 has some problems with acceleration and the dive like other heavy fighter in this game.

You think it's ok like it is, but for me it's clear that there are some things which are not correct.

Targ
12-23-2006, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
This always comes up.

Test the FW190A-5 versus the Spitfire V to get a decent picture of the actual performance between these two fighters. The A-4 I believe to be modeled mostly after a East Front Jabo.

The FW190A series is more maneuverable, faster, better armed, and tougher than the Spitfire V and easily beats the Spit V in all respects (this is in game) except for turn and perhaps ease of handling (the Spit is far more forgiving).

Given the proper application of tactics a small group of FW190s and a small group of Spitfires, when met in battle, will see the Spitfires have a very rough time of it with the FW190s having a much higher initial turn rate, massive roll rate advantage, and ammo to spare and the FW190s can just stay and fight. It'll be the Spitfires, with their low ammo load for cannons and lack of durability that will have problems staying in battle over a prolonged engagement.

The Spit IX redresses the balance significantly (as the real one did) but it still can't match the FW190 (even the clipped models) in overall ability to change direction, wheel into a turn or climb, and blast their way through virtually anything. What the Spitfire does well is its incredible turn rate, decent speed and structural strength in a dive, and in the IX decent enough firepower to put the hurt on. The Spit is easier to handle at the edge while the FW190 takes more work...but its been many many patches since I felt that the FW190 was at a serious disadvantage.

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
There is no reason that the a-4 and a-5 should not own the spits of that era, and they do in game when the 190 is flown well. What needs to change is the way you fly, not the game or the airplane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
*** INTREPID FALLEN HEROES FUND (http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php)***

http://simjunkie.com/assets/sig.jpg (http://simjunkie.com)

faustnik
12-23-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Targ:

There is no reason that the a-4 and a-5 should not own the spits of that era, and they do in game when the 190 is flown well. What needs to change is the way you fly, not the game or the airplane.

I agree. There are still some questions and known issues with the Fw190A series in PF, but, that holds true with many a/c. The Fw190 series , if you include the Doras, are still the best Western Front fighters in the sim.

As for the remaining issues, "Wait for future sim".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Ratsack
12-23-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Targ:

There is no reason that the a-4 and a-5 should not own the spits of that era, and they do in game when the 190 is flown well. What needs to change is the way you fly, not the game or the airplane.

I agree. There are still some questions and known issues with the Fw190A series in PF, but, that holds true with many a/c. The Fw190 series , if you include the Doras, are still the best Western Front fighters in the sim.

As for the remaining issues, "Wait for future sim". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you in relation to the A-5, A-6 and A-9. The A-8 is a bit strange in that it's a definite backward step from the A-6. Apart from being a little faster at low altitude, it's inferior in every other respect. Very strange, as I said, because the A-8 should be a significant FORWARD step. Oh well.

The one thing that would make a lot of difference to the entire Anton series is the rate of turn. If it was brought somewhere near the Russian figures, that would make an enormous difference.

cheers,
Ratsack

VW-IceFire
12-23-2006, 07:38 PM
The A-8 and A-9 definitely have a weightier feel to them compared to the earlier models. I don't see that as a huge problem in terms of performance...except when attempting to corner. Despite the feel I think the A-8 is still the better choice unless the combat is at low altitude and you want to mix it up a little more. Otherwise, if you want straight line speed, firepower, or medium altitude flexibility the A-8 or A-9 is the better choice.

Of course the D-9 wins out every time. Its an amazing fighter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Xiolablu3
01-14-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
and I can finally see a reason to respect Spit pilots much more than before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So you can respect yourself at last Brain!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Brain32
01-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Yup, it's not so easy to get more than 3kills in one sortie with a Spitfire now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And I actually feel like I had to fly good to make them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 11:11 AM
To the peanut gallery (and the one?s interested in reading this thread):

If someone asks me to stop posting on their forum I will leave. If someone asks me to post posting in their thread I will leave. I?ve done so in the past. If some idiot can?t stop doing things that annoy them then those idiots are doomed to continue doing things that annoy them; poor, poor, idiots. Some day they may learn but that would be giving them too much credit; more than they deserve ? more than they have earned.

The subject of high speed turn performance is relevant to the discussion and so far I have two possible formulas that can accurately identify the speed at which any plane can turn the smallest radius and the fastest rate turn.

Here is the one offered by Crumpp:

Va = Vs1 * sqrt Nxmax

Here is the one offered (reluctantly) by Viper:

Simply set (v/vstall)^0.5 equal to the limit load factor.

What I asked for is the same information found on Boyd?s EM turn performance diagram i.e. an accurate record of corner speed. Boyd used flight test data and perhaps a calculation too. I don?t know. The end result is recorded. The accurate corner speed for the Mig-15 and the F-86 is documented ? it is known.

If, in WWII, the state of the art concerning Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering reached the level of EM, then, there would be historical EM charts with Fw190?s superimposed over Spitfires. That is not what happened. Those corner speeds are not known.

So the earliest EM chart I have found is the F-86 vs. Mig-15. Corner speed is documented on that chart. The F-86 has a slower corner speed with a 2 degree per second turn rate advantage over the higher power loaded and lower wing loaded Mig-15. The F-86 was capable of turning a smaller radius turn at corner.

What I would like to do next is to use Crumpp?s and Viper?s formulas for finding corner speed and see if those formulas do, in fact, document the accurate corner speed for the F-86 and the Mig-15. If those formulas do not accurately document the corner speed for those two planes, then, either the EM chart or the formulas are wrong.

Which documented corner speed is more likely to be accurate?

1. The fight tested corner speeds (conducted by John Boyd and Chuck Yeager).
2. Crumpp?s formula
3. Viper?s formula

In the case of Crumpp?s formula there needs to be a known method of arriving at Vs1 for the F-86 and the Mig=15.

In the case of Viper?s formula there needs to be a known method of understanding what he wrote.

It is also possible, mathematically, to use the Crumpp and Viper formulas to calculate backwards from the known corner velocity to arrive at Vs1 or whatever Viper?s formula requires.

What is the concern over corner velocity?

Viper appears to poo poo corner velocity.

He is hardly offering the new guys any help.

Like this:


Corner speed has nothing to do with turn radius. Corner speed is all about turn rate.

Here is the information that anyone can find at
Navair (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)


6.3.4.6 CORNER SPEED
The significance of corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed corresponding to the intersection of the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, Va is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.


Viper:

Corner speed has nothing to do with turn radius.

Naviar:

?corner speed?the minimum instantaneous turn radius? Thus, Va is the speed for maximum turn performance?

If the person is interested in fighter combat (and someday a game will model a dog fighting version of the Fw190A series plane), then, please consider going to the Navair site and finding Figure 6.20 TURN PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS (it is about half way down the scroll bar).

On Figure 6.20 are turn rate, turn radius, and g loads as functions of velocity. On that chart it is easy to see that the minimum turn radius is TURNED at corner speed. Flying slower than corner speed increases turn radius capability (slightly) and flying faster than corner speed increases turn radius capability (not slightly).

In other words: if the situation requires the smallest possible turn radius, then, the pilot must maintain corner speed during the turn. And as to going up or down during the turn there is this:


The weight vector can be used to tighten a turn, only if the lift vector is pointed below the horizon. Whenever the nose of the airplane is pulled up, the turn is hampered by the weight vector. The advantage of using the weight vector to tighten a turn is short-lived, but it can be exploited in a variety of tactical situations.

So, again, if there is a tactical need to minimize turn radius, then, the pilot must maintain corner speed AND point the nose down.

Max has a point. I think it is on top of his dunce hat. The very smallest turn radius is maneuvered during a hammerhead or gravity assisted turn on top of a vertical zoom climb; however ? that type of maneuver departs from the flight envelope so it only counts in the real word. It doesn?t count in the paper world.

When the simulated fighter pilot goes about hunting for scalps (and I know for a fact that Viper does this ? I?ve flown on the same server as he does and I do observe) the fighter pilot takes command of his flight path ALWAYS. The idea is to set-up situations where your plane can execute maneuvers to defeat the targets plane. This sounds simple enough but in fact the pilot must command the flight path of his plane at all times ? always. What this means is that the fighter pilot always has a plan and the fighter pilot is never simply reacting, not ever, the fighter pilot is always one or two, even three steps, ahead of the target ? even the targets not yet seen. Even if the simulating fighter pilot isn?t actively thinking about corner speed I guarantee that the pilot, if he is successful, is flying corner speed because, and this is even true in the game, the smallest turn radius and the fastest turn rate is achieved at corner speed. Flying too slow means: less turn performance. Flying too fast means: less turn performance. This is known in the bones of the successful simulated fighter pilot (and the real ones too I suspect). It becomes known, in the bones, that flying too fast is better than flying too slow because the excess speed can be TURNED into the better slower corner speed at will ? just cut the throttle and pull back on the stick with the nose up (throttle off, stick back,and nose up declerates fastest). Burning off this excess velocity can be done quickly. On the other hand; flying too slow is extremely dangerous because the needed acceleration will take a much longer time to gain. In other words; deceleration performance IS agility and acceleration performance is, at best, slow and dangerous. It is better to have the inertia to dump when needed than to be needing inertia pointing the nose straight down trying to get some more speed and more inertia, AND, of course, if you are on the deck and slow, then, pointing the nose down is no longer an option.

Perhaps Viper is hiding trade secrets. I can?t say. He will say what he decides to say.

In the game it is very, very, easy to find corner speed. One of my first chores when getting a new patch for the game is to find out if corner speed had changed for my plane and the target planes. Once I confirm corner speed then, while hunting scalps, I know what speed is my minimum combat speed. If the target demands from my flight plan a declaration maneuver that goes under corner speed then I know such a demand is ?betting the farm? on gaining a killing shot. That situation is illustrated in my pitch back maneuver presentation where the Spitfire is spraying and praying before I dive in for the killing shot. Knowing when to cash in on the energy (inertia) bank (from speeds above corner speed) and knowing when to ?bet the farm? is knowing relative energy states; knowing that the target cannot pull the lead required to get the shot, AND, knowing the target pilot will try to get that shot and knowing the target pilot will stall in that effort and knowing the target will be a sitting duck after he stalls. Knowing my plane will still have maneuvering capability and knowing the target will be under my falling plane getting bigger and bigger, filling the gun sight, is all part and parcel to knowing corner velocity.

Corner speed in the game can be found in the same exact manner that Naviar finds corner speed.

And there is more than one way to do it ? by the book.

Loaded decelerations work.

The Wind Up Turn also works.

If you, the interested reader, browse the Navair site you may find references to calculations concerning corner speed. Please note that those calculations are not the same as Crumpp?s or Viper?s and the one I looked at still required flight test data to gain the data required to calculate corner speed. Testing the formula on known corner speeds remain a viable test for any formula.

Again; if the calculations are accurate, then, the F-86 and Mig-15 EM chart is a good place to test the accuracy of those calculations. If anyone can find the required flight data for an Fw 190 or a Spitfire then the same required flight data can be found for the F-86 and Mig-15. Soon enough a game will model the F-86 and the Mig-15 and when that day comes the accurate corner speeds can be checked between the game data and the real world data with in game flight tests.

Note: The F-86 has the lower corner speed despite the fact that the F-86 was the higher wing-loaded plane and the lower power-loaded plane, as if, inertia is a factor in determining corner speed i.e. loaded decelerations or Wind Up Turns.

Corner speed is a velocity at which a nose low turn can be performed where the minimum turn radius and the maximum turn rate can be maintained at the expense of altitude, AND, that maximum performance turn can be performed with the engine OFF (the altitude loss will be greater with the engine OFF).

Corner speed is easy to find; in the game. Just start out high and fast and start turning a nose low turn.

If the game starts blacking out the pilot then raise the nose and slow the turn down.

Keep pulling on the stick to maintain a grey screen.

If the plane starts stalling then lower the nose and speed the plane up.

You are at corner speed when the pilot is not blacked out (the screen is grey) and the air speed indicator is the absolute slowest speed you can maintain.

If you hit the ground before finding corner speed, then, load another quick mission starting out at high altitude.

Finding corner speed is also good practice for hunting scalps. Knowing that you can get to corner speed and maintain corner speed at any time you choose is like having a special skill and having an advantage over the opponent. Having the ability to maintain corner speed is very much like having the ability to maintain a coordinated steady state horizontal level turn. Having the ability to maintain corner speed is like having the ability to maintain a coordinated steady state climbing spiral.


The weight vector can be used to tighten a turn, only if the lift vector is pointed below the horizon. Whenever the nose of the airplane is pulled up, the turn is hampered by the weight vector. The advantage of using the weight vector to tighter a turn is short-lived, but it can be exploited in a variety of tactical situations.

Having the ability to turn climbing circles and having the ability to turn level circles and having the ability to turn diving circles are all very good skills when hunting for scalps in simulated fighter combat.

Which skill gains the most degrees per second and which skill gains the tightest turn?

Note: If you think you are at corner speed because the pilot can black out, then, try going slower (nose up some) because any extra speed above corner speed will increase turn radius and decrease turn rate. Flying above corner speed decreases turn performance. It is not good enough to just look at black out. Corner speed is the slowest speed at the highest g. The game simply makes everyone black out at 6 g.


While current technology has produced combat airplanes capable of very high load factors [like the Fw190] and rapid g onset rates [unlike the games Fw190], the value of this maneuvering capability depends upon the ability of the pilot to cope with the high g environment. Physiological problems associated with this strenuous high g environment include g-induced loss of situational awareness and g loss of consciousness (G-LOC). These debilitating conditions, the results of rapid onset rates to high load factors, leave the pilot either unable to keep up with the tactical situation or, in extreme cases, unconscious. New anti-g flight equipment is under development to give the pilot the freedom to use the full maneuvering potential of the airplane.

If the interested reader tries to simulate a Wind Up Turn or Loaded Deceleration in the game IL2, then, the interested reader will be finding corner velocity. What should become abundantly clear after the interested reader tries this skill development with various planes modeled in the game is ONSET RATES.

Which planes go from level flight at high speed into a diving 6 g turn at corner speed fastest? In other words: how much time does it take to rapidly increase the load factor in the P-47 and how much time does it take to rapidly increase the load factor in the Spitfire?

Which plane is the plane with the faster onset rate?

Which plane wallows around like a glider in a stall?

Which plane is agile?

This is what a WWII combat test pilot wrote about the Fw 190:


At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw 190?s magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8,000 ft ( 2 440 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally and neutral longitudinally.

The interested reader who tries to conduct a Wind Up Turn or Loaded Deceleration in the game with the Fw 190 may think about the above words as they perform those corner speed tests. Note the words ?unstable laterally?. The game is amazing and a work of genius ? in my opinion. Note while performing the corner speed tests that the pilot must be precise in maintaining roll (lateral) inertia; it takes practice to keep the Fw190 on rails ? to keep the fighter plane rolling from level flight, under increasing g load, into the diving turn (or level turn depending upon which method you use). Note too how much time elapses in the process of building g force. Get used to the whole process of going from high cruising speed into a maximum performance corner speed turn. Practice the effort over and over again. If the interested reader wants to be a more effective simulated fighter pilot, then, this practice will not be wasted effort.

Get used to the process, practice the skill, and know how quickly you can get the Fw 190 from level cruise into a level or nose low corner speed turn. According to Eric Brown the normal cruise for the Fw 190 (Fw190A-3 or A-4 not specified but Eric Brown did fly the A-4/U8 fighter bomber version) was 530 km/h.

When practicing the turn to corner speed it may be better to use 600 km/h or a high speed cruise. Get a feel for the difference between converting to high speed and not so high speed level flight into a corner speed turn. Get the process practiced into your bones so that you can do it precisely in your sleep.

Once the interested reader has practice the corner speed turn on the Fw 190 enough to get a good feel for that process, then, try the same procedure for the P-47D.

Note the difference and check the final results. What is the Fw190 corner speed? What is the P-47 corner speed? How much time does it take (agility) to get from level flight to corner speed?

What is being measured is; high speed turn performance. What is not being measured is Sustained Level Horizontal Steady State Stall Fighting Angles Fighting Turn Performance.

What is being done with the Wind UP Turn and the Loaded Deceleration practice (corner speed practice) is a change of focus away from slow speed turn performance toward a focus upon high speed turn performance.

Now try the Spitfire.

When you are done with enough practice utilizing the Wind Up Turn and the Loaded Deceleration, then, you will have earned working knowledge concerning which plane performs better at high speed. You will know which plane is more agile. You will know which plane is more maneuverable at high speed. You will know which plane can gain an advantage in turning performance from high speed and decelerating down to corner speed (which is still high speed compared to Sustained Level Horizontal Steady State Turn speed). Corner speeds are around 400 km/h; steady state horizontal maximum performance turns are much lower speeds; I don?t know for sure I don?t turn horizontal turns much unless flying Spitfires ? it?s around 300 km/h ? or less.

I?m interested in hearing what anyone else concludes concerning their practice with the Wind Up Turn and the Loaded Deceleration.

I can copy and past the text descriptions of those turns from Naviar if needed.


Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang. The semi-reclining seat ? ideal for high-g-manoeuvres ? proved relatively comfortable and the controls fell easily to the hand?


The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics even at high speed.

I have no interest whatsoever in being told repeatedly that I am wrong without any evidence showing what is wrong.


Corner speed has nothing to do with turn radius. Corner speed is all about turn rate.

That is wrong. That is incorrect. That is inaccurate. Corner speed (look at Figure 6.20) minimizes turn radius as well as turn rate. Any speed above or below corner speed (when maximizing g load and therefore spending inertia) increases turn radius and decreases turn rate.

Corner speed has something to do with turn radius ? FACT.

Perhpas Viper wants to keep his targets stupid. I don't know.

Xiolablu3
01-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yup, it's not so easy to get more than 3kills in one sortie with a Spitfire now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And I actually feel like I had to fly good to make them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cool, I havent flown it since the new patch. WIll report back when I have tried it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: Omg the monster just struck again...get out quick, before you are all sucked it with its colossal amount of drivel........


Signed Peanut Gallery number 1. (so endearing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

HellToupee
01-14-2007, 11:32 AM
another josf post too long and confusing to be worth reading -- FACT

JtD
01-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Josf, since you are talking instantaneous corner speed, you know that this is the speed where you reach critical g and the wing falls off in game?

You also know that most planes aren't even capable of such a thing without appropriate trim. In your world, one has to go a certain speed and pull so hard, that 1 kph more means loss of wing and one less means stall. A neat 14.999 g turn. Have fun!

Otoh, Viper is talking sustained turn and there minimum turn radius has nothing to do with best turn rate.

fighter_966
01-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Mike Spick s Book about German tactics is good to read Its name is Luftwaffe ficghter aces .Josf if its possible could you compress you threads a bit .Interesting to read.. but it gets bit difficult to follow in some parts... keep going though.If you cant compress your post ..well then one must just paddle through them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 12:52 PM
another josf post too long and confusing to be worth reading -- FACT

It?s OK HellToupee you can continue to fly your 8 minute sorties cause that is about the limit of your attention span. Viper probably grins when he finds you low and slow all alone; I do.

You wrote:


"The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking""

clearly it did, hardpull out aka turning tightly would kill its speed.

So which is it; do you read or do you not read ? think or not think?

If the Fw190 is diving vertically and the inertia builds to a velocity (and mass going along with it) above corner velocity, then, there will be no ?sinking?, no buffet, no buffet onset, no difficulty with tracking buffet, no speed loss due to drag build up associated with stall turbulence, and nothing the pilot needs to concern himself with other than black out, wing deformation, or structural failure ? above corner speed.

If corner speed is 400 km/h, then, in the vertical dive, the Fw 190 pilot cannot ?sink? the plane at 450 km/h. If above corner the pilot cannot ?stall? the plane. If above corner the pilot cannot pull back on the stick and get anything but high g. When above corner the pilot will get more g as the pilot pulls the stick back more until the plane slows down to speeds that are at or less than corner. If CORNER is the 6 g pilot load limit, then, any turning above corner will black the pilot out. Below corner, then, the pilot can ?sink? the plane. Below corner the pilot can ?stall? the plane. Below corner the pilot can increase the angle of attack on the wing to the point where the wing begins to generate turbulence and then, under corner, at excessive angles of attack, the plane will decelerate rapidly, due to turbulence and drag, or, in other words; the speed will be killed because the plane?s wings are generating turbulence and drag.

The Fw190 was famous for having little ?buffet? associated with the high g stall ? under corner speed. Over corner speed the Fw190 wrinkles aluminum and blacks out pilots. The British were not used to such a plane. The British had to be careful when diving at speeds under corner (under 400 km/h if the game is right) because ? when the British pilots exceeded the flying angle of attack and when the British pilots generated turbulence on the wing and when the British pilots stalled the wing, then, the British pilots killed the speed with all that increased drag.

The German pilots who logged hundred and perhaps thousands of hours in combat on the Fw 190 probably knew when not to pull back further on the stick as well as knowing when to pull back further on the stick, on purpose, to kill the speed ? UNDER CORNER SPEED. The fighter pilots British, American, Russian, German, Japanese, etc., all knew, because it is a physical fact, that going over corner speed ended the stalling envelope and began the load limit envelope.

The description of Energy Fighting described by Eric Brown concerning the fighter combat situation in mid 1942 described Fw190s executing vertical maneuvers, dives at speeds that are perhaps UNDER 400 km/h, followed by Zoom climbs from speeds that were perhaps UNDER 400 km/h, and the Spitfire pilots tried everything in the book to get those German fighter pilots to stop cheating and start playing fair with horizontal sustained turns.

If those Spitfire pilots could have followed the Fw190s up and down then they would have ? no doubt. They could not. They didn?t have a Mr. Wizard or Oleg to magically make their Spitfire perform better in dives, pull-outs under corner speed, zoom climbs, and hammerheads not until the Spitfire IX?s appeared and by that time the Fw190s gained more thrust and more inertia too ? just like the Spitfires.

The Spitfires were, in reality, very good angles fighters. No doubt. The pilots had planes that were easy to judge when the wing was ?sinking? because their planes produced a lot of ?buffet? before the stall. The wing twist gave them that handling advantage at the cost of induced drag under g load during high speed turns and at the cost of lift production at high angles of attack. The Fw190 designer took away that handing advantage and gave the pilots a reduction in induced drag and gave the Fw 190 pilots and increase in lift as the wing twist untwisted under g load or so the story goes according to David Lednicer?s article here:

Word War II Fighter Aerodynamics (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

So?yes the Fw190 pilots pulling out and zooming up in Dog Fights had to maintain flight and avoid pulling back on the stick too much when speeds decelerate below corner speed.

That is hardly any proof concerning which plane ?Bleeds? energy faster or and answer to what is the precise rate difference of ?Energy Bleed? between the Fw190 and the Spitfire?

If the assumption is that the Fw190 ?Bleeds? energy faster, then, where is the evidence backing up the assumption? The Fw190 has a higher wing-loading? Is that it? That certainly affects Sustained Turn Performance when inertia is not as much of a factor as high speed decelerating turn performance when all that inertia must go somewhere.

Why do your on-line flights last only 8 minutes on average?

I usually run out of fuel and have to land. We may be on the same area; we sure don?t exist on the same plane. No wonder communication is laborious.

BfHeFwMe
01-14-2007, 01:10 PM
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/gotmilk.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

Xiolablu3
01-14-2007, 01:11 PM
AT risk of geting sucked in again, I will answer this how I see things. (And obviously Oleg does too)

All planes will let you 'abuse' them in a turn, and will let you pull too hard, resulting in buffet, shudder, energy loss, and eventually departure when the speed gets too low, or you push it too far.

A worse turning plane will not do well when forced into a hard turn, as it is going against its natural path, which results in energy loss as the plane causes drag being 'forced onto a path which aerodynamically it doesnt want to go, but, for the moment, it still has enough speed not to depart.

A better turning plane being pulled into a hard turn will more smoothly go through that turn losing a small amount of energy and speed, because it is better suited to flying that path, and does not 'complain' as much at being pushied into that hard turn- you are not forcing it onto a path which it 'doesnt want to fly'

A worse turning plane can be pulled into that same hard turn, but doing so will result in a much bigger energy loss, because you are forcing it into a turn which it naturally does not want to do.

It is possible to 'force' any plane into a hard turn, but doing so with a plane which is a worse turner will result in much worse energy loss.

Therefore :- A FW190 in a smooth shallow turn which it is comfortable with , will lose little energy. A FW190 pulled into a very hard turn which is is not comfortable with, will lose a lot of energy.

The FW190 does not bleed energy faster in its normal turns and flight, only if you 'force' it into harsh turns. If you keep it in its natural 'envelope' then it is very efficient and good at retaining energy.


Seems like common sense to me.

If the plane does not bleed a lot of energy, then the only other possible option of pulling 'to hard' is a departure, so are you seriously suggesting that the moment you pull to hard on the FW190, there is no buffet, or bad energy bleed, but an instant departure into a spin?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

slipBall
01-14-2007, 01:52 PM
In the spirit of long post...here are thoughts on modern day turning to win. I gotta believe the same was tought at flight school 60+ years ago...pop a beer and some popcorn. Should a turn be shortest, or quickest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



The Physics of Winning
What Reno air race winners know that losers don?t.
By George C. Larson
To me, the most enjoyable kind of racing involves laps around a circuit. Whether it?s at the Reno air races in Nevada or NASCAR?s Richmond International Raceway in Virginia, all the competitors are within view throughout the entire event. Races on road courses that take the field out of sight for minutes at a time aren?t as much fun; same goes for cross-country air races. Drag races are over before they begin. Whether the racers are in cars or airplanes, being able to see the lead changes and race tactics makes the experience more exciting. Ask NASCAR, which has discovered the master key to motor racing popularity in oval-track racing, some on courses as short as Tennessee?s Bristol half-mile circuit, where a straightaway may take only a couple of seconds. NASCAR fans live for the action in the turns.
On the straights, the dominant factor is a racer?s horsepower, but the moments that bring racing fans to their feet tend to occur when close competitors are battling through turns. It?s as true for air racing as it is for stock cars: Some racers, perhaps gifted or simply well trained, make each lap seem effortless. And these are the competitors who seem to win most often. Is there something at work here?some law of physics, perhaps?that rewards smoothness in executing a turn? And despite the marked differences in the machines, are there elements common to successful turning in both road racing and air racing?
I asked experts in both fields to examine the factors that make for a fast lap on the ground and in the air. It was unanimous: The most important element to racing is the line?the path that defines the fastest way around any turn, the curving path that connects the entrance to a turn and the exit from it. In oval-track racing as well as at Reno, there are at least two turns on the circuit, each producing a reversal of direction. This is where races are won and lost.
Yet two perfectly matched race cars can, in the hands of different drivers, deliver different results. What makes a winner? Stephan Wilkinson is the author of The Gold-Plated Porsche, a memoir about restoring a 911SC that he drives at race tracks for the sheer pleasure of going fast legally. (He?s also a pilot and contributor to Air & Space/Smithsonian.) ?Smoothness counts for a lot in a car,? he says. ?And I wonder if there?s a parallel there with air racing. I always instruct people to imagine that their car is like a big beach ball, and that it tips or pitches in response to braking, accelerating, turning. You can?t do these things ?gently? at racing speed, but you can do them smoothly. You can always tell the inexperienced drivers, whether it?s in movies or on the track: They jump on the brakes, jump on the gas, saw the wheel?all that too-fast-too-furious stuff is the antithesis of what a competitive driver does.?
Race car teams spend a lot of time adjusting tire pressures and suspension springs to find the sweet spot where the driver feels comfortable in turns. The mechanics try to balance understeer, or ?pushing? in NASCAR lingo, and oversteer, a condition NASCAR folks call ?loose.? With understeer, a car wants to head toward the wall rather than follow the front wheels around a turn; with a lot of oversteer, the rear end of the car wants to head to the wall?come loose?and thereby point the nose of the car deeper into the turn. In essence, the car turns more than the front wheels want it to: It oversteers. In either condition, turns will cause the car to lose speed.
Though air racers don?t have the colorful lingo of the good ol? boys on the Nextel Trophy circuit, they do much the same thing with their airplanes. Most try to relax the airplane?s static pitch stability by moving the center of gravity as far aft as possible without making the airplane unsafe in slow flight. This reduces the work the horizontal tail has to do to keep the airplane balanced in turns (see ?Balancing the See-Saw,? below), and reducing the workload of the tail reduces drag.
Mary Dilda took the North American T-6 Gold race at Reno in 1997 and 2005 and the Jet Class Gold in 2003. To dissect the technique that makes her flying appear so languid, she narrates a hypothetical three-pylon turn: ?First, create the least amount of drag,? she says. ?The ailerons create drag when you enter a turn, so ideally you plan the turn?and begin the roll early, very slowly, barely putting aileron in, a little rudder to keep the nose down as you roll in. You start early enough and hold your bank all the way around the pylons and slowly roll out after the third pylon. So you never think about the second pylon and just create as little drag as possible with the ailerons.?
Assistant and husband Steve adds, ?We watched a lot of race car drivers. When they enter a turn, they try to [steer along a path] so they generate the least amount of wheel movement, and that?s less drag they?re creating on the car. That?s exactly what we try to do, so their steering wheel and our control stick are identical.
?Anytime we pull back on the stick, the elevator deflection increases drag. Anytime you can make a turn with the least amount of control deflection?the least amount of drag?that?s your goal.
?It?s a matter of both talent and mastery. Some people are very mechanical and have to think about [flying smoothly and minimizing drag]. Others don?t concentrate as hard but still have to think about it.? Steve Dilda thinks you can see the differences in technique during a race: ?I?ve seen it on videos: airplanes that look like they?re flying on a rail. Others you see skidding around turns, nose up and not going anywhere.?
Todd Serota is a California lawyer, novice pilot, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad who put together events that placed fellow MIT grads in race cars for a day. Eventually it grew into a business, Tracquest, which he recently sold. He estimates that he has instructed drivers at some 200 events. ?In my driver meetings, I stagger the sessions for advanced, intermediate, and beginning drivers,? he says. ?When I address the novices, I remind them of the old saying about real estate [location, location, location]. I semi-jokingly tell them that driving is the same: It?s smoothness, smoothness, smoothness.? But he says that the repetition of ?location? actually emphasizes that in real estate, there?s only one factor, whereas the equivalent phrase in racing refers to three distinct factors. ?They are [steering] wheel, brake, and throttle,? he says. ?So [in racing], smoothness has a triple meaning.?
The popular perception may be that he who hugs the ground and the pylons wins, but that?s not how leading racers describe the best line. ?It?s the fastest way, not the shortest,? says Lyle Shelton, veteran racer and owner of the Grumman Bearcat Rare Bear. ?I had an engineer plot it out. He plotted a constant-G line, the fastest way around the course. I?d figured it out myself by the seat of my pants by that time.? Shelton says he doesn?t like to exceed 4 Gs around any turn. ?You get it built into your britches. I like about 3.5 G, never more than 4.?
He uses different words?the ?softer? turn is faster?another way of stating what the Dildas observed. ?It didn?t take me long after I started racing in 1965 in a P-51 to learn that softer turns made faster speed.? He no longer flies the Bear himself, but Reno race fans still talk about Shelton?s fluid line. ?Instead of running up on a pylon and honking it around the pylon, the most constant bank you can use works better,? he says.
If a car is at a speed that puts it at the limits of tire adhesion as it enters the turn, centrifugal force will carry the car off the track?it spins out. The simple act of steering forces the tires to work harder in a lateral direction, adding friction and scrubbing off speed. One difference between cars and airplanes is that pilots race with the throttle at its forward stop, whereas car racers back off the gas when entering a turn, then floor it when they accelerate out of the turn.
When a pilot pulls a 70- to 80-degree bank in turns, the Gs scrub off speed the way the friction of the front tires does on cars. To pull those Gs, pilots are pulling the stick back, pitching the nose up toward the inside of the turn and increasing the angle of attack of the wings to increase their lift and counter the centrifugal force that can make a 200-pound pilot
feel as though he weighs 800 pounds.
In the 1990s, Bill ?Tiger? Destefani flew the modified P-51 Strega to victory against competitors with more horsepower. He explains his advantage in terms of pulling Gs: ?You?ve got to get through the turn with the least amount of Gs. Gs equal drag. We?ll put enough weight in the tail so if you?re pulling up to 4 Gs in a turn, the tail-heavy airplane goes faster.? Flying Strega was all finesse, he says. ?No rudder in the straights. In the turns, just a liiii-tle bit.? His team went to great efforts to remove every last bit of trim pressure that would be exerted at top speed. Even a small surface like a trim tab or a tiny control deflection adds drag.
Steve Potter, vice president and general manager at Lime Rock Park, a race track in Connecticut, says his first experience in a race car was very different from how he?d imagined it, and he?s spent years thinking about the challenge of driving at speed?and about the line.
?In the entire span of nature?s time, until an eye-blink ago, humans lived in a 20-mile-per-hour world. All of our sensory systems have evolved to live with that. The trick is to slow the world, when you?re in a vehicle, down to 20 mph. Look out a side window, and at 50 mph, the guardrail is a blur. If you look far enough down the road, things are not approaching very quickly. To follow the line around a race track, it?s critical to learn to look far ahead and ignore what?s close.?
All well and good when you have a track to yourself at the Indianapolis 500 time trials or you?re just running practice laps at Reno. In real-world racing, you can find yourself in traffic or in somebody?s prop wash. And you can?t expect to enter every turn at precisely the right point. Racers learn to compensate when they can?t follow the ideal line or when they make a mistake and have to correct for it. On the track, drivers are trained to make optimum use of the tires? grip by using part of their adhesion for braking, part for cornering, and part for acceleration out of the turn?all influenced mightily by the line through the corner.
A driver has the right to defend against being passed, and swinging wide in a turn is one way to block. That happened to Mary Dilda when she was trying to pass a competitor in 2005?s T-6 Gold race: ?When he would roll into a turn, he was delaying the roll and hoping I was [flying as if in formation]. I flew my own line a little higher.? Although that gain in altitude might have forced her to expend energy, she says, ?I didn?t have the G forces that he had to pull. He had to pull harder through the turn.? She got her spent energy back coming downhill after she passed the competitor?s T-6 handily.
?Sometimes in traffic, you get away from the optimum [line],? says Shelton. ?You go outside somebody because of traffic or prop wash. Prop wash can whip you past vertical [90-degree bank] and really gets your attention. The wing can get stuck in the vortex and it won?t come out. Then it whips out, and it?s really a violent thing. Then you?ve got to settle back in.?
Though altitude gain and prop wash are alien to race car drivers, air racers and auto racers still have a lot in common. Shelton sums it up: ?I?ve gone to the Motorsports Hall of Fame and talked to the auto, motorcycle, boat guys, and others, and we all talk the same language.?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 03:47 PM
This sounds logic.
Josf, why do you think the 190 should turn better than the spit during the pull out? The 190 does not zoom better because it loose not as much E than the spit in the pull out turn, but because it is havier and cleaner so the spit has less E than the 190 at the end of the dive. That's why the 190 has a better zoom climb.

JG4_Helofly,

Please look here:
Inertia and Mass (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/class/newtlaws/u2l1b.html)

Scroll down the page and read this:

If friction could be eliminated?

Note the diagrams and the thinking involved in making those diagrams.


Galileo?s further observed that regardless of the angle at which the planes were oriented, the final height was almost always equal to the initial height. If the slope of the opposite incline was reduced, then the ball would roll a further distance in order to reach that original height.

Look here too if you are interested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_train)

Like the ball on the ramp - the air-plane dives, turns at the bottom, and climbs up in a zoom climb.

Engine thrust adds energy or, at least, subtracts drag. Why would the plane NOT arrive at the initial height?

Answer: Friction or a force that opposes motion

Not the correct answer: A force that redirects motion.

The ramp in the Galileo example redirects motion and it accomplishes the redirection of motion with a minimum of friction. No friction = no loss of motion and the change of direction occurs.

If friction could be eliminated?THEN the object would dive, turn at the bottom, and return to the initial altitude.

Try the experiment with a small Styrofoam ball and a metal ball where both balls are round and the same size. Make a ramp out of plastic and see if the two balls reach the initial height. The metal ball will go higher than the Styrofoam ball and that will occur at very low speeds. The difference in altitude gains at high speeds where drag force is extreme will be extremely different; the metal ball will go much farther than the Styrofoam ball.

The important thing, I guess, is to identify the force that does, in fact, force the objects to slow down i.e. resist motion and identify the force that does, in fact, redirect motion. I think there is something in L/D.

Some people identify one force as INDUCED DRAG.

Look here:

Leonardo da Vinci (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15440a.htm)


He foresaw nearly all the forms, parachute and montgolfier, but by boldly adhering to the "heavier than air" principle he constructed the first artificial bird. Long series of studies analyze with astonishing clearness the flight of the bird, the form and movement of the wing Leonardo distinguishes between the soaring flight and that made by successive flappings, in each case defining the action of the air and the part played by it; he understands that the bird rises obliquely on an aerial inclined plane, forming under it a kind of angle and that currents form in the concavity of the wing which serve it as momentary supports to recover its equilibrium, like the waves on which the car is rested to propel the boat.

This exactly:

an aerial inclined plane

The plastic used in the Styrofoam and Metal ball inertia test is an inclined plane. The plastic is used to make a ramp. The ramp, the plane, and the aerial inclined plane are SIMPLE MECHANICAL DEVICES.

Look here:

Inclined Plane (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l3e.html)


Objects are known to accelerate down inclined planes because of an unbalanced force. To understand this type of motion, it is important to analyze the forces acting upon an object on an inclined plane.

Correct any errors please (I am working on this now):

The force of gravity accelerates an object at 9.8 m/s^2.

Going straight down the object will hit the ground in x amount of time and cover x amount of distance.

When the object is accelerated by the simple mechanical device known as an inclined plane, then, the distance traveled will increase while the time required to hit the ground stays the same (assuming no loss of motion due to friction).

Is that correct?

If so, then, where does the additional distance come from?

Answer: The inclined plane multiplies force

From another angle:

The force of gravity is only capable of accelerating an object at 9.8 m/s^2 and engine thrust is only capable of accelerating an object at less than 9.8 m/s^2, now, where does the force come from that enables an object to accelerate 9 times the acceleration of gravity?

Answer: The inclined plane multiplies the force.

Question:

What determines the rate of force multiplication?

Partial answer:
here (http://www.unis.org/UNIScienceNet/MECH_knowledge.html)


The inclined plane is a simple machine


The inclined plane allows a small force to be applied over a long distance to overcome a large force by moving its point of application over a small distance.

A body located on a slope may be pushed up the slope by a force parallel to the surface of the slope. The distance moved along the slope will always be less than the vertical distance moved by the body, unless the slope is vertical.

The distance moved along the slope x the effort (in Newtons) is the work done by the effort. The vertical distance x weight of the body (the force felt by the body in a gravitational field, measured in Newtons) is the work done on the body.

Effort x distance traveled along slope = weight x vertical height raised.

The mechanical advantage given by an inclined plane is the weight of the body divided by the effort applied to the object to push it to the top of the slope, or the length of the slope divided by the vertical height.

A screw is an inclined plane rolled up into a cylinder. The mechanical advantage is given by the length of the thread divided by the length of the screw.

A pulley system can be used to raise objects by a very small application of force

Well this is getting long and I want to add this:

BMW Automatic Engine control (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093290_1993093290.pdf)


The electrical propeller-pitch control, however, does not provide automatic regulation of the propeller pitch for constant-speed operation of the engine.

The game?s MANUAL pitch is, perhaps, another one of those game ?features? coded to balance the play or whatever. It makes no sense to me. The inclined plane makes a lot of sense to me.

You may be more or less confused. If less, then, send some of that clarity my way ? please.

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If someone asks me to stop posting on their forum I will leave.

Whatever that is, I'll have one. We can leave the Clinton word lessons out of it. I vote yes.


Here is the information that anyone can find at
Navair (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">6.3.4.6 CORNER SPEED
The significance of corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed corresponding to the intersection of the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, Va is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Very handy when you are flying jets with afterburners that can boost at 1+ G's.

Energy management is a little different in piston props. Saving energy is more important.



The weight vector can be used to tighten a turn, only if the lift vector is pointed below the horizon. Whenever the nose of the airplane is pulled up, the turn is hampered by the weight vector. The advantage of using the weight vector to tighten a turn is short-lived, but it can be exploited in a variety of tactical situations.

Gravity can assist turns in either direction vertical. Up or down. Gee, doesn't Shaw have
something to say about just that?


Max has a point. I think it is on top of his dunce hat. The very smallest turn radius is maneuvered during a hammerhead or gravity assisted turn on top of a vertical zoom climb; however ? that type of maneuver departs from the flight envelope so it only counts in the real word. It doesn?t count in the paper world.

Your profound question: what is the maneuver that minimizes turn radius in 180 degrees of turn?
Your profound gift to us all: The split S

My UNEDITED words as posted: Nowhere near as tight as an Immelmann.

I can roll a FW 180 deg while moving vertical and have NO turn radius even quicker than the
hammerhead which leaves you stopped in the air as a sitting target, but whatever winds your
clock, I guess...

You can tuck that dunce hat where it might stop so much diarhea coming out of you, please?

This is enough for now, you really need to learn about the REAL WORLD for a while.
Maybe take 5th grade science to break in to all those fundamentals you are so clueless about.
Dump the Aristotl approach and start with Galileo then work up before you run people down
with your ignorant trash. They know from doing these things real world while you don't get
mass, gravity, inertia or any of it. Do tell, were in the flunky group or just the slackers
before you quit school?

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 05:21 PM
In the spirit of long post...here are thoughts on modern day turning to win. I gotta believe the same was tought at flight school 60+ years ago...pop a beer and some popcorn. Should a turn be shortest, or quickest

SlipBall,

Nice read. Thanks.

If I may comment:

An air race around a circuit is not the same thing as dog fighting in the vertical or in the horizontal plane.

Example:

Both planes are supposed to go around two pylons on the ground. The two pylons are far enough apart to force some straight and level flying (if the pylons are too close then the fastest way around is one circle at one bank angle).

One fighter starts at one pylon and the other fighter starts at another pylon and the first one to catch the other one can shoot down the loser.

The rules say that the race will go clock-wise.

Suppose that one plane is faster. One pilot is good and the other pilot is poor at minimizing drag. The good pilot in the bad plane may catch the poor pilot in the good plane or visa versa depending upon how good the plane is and how good the pilot is or how poor the plane is and how poor the pilot is; anyway the race is won and one pilot shoots down the other plane. End of race.

The race is won by the best. The race is lost by the worst.

The race is won because drag was minimized and therefore the time around the course is maximized.

The tactic was: reduce drag to a minimum.

Now remove one pylon and repeat the race with a new player since one of the players is dead.

This is now a horizontal sustained turn race. No straights.

Both planes start at opposite ends.

The rules are to go around the pole clockwise and shot down the opponent.

Are you thinking tactics now?

What is the speed that completes the horizontal sustained turn race in the shortest time?

How about this race:

Both planes start at 10,000 meters around a pylon that is 10,000 meters high.

The object is to make 50 revolutions around the pylon in the shortest amount of time or shoot the other pilot down while trying to make 50 revolutions around the pylon in the shortest amount of time.

Both pilots start at opposite sides of the pole.

How about this vertical maneuvering race:

A series of altitude goals that must be flown over and under in the shortest amount of time where the first goal is 9,000 meters and the next goal is directly over the first goal at a distance equal to the zoom climb capabilities of the plane. The third goal is lower than the first goal and the fourth goal is directly over the first goal at the same distance that is equal to the zoom climb capabilities of the plane.

The race involves a dive under the first goal. A zoom climb up to the second goal. A gravity assisted turn like a hammerhead over the second goal. A dive to the third goal, a pull out under the third goal followed by a zoom to the fourth goal - over the fourth goal, under the fifth goal, over the sixth goal on up to 10 dives, pullouts, and zoom climbs. The winner is the one who completes the course in the shortest time.

A competitor can, if he wants, fly under the first goal and then gradually climb above the second goal. A competitor can, if he wants, try to maneuver around the goals any way he wants so long as the first goal is flown under and the second goal is flown over, etc. The first one to the bottom, crossing the finish line, can shoot at the one who is not yet at the bottom. Both planes start at the same time. If a competitor misses a goal, then, the competitor can get another run at it.

Is this post too long?

Would the real Spitifire win all those races?

Would the real Fw190 win one of those races?

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2007, 05:50 PM
Balls rolling on inclined planes do not hold themselves up but airplanes do.

Balls rolling around curves between inclined planes have a solid surface to change direction
against while airplanes do not.

"If there was no friction" ... well there is and without it, nothing would work, there would
be no life, etc.

Airplane dives and has drag. Airplane pulls out and has more drag. HOW MUCH? The same amount
as flying while weighing as many G's as the pullout is times the weight of the entire plane!

The same plane only heavier pays more of a penalty in drag doing a dive and climb.
For every extra pound of mass there is more loss due to need for increases AOA to provide
the lift to pull out and increased AOA pays increased percent of drag. Heavier is worse,
maybe that's why no concrete airplanes? And now, I'm not talking about gliders where the
only power you have is your weight-height potential until you can find an updraft... that's
daft to compare to powered aircraft so don't bother.

Look for the reason the MiG got outturned by F-86 elsewhere than inventing your own physics.
Wingloading alone does not set stall speed. MiG had very thin wings. Maximum lift is not
by wingloading but by profile and the stall turn is by maximum lift, not wingloading.

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 06:02 PM
If the plane does not bleed a lot of energy, then the only other possible option of pulling 'to hard' is a departure, so are you seriously suggesting that the moment you pull to hard on the FW190, there is no buffet, or bad energy bleed, but an instant departure into a spin?

X3,

Seriously:

I can guess and or assume that the above question is aimed at me. If it is, then, you do not understand what I think ? at all.

If a plane is flying along at speeds that are higher than Va, then, pulling too hard on the stick causes excessive g force, structural damage, or pilot black out whichever can handle the excessive g force the least. If the pilot can?t handle the excessive g force and the plane can handle the excessive g force, then, Va is probably the wrong term because Va is a number published for the aircraft and Va specifies the aircraft structural limit for a given weight. Corner speed is perhaps a better term to use when the pilot can?t handle as much g force as the plane. The terms really don?t matter. If the pilot can?t handle 6 g, then, pulling on the stick at speeds above the speed where the plane can begin to generate 6 g will black out the pilot.

Pulling on the stick at speeds below the speed where the plane can begin to generate 6 g will stall the wing before reaching 6 g.

Pulling on the stick at speeds above the speed where the plane can begin to generate 6 g will black out the pilot.

Pulling on the stick at speeds below the speed where the plane can begin to generate 6 g will stall the plane before reaching 6 g.

Pulling on the stick at speeds above the speed where the plane can begin to generate 6 g will black out the pilot.

What happens at the speed where the plane isn?t stalling and the plane can just barely generates 6 g?

Answer:

The plane can almost stall while the pilot is almost blacking out.

That is slightly under corner speed. That is almost the fastest turn rate and the smallest turn radius possible for that plane and that pilot.

What happens at the 6.99999 g stall speed (slower than the 6 g stall speed) when the pilot isn?t quite blacked out yet as the g force is building as the ONSET RATE of maximum g force is gaining g force?

Answer:
The wing stalls because at that speed the wing can?t generate 6 g yet.

What happens if the pilot pulls too hard on the stick at the 7 g stall speed which is a higher speed than the 6 g stall speed?

Answer:

If the wing deforms at 6.5 g and the pilot can handle 7 g for one instant, then, the wing may deform before the pilot blacks out. The plane won?t stall until 7 g at the 7 g stall speed.

What happens if the nose is pointed up as the pilot pulls too hard on the stick at the 7 g stall speed?

Answer:

The plane may slow down faster than the ONSET RATE builds up to 6 g and then the wing stalls if the speed drops below the 6 g stall speed before the plane generates 6 g.

What happens if the nose is pointing down as the pilot pulls too hard on the stick at the 7 g stalls speed?

Answer:

The pilot may black out. The wing may deform. The wing may come off if the speed builds up past the 10 g stall speed and the pilot can (even while suffering from high g)
PULL TOO HARD on the stick. The wing won?t stall at the 10 g stall speed unless the plane and the pilot can handle 10 g.

Am I the one that is misunderstanding what I write or is there the remotest possibility that you are the one misunderstanding what I write?

It's me; isn't it?

Monty_Thrud
01-14-2007, 06:17 PM
Totally agree Maxx...but you do have the Ignore option...try it...click on his name and hey presto...no more b0ll0x http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//beatup.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif..http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//2006-02-23_012924_pilot11.gif ..http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Soviet Fighter Tactics (http://luthier.stormloader.com/home.html) Merlin (http://www.spitfire.dk/Chapter5.htm) The Doors (http://www.thedoors.com/index.cfm?fa=home1)
DA! (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm)
WWII Links (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm)

hop2002
01-14-2007, 06:21 PM
The force of gravity accelerates an object at 9.8 m/s^2.

Going straight down the object will hit the ground in x amount of time and cover x amount of distance.

When the object is accelerated by the simple mechanical device known as an inclined plane, then, the distance traveled will increase while the time required to hit the ground stays the same (assuming no loss of motion due to friction).

Is that correct?

No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.


If so, then, where does the additional distance come from?

Answer: The inclined plane multiplies force


No. This is a wrong conclusion based on a faulty premise.

Take it to it's logical conclusion. You build an inclined plane 4.9 m from the ground at one end, resting on the ground at the other, 100 km long. If the object will still descend 4.9 m in the first second, it will travel 100 km in 1 second.

Think of the possibilites. Solve the world's power crisis by building a slope, then lifting an object weighing 1 kg up to 4.9 m (energy required 48 joules). Let it accelerate down the slope, at the end of 1 sec it will be traveling 200 km/s, and have 20,000,000,000 joules of kinetic energy.


The force of gravity is only capable of accelerating an object at 9.8 m/s^2 and engine thrust is only capable of accelerating an object at less than 9.8 m/s^2, now, where does the force come from that enables an object to accelerate 9 times the acceleration of gravity?

The wings. It's called lift.


Like the ball on the ramp - the air-plane dives, turns at the bottom, and climbs up in a zoom climb.

Engine thrust adds energy or, at least, subtracts drag. Why would the plane NOT arrive at the initial height?

Answer: Friction or a force that opposes motion

Not the correct answer: A force that redirects motion.


They are both the correct answer.

You keep saying inertia enables a plane to turn. In a way it's true. Inertia is a store of energy that you can use to turn. But if you use some of the energy, you have less left. You can't have your energy and eat it.

The inclined plane and balls example does not approximate real life for an aircraft in two ways. First, friction. Second, the plane has to push against non rigid air to turn. That air moves, and it requires energy to move the air, hence you have less energy stored in the plane.

Ratsack
01-14-2007, 07:42 PM
Hop, Gunz, Crump, et al,

I just clicked on a couple of Josf?s posts to un-ignore them and see what he?s written that has everyone so annoyed again.

I see that we?re back to the basic high school science and physics that defeated him back when he posted on CWOS. Face it guys, he just doesn?t understand this stuff and he won?t while he?s still arguing some arcane agenda on a forum board.

I know, Hop, that there is the issue of making sure his nonsensical gibberish is pointed out for what it is, lest some people take him seriously. However, so many reputable and serious members of this community have now demonstrated the errors, misinterpretations and distortions in his propositions, that it can only be a very small number of people who could take him seriously. It is so clear that Josf doesn?t know what he?s talking about, I don?t think there?s the faintest chance that Oleg or anybody else in his team with a science education would pay him the slightest attention.

Regarding those who do think he?s got a point (??!!), I?d suggest a large proportion profess that position only because it suits their agenda. A fair few of the rest are probably so baffled by his abstruse and rhetorical style that they?re too embarrassed to admit they can?t make head or tail of his maundering.

In a nutshell, guys, he?s offered to leave if asked. Max asked and he?s still here. He?s therefore not here to discuss or share information or improve his learning or help ours. On the contrary, he is just a tedious, didactic, repetitious troll.

He is not worth the effort. Don?t feed the troll!

Cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 09:32 PM
No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.

Hop,

If acceleration from gravity is vertical at 9.8 m/s^2, then, the object only accelerates straight down at 9.8 m/s^2.

If an additional accelerating force is applied by something some how, then, that additional force adds acceleration to the object.

If another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down, then, another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down.

The question was, assuming no friction, will the object falling vertically reach the ground at the same time as the object traveling down an inclined plane.

Your ?NO? response and then your answer has no relevance to what I wrote as if you didn?t even read the question or statement seeking clarification.

If gravity accelerates anything at all it accelerates on a specific vector and gravity does not force anything on any other vector. The gravity vector is what is called down. It is a vector that points toward the center of mass.

Here look at this:

Gravity train (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_train)

Or don?t look at it and remain ignorant all your life; I could care less.


No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.

How fast does a glider accelerate (assuming no friction loss)?

The question isn?t how fast will a glider accelerates if a glider accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 on the velocity vector? NO; that isn?t the question.

If the glider glides at a 45 degree angle and gravity accelerates the glider at 9.8 m/s^2 and there is no force slowing down the glider, then, that glider will reach the ground at the same time as a stone falling straight down. True or false

Does that concept enter your brain ? at all?
Past experience suggests not.


No. This is a wrong conclusion based on a faulty premise.

Take it to it's logical conclusion. You build an inclined plane 4.9 m from the ground at one end, resting on the ground at the other, 100 km long. If the object will still descend 4.9 m in the first second, it will travel 100 km in 1 second.

Think of the possibilites. Solve the world's power crisis by building a slope, then lifting an object weighing 1 kg up to 4.9 m (energy required 48 joules). Let it accelerate down the slope, at the end of 1 sec it will be traveling 200 km/s, and have 20,000,000,000 joules of kinetic energy.

What? What has this to do with the world?s power crisis? If there is friction and the object slows down, then, the object slows down. If there is no friction, then, the object doesn?t slow down. What is the net acceleration of the object on the ramp (assuming no friction)? Do you contend that the net acceleration of the object (assuming no friction) is 9.8 m/s^2 and therefore less than 9.8 m/s^2 on the gravity vector?

My question is a question because I?m not yet familiar with the answer. This may help:

a = g * sin 0 (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l3e.html)

Your divergence into the world crisis is somewhat misdirected.


In the absence of friction and other forces (tension, applied, etc.), the acceleration of an object on an incline is the value of the parallel component (m*g*sine of angle) divided by the mass (m). This yields the equation

I?ll park that for now since the peanut gallery is calling.

Master Hop:

The wings. It's called lift.

Ahhhh the master reveals the answer and I suppose that lift can generate 9 times the acceleration of gravity at any speed as if this magical lift stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with inertia.

Just pull a word out of your rectum and plop it on the table ? tada ? the mystery is solv-ed.

WTG.


They are both the correct answer.

You keep saying inertia enables a plane to turn. In a way it's true. Inertia is a store of energy that you can use to turn. But if you use some of the energy, you have less left. You can't have your energy and eat it.

The inclined plane and balls example does not approximate real life for an aircraft in two ways. First, friction. Second, the plane has to push against non rigid air to turn. That air moves, and it requires energy to move the air, hence you have less energy stored in the plane.

What?
In a way it is true ? kind of and sort of? What happened to lift? If the force that slows the object down is friction, then, the energy becomes heat. If there is no heat then the force that slows the plane down is not friction. If the force that slows the plane down is contact with air mass, then, the air mass is moved by the energy transferred from the plane. If that movement of air mass is TRUST downward, then, an equal opposite movement will occur to the wing ? no?

If the air movement is opposite the objects vector, like parasite drag, then, the opposite movement vector of air mass goes against the plane opposite the planes vector ? no?

Say NO again Hop. You are so fond of saying no and then as Kurfurst points out; you go off and hide like a dog with your tail between your legs.

For those who THINK I am attacking Hop PLEASE do some reading from the past. Hop follows me around saying NO to this and NO to that and every single time he packs his bag and scurries off somewhere. This is just one more example.

Which way does the air mass move HOP? Which way does the plane move in reaction to the air movement? Does the magic lift stuff suck the energy out of the plane? Does the air heat up and suck the energy out of the plane?

How much ENERGY BLEED is lost to friction?

How much ENERGY BLEED is lost in thrusting air mass downward?

How much ENERGY BLEED is lost in thrusting air mass opposite the planes velocity vector?

Remember your last ?schooling? of me?

I asked:

What determines the rate of increase in lift vector acceleration capability as forward vector velocity increases?

In other words:

Why can an F-86 generate 7 g at .5 mach while the Mig-15 can only generate 6 g at .5 mach?

Here is the documented evidence proving that capability:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

If your answer is power-loading or wing-loading, then, SURPRISE, your wrong, the F-86 was lower in power-loading and higher in wing-loading but guess what my friend that won?t answer the question, the F-86 is at a much higher energy state than the Mig-15 at .05 Mach therefore the F-86 has that kind of ? sort of inertial stuff in an abundant supply. It can force lots of air mass downward relative to the same exact sweep on the wings.

Do you remember the wing sweep answer you gave me once?

Here it is:


The Mig had slightly lower wing loading than the F-86F, but much greater wing sweep, a higher stall speed, and poor stall characeteristics.

Do you remember pulling that one out of your rectum?

You have all the answers. Your answers are so precise and accurate all the time. It is amazing.

How about answering one of my questions; just one:

What determines the rate of increase in lift vector acceleration capability as forward vector velocity increases?

P.S. You never admitted to being wrong about the wing sweep. How about now?

I won?t hold my breath.

P.P.S. Please go on a point out what I?ve written that is wrong.

But look you already have!


No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.
In your mind and in your buddy?s minds you have schooled me. Isn?t that nice?

As far as you guys are concerned - if you say it often enough the Mig-15 will grow a greater wing sweep and the gravity vector goes in any direction your mind can bend it.

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2007, 09:49 PM
High school physics?

Hasn't anyone else rolled the balls down the inclines or messed with pendulums or what?
I understand that they slashed education in 1980 but the basics should be hands on and
measure things yourself.

To anyone who just can't roll a ball or an old car down a gradual slope; the less angle
to the slope, the slower it goes. A rise of 1 for a run of 10 takes 10x as long as the
ball does to fall. Galileo did measure the relation. Using ramps slows the effects down
and makes them easier to measure.

Learn while doing. Anyone good at science has done a lot more than just read. Physics
is done through observations of the world, not by reading about it. That's why some oaf
that can't bother wants to blow off the training of very good people is I find an insult
to this place as well as those people who are btw interested in sharing with us and working
to help us better understand somethings real, perhaps anything real, that is their attitude.

You know this place has a rep that does repel others I know from doing the same?

How long did it take similar people before Oleg changed his posting habits?

JG14_Josf
01-14-2007, 09:55 PM
In a nutshell, guys, he?s offered to leave if asked. Max asked and he?s still here. He?s therefore not here to discuss or share information or improve his learning or help ours. On the contrary, he is just a tedious, didactic, repetitious troll.

He is not worth the effort. Don?t feed the troll!

The WORD:

Hypocrite (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypocrite)


1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


If I am not worth the effort then shut up.

I will stop posting in this thread if asked. Maxipad asked me to stop posting but didn?t answer my question concerning his desires. Someone else asked me to stop posting in this thread and I did stop. I then started a thread that was closed by the moderators; asking if anyone wanted me to continue posting. You can't please everyone. Then that person edited his request. If the moderator asks me to stop posting on this forum, as Faustnik did on his forum, then I?ll stop. The moderator doesn?t have to ask.

Incidentally I warned Faustnik concerning my participation on his board before I ever posted on his board. He welcomed me.

Incidentally the moderator on this forum advised me to grow thick skin. I did.

I?m dishing it out as I get it. It?s fun, stupid, but fun.

If the topic is worth discussing rather than doing laundry, then, one might think that a post or two from the peanut gallery would address the topic - might one think so?

To those who read and follow my writing because they can or because they want to or because whatever reason they do so:

Isn?t it nice to have your protectors working so diligently to save you from me?

What a JOKE!

This is reality:


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

This is the game:


3. When we pulled out of the dive the spit V was able to close the range. My pull out was at about 30-40?. So it is not possible to zoom away because the 190 is very quickly slowed down in the zoom and that's why the spit can catch the 190 with ease. Only very shallow angles are possible to escape

No hidden agenda.

Just the facts ? ma?am

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2007, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.

Hop,

If acceleration from gravity is vertical at 9.8 m/s^2, then, the object only accelerates straight down at 9.8 m/s^2.

If an additional accelerating force is applied by something some how, then, that additional force adds acceleration to the object.

If another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down, then, another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down.

The question was, assuming no friction, will the object falling vertically reach the ground at the same time as the object traveling down an inclined plane.

Your ?NO? response and then your answer has no relevance to what I wrote as if you didn?t even read the question or statement seeking clarification.

If gravity accelerates anything at all it accelerates on a specific vector and gravity does not force anything on any other vector. The gravity vector is what is called down. It is a vector that points toward the center of mass.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A ball rolling down a ramp even with zero friction is not accelerating straight down.
It is accelerating in the direction of the ramp and the mass of that ball must be
accelerated ACROSS the direction of gravity for every bit it is accelerated DOWN.

THE BALL ACCELERATES SLOWER WHEN ROLLING DOWN A SLOPE IN PROPORTION WITH THE SLOPE.

That is with very hard balls massive enough to not be slowed even 1% by air nor rolling
friction which is much less than static or sliding friction. Almost no friction, very
low, the ball accelerates slower. Gravity must accelerate the mass of the ball OUTWARD
as well as DOWNWARD. It slows the ball. Go try, it is real. Or tell me that I read
too much! LOL! Go ahead, push your car up a slight tilted parking lot and see if you
can't that way lift the car, the whole car, so many feet up. Or anything else you can
roll or slide up or down hill... some kid grew up tied to a post or just dumb as one?

JtD
01-14-2007, 10:33 PM
Have you ever considered that this forum is some sort of portal to another universe where Josfs physics are actually right? This way he could have inertia help turning or inclined planes solving world energy crisis. Probably the sky is pink and the sun revolves around the earth. But hey, this would explain a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2007, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
In the spirit of long post...here are thoughts on modern day turning to win. I gotta believe the same was tought at flight school 60+ years ago...pop a beer and some popcorn. Should a turn be shortest, or quickest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



The Physics of Winning
What Reno air race winners know that losers don?t.


Thanks man! That was beautiful! It's just what I have been shown by pilots including former
fighter pilots since 1998 when I started online. Shadow had me flying around with two fingers
holding the stick only (cheap Logi 3D) and we got moving faster than I could before and we
stayed that way. That was back in the IL2 demo when I was trying to recover from a run of
operations, 5 in 7 months. I hadn't played flight sims for months so I had to get good
habits back and not spend E when I don't have to.

Speed is Life. Especially when your lowspeed turn rate is sluggish. I'd rather have good
speed and be lower than poor speed and be higher. Every time.

If I'm good with my tactics then the question of a few seconds in a 360 flat turn never
enters into my concern for real factors. Add a wingmate to pick up the ones that turn inside
and slashing attacks with minimal deflection work a charm. That is how planes like FW's
fight best, and that article describes how to fly that. The hard maneuver should be as
short a period as possible.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-15-2007, 01:25 AM
Okey I did some tests, and i could sustain 6G in dive turn with FW190A8 at about 540km/h without shaking plane, no combat claps, dive angle about 20 degrees. I did the same with Spitfire MKIX and i could keep 6G maneuver at about 400km/h with dive angle 5-10 degrees. Ofcourse, on higher speeds it can do the same. So if the spitfire can do 6G turn at 400km/h, and FW190A8 at 540km/h, spitfire will get opportuninty for shot, right? Cause his turning as hard as me (6G means some amount of degrees per second, right?), but his turning cycle is much lower. So whats wrong? Is anything wrong, or it is as it should be? If im right, its disadvantage for a pilot to have a lower speed, at which he can get max G. Cause even if he looses energy faster at higher speeds, he doesnt have to fly as fast as me, cause he just need 450km/h to defeat my turn.

Edit1: I did some second test, this time I was shaking FW190 as hell, 50% fuel(instead of 100%), combat flaps, and I could get 6G at 420km/h. While shaking spitfire I did such a turn at 360km/h. As far as I know, shaking is a stall warning, but why FW190 start to shake at such high speed like 500km/h, while its shaking at 400km/h, while doing 6G turn?
Maybe game FW190 simply gives too much warning to pilot, and thats why ppl think its not turning well enough?
Game Version - 4.071m.

Codex1971
01-15-2007, 02:59 AM
That is a great article Slipball http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/OnlineSig.jpg
http://www.deysquad.com/

Ratsack
01-15-2007, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.

Hop,

If acceleration from gravity is vertical at 9.8 m/s^2, then, the object only accelerates straight down at 9.8 m/s^2.

If an additional accelerating force is applied by something some how, then, that additional force adds acceleration to the object.

If another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down, then, another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down.

The question was, assuming no friction, will the object falling vertically reach the ground at the same time as the object traveling down an inclined plane.

Your ?NO? response and then your answer has no relevance to what I wrote as if you didn?t even read the question or statement seeking clarification.

If gravity accelerates anything at all it accelerates on a specific vector and gravity does not force anything on any other vector. The gravity vector is what is called down. It is a vector that points toward the center of mass.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A ball rolling down a ramp even with zero friction is not accelerating straight down.
It is accelerating in the direction of the ramp and the mass of that ball must be
accelerated ACROSS the direction of gravity for every bit it is accelerated DOWN.

THE BALL ACCELERATES SLOWER WHEN ROLLING DOWN A SLOPE IN PROPORTION WITH THE SLOPE.

That is with very hard balls massive enough to not be slowed even 1% by air nor rolling
friction which is much less than static or sliding friction. Almost no friction, very
low, the ball accelerates slower. Gravity must accelerate the mass of the ball OUTWARD
as well as DOWNWARD. It slows the ball. Go try, it is real. Or tell me that I read
too much! LOL! Go ahead, push your car up a slight tilted parking lot and see if you
can't that way lift the car, the whole car, so many feet up. Or anything else you can
roll or slide up or down hill... some kid grew up tied to a post or just dumb as one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, mate, it?s worse than that. If we?re talking about a body rolling down a slope, there?s all that nasty business about rotating solids: angular momentum and torque. They rather complicate matters to the extent they get horrible quite quickly.

To get close to a sufficiently simple model for our long-winded correspondent?s example, we need to replace the ball with a frictionless sliding object. In this way we do away with the incidental complications associated with rolling.

This is typical of his misunderstandings. In his arrogant ignorance, he dismisses the learning of those who?ve had to study the subjects under discussion, and substitutes his own dim half-light, never understanding or being aware of a fraction of the complications and other factors impinging on things he likes to imagine constitute an argument. It?s a breath-taking conceit.

His aggressively innumerate and non-scientific approach is offensive, I know, but the ignoramus is not going to change his tune on this board: or others, for that matter. He only here to argue. Evidence his constant repetition of the same discredited ?arguments?, and the same quotes, and the same screen captures and graphs. He doesn?t have anything to add to his assertion that the Fw190 is not right in the game.

?Well, strike a lite, d?ja think so? Yew must be clevuh.?

There is nothing else to his verbiage so he?s obviously just enjoying the argument. That?s a troll, isn?t it? He may not even realize that?s all he is, but as I said earlier, troll is as troll does.

Why bother?

cheers,
Ratsack

tigertalon
01-15-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. If you accelerate at 9.8 m/s, after 1 sec you will have travelled 4.9 m. It doesn't matter in which direction. If you are flying down at an angle, and the distance is greater, you will take longer to reach the ground.

Hop,

If acceleration from gravity is vertical at 9.8 m/s^2, then, the object only accelerates straight down at 9.8 m/s^2.

If an additional accelerating force is applied by something some how, then, that additional force adds acceleration to the object.

If another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down, then, another force, such as friction, forces the object to slow down.

The question was, assuming no friction, will the object falling vertically reach the ground at the same time as the object traveling down an inclined plane.

Your ?NO? response and then your answer has no relevance to what I wrote as if you didn?t even read the question or statement seeking clarification.

If gravity accelerates anything at all it accelerates on a specific vector and gravity does not force anything on any other vector. The gravity vector is what is called down. It is a vector that points toward the center of mass.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A ball rolling down a ramp even with zero friction is not accelerating straight down.
It is accelerating in the direction of the ramp and the mass of that ball must be
accelerated ACROSS the direction of gravity for every bit it is accelerated DOWN.

THE BALL ACCELERATES SLOWER WHEN ROLLING DOWN A SLOPE IN PROPORTION WITH THE SLOPE.

That is with very hard balls massive enough to not be slowed even 1% by air nor rolling
friction which is much less than static or sliding friction. Almost no friction, very
low, the ball accelerates slower. Gravity must accelerate the mass of the ball OUTWARD
as well as DOWNWARD. It slows the ball. Go try, it is real. Or tell me that I read
too much! LOL! Go ahead, push your car up a slight tilted parking lot and see if you
can't that way lift the car, the whole car, so many feet up. Or anything else you can
roll or slide up or down hill... some kid grew up tied to a post or just dumb as one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, mate, it?s worse than that. If we?re talking about a body rolling down a slope, there?s all that nasty business about rotating solids: angular momentum and torque. They rather complicate matters to the extent they get horrible quite quickly.

To get close to a sufficiently simple model for our long-winded correspondent?s example, we need to replace the ball with a frictionless sliding object. In this way we do away with the incidental complications associated with rolling.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acceleration down the slope is constant (but not the same) in a all cases: free fall, free slide at a constant slope, or rolling at a constant slope. Rolling does nothing more than just reduces the 'slide' acceleration by factor which is not dependable on the slope and equals: sqrt[5/7] (for a ball).

However, I *think* Josf wanted to say another thing:

Object in a free fall and object sliding down the slope at whatever angle you want, will reach same speed when their height will reduce for same amount (neglecting of course any kind of friction). That's true - but the sliding one will reach is much later. Rolling object however, will be considerably slower at the same point, as some of initial potential energy had converted into a rotational kinetic one (and not only into translational one). The ratio between the two will again be sqrt[5/7].<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany.

hop2002
01-15-2007, 06:05 AM
I know, Hop, that there is the issue of making sure his nonsensical gibberish is pointed out for what it is, lest some people take him seriously. However, so many reputable and serious members of this community have now demonstrated the errors, misinterpretations and distortions in his propositions, that it can only be a very small number of people who could take him seriously. It is so clear that Josf doesn?t know what he?s talking about, I don?t think there?s the faintest chance that Oleg or anybody else in his team with a science education would pay him the slightest attention.

Regarding those who do think he?s got a point (??!!), I?d suggest a large proportion profess that position only because it suits their agenda. A fair few of the rest are probably so baffled by his abstruse and rhetorical style that they?re too embarrassed to admit they can?t make head or tail of his maundering.

I was shocked by how many people chipped in and said they thought Josf was right earlier in this thread. Those people deserve to see just how wrong he is.


The question was, assuming no friction, will the object falling vertically reach the ground at the same time as the object traveling down an inclined plane.

The answer is still no.


Or don?t look at it and remain ignorant all your life; I could care less

It's couldn't care less. If you could care less, then by definition you do care.


If the glider glides at a 45 degree angle and gravity accelerates the glider at 9.8 m/s^2 and there is no force slowing down the glider, then, that glider will reach the ground at the same time as a stone falling straight down. True or false

False. Just like the first time you asked.

If you travel a greater distance at the same acceleration, it takes longer to get there. It's as simple as that.


What? What has this to do with the world?s power crisis? If there is friction and the object slows down, then, the object slows down. If there is no friction, then, the object doesn?t slow down. What is the net acceleration of the object on the ramp (assuming no friction)? Do you contend that the net acceleration of the object (assuming no friction) is 9.8 m/s^2 and therefore less than 9.8 m/s^2 on the gravity vector?

No.

Any object on the surface of the earth is subject to an acceleration of 9.8 m/s from gravity.



Your divergence into the world crisis is somewhat misdirected.

No, it's an attempt to show you the absurdity of your position.



Ahhhh the master reveals the answer and I suppose that lift can generate 9 times the acceleration of gravity at any speed as if this magical lift stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with inertia.

No, if you attempt to do so at lower speeds you stall.



In a way it is true ? kind of and sort of? What happened to lift? If the force that slows the object down is friction, then, the energy becomes heat. If there is no heat then the force that slows the plane down is not friction. If the force that slows the plane down is contact with air mass, then, the air mass is moved by the energy transferred from the plane. If that movement of air mass is TRUST downward, then, an equal opposite movement will occur to the wing ? no?

No. In the real world a wing is not 100% efficient at generating lift.


Which way does the air mass move HOP? Which way does the plane move in reaction to the air movement? Does the magic lift stuff suck the energy out of the plane? Does the air heat up and suck the energy out of the plane?

Yes, the magic lift sucks the energy out of the plane.

If you turn, you move air, right? it takes energy to move air, where does the energy come from? And if you've used energy to move air, do you think you still have the energy you used?


How much ENERGY BLEED is lost to friction?

How much ENERGY BLEED is lost in thrusting air mass downward?

How much ENERGY BLEED is lost in thrusting air mass opposite the planes velocity vector?

the answer to all those is SOME. Exactly how much is a very difficult thing to answer. The closer you want to come to an exact answer, the more effort you have to put in.


Why can an F-86 generate 7 g at .5 mach while the Mig-15 can only generate 6 g at .5 mach?

Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps the Mig suffers from more wing twist, or buffeting, or any number of problems that cause its lift to drop off at higher g and speed.

In the real world things are not 100% efficient, and not subject to the very simple answers you seem to want.


If your answer is power-loading or wing-loading, then, SURPRISE, your wrong, the F-86 was lower in power-loading and higher in wing-loading but guess what my friend that won?t answer the question, the F-86 is at a much higher energy state than the Mig-15 at .05 Mach therefore the F-86 has that kind of ? sort of inertial stuff in an abundant supply. It can force lots of air mass downward relative to the same exact sweep on the wings.

For anyone reading, we are back again to Josf's central claim, that increasing weight helps you turn. He's gone so far in the past as to claim the space shuttle would be a superb turner because it's so heavy.

What the energy diagramme for the F-86 shows is that the F-86 has a lower stall speed at higher G. That's nothing to do with inertia, it's due to the F-86 being able to generate more lift. The reason why is down to design features.


Have you ever considered that this forum is some sort of portal to another universe where Josfs physics are actually right? This way he could have inertia help turning or inclined planes solving world energy crisis. Probably the sky is pink and the sun revolves around the earth. But hey, this would explain a lot.

I've often thought that about Isegrim as well, because everything in his world seems to be an almost mirror image to ours.

JG14_Josf
01-15-2007, 07:34 AM
QMHQ_Rikimaru,

Thanks for the interest and I think you may be in for a surprise.

If I can take your words and quote them to express what I find to be wrong concerning your thinking, then, PLEASE correct me if I have interpreted your words incorrectly.

I assume that I read your words correctly.


So if the spitfire can do 6G turn at 400km/h, and FW190A8 at 540km/h, spitfire will get opportuninty for shot, right? Cause his turning as hard as me (6G means some amount of degrees per second, right?), but his turning cycle is much lower.

First; the Spitfire will get the opportunity for a shot.

Second; the Spitfire is not turning the same degrees per second. The only way both planes will turn the same degrees per second is if both planes are accelerating 6g at the same speed.

Third; the turning cycle or circle will also be the same radius for both planes if both planes are accelerating 6g (on the lift vector) and traveling 400 km/h (on the velocity vector). If one plane is faster then turn rate is less degrees per second and turn radius is a larger circle when both plans are accelerating at 6 g.

If you did, in fact, pilot those planes (simulated) at the highest g possible and minimize the air speed, then, you have found corner speed for those planes. If you can, in fact, pilot those planes at the same 6 g at a slower speed, then, you have not found corner speed yet.

Your first results:

-------------------Corner Speed (6 g)
Fw190A8 ------------540 km/h
Spitfire ---------------400 km/h

I can make up a turn performance plot for your flight data.

It would be something like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

That is an example of some tests I did to plot the 1 g clean accelerated stall on the bottom line and the 6 g accelerated stall at the 6 g line. My results for the Fw 190 were a little slower than yours as was my results for the Spitfire. You may not have used the Spitfire VB (1941) and we are using different versions of the game.

The chart plots the turn rate and the turn radius automatically.

Your Fw 190A-8 540 km/h test at 6g (must be a grey screen not black) places your simulated turn at 22 deg per second and just under a 400 meter radius turn.

Your Spitfire 400 km/h test at 6g (must be almost blacked out) plots to 30 degrees per second and about 220 meters radius.

So for those tests you can turn the Spitfire 8 degrees per second faster than you can turn the Fw190A-8 and your Spitfire turn radius is 180 meters (almost half) smaller.

-------------------Corner Speed (6 g)----turn rate-----turn radius
Fw190A8 ------------540 km/h---------22 d/s--------400 meters
Spitfire ---------------400 km/h---------30 d/s--------220 meters
Difference------------140 km/h----------8 d/s---------180 meters in favor of Spitfire

The Spitfire has a much lower corner velocity.

According to those results the lighter Spitfire has a very steep accelerated stall line compared to the Fw190A-8. That is backwards compared to the F-86 and Mig-15 corner speed tests where the lighter Mig-15 has the higher corner speed.

The more practice you get the slower your speed will be at 6 g and therefore your practice will earn you the ability to turn faster turn rates and tighter turns; consistently.

Plotting your next tests:

-------------------Corner Speed (6 g)----turn rate-----turn radius
Fw190A8 ------------420 km/h---------28 d/s--------240 meters
Spitfire ---------------360 km/h---------32 d/s--------180 meters
Difference-------------60 km/h-----------4 d/s----------60 meters F/S

You have improved upon your disadvantage with the Fw190A-8 compared to your Spitfire. No longer are you 8 degrees per second slower. Now you are 4 degrees per second slower. That is a big improvement. Your Fw turn radius is 60 meters larger instead of 180 meters larger than your Spitfire turn circle radius at 6 g (almost blacking out).

As to the shaking:

If you practice the turns more and note during practice how much altitude you give up during these tests, then, you may notice that using the flaps to get the same 6 g at lower speeds requires more altitude loss.

When I do these tests it takes awhile to get from 5,000 meters to ground level. When I?m doing the tests very well, as if the plane is on rails, going 6 g in the grey out all the way down, then, it takes a consistent amount of time to get from 5,000 meters to ground level.

You can check the game clock and record the tests with track files.

Again; this practice is not wasted effort.

Who loves ya? baby?

JG14_Josf
01-15-2007, 07:52 AM
Object in a free fall and object sliding down the slope at whatever angle you want, will reach same speed when their height will reduce for same amount (neglecting of course any kind of friction). That's true - but the sliding one will reach is much later. Rolling object however, will be considerably slower at the same point, as some of initial potential energy had converted into a rotational kinetic one (and not only into translational one). The ratio between the two will again be sqrt[5/7].

Tigertalon,

Thanks for saving me from the gang rape ?

I can be overly graphic. My long time wingman from Brazil, JG14_Hertt, warms me at times that I make hurricanes out of glasses of water.

To be accurate:

I tried to express my thinking freely at the time concerning the nature of forces acting upon an object on an inclined plane. To which my thoughts are now being redefined as concrete beliefs. That is a shame in my view. Oh well.

Did anyone look at the gravity train?

Suppose a frictionless road existed between your house and the liquor store 1 mile away. The lowest point of the straight and level road is half a mile from your house. The altitude at each end is, perhaps, one inch, perhaps less.

You place 3 dollars and fifty cents on the frictionless road and give it a little push, then, wait.

Some time later a 6 pack arrives at your house and falls off the end of the road into a cooler filled with ice.

Have one on me.

Thanks.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-15-2007, 08:31 AM
Yes Josf, u understood me right. The thing is that I never thought that when I turn so hard that I shake my plane, it gives me a better turn rate, than turn just before it starts to shake. I just had feeling that when shaking starts, im loosing much more energy than without it. About flaps, I use them very often, all the time when im turning below 350km/h so i conserve energy, because of lower AoA I guess, sometimes above 500km/h if I want to turn really hard, like for a turn that prepares me for a barrel roll. TBH, I play this game for a 2 years or more and i consider myself as a good pilot, just so u know.
About zooming out from the dive, the thing is, that when u pull out from the dive, and lets say pull 4G, then in rl u pull 3G, but with energy cost just like 4G, thats why its important to not pull to much during pull out. I dont think that rl FW190s were pulling out steeply, just a slight zoom.
The thing that is wrong in game IMHO is that we cannot outzoom Spitfire's IX, while its kinda easy to do that with Spitfire V, just climb with 400km/h+. To outclimb Spitfire IX u need to be climbing like 520-540km/h, and thats impossible for me to sustain, even with trim. Also spitfire's are rolling much too fast, cause computer pilots dont have to push a very heavy stick to the side.
Anton in game has **** initial acceleration, because Oleg moddeled kommandogerat wrong way, so under 350km/h or something it cannot set pitch properly.

JG14_Josf
01-15-2007, 08:44 AM
It's couldn't care less. If you could care less, then by definition you do care.

Hop,

If I wanted someone to rewrite words for me, then, I would hire an editor. I can care less. I could care less. I can even feel weight less. You can do as you please. I could care less; still.

Should I check with you before posting this?


If you travel a greater distance at the same acceleration, it takes longer to get there. It's as simple as that.

Thanks for the further ?schooling? on how I should solve my questions. The link I provided works for me better than your ?lessons?. I am currently working on the concept of normal force. The net acceleration is affected by normal force. Are we thinking about the same thing? I can?t tell from your words but I?m going to refrain from editing your words for you; I?ve seen how stupid that is; thanks.


No, it's an attempt to show you the absurdity of your position.

If you knew my position, then, you could show my something about it. Apparently you have no clue.


No, if you attempt to do so at lower speeds you stall.

And therefore velocity is one determining factor in converting forward vector velocity into lift vector acceleration. Lift isn?t the magic stuff.


No. In the real world a wing is not 100% efficient at generating lift.

Here is another Hopism. I post a statement/question and the Hopism answers the statement question with the word No followed by a statement which, apparently, intends to correct my error.

Get that? My statement/question intends to ask a question. In other words my statement/question is a hypothesis. The idea is to improve upon the hypothesis and make it more accurate. The No answer is a refutation of they hypothesis no? Is the No answer an acknowledgment of the hypothesis?

Here is what is claimed to be wrong as Hop responds with NO:


In a way it is true ? kind of and sort of? What happened to lift? If the force that slows the object down is friction, then, the energy becomes heat. If there is no heat then the force that slows the plane down is not friction. If the force that slows the plane down is contact with air mass, then, the air mass is moved by the energy transferred from the plane. If that movement of air mass is TRUST downward, then, an equal opposite movement will occur to the wing ? no?

What exactly is NO about that statement/question/hypothesis/thought process/communication?

The Hopism again:


No. In the real world a wing is not 100% efficient at generating lift.

Who wrote, or thought, or said, or indicated, that a wing is 100% efficient at generating lift?

Answer:

The Straw-Man created by Hop?s Hopism.

Where can this Straw-Man who thinks that a wing is 100% efficient at generating lift be found?

Look up

Look down

Look left

Look right

Look back

There is no one. No one on the planet except:

TADA

Hop?s Straw-Man

Hop:

Yes, the magic lift sucks the energy out of the plane.

If you turn, you move air, right? it takes energy to move air, where does the energy come from? And if you've used energy to move air, do you think you still have the energy you used?

Is that more of Hop?s Straw-Man argument (that he is so able to win)? How about looking back at the words quoted before the Straw-Man response
I wrote:


Which way does the air mass move HOP? Which way does the plane move in reaction to the air movement? Does the magic lift stuff suck the energy out of the plane? Does the air heat up and suck the energy out of the plane?

Hop?s straw man:


Do you think you still have the energy you used?

Who on this earth thinks that energy, one gone, remains?

Who would be so stupid as to think something that absurd?

Why even ask that question?

Answer:

It creates a Straw-Man and given enough time the creator of the Straw-Man will actually believe that his creation is real.

This is a classic Hopism:


the answer to all those is SOME. Exactly how much is a very difficult thing to answer. The closer you want to come to an exact answer, the more effort you have to put in.

The precise answer is:

TADA

SOME

WTG Hop I?ve been ?schooled? once again.

Get all your buddies in a circle and high five each other with your free hand.

Now we move onto the real focus of my concern. I asked:


Why can an F-86 generate 7 g at .5 mach while the Mig-15 can only generate 6 g at .5 mach?

Hop responds:


Could be any number of reasons. Perhaps the Mig suffers from more wing twist, or buffeting, or any number of problems that cause its lift to drop off at higher g and speed.

In the real world things are not 100% efficient, and not subject to the very simple answers you seem to want.

Is that an answer? Some day soon the Mig-15 and the F-86 will be modeled. There is a documented corner speed for those two planes. This question will return at that time. Or not; I?m patient.

Hop redefines my thoughts for me; thanks:


For anyone reading, we are back again to Josf's central claim, that increasing weight helps you turn. He's gone so far in the past as to claim the space shuttle would be a superb turner because it's so heavy.

What the energy diagramme for the F-86 shows is that the F-86 has a lower stall speed at higher G. That's nothing to do with inertia, it's due to the F-86 being able to generate more lift. The reason why is down to design features.

The space shuttle has a corner speed. What is that corner speed?

For Hop or anyone to rewrite my thoughts on why one plane has a steep accelerated stall line and another plane has a shallow accelerated stall line into a two sentence accusation of stupidity is an obvious ploy to create a Straw-Man.

This is a product of my thoughts concerning the space shuttle?s accelerated stall line compared to a competition sail plane:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Space%20Shuttle.jpg

The real Space shuttle has a 1 g accelerated stall speed and a corner velocity or Va. Those factual flight data plots can go on an EM chart; this is a fact.

A real competition Sail Plane has a 1 g accelerated stall speed and a corner velocity or Va and those data plots can go on an EM chart.

A life sized Styrofoam model of a Space Shuttle is not real but one might wonder what the accelerated stall line would look like, or, one would rather spend one?s time criticizing thoughts that are foreign.

Here are two obviously different accelerated stall lines:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

The low wing-loaded and high power-loaded Mig-15 Fighter Plane has the shallower accelerated stall line. The high wing-loaded and low power-loaded F-86 Fighter Plane has the steep accelerated stall line.

Here is a game data plot:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

The low wing-loaded and low power-loaded Spitfire VB (1941) has the much steeper accelerated stall line. The high wing-loaded and high power loaded Fw190A-8 has the much shallower accelerated stall line.

If someone wanted to discredit me, then, one would think that they could answer my question:

What determines increases in lift vector acceleration capabilities as forward vector velocity increases?

In other words: Why do some planes have steep accelerated stall lines while other planes have shallow accelerated stall lines.

Once the answer is provided and therefore once I am sufficiently discredited with facts, then, I?ll be very happy.


I've often thought that about Isegrim as well, because everything in his world seems to be an almost mirror image to ours.

What? (like Dave Chapel imitating lil Richard)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
01-15-2007, 09:29 AM
Josf,

I am sorry I misunderstood what you wrote, but its so damn hard for me to get exactly what point you are trying to make.

I must admit, I have only been skimming over your recent essays in this thread, so its very likely I missed the point you were trying to make.

Can you perhaps condense the point into a few sentences so that we 'peanut heads' who dont understand your posts (possibly 95% of the forum) can stay in the discussion?

I thought you were still talking about 'Why should the FW190 bleed more energy in a very tight turn than a Spitfire.' - is this wrong?

PLEASE - Just for me - A few sentences, no more, summarising the point you are trying to make, imagine a title for your essay for instance?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

JG14_Josf
01-15-2007, 09:56 AM
CMHQ_Rickimaru,

Whenever anyone expresses an interest in discussing tactics my idea is to try to communicate Shaw?s Sustained Turn Technique. If you want to continue tactics discussion then I?m game; we can move to a new topic or stay here; I could care less.

Were you surprised to see the results of your tests on EM paper?

I do not agree with this:


About zooming out from the dive, the thing is, that when u pull out from the dive, and lets say pull 4G, then in rl u pull 3G, but with energy cost just like 4G, thats why its important to not pull to much during pull out. I dont think that rl FW190s were pulling out steeply, just a slight zoom.


In order to explain why I don?t agree with that it is necessary to talk about tactics and specifically vertical maneuvering tactics.

I can do that but you may be poisoned by my words. Are you scared?

Seriously there is a tactic that works in the game where going straight up is desired and the less time spent on anything but straight up the better.

I?m also going to contend with some of this:


The thing that is wrong in game IMHO is that we cannot outzoom Spitfire's IX, while its kinda easy to do that with Spitfire V, just climb with 400km/h+. To outclimb Spitfire IX u need to be climbing like 520-540km/h, and thats impossible for me to sustain, even with trim. Also spitfire's are rolling much too fast, cause computer pilots dont have to push a very heavy stick to the side.
Anton in game has **** initial acceleration, because Oleg moddeled kommandogerat wrong way, so under 350km/h or something it cannot set pitch properly.

I don?t contend with the roll acceleration or the forward vector acceleration errors in the game. It is clearly an error in the game to model the Spitfire with anything but a significant acceleration disadvantage (for the Fw190A-4 vs. Spitfire VB 1941).

I?m contending with the zoom comment. I think your idea concerning what is a zoom is not the same zoom that I know and use in the game or the zoom that is described in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.

If the Fw190A-3 is flying at high cruising speed next to a Spitfire VB (June 1942), for example, a change of heading at maximum turn performance from horizontal to vertical flight is a ZOOM IMO.

That is:

1. Two planes side by side in level flight well above corner seed; say 600 km/h
2. Both pilots yank back on the stick and pitch the nose straight up.

That is a zoom climb to me.

During the change of direction from the level flight heading to the straight up heading is a maximum performance turn. The idea is to get going straight up as fast as possible and then unload as much drag as possible; to make the plane fly straight up like an arrow.

The plane that stalls first is the plane with the Zoom climb disadvantage.

After you have conducted your Loaded Decelerations and after you have tested for corner speed it should be very clear that the Spitfire will Zoom climb better because it will turn from level flight to the zoom climb much quicker. The Spitfire is much more agile at high speed than the Fw190A-8 ? in the game.

What happens after both planes turn and unload into a straight up, arrow straight, climb to the highest possible altitude remains to be tested for the new patch; which plane does gain more altitude?

The turning part of the Zoom is already documented as far as you are concerned no? The Spitfire has a 4 deg per second advantage (and, of course, a smaller radius).

If you want to know more of what I think about tactical employment of the Zoom then I will write so long as I care to and so long as I can continue to put up with the abuse.

He he http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for the response.

JG14_Josf
01-15-2007, 10:13 AM
I thought you were still talking about 'Why should the FW190 bleed more energy in a very tight turn than a Spitfire.' - is this wrong?

PLEASE - Just for me - A few sentences, no more, summarising the point you are trying to make, imagine a title for your essay for instance?

ubi.com Forums 1C:Maddox Games General Discussion FW 190 performance sucks...

ESSAY

Finding Agreement

When two people have a common interest, then, two people will find a way to find agreement. When two people do not have a common interest then two people will find a way to argue. When two people have an interest in finding agreement, then, they don't dictate what the other must think.

slipBall
01-15-2007, 10:25 AM
josf
I can see where knowing your aircraft's corner speed may be handy at times. But I try to fly
as they would in air racing. It just stands to reason, that you would want to make the quickest turn possible.
Not the smallest radious turn, pulling higher G's,<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-15-2007, 10:27 AM
It would be best if u could msg me via pager on HL, and gimmme ur msn or something. Ubi forum is really anoying today, and really tiring. On hl im the same name like here - CMHQ_Rikimaru.

JtD
01-15-2007, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

The low wing-loaded and high power-loaded Mig-15 Fighter Plane has the shallower accelerated stall line. The high wing-loaded and low power-loaded F-86 Fighter Plane has the steep accelerated stall line.

Since you keep repeating this all the time: How much lower is the MiG's wing loading? Or better, what is the F-86F's wing area, what's its weight and what is the corresponding data for the MiG-15? Thank you.

JtD
01-16-2007, 01:57 PM
Yak-1b and Yak-9 are slower than the A-4 even if flown on manual pitch. The Yak-3 is a mid 44 plane, the A-5 an early 43 plane. I don't think that qualifies as contemporary.

If running straight E retention just doesn't matter much.

Overheat properties for the Fw and Yak are pretty close, it will mostly depend on who had the cooler engine at the beginning.

The ShVAK is about the weakest 20mm cannon in game, maybe the Japanese have something worse.

Next time I, flying a Fw, engage a Yak co alt and it gets me, I'll tell you. Don't think this has happened within the last two years or so.

Brain32
01-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Any plane faster than yours is a danger, the La-5FN and 7 (plus the Yak-9u in some constellations) just happen to be the only Soviet planes capable of catching contemporary Fw on the deck. There is not much more to it.
This is so funny...no it's not funny it's actually ridiculous, La5FN,La7 and Yak9U, are not scary just because they can catch you, they are scary because they also outturn,outclimb and pretty much outeverything FW190A. I remember I saw someone somewhere saying that Blue pilots cry about LA5FN just because it's competitive with FW190 - LMAO, I did not know that competitive means completely superiour for Allied planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I can only guess that if someone in a SPitfire says that FW190's are easy meat then they havent been up against any decent 190 pilots. Spitfires are simply not such problem to a FW190 pilot who knows how to handle them.
That's true, in v407 more than ever, however the same is valid the other way around, that is if one knows how to handle a Spitfire, it seems not many can, ah well... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
While I indeed consider FW190A to be a great plane, praises one can read here are really too much, chill guys the Focke is really good, but it's not that good and it still lacks in some areas. There is no Allied 1944 fighter plane(apart from P38 with which I seriously suck) in which I would feel the need to specially respect the FW190A and I don't care who is behind the stick.
Now I know the bombastic thread title and Josefs posts made you worked up, but you guys are exaggerating a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
01-19-2007, 04:42 PM
http://forum.allsiemens.com/images/smiles/icon_blahblah.gif http://forum.allsiemens.com/images/smiles/icon_blahblah.gif http://forum.allsiemens.com/images/smiles/icon_blahblah.gif
http://www.sg.hu/forumkepek/2006_09/bump2.gif http://www.animesps.com/modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/diespam.gif

Please make this thread stop!! http://img90.exs.cx/img90/2365/k1ocray.gif

hop2002
01-19-2007, 06:49 PM
On an EM chart there are two plots that must be accurate and these two plots, when plotted, delineate the steepness of the accelerated stall line.

Actually they don't have to be accurate. They could be wrong. However, that's beside the point.


One plot is the physical deformation of the wing plot.

Not normally, no. it's usually either a limit chosen for the pilot's ability to withstand G, or a safe load factor for an aircraft.


If the aircraft weight increases, then, the 1 g stall plot moves to the right and it only moves to the right. It doesn?t go up or down. That plot moves to the right. I am relatively sure of this as a fact.

Yes.


If the aircraft weight increases, then, the physical deformation of the wing plot, according to what I am gathering from your words, also moves to the right.

No.

The G limit is not a point, it's a line. The corner speed is where the lift limit line (ie stall speed at a given G) intersects the g limit line.

In other words, it's the slowest speed at which you can pull maximum allowed G.


Have you helped me understand?

Obviously not.


I?m trying to nail down that physical deformation plot; so I?m going to ask more questions concerning that one plot. Not the pilot?s g load limit. The physical deformation plot where the lift boundary and the structural limit meet?

It's not a physical deformation plot, that's entirely your definition.

It's merely the point at which the lift limit and allowed G limit intesect (and note that the allowed G limit is rarely the point at which anything breaks, there's usually a large safety margin built in)


A. The lower weight corner speed plot is here
B. The higher weight corner speed plot is here

Do you understand my question?

I can't even see a question.

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2007, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
When Hop stated that increasing weight raises corner speed he was wrong ? I think.

He has it right and he has stated why very clearly.

-You can make calculations of force at weight and yet you cannot see that the wings generate
not G's but force?

-Divide the force of the lift by the weight of the plane and you get G's.

-If the wings are already at the critical AOA then the only way to increase lift force is by
going faster at least until you hit the point where you can't go faster.

-If the wings are not at critical AOA then perhaps that is because the plane is already at
the pilot or structural limit from force of lift divided by weight giving most G's ALLOWED.

-If you increase the weight of the plane then you need more lift force to make the same G's
in turning. With more weight it takes more lift force to make the same G's so get that
chart made at less weight out of your mind, it no longer applies. What was the speed at
which you could make 6 G's is with more weight the speed at which you make less G's. So
you have to either go faster or not be able to make the force needed to turn the NEW WEIGHT
at 6 G's. The speeds at the OLD WEIGHT no longer apply.



Increasing weight doesn?t raise corner speed when corner speed is determined by structural limitations.

Did you fail to notice?

I do not fail to notice that corner SPEED is NOT determined by structural limits.

I do know that these fighters can take much more than 6 G's, the limit is set by pilot.

The plane does not fall apart at 6.1 G's. Many could take 9 to 15 G's. The loads put on
them never doubled the weight.


Increasing weight does not raise corner speed because the lift production at corner speed (before the increased weight) is too much for the wing to handle before the increase in weight. The plane cannot go faster to reduce the lift force stressing the wing.

Then you are playing your own game and holding out on data just to play some stupid troll
point.

STATE the structural limit for the plane in POUNDS or KILOGRAMS since by changing weight you
change the meaning of G-force on that structure. Note that you have left general case far
behind and didn't let on till your game was played.

The 6 G limit is not structure at all but pilot. Adding weight to the plane does not make
the pilot unable to take less G's.



I?m not stating that increased weight lowers corner speed. That would be as bad as Hop stating that increasing weight lowers corner speed.

Who cares? He never said that and you might spout anything.


If, in the past, I did hypothesis that increased weight did lower corner speed, then, I was wrong ? I think.

What I said.


The increase in weight also increases the stall speed compared to the stall speed before the increased weight because the new weight requires more lift and therefore a higher angle of attack or more speed. Since the AOA is already at maximum at corner speed, then, the greater weight requires more speed to generate the lift required to lift the added weight.

Oh, you can finally say that? This some new idea of yours and not what others have said?


So, it seems, as Crumpp has been saying, I think, that corner speed is not determined by weight.

Not determined but certainly AFFECTED by it. Extra weight raises stall speed, period.


Corner speed is, apparently, determined by the wing?s ability to produce lift at a specific velocity.

If the wing can produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 400 km/h, then, the wing can produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 400 km/h.

And at 500 kph it might produce how much more lift?


Weight, as Crumpp has been trying to show, has nothing to do with the ability a wing has in producing lift ? or so I seem to be learning. Then again a wing with no mass at all can?t do anything.

That doesn't mean the plane has no weight. Lift is from the shape of the wing, the speed it
moves through the air and the angle of attack of the wing. Weight has nothing to do with it.
A solid ferroconcrete wing will be able produce the same lift as a light (by compare) metal
or wooden wing the same shape and size. Guess which one will be able to lift itself?


Let me get the relevant quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Weight has no effect on a turn except at the extreme edges where power available to power required comes into play.

Is that relevant or is that going back to the Sustained Level Steady State perspective? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice that he has not stated anything about speed there. Power available is ability to
make/sustain more speed so the bank and turn will be possible.


A wing that can produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 400 km/h is a wing that can produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 400 km/h. It can?t produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 399 km/h. It can produce more lift at 401 km/h.

If the wing distorts at 401 km/h because the wing is overloaded when the wing produces more than 60,000 pounds of lift, then, the plane?s corner speed is 400 km/h.

There are GA planes that have 3 G structural limits... a worn WWII fighter might be down to
8 or 9 G's. What is the fixation?

Have you found out yet that those E/M charts are only good at single altitudes? Speeds on
them are TAS and the air gets thinner with altitude. That is more important in combat turns
than this business of creating the impossible situation of 2x weight.


The change in weight doesn?t change the capacity of the wing to generate 60,000 pounds of lift at 400 km/h.

The wing will not produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 399 km/h. The wing isn?t big enough or efficient enough to produce 60,000 pounds of lift at 399 km/h.

Drop some flap.


The weight of the plane does change something and writing helps me figure out that something.

Charts help too.

If the weight of the plane is X and X is sufficient to distort the wing at more than 60,000 pounds at 401 km/h, then, lower weight will be insufficient to distort the wing at more than 60,000 pounds at 401 km/h. It will require a higher speed and more lift production to distort the wing. Corner speed will be the same. The load limit will increase.

You just fell on your face. If the wing distorts at more than 60000 lbs then lower weight
"at more than 60,000 pounds at 401 km/h" (your words) will still distort the wing. Just HOW
the lower weight gets that "more than 60,000 pounds" that YOU specify is moot but once you
specify "more than 60,000 pounds" you have given the effective accelerated weight and the
actual mass of the plane no longer matters -- by conditions you give!

The rest of it, that corner speed will be the same and load limit will increase is the usual
TOTAL FRIKKING NONSENSE you spout once you've given the matter enough loose thought to rattle
around to the new heading you seem to want. You think maybe aerodynamics is a sudoku puzzle
to rearrange as you please? Because that is what you just tried to do!


IF the weight of the plane is X and X is sufficient to stall the wing at 399 km/h because the wing can?t generate the required force at that speed, then, lower weight will be insufficient to stall the wing at 399 km/h. Corner speed will be the same. The load limit will increase.

Lowering the weight increases the load limit.

Behold, the invention of a new reality!
What a shame when you show earlier that you can do the simplest load calculations that you
don't bother keeping along that track. But that would not give the results you want.

The rest just gets worse. Much worse.

You have seen your path to proving the sim wrong by twisting real things into unreal things.

This is not a bad thing since if it takes your inane BS to show the sim is wrong then really
that is an argument that the sim is not so inaccurate at all.

So long, troll. Keep on showing that it takes a sim like CFS to make planes that fly like
YOU think they should.

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2007, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I am not so openly presumptuous. I don?t know it all.


Oh. Your other personality just keeps coming on and posting then.
It really messes with how people perceive you.

JG14_Josf
01-20-2007, 08:47 AM
I can't even see a question.

Hop,

That explains everything.

You are ignorant concerning the question I am asking.

It is a simple question but a question that is not easy to answer. I am pretty sure that I have the right answer.

Either you can't answer the question because you don't know the question or you dodge the question.

Let me remind the readers, even if it is only one, that Hop continuously fails to answer questions I ask. This is one obvious example.

My question that you can?t see was written in English and you even posted some of my suggested answers.

Where is the Va plot on an EM chart moved when weight is doubled and so far, as far as I can gather from Hop's words, the Va plot moves to the right when the plane weight increases.

Here is what Hop actually wrote:


And more importantly, doubling weight greatly increases stall speed, pushing the lift boundary to higher speeds.

I asked for clarification. The 1 g stall, as far as I know, moves to the right i.e. moves the lowest speed that the aircraft can fly at that altitude from the left on the bottom of the chart to the right on the bottom of the chart. The 1 g stall moves from a lower speed to a higher speed on the bottom of the chart; just like Hop says and I think Hop is right.

What about the other plot needed to illustrate the steepness of the stall line?

Hopism:

Actually they don't have to be accurate. They could be wrong. However, that's beside the point.

A Hopism is a question or statement that Hop picks out and quotes followed by a statement that Hop makes that misdirects the topic and often the Hopism is false like the above statement.

When the idea is to find something, then, there is a need for accuracy. This is basic. You can?t expect to find something while looking in all the wrong places on purpose. Its like not having your cake and not eating it too while proclaiming that you are looking for cake i.e. Hopism.

An accurate Va for the Fw190A-3. the Fw190A-8, Spitfire VB, and Spitfire IX would be nice to have if the numbers were accurate. If the numbers are not accurate, then, why go down that rabbit hole? Visit Hop?

Seriously Hop; you are welcome in any discussion where things have stalled out completely and a need exists to send the discussion back into turmoil. Thanks.

Like this wild *** falsehood:


I have answered them. You refuse to accept the answers.

If you answer a question with the answer to something not asked or a vague and misleading answer then I ask more questions.

One example:


In order:


Joe asks:
What determines the rate of increase in lift acceleration as forward vector velocity increases?

Hop answers.
The design of the wing and angle of attack.

A. Leading edge slats increase lift acceleration as forward vector velocity increases
B. Angle of Attack increases lift production up to a point.

Where is air speed? Is anything else left out?

The actual question has been and remains to be a leading question leading toward illustrating the steepness of the accelerated stall line. Why, for example, does the F-86 have a steep accelerated stall line and the Mig-15 have a shallow accelerated stall line when the F-86 is much heavier, lower in power loading, and as yet not confirmed ? higher in wing-loading?

A reasonable answer would confirm wing-loading no?

If I ask Hop: What is human perception?

He may answer:

Sight, sound, touch, taste, and feel.

My question was not answered. I can ask further questions seeking my answer without denying or accepting the insufficient answer or even the false answers.

The following is wrong:


I have answered them. You refuse to accept the answers.

Unless this is true:


Actually they don't have to be accurate. They could be wrong. However, that's beside the point.

I do not refuse to accept an accurate answer. That claim is inaccurate i.e. wrong.

The buzzer goes off ? GGGGHHHHHEEEENNNNNTTTTTT

Wrong answer

How about cutting all the theory out and simply get an accurate answer for these:

1 g accelerated stall for:

Fw190A-3
Fw190A-4
Fw190A-8
Spitfire VB (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (late)

And

Va or structural corner speed for:

Fw190A-3
Fw190A-4
Fw190A-8
Spitfire VB (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (late)

All those plots can go on a graph and lines can be drawn from 1g to Va.

Those lines would illustrate the accelerated stall line steepness and do so accurately so long as the data is accurate.

Then the players can gather their in-game plots and draw in game accelerated stall lines to see if history is accurately represented in the game. If not, then, the topic is verified as true. Just like this:

Historical reality:

In climbing, little difference as found between the Fw190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull up into the climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive, the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn ? the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds?

Game reality:


-------------------Corner Speed (6 g)----turn rate-----turn radius
Fw190A8 ------------540 km/h---------22 d/s--------400 meters
Spitfire ---------------400 km/h---------30 d/s--------220 meters
Difference------------140 km/h----------8 d/s---------180 meters in favor of Spitfire

-------------------Corner Speed (6 g)----turn rate-----turn radius
Fw190A8 ------------420 km/h---------28 d/s--------240 meters
Spitfire ---------------360 km/h---------32 d/s--------180 meters
Difference-------------60 km/h-----------4 d/s----------60 meters F/S

Like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

Pulling up from level flight at high cruising speed is a measure of turn performance. The pulling up part is turning. Pulling up from a dive is higher speed turn performance.

B0lloX
01-20-2007, 08:58 AM
...or there's just plain old pullin', which is what you're about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

B0llox<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

MALIM PRAEDARI

JG14_Josf
01-20-2007, 09:02 AM
Oh. Your other personality just keeps coming on and posting then.
It really messes with how people perceive you.

Maxi,

If an accurate number for the 1 g stall speed and Va can be calculated then an accurate accelerated stall line can be plotted on an EM chart.

If two planes can be plotted, accurately, then, something like this would result:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

Something like that would result; however ? that is a flight test and not a calculation so it is more accurate than the calculation.

Flight tests are used to prove or disprove the calculation like this:


In climbing, little difference as found between the Fw190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull up into the climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive, the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn ? the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds?

If you don?t like my on-topic posts, then, by all means continue to protect your flock.

hop2002
01-20-2007, 09:32 AM
Either you can't answer the question because you don't know the question or you dodge the question.


I'd like to know what the question is.

The problem with your writing Josf is that it's so deliberately convoluted it's almost impossible to keep track of. If you want answers to questions you ask, keep the question to a paragraph or two. If you don't want answers, carry on as you are.

I note even you have problems following what you are writing, because you frequently accuse me of misquoting or missunderstanding you, when in fact I have responded to exactly what you have written

I can do no more than respond to what you write. If what you write isn't a reflection of what you think you wrote, the error is yours, not mine.


I asked for clarification. The 1 g stall, as far as I know, moves to the right i.e. moves the lowest speed that the aircraft can fly at that altitude from the left on the bottom of the chart to the right on the bottom of the chart. The 1 g stall moves from a lower speed to a higher speed on the bottom of the chart; just like Hop says and I think Hop is right.

Then we are agreed on something. Before you continue, ask yourself why 1 G stall speed increases as weight increases.


What about the other plot needed to illustrate the steepness of the stall line?


The "other plot" is actually a series of plots. You need to measure stall speed at 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G, 7G, etc, all the way up to whatever limit you want to set. You could take even more frequent plots for greater accuracy, or less and use more interpolation if you are prepared to accept less accuracy.

Go back to the other question on why 1G stall speed increases as weight increases, and apply the theory to the 2G, 3G etc stall speeds. Will they increase, stay the same, or decrease?

There's only 1 correct answer, they will increase. If you come up with anything else, you need to go away and do some basic reading.


When the idea is to find something, then, there is a need for accuracy. This is basic.

Yes. But when looking at the results somebody else has found, there is no guarantee that they are accurate.


Joe asks:
What determines the rate of increase in lift acceleration as forward vector velocity increases?

Hop answers.
The design of the wing and angle of attack.



A. Leading edge slats increase lift acceleration as forward vector velocity increases
B. Angle of Attack increases lift production up to a point.

Where is air speed? Is anything else left out?


Air speed is included in your question. Including it in the answer as well would be dumb

Q. What determines increase in lift as speed increases?

A. Speed

Bit silly, isn't it?

As to:

A. Leading edge slats increase lift acceleration as forward vector velocity increases

Part of wing design.


Why, for example, does the F-86 have a steep accelerated stall line and the Mig-15 have a shallow accelerated stall line when the F-86 is much heavier, lower in power loading, and as yet not confirmed ? higher in wing-loading?

The chart itself tells you exactly what is happening. The Sabre is increasing it's lift generation approx in line with the rule of thumb of the square root of the G pulled.

The Mig is not. For some reason, as the speed increases and the angle of attack increases and the G increases, the Mig is not increasing it's lift generation as much as the Sabre.

As to why that's the case, I'd say it's down to the design of the Mig's wing.


A reasonable answer would confirm wing-loading no?

No. The wing loading difference between the two is not large. Their 1 G stall speeds are almost identical. For some reason, the Mig isn't doing as well as speed and G increase, so has to fly faster to generate enough lift to pull the same G as the Sabre.

The reason why isn't down to a simple theory, it's down to the design of the plane.


How about cutting all the theory out and simply get an accurate answer for these:

1 g accelerated stall for:

Fw190A-3
Fw190A-4
Fw190A-8
Spitfire VB (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (late)

Sorry, my budget doesn't stretch to testing them, even if there were flyable examples of the 190 models you want.


Va or structural corner speed for:

Fw190A-3
Fw190A-4
Fw190A-8
Spitfire VB (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (June 1942)
Spitfire IX (late)

All those plots can go on a graph and lines can be drawn from 1g to Va.

Those lines would illustrate the accelerated stall line steepness and do so accurately so long as the data is accurate.

You don't seem to understand Josf. 6G stall speed is not determined by structural limits, it's determined by the lift limit.

JG14_Josf
01-20-2007, 10:50 AM
You don't seem to understand Josf. 6G stall speed is not determined by structural limits, it's determined by the lift limit.

Hopism,

What I seem to understand (your misdirection) and what I actually understand are two different things.

There is a technical data point, a speed, and it is called Va and it is called corner speed.

This is it ? again:


The significance of the corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed corresponding to the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, Va is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.

If any of the ?know it alls? can provide an accurate Va, then, they can. If they can?t, then, they can?t. Even a non- ?know it all? can try.

If all the ?know it alls? can provide an accurate 6 g stall speed, then, they can. If they can?t, then, they can?t.

The same goes for the 1 g accelerated stall speed. If they can they can. If not, then, NOT.

Hopisms are so outrageous:


You don't seem to understand Josf. 6G stall speed is not determined by structural limits, it's determined by the lift limit.

Pilot g limit is a factor (GLOC) and I don?t seem to know it. It is a fact.

This is misdirection (straw man) salted with some hyperbole:


Sorry, my budget doesn't stretch to testing them, even if there were flyable examples of the 190 models you want.

The question was to calculate the numbers and test the game to see if the calculated numbers match the actual game performance; i.e. the topic.

The Fw190 performance sucks compared to the historical record.

Only Hop said anything about testing flying examples of the Fw190 to find Va or the 1 g accelerated stall speed. Hop?s straw man may have said something like that too ? in Hop?s mind ? I suppose.

It was not me.

One of my questions aimed at the ?Know it alls? or anyone - goes like this:


A reasonable answer would confirm wing-loading no?

A ?know it all? answer:


No. The wing loading difference between the two is not large. Their 1 G stall speeds are almost identical. For some reason, the Mig isn't doing as well as speed and G increase, so has to fly faster to generate enough lift to pull the same G as the Sabre.

The reason why isn't down to a simple theory, it's down to the design of the plane.

No. It is not reasonable to confirm wing-loading, apparently, a kind-of, sort-of, guess answer is good enough for a ?Know it all?.

The same ?Know it all? claimed that the wing sweep difference was one factor determining the lower F-86 corner speed. That was apparently one of that ?know it all?s? figments of imagination ? like his straw-man who has time to test fly real Fw190s.

Note: Boyd?s EM chart may or may not document Va as the structural corner speed. That is not known by me. Perhaps the ?know it alls? know.

If the ?Know it alls? do know, then, perhaps they also know Va for the F-86 and the Mig-15. Perhaps they have no clue. Like answering a simple question like this:

What is Va for the Fw190A-8?

Not:
Do you have the time to test pilot an Fw190A-8?

More like this:

Is it possible to find an accurate number for Va for the Fw190A-8?

Leading to this:

What is that accurate number for Va for the Fw190A-8?

Leading to a calculated version of this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

I can plot the accurately calculated Va on the same Chart.
Then I can ask for the 1 g accelerated stall plot.

Then I can connect the dots.

Then Hop or another of the ?Know it all? club can post another misdirected response aimed at doing something other than connecting the dots.

Which dots?

Va

And

1g

Data Plots

Those dots

Connected

Once connected the result is a line.

The line is steep or shallow.

If the line is steep like the F-86, then, corner speed is low.

If the line is shallow like the Mig-15, then, corner speed is high.

If the line is very steep like the game Spitfire, then, corner speed is very low.

If the line is very shallow like the game Fw190, then, corner speed is very high.

If there is no interest in finding those data plots, then, there is no interest in finding those data plots.

That is fine.

Why accuse me of rejecting answers that do not provide those data plots?

Connecting those dots, or plots, answer my questions.

If the data is accurate; if not, then, NOT.


Hopism:

The chart itself tells you exactly what is happening. The Sabre is increasing it's lift generation approx in line with the rule of thumb of the square root of the G pulled.

The Mig is not. For some reason, as the speed increases and the angle of attack increases and the G increases, the Mig is not increasing it's lift generation as much as the Sabre.

As to why that's the case, I'd say it's down to the design of the Mig's wing.

The F-86 weights more than the Mig-15.
The F-86 has a lower power to weight ratio than the Mig-15
The F-86 has the same wing sweep as the Mig-15
The F-86 may or may not have a higher wing-loading than the Mig-15
The F-86 has the steeper accelerated Stall line.


I'd say it's down to the design of the Mig's wing.

The F-86, like the Messerschmitts, had leading edge slats.

I think there was more to it. The topic is the Fw190 performance relative to the historical record.

Example:

Fw190A-3
Vs
Spitfire VB (June 1942)

The Fw190 weighs more than the Spitfire
The Fw190 has the higher power to weight ratio (if climb rate is used to calculate T/W)
The Fw190 has the elliptical functioning wing
The Fw190 has the higher wing-loading
The Fw190 has the steeper accelerated stall line (if flight tests are used to calculate corner speed)

Example:


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

If my calculations for Va (corner speed) are rough and inaccurate, then, the ?Know it alls? can provide more accurate calculations, or, they are pretenders to their imaginary thrones i.e. Trolls.

Fill in the blank:

Fw190A-3
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-4
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-5
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-6
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-8
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-9
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190D-9
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire I
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire VB (1941)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire VB (June 1942)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire IX (June 1942)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire IX (late)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Accurate blank filling can be plotted on an EM chart to illustrate the changing steepness of the accelerated stall lines on those planes that share much the same wing design from model to model. Spitfire model to Spitfire model share the same wing design. Fw190 model to Fw190 model share the same wing design (not the TA-152).


As to why that's the case, I'd say it's down to the design of the Mig's wing.

So?how much did the real Va change for the real planes in history?

How much did the real planes change the steepness of the accelerated stall line in history?

How much does the game?s planes change as the older models change to the newer models using much the same design of the wing?

Example:

Is the Va for the Fw190A-3 much different from the Va for the Fw190A-8?

Is the Va for the Spitfire VB (1941) much different from the Va for the Spitfire IX (Late)?

In the game, that is, for the real planes are no longer combat ready.

The real planes no longer do this:


It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

The real Fw190s no longer fight in the vertical against horizontal turning Spitfires.

That is a good thing. It would have been much better for those guys to fly air races.

Kettenhunde
01-20-2007, 11:40 AM
Crumpp has been saying, I think, that corner speed is not determined by weight.

I have never said this. I said angle of bank corresponds to a given load factor and is the same no matter what the weight or aircraft.

I said all aircraft at the same angle of bank and same velocity will make the same exact turn. Not all aircraft can achieve the same conditions however.

Angle of attack is effected by weight. If you add weight then you reach the critical or stall Angle of attack at a faster speed. Why? Velocity must increase to provide lift required. Subquently stall speed will increase!

Try working the lift formula a few times. It is a really neat formula and if you master it the relationships will jump right out at you.

Look at the stall speed line in blue from the Turn Radius Vs. Velocity graph towards the bottom of this page:

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Min_Radius.html

Adding weight shifts the stall line to the right and up. Adding weight increases the stall velocity and reduces the Angle of Bank available to the wing.

Why does adding weight have this effect? We have reduced our power available because our engine has to work harder to move the wing to provide the lift. We do not have the power to overcome the drag forces and achieve the velocity at this load factor. Since load factor and angle of bank are tied together, we must reduce our angle of bank or no longer fly.

All the best,

Crumpp<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Support the White 1 Foundation!

The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

Xiolablu3
01-20-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

If any of the ?know it alls? can provide an accurate Va, then, they can. If they can?t, then, they can?t. Even a non- ?know it all? can try.

If all the ?know it alls? can provide an accurate 6 g stall speed, then, they can. If they can?t, then, they can?t.

--------------------------

The real planes no longer do this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

The real Fw190s no longer fight in the vertical against horizontal turning Spitfires.

That is a good thing. It would have been much better for those guys to fly air races. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For Gods sake Josf, how many times do we have to tell you that the paragraph above explains PRECISELY the fight in the game between the Fw190A4 vs Spitfire V when the Fw190A4 pilot knows his plane.

I was flying Winds OF War last night, and that was exactly the siuation I was in, in my FW190A4. I shot down 3 Spitfires in 10 minutes using that very tactic!


Its so very sad that you insult the people who are trying to help you understand, by calling them 'know-it-alls'. It makes you look like even more of a d*ckhead.

Sorry guys, but this fool is getting on my nerves massively with his constant dis-respect to guys who obviously know so much more than he does, and through well meaning are trying to help him. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Fw190 performance sucks compared to the historical record.

You have hard data to show this? With no interpretations added?

I have seen interpreted stories from you and others where you plug in conditions not stated
in the stories you drag up and act as if the BS you add is real. Please leave that out of it.

Let's see complete real data to back up your claim and the original sources.
Come on, out with the charts.
Otherwise it's the same old your mouth vs reality.

Something else that does not count: how well or not you use the models in unhistoric ways.

So far you demand true stall and corner speeds but you give only BS.
Now you make the hard claim, let's see your equally hard data.
Or just fake it like you have since you first showed up.

JG14_Josf
01-20-2007, 12:25 PM
I have never said this.

Kettenhunde,

Thanks for correcting my confusion concerning what you are trying to say.

Why do you think I need to have the simple concept of steady state sustained turn performance jump out at me?

My concern is high speed decelerating turn performance that ends at corner speed.

From your last post I can only assume that you are suggesting that increased weight increases corner speed.

Please confirm or deny that fact.

If you can confirm or deny that fact, then, you can actually help answer my question rather than answer questions that I am not asking.

If you say that increasing weight increases corner speed, then, I?m going to have more questions to ask that could be answered or not answered.

What would really be nice is to fill in the blanks with accurate numbers:


Fill in the blank:

Fw190A-3
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-4
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-5
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-6
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-8
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190A-9
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Fw190D-9
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire I
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire VB (1941)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire VB (June 1942)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire IX (June 1942)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________

Spitfire IX (late)
1 g accelerated stall speed ________
Va ___________


If you can fill on one blank, then, that is more helpful then filling on no blanks. I appreciate the link; however ? it has already jumped at me as to what happens to the back side of the flight envelope when weight increases. My questions concern the front side.

By back side and front side I mean that the back side is slower than corner and the front side is faster than corner speed.

When I say corner speed I want to be sure and limit that speed to Va.

When I say Va, now, I mean the technical term Va for a fighter planes combat weight i.e. stall boundary and structural limit.

One blank filled in is better than none.

If you have a formula that estimates corner, then, that is better than no estimate.

It seems to me that the formula would have to have the actual load limit measured in weight at which the wing will deform and the speed at which the wing is capable of generating that force for a specific weight for that plane.

If your formula for estimating Va doesn?t use those accurate numbers, then, my observations is to point out that your formula may not be accurate.

A possible test for the accuracy of your formula would be to use your formula on the F-86 and the Mig-15.

If the results of your formula are wrong, then, the wrong data plots might show up like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Reality%20Pretending%20to%20be%20a%20Game.jpg

If we share a common interest, then, we share a common interest. If we don?t, then, we don?t.

If our interests do not agree, then, our discussions probably won?t be agreeable; they will be labored.

I do not need more information concerning steady state sustained level flight turn performance, on the back side of the envelope so to speak, as much as I desire information concerning the front side and in particular what I need is Va. That data plot separates the front from the back or if that is of no interest to you, then, Va separates my concern on the right side of Va from what I am not concerned about which is to the left of Va.

We don?t have to understand each other. It is not a requirement.

Please do as you please for as long as you can.

Thanks.