PDA

View Full Version : FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed



Gaston444
04-08-2010, 02:53 AM
This very interesting document surfaced on Aces High's "vehicle" forum: It confirms what I had long suspected from numerous accounts: That the FW-190D-9 converted what was mainly a low-speed turn-fighter into a 109-like Boom-and-Zoom aircraft, with superior performance to the Anton, but much inferior to the radial aircraft's horizontal handling.

Note the Russian-observed relationship of the FW-190 to the Me-109 within German tactics, in 1943:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Quote:"They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."



This FW-190D-9 evaluation not only confirms the overall inferior turn handling of the FW-190D-9 to the FW-190A-8, as I predicted (and observed in combat accounts) because of the leverage of the longer nose, it actually confirms my argument that the prop disc load affects the elevator performance, and the stall behaviour, quite dramatically...:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...t-field-fw190d-9.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf)

Quote: "Controls remain effective up to the stall except in the power off condition wherein some difficulty is experienced in applying enough elevator to obtain abrupt stalls"

Yes I know: Propwash could play a role in here... You gotta love the concise conclusion:

Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

Except for using the D-9 in Boom-and-Zoom tactics, I couldn't have said it better myself...

Gaston

P.S. Note the longer tail and nose may have allowed the D-9 to have better high-speed vertical handling than that of a FW-190A, as the high-speed elevator handling (above 250 MPH) of the real Anton could hardly be worse...:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

Oh, and let us not forget the Floret and Sabre analogy...

G.

DKoor
04-08-2010, 04:09 AM
Impossible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif !!!

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 04:15 AM
The Dora 9 does not have a Jumo 213E engine.

irR4tiOn4L
04-08-2010, 04:16 AM
That report does not mention what 'poor handling characteristics' were worsened over the Antons, however it focusses on trim and instability issues and presumably that is what was referred to. The report does say the radius of turn is poor, however it makes no comparison of this to the Anton.

Given the numerous defects they seemed to find in the aircraft, its probably safer to say they were generally unimpressed with the aircraft and the way the new engine upset trim and balance in flight, rather than specific tradeoffs in the horizontal against the Anton, which they do not mention other than in their conclusion. Further, the report does not carry the same interpretation you give it if you assume the Anton ALSO had poor radius of turn in the horizontal - the 190D would merely carry on this trait while worsening trim and balance, and thats what the report seems to suggest. Indeed, it says this specifically:

"None of the pilots gave favorable reports on the trim characteristics and all agreed that for better accessment of the airplanes handling characteristics, controllable trim of rudder and aileron was needed"

There is no reason to assume the report meant to say the FW 190D represented a radically different type of aircraft to the Anton and indeed it takes a self-fulfilling-prophecy belief about the Anton's horizontal turn performance to come to that conclusion. The quote you gave about power off stall behaviour does not mean the plane turned better power off, but that the stalls power off were milder and less aggressive - they had trouble making them abrupt, presumably because the nose dipped in a mild stall before then.


All youve done here is prove that at least one variant of the FW 190 was a boom and zoom fighter that had poor performance in the horizontal.

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 04:29 AM
What do you think about German propeller efficiency during that time period?

In some of my reading about dive speeds, its been discovered that propeller design plays a crucial roll in how fast a plane responds as well as the top speeds its capable of. It even plays a large roll in how well a plane responds in a vertical zoom.

The horsepower isn't the end determinant in performance. The prop design pertains to the type of performance you are expecting to get from an aircraft. A smaller engine could produce more thrust with the proper propeller, and actually out perform a more powerful engine with a less efficient propeller. It just depends on the performance margin the planes are competing at, where maybe acceleration and climb would favor one design, where a high speed dive to an extended climb favors the other.

German props on later aircraft such as the 190D tended to retain the same three bladed coned shaped props used on earlier fighters. The design was refined and is largely intended to reduce drag at higher speeds. The idea being that the tips of the propeller blades are usually the first part of the aircraft to enter compressibility, so these blades tend to be shorter and narrow from the center of the prop disc. Most of the thrust is actually produced on the inside portion of the blade.

If you look at American propellers, they are usually four blades and wider in radius. The shape of the blade is actually contoured so that most of the air is scooped from the mid to outside region of the prop disc. A lot of research had been done to determine how the engines rotational energy could be best transformed into thrust through the proper propeller design. This is an area the Germans never quite caught up in.

Its my opinion, that German fighters would have a more difficult time competing in the vertical with American fighters like the P-51, or P-47 unless they had sufficient speed.


Bill

Erkki_M
04-08-2010, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Its my opinion, that German fighters would have a more difficult time competing in the vertical with American fighters like the P-51, or P-47 unless they had sufficient speed.


Which they do. Whether the reason is that or something else, or a combination of things, is debatable.

Bremspropeller
04-08-2010, 05:19 AM
Its my opinion, that German fighters would have a more difficult time competing in the vertical with American fighters like the P-51, or P-47 unless they had sufficient speed.

Quite strange as german fighters were found to have superrior initial acceleration. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its my opinion, that German fighters would have a more difficult time competing in the vertical with American fighters like the P-51, or P-47 unless they had sufficient speed.

Quite strange as german fighters were found to have superrior initial acceleration. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is indeed debatable. It probably just depends on the speed at which you are accelerating from, just the same as it would depend on the speed and angle at which you are climbing at. A vertical loop will bleed speed on the climbing half, and accelerate on the descending half. To some extent, the larger thrust maker is going to have an easier time in that particular type of climb.

To finish my thought, i think German prop designs being lower drag in nature would've maximized dive performance allowing for longer extensions of speed in level flight at least in portions of the envelope where the plane is able to travel above its top level speeds out of an extended dive.

Also understand that the propeller is just one aspect of the entire system. There are also factors like drag and weight, wing load, wing area, etc. But my main point was pointing out that propeller efficiency is whats going to determine how the planes horse power is used. You can't automatically assume more horses means better speed particularly if the propeller types are so different as seen with German and American aircraft.



Bill

Blue_5
04-08-2010, 06:49 AM
The Soviet document seems to have a certain pro-Soviet spin to it when comparing the 190 to their own aircraft. Superior Yak 7 diving characteristics, for example, is not caveated or explained and is only likely to be true in a small flight window. Similarly there is emphasis on the vulnerability of the aircraft without placing this in context. Not that such analytical failings are limited to the VVS but it seems that it was meant as much to inspire confidence as it was to educate.

Personally I've always felt that the Russian contempt for the 190 is based somewhat on the its relatively late arrival compared to the 109 which had established a reputation for lethality in the hands of very experienced pilots; quite a few of the 190s encountered from '43 onwards would have been jabo aircraft and at some disadvantage in aerial combat plus the qualitative gap in pilots and aircraft had narrowed. Certainly the 190 fighter units do not appear to have performed so poorly by their own standards

As noted above, the 190D report does not place the 'poor' turning in context and I find the roll comparison with the P-38J a bit surprising. The report does begin by giving total flight hours as only 6, so I wonder if this was really sufficient to get to grips with the type. It’s also a little contradictory:
Positive: controls are ‘highly effective and ‘feel good’ at speeds up to 375 mph; aircraft respond ‘well’ to manoeuvring; roll is ‘outstanding’; the engine provide sufficient power to make the D ‘a high performance aircraft comparable with allied types of fighters of the same date’; stalls are ‘gentle’ and warning ‘adequate’
Negative: trim is ‘inadequate’ (lack of rudder trim must have felt odd) but this is caveated by the comment about poor rigging; rate of turn is ‘poor’ with ‘excessive’ elevator forces; breaks are ‘poor’
I don’t see how this leads to a ‘much less desirable aircraft’ than the A models with ‘poor handling characteristics’. It does not strike me as a very good or informative report, probably because the pilots only had 6 hours available.

bracknell1989
04-08-2010, 07:47 AM
If you can get hold of Jerry Crandall's book vol 2 on the Dora then you can read a D-9 pilot's repsonse to that assesment. He disagrees on a number of areas.

Also when the British captured an A model and evaluated it in 1941 there were no complaints about uncomfortable seats and bad breaks all of which would have stayed the same.

There are also numerous examples from Doras of JG-26 achieving victories in turning dogfights in the D-9 Hans Dortenmann achieved 18 and from the victory claim description most were achieved during a turning fight.

Attacks were made according to the situation, German fighter pilots were more than prepared to the mix it with other fighters. From reading a history of JG1 pilots found they could not escape from the faster US types and were forced to turn and defend themselves and this seems to have been a more standard practise. Against some types they could dive away but not all.

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 08:21 AM
...and let us not forget the Floret and Sabre analogy...
I'm unlikely to forget that for a long time, unfortunately. Still, it is useful as a reminder of how easy it is to use bizarre interpretations of selective quotes to 'prove' almost anything.

The sooner we can go over to flying SoW:BoB the better. No Fw 190s to argue about!

JtD
04-08-2010, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Impossible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif !!!

My thought exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 08:51 AM
I don't think the Dora was designed with the intent of being a "turn fighter". It was used to fill the performance gap that left the Antons out matched at higher altitudes.

Also, the Dora was a whole class of aircraft, ranging from D-9s, D-11s and D-13s all of which saw combat in 1945.


Bill

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 09:48 AM
The report does say the radius of turn is poor, however it makes no comparison of this to the Anton.


Radius of turn is not the same as rate of turn. The faster an airplane turns, the larger its radius but rate will improve to a point.

Rate of turn is what kills in fighter combat not radius.

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 09:56 AM
This is an area the Germans never quite caught up in.


The Germans were ahead of us Bill on propeller design. You are correct on some details which actually pertain to all propeller design but your conclusion is not correct.

Why do you think such companies as Mtt Propeller are still the leading high performance propeller designers in the world today?

More blades = higher coefficient of power but a lowered efficiency...

Fewer blades = lower coefficient of power but a higher efficiency...

Pick your poison. Each will do some different things for the designer depending on what he wants the aircraft to do.

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 11:55 AM
Wow, to be honest I'm not really sure now whether he continues mentioning that analogy to **** me off, or just to make himself look foolish. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
04-08-2010, 12:13 PM
That's your standard troll at work, trying to rile up attention in the tried and true method of annoyance.
All it takes is a big share of ignorance to put the same discredited babble up again and again to get what
attention is available, good or bad makes no difference to a needy-greedy troll.

DFTT

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is an area the Germans never quite caught up in.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your welcomed to disagree, but i'm not the first to come to this opinion.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryzone/Fisher.html)

I understand modern aircraft designs have also had 60 some years to draw better conclusions and make better designs.

In the context of the war, there are examples where German planes were not much faster despite having higher powered engines attached to the same airframes.

This doesn't mean a wartime company couldn't get rich selling what they considered top of the line and still be around today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Bill

Gaston444
04-08-2010, 02:10 PM
The interesting thing here is that there is virtually NOTHING to support the detractor's viewpoint...

The only two concrete things are the Rechlin la-5 test pilot's report and the US Navy's comparative test: Both are significant argument points but the P-47 test http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
shows a drastic deterioration of the FW-190A's turn rate past 250 MPH, where running a test at full power could easily keep an aircraft for sustained turns...

So if we can get past the fact that 1800-2100 HP can keep the aircraft in the wrong part of it's sustained turn enveloppe (The US Navy DID go even slightly beyond Luftwaffe-issue power), there is NOTHING here to contradict combat pilot assesment: Neither the Rechlin La-5 test or the US Navy test was anywhere near the combat zone or any real-life FW-190A combat pilots... (In the case of the Rechlin La-5 test, I know the pilots were combat experienced, but I would be really curious to see if that involved any front-line service in the FW-190A...)


All of sudden, if we look at documents of Soviet observations of German tactics, it turns out the FW-190A was used as a turn-fighter and the Me-109 as a Boom-and-Zoomer... The FW-190A is described as superior-turning to even the Me-109F, as Rechlin is said to have told Rall according to Rall himself... The same is said by, let me see... The British RAE, Johnny Johnson post-war, two Soviet combat evaluations, and just about any 8th Air Force ace you would care to ask. Oh, and I forget Soviet turn times: 19 seconds for the FW-190A-4, 20.5 for the Me-109F, 22 seconds for the Me-109G-2... Hmmm...

So what explanation do the detractors have for all of the above? Nothing.

It gets better when it comes to pathetically obvious leverage issues... Current simmimg state-of-the-art is so crude no distinction is made between jet propulsion and propeller traction... It's ALL the same folks...

By pulling back on the stick you are ALSO pulling back on the top prop disc half, taxing the wingloading: Explain to me how one can be done without the other... (The effect is clearly seen in the FW-190D-9 power-off stall test...)

And to pull back on those thousands of pounds of thrust, you are using the wing's lift as a pivot... Explain to me how there is a way around THAT...

And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there: A 200 lbs weight supported by a rope, this weight being lifted by 100 lbs of force, will still leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...

But surely simmers can explain to me how there is a way around these real-life contingencies...

So far I haven't seen even the most pathetic demonstration of how pulling back on the stick doesn't involve pulling back on the prop also...

To quote Bertrand Russel: "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it true."

Gaston

P.S. You can call me a troll all you want, TheGrunch, you are only showing what a class act you are...

G.

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Wow, I'm a troll because I pointed out the sheer invalidity of making any conclusions about that analogy. To reiterate:
"I do wish you would stop bandying about this horrible analogy. It could refer to weapons fit. The foil is a thin fencing sword descending from the civilian small-sword that George Silver despised for its lack of lethality, saying that many duels ended in both combatants being run through several times, and the sabre is very much more deadly, capable of inflicting deep wounds very quickly.
Many cavalry sabres were not curved, in fact German military sabres in PARTICULAR were usually straight. Assuming that Rall wore a military uniform that incorporated a sabre (he initially joined the German army) it would likely have been a straight sabre that he wore.
Did you ever think that the sabre would likely have been seen by Rall as traditionally a cavalry weapon? The sabre was mainly a cavalry weapon for almost all of its lineage in actual military use, right up to the First World War. That would peg the 190 very much as a hit-and-run fighter and the 109 as a stay-and-fence-until-someone-falls fighter.
Alternatively it could refer to the technique of sport fencing where the sabre much more heavily emphasises the fast and simple attack where the foil emphasises feints and ripostes.
In addition, the sport fencing sabre is not curved.
It can just mean *so* many things and there is nothing gained from trying to interpret it in anything more than the most superficial way.
Sorry, rant over. It really is the most meaningless and ambiguous analogy, though."
I'm sure that all of the above will be lost on you, though, just like any of the other objections that are posted to any of your extremely tenuous arguments.

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 02:42 PM
i'm not the first to come to this opinion.

It is not an opinion Bill. I told you the facts of propeller design.

Lots of people have made ignorant assumptions like "made of wood" means a lack of technology or design savvy.

Your link does not go anywhere either. It comes to an empty page and AT&T adds.

DKoor
04-08-2010, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i'm not the first to come to this opinion.

It is not an opinion Bill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

90% of the debates here are about facts.

Yet most are boiling downright to the opinions.

Opinions are not facts.

That kinda... -like old TAGERT used to say...- speaks volumes about seriousness of the debate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Also I'd like to see just how many people here actually changed their mind because someone smarter presented them facts or good arguments on the issue. Common logic (in the absence of better proofs) is also known to have a heavy failure rate here.

So much for the usefulness of ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'm sure that you guys all know this, but I still wrote my thoughts...

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 04:14 PM
It gets better when it comes to pathetically obvious leverage issues... Current simmimg state-of-the-art is so crude no distinction is made between jet propulsion and propeller traction... It's ALL the same folks...

By pulling back on the stick you are ALSO pulling back on the top prop disc half, taxing the wingloading: Explain to me how one can be done without the other... (The effect is clearly seen in the FW-190D-9 power-off stall test...)

And to pull back on those thousands of pounds of thrust, you are using the wing's lift as a pivot... Explain to me how there is a way around THAT...

And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there: A 200 lbs weight supported by a rope, this weight being lifted by 100 lbs of force, will still leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...

But surely simmers can explain to me how there is a way around these real-life contingencies...

So far I haven't seen even the most pathetic demonstration of how pulling back on the stick doesn't involve pulling back on the prop also...

Complete garbage, Gaston. You don't understand basic physics. You have repeated this nonsense endlessly, and when asked to provide a proper mathematical description of the forces involved, come up with nothing. It is not down to anyone to 'disprove' your arguments, particularly since you don't know how to describe them in the first place. Go away, study basic physics, then come back when you can produce an argument.

And by the way, I've never known a piston-engined plane that could turn tight enough for the prop blades on the inside of the turn to be travelling backwards, so even if your weird analogies meant anything, you'd still be wrong.

Bremspropeller
04-08-2010, 04:23 PM
And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there:


I'm gonna tell you something groundbreaking to your sphere of physical-understanding:

The aircraft moves forward while in-flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
04-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
That kinda... -like old TAGERT used to say...- speaks volumes about seriousness of the debate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

This would be the -same old Tagert- (as in same old something else) that would hold up a debate by quoting
and answering the same half-a-sentence over and over rather than admit he's wrong? Seriousness.. right.

This troll does do something that Tagert and Jokf and the bigger than garden variety trolls do which is to
keep repeating the same claims every few weeks as if nothing had been posted disproving them before. The
last one was new to me.. applying disproof of one anecdote to another one that the disproof doesn't apply
to and then claiming that as proof of the whole claim.

Why bother addressing what has already been addressed? It was ignored last time and the times before.
Is -anyone- on the board expecting a different result from the same actions? The words might be different
but the troll is the same.

M_Gunz
04-08-2010, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there:


I'm gonna tell you something groundbreaking to your sphere of physical-understanding:

The aircraft moves forward while in-flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! FACT!

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:

I'm sure that you guys all know this, but I still wrote my thoughts...

actually thoughts/ opinions are very dangerous DKoor, you might actually touch on something true.

Part of me wonders about aircraft that operated in secrecy during the war that otherwise would never be recognized as part of the war. These aircraft were probably seldom used in missions only where the odds of enemy capture were none or very low, perhaps only deploying them over friendly areas, because the waring parties didn't want the other to get a hold of valuable ideas and technology. How could you verify something that is heavily guarded as secret, or basically not a part of the written history of the war?

It takes a bit of opinion and speculation, and sometimes down right common sense to make a conjecture of that caliber.

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif



Bill

M_Gunz
04-08-2010, 05:29 PM
Like the Aliens that helped the Allies win? That kind of unwritten secret?

Who had the better props cannot be decided since there were secret projects we don't know about.
But be sure of this, <insert your side here> had the best scientists and technology of the war.

WTE_Galway
04-08-2010, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Like the Aliens that helped the Allies win? That kind of unwritten secret?



nah .... its just OUR aliens were better than their aliens

Gaston444
04-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there:


I'm gonna tell you something groundbreaking to your sphere of physical-understanding:

The aircraft moves forward while in-flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Oh yeah? Now let me ask you a question that can only be answered by yes or no: In a sustained turn, does the inside-turn prop disc half AVERAGE forward speed match the outside-turn prop disc half AVERAGE forward speed? (Average is the average of the whole surface at any point)

You do understand what a differential is, and what it does on your car do you?

Jeeez.

Gaston

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 05:55 PM
It is not my intention to "win" anything Bill.

Here is the effect of blade number on propeller design:


As engine power increases, the aircraft designer has a limited number of options to design a propeller capable of efficiently absorbing that greater power:


Increase the blade angle (or the pitch) of the propeller blades.


Increase the diameter of the propeller disk, i.e. make the blades longer.


Increase the revolutions per minute of the propeller.


Increase the camber (or curvature) of the blade airfoil.


Increase the chord (or width) of the propeller blades.


Increase the number of blades.

The article is a great primer on propeller design factors and presents the facts so that opinion is taken out of the question.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu...opulsion/q0039.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0039.shtml)

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 05:58 PM
What in gods name has a car differential got to do with anything? Oh I give up. You win Gaston. You know more about physics than WWII aircraft designers, so they couldn't possibly have flown them at all. The whole air war thing was invented by Airfix in the 1950s to get rid of a load of scrap plastic... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WTE_Galway
04-08-2010, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Increase the number of blades.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080305-F-3571D-009.jpg

M_Gunz
04-08-2010, 06:03 PM
The prop of a plane in a turn does not face perpendicular to the radius of the turn.
The difference in path from one side of the prop disk to the other is insignificant
when compared to the radius of the turn. This imbalance has never been shown even to
a first approximation yet is claimed to be 1000's of pounds on no shown basis except
for total engine output. Use of buzzwords shows nothing but knowing those buzzwords,
the words "stress risers" themselves conjure nothing except to gullible readers.

Car differentials now. And they turn how short a radius in terms of wheelbase widths?
Oh yeah, less than 10x (like 4 in some cars, how many lane-widths can you circle in?)
rather than a few 100x where you are making thrust as opposed to road contact.
Keep trying, you ever heard of a posi?

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 06:05 PM
What's your point, Gaston? The English Electric Lightning had over-under jet engines, and that aircraft had a ferocious turn rate. It's really not as significant an effect as you are making it out to be.

julian265
04-08-2010, 06:24 PM
But but but, didn't they decrease power on the upper engine for maximum turn performance?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 06:27 PM
Another plane that couldn't possibly have turned. Huge propellers well outboard, and a puny little engine. I expect when they discovered this, they went back to making bicycles:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/First_flight.jpg

na85
04-08-2010, 06:40 PM
Gaston I can't believe you haven't been banned for trolling yet.

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
But but but, didn't they decrease power on the upper engine for maximum turn performance?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
For maximum performance, and because it was possible to do so, no doubt...all I'm saying is that the aircraft wasn't a terrible slouch if they didn't. I'm sure if it was possible to achieve a similar effect using a single propeller then such an innovation would have been used in Second World War aircraft, but in its absence there were more important factors to consider.
In any case that's got more to do with the thrust vector of the aircraft changing, it's differential thrust. It's not a matter of the aircraft finding it easier to overcome the upper engine's thrust because it's closer to the centre of lift or somesuch as Gaston suggests...it's simply that there's more thrust off the centreline of the aircraft.

R_Target
04-08-2010, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
Current simmimg state-of-the-art is so crude no distinction is made between jet propulsion and propeller traction... It's ALL the same folks...

Ah, so you finally purchased a copy of IL2?

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 07:37 PM
I'm not much good at maths at the best of times, and it's getting a bit late anyway, so I'll leave this little conundrum for someone else to ponder. In a tight high-speed turn in a typical WWII prop-driven fighter, what would the difference in angle of attack due to differing 'airspeed' be between the inner and outer prop blade tips? Use whatever approximations for prop RPM, airspeed, radius of turn, prop diameter etc you think reasonable in the context.

If the answer is much more than b****r all, I'll be very surprised...

julian265
04-08-2010, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
...

I was kidding and poking fun at the concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

and I agree with you!

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
...

I was kidding and poking fun at the concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

and I agree with you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lols, WHY SO SERIOUS GRUNCH? D'oh. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif It's hard to know when people are joking in this thread to be honest.
Anyway, to take the EE Lightning and expand the concept that the G-man proposes - would the EE Lightning achieve a better turn rate if the rear fuselage was shorter aft of the wing?

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 08:11 PM
would the EE Lightning achieve a better turn rate if the rear fuselage was shorter aft of the wing?
Probably not, because there would be nothing to attach the tailplane to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Probably not, because there would be nothing to attach the tailplane to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif
Don't be silly Andy, we'd move the tailplane forward. COGITO ERGO SUM! Well, there's no answer from my detractors so I'm going to go to sleep. Don't want to be catching stress risers. I hear they're terrible for you. Wait, am I using my terminology wrong? Ha, don't be silly, Grunchy-boy, you're infallible.
Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit! Let me remind you of the analogy provided to me by the great film Forrest Gump...'life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get'...which I can probably loosely relate to aircraft performance tomorrow.

AndyJWest
04-08-2010, 08:32 PM
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 10:31 PM
we'd move the tailplane forward.


In a conventional airplane, the vector of lift for the tail is balancing the AC of the wing to form the NP or AC of the entire aircraft.

In English that means the vector of lift is pointing down in a conventional aircraft providing a down force to balance the wing.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-...ircraft_trim_act.htm (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/BGA/Dan/aircraft_trim_act.htm)

BillSwagger
04-09-2010, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Like the Aliens that helped the Allies win? That kind of unwritten secret?


I wasn't thinking that over top.
But better examples would be aircraft like the 152s, Do-335, as well as 185s that flew on the eastern front.
Part of me thinks similar innovative prototypes were used by Americans. The P-60 comes to mind, as well as the P-47J, and possibly the P-72, but there is nothing to substantiate such a claim which you couldn't if it was secret.

To some degree, one side holds a particular advantage with the element of surprise. A P-47 pilot flying high above any known enemy aircraft cielings may not be concerned about a contrail he sees below him that appears to be a Fw190. Minutes later he is hit by cannon fire from the same plane that turned out to be a higher altitude version of the plane.

http://jorgenmodin.net/index_html/archive/2007/11/images/Focke_Wulf_Ta152.jpg


On the same token, you have an Me-262 pilot who is confident his plane is the fastest in the sky and that nothing can catch him at his top speed. He sees what appears to be a thunderbolt bearing down on him so he puts his plane into a shallow dive and quickly gains the speed necessary to outrun the bandit. Minutes later, while still flying at top speed he is hit by machine gun fire.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/6041.jpg

Whether it is true or not, it is still interesting to think about and less fanatical as alien theories.



Who had the better props cannot be decided since there were secret projects we don't know about.
But be sure of this, <insert your side here> had the best scientists and technology of the war.

My thoughts are that the Germans were ahead in the rocket and jet game, but what they were able to achieve with their propeller designs was surpassed by Americans. It is simply my educated opinion.


Bill

Erkki_M
04-09-2010, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Current simmimg state-of-the-art is so crude no distinction is made between jet propulsion and propeller traction... It's ALL the same folks...

Ah, so you finally purchased a copy of IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But its just a silly video game! Besides its wrong!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

irR4tiOn4L
04-09-2010, 02:59 AM
It is clear that the report in the original post does not say what Gaston claims it says, namely that the 190D turned the FW 190 from a horizontal turn fighter to a vertical B&Z one. It makes no specific comparison to the Anton or its fighting style and only establishes that Gaston accepts that at least one model of the 190 was a B&Z fighter. There is no evidence here for the other assertions

This discussion should have been over before it even began.

M_Gunz
04-09-2010, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
My thoughts are that the Germans were ahead in the rocket and jet game, but what they were able to achieve with their propeller designs was surpassed by Americans. It is simply my educated opinion.


Bill

Educated as to propeller technologies of the 40's? Not just somewhat informed but actually educated?

Bill, the Meteor jet was a secret that only flew over safe ground in defense of the same vs V-1 bombs.
It did not totally stay a secret but just how it worked and what it could do were not published.
The P-80 saw even less action. Another secret.
I know a man who was working for Curtiss before he got old enough and joined the Navy as an Aviator.
He worked on the XP-55 Ascender and the XP-75 twin engine interceptor that fired a long barrel 75mm
gun to work with proximity shells. Both projects were scrapped when it was determined that neither
plane was substantially better than a P-51 which was already in mass production.
The jets had more promise. Promise if they had been started a decade earlier then the US would have
started the war with fighter jets... except for carrier planes. Probably everyone would have them.

Still there were reports of flying saucers, the foo fighters, that no one showed they had so I simply
must maintain on the same standards as fighters using only 50 cals knocked Tiger Tanks completely over
that Aliens helped the Allies win -- and I only say that because it's so obvious that whomever the
Aliens helped had to win the war. Simplistic logic really. Just take some recorded observations and
a known fact and relate the two with some BS; same as the premise that started this thread and the ones
that came before from the same troll on a different day.
Of course maybe one side did have flying saucers and never told. Perhaps it was Sweden. Notice how they
did not get taken over or even messed with. Nobody f---ks with them even today, know what I mean?

BillSwagger
04-09-2010, 05:49 AM
I think its amusing to see how people are willing to believe one theory and have total discord toward another theory that is not as far fetched.

I know your joking about the aliens,MGunZ but some people really believe that stuff, and it has much to do with the spread of misinformation to keep the actual secrets safe.

In fact, its probably better that people think aliens helped the allies win than if the general public caught wind of possible other experiments they were doing that may have matched the same caliber as atomic weapons.

Its also a political strategy to make your adversaries seem crazy or extreme, and if someone stumbled across a secret, say, if you were alive in the 40s, and the government(s) wanted to protect that secret, you would be quickly quoted as saying "I saw a flying saucer" and then the flying saucer fan club would show up (the real crazies), and now your associated with that crowd.

It works with protests too. You have a legitimate peaceful protest, and then the opposition could send people in posing as supporters to make it look more extreme and even make the protest turn violent by attacking police or public officials. Now that whole crowd of peaceful protesters are labeled violent lunatics, with an extreme cause.

Anyways, yeah the 190D was built to supplement the performance gap of earlier Antons who had trouble competing at higher altitudes. Its no surprise to me if the plane also turned better and more efficiently at the high speeds and altitudes it was designed to fly, and then have trouble performing in the context that the Anton was used.


Bill

Bremspropeller
04-09-2010, 08:25 AM
What's your point, Gaston? The English Electric Lightning had over-under jet engines, and that aircraft had a ferocious turn rate. It's really not as significant an effect as you are making it out to be.


Hah!
Everybody knows that Lightning-Pilots had to throttle back the upper engine and had to increase the lower engine.
The upper engine-throttle therefore had a screw driven in to make turns at max power possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

K_Freddie
04-09-2010, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Everybody knows that Lightning-Pilots had to throttle back the upper engine and had to increase the lower engine.
The upper engine-throttle therefore had a screw driven in to make turns at max power possible.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
And you'd never realise how true this was.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
04-09-2010, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
But its just a silly video game! Besides its wrong!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Totally! There's no way he could eat all those pac-dots and still dodge a ghost. Home computers cannot handle the complex gastric modeling.

http://i39.tinypic.com/hu575z.gif

M_Gunz
04-09-2010, 10:18 PM
Upper/lower jaws stress risers again?

julian265
04-10-2010, 12:26 AM
where did this "stress risers" thing come from?

M_Gunz
04-10-2010, 04:33 AM
Stress Risers is just a term to hang as much BS as a troll can get away with.

You be the judge of what applies to props during turns with actual significance:

Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_concentration)

definition (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Stress+riser)

more actual information on stress risers (http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Mechanical/Fatigue.htm)

Here is the math that Gaston says is so simple that... why bother? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/136558/Mechanics-of-Materials-Stress-Risers-in-a-Cantilever-Flexure-Test)

And the thing is that it just does not apply to what "Tim was told by Wilson". Tim being the mental child who posts here
and Wilson being the mental adult that Tim wishes T-F he ever could be and relays his own cracked view of the Wilson words
he never understood in the first place.

When tagert had no ammo left he would drag in terms that had little or no relation to the discussion, same as this.
When josf had no ammo he would grab at straws too, even to the point of black holes and relativistic conditions as
proof that scientists don't know enough about gravity for Newton's Laws to work at engineering levels.

Gaston has YET to show force differences in prop blades between outside and inside blade swings during a turn.
The simple fact that props did not have a habit of regularly breaking due to 'stress risers' should tell enough
about how very powerful these supposed forces differences are not.

It really begs explanation why anyone would post up such a load of tripe and stick with it so long.
Maybe he was beat in school and has a mental block against learning? Or just needs to get laid -ever-.

julian265
04-10-2010, 06:45 AM
heh, I thought it sounded similar to stress concentrations, and I did exactly what was in that paper when I was doing a mechanical engineering degree. I am also stumped as to its relevance to thrust, when it is a tool for predicting stress in solids.

AndyJWest
04-10-2010, 07:12 AM
I am also stumped as to its relevance to thrust, when it is a tool for predicting stress in solids
It has no relevance at all. Gaston saw it somewhere I expect, and since all words mean exactly what he wants them to ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif), it was important to include it in his rewriting of aerodynamic theory, Newtonian physics, textual analysis, history, and probably the shape of the planet, he bunged it in at random.

I suppose I'm going to have to try to answer the maths problem I came up with earlier myself, though it has got to be about the most pointless calculation ever, since planes can clearly turn, and Gaston's theories say they can't.

R_Target
04-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It really begs explanation why anyone would post up such a load of tripe and stick with it so long.
Maybe he was beat in school and has a mental block against learning? Or just needs to get laid -ever-.

It could be an undiagnosed case of Pac-Man Fever.

Kettenhunde
04-10-2010, 08:12 AM
It has no relevance at all. Gaston saw it somewhere I expect, and since all words mean exactly what he wants them to ( Roll Eyes), it was important to include it in his rewriting of aerodynamic theory, Newtonian physics, textual analysis, history, and probably the shape of the planet, he bunged it in at random.

This has all been explained in detail to Gaston.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...121045248#6121045248 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=6121045248#6121045248)

Kettenhunde
04-10-2010, 09:24 AM
Billswagger says:
I don't think the Dora was designed with the intent of being a "turn fighter".

All WWII fighters were designed with the highest possible sustained turning performance in mind.

It was a foundation of fighter aircraft performance.

What is confusing to many is the fact turning small circles at low speeds was not the same design goal.

That is just a way to end up on the defensive.

Rather the quest for speed goes hand in hand with sustained turn performance at high speeds.

They wanted to win aerial combats and hold the initiative. That is how air superiority is won.

TinyTim
04-10-2010, 10:07 AM
I'm getting an impression that many people mix turn rate with turn radius. In some cases plane with larger turn radius can have a better turning rate. It appears to me many people are reffering to smaller turn radius when they speak about "better turner".

I'd rather be in a plane with better sustained turn rate than radius any day.

M_Gunz
04-10-2010, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am also stumped as to its relevance to thrust, when it is a tool for predicting stress in solids
It has no relevance at all. Gaston saw it somewhere I expect, and since all words mean exactly what he wants them to ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif), it was important to include it in his rewriting of aerodynamic theory, Newtonian physics, textual analysis, history, and probably the shape of the planet, he bunged it in at random.

I suppose I'm going to have to try to answer the maths problem I came up with earlier myself, though it has got to be about the most pointless calculation ever, since planes can clearly turn, and Gaston's theories say they can't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to see pointless calculation, find the thread I posted a couple weeks ago. 1st word is Investigations.

M_Gunz
04-10-2010, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
I'm getting an impression that many people mix turn rate with turn radius. In some cases plane with larger turn radius can have a better turning rate. It appears to me many people are reffering to smaller turn radius when they speak about "better turner".

I'd rather be in a plane with better sustained turn rate than radius any day.

The way the math works out the rate and radius kind of pinch right about the highest speed the plane can maintain
a stall turn to just a small bit faster, or at least that's the characteristic I was getting out of P-47 data and
equations where the general shape and trends wouldn't change much between WWII fighters though the actual amounts
in G's-deg/sec-and-radius and positions of the curves changes from plane to plane just from knowing the math.

The trend in radius to shrink and then expand along with turn rate to rise and then fall is continuous throughout,
no sharp points or discontinuities but rather small approximate radius'd 'points' that occur over the same speed
range as each other. At higher speed than that 'pinch' you can turn with higher Gs but wider and wider radius and
declining rate. At lower speed both rate and radius also increase while you have to cut power or climb to keep
from speeding up and turning better, LOL! Cut power enough and your turn will be less than 1 deg/sec with a radius
25+ km... maybe a 1.1G accelerated turn at around takeoff IAS.

I don't pretend I have it perfect but I do have the approximate shape pretty much down. The next effort with help
from some PM members will be to add thrust vector effects due to AOA in the turn using accepted aero formulas.

Here's a link to the PDF Monkey Chart up on Mediafire (http://www.mediafire.com/file/iqyjojqzdub/monkey chart.pdf)

There's the whole post with complete doc on where it came from and was to be headed. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2791024548)

Kettenhunde
04-10-2010, 01:10 PM
I'm getting an impression that many people mix turn rate with turn radius.


That is correct and likely what happens....

Turn performance has three major characteristics:

Best Turn Radius is the smallest radius turn an aircraft can make. In GA aircraft this is most useful for obstacle avoidance and is often called the "box canyon turn". This characteristic is not very important to a WWII fighter aircraft design. It changes at the square of speed.

Best Rate of turn is the fastest speed the aircraft can move through the degrees of a compass. It is a very important to a WWII fighter aircraft and represents how fast the airplane can bring its guns to bear on a target. It is very possible to have a larger radius but similar or even better rate. It changes at the first power of speed.

Best Load factor is the point at which the aircraft can sustain the highest load factor. This translates into a rate advantage at the velocity the airplane can sustain a higher load factor. It is very important to a fighter aircraft and is used to kill or force the opponent into a lower energy state in a defensive posture.

M_Gunz is correct in that many WWII fighters designers stacked best rate/ best radius at the same point. This is not always the case however in airplane performance.

K_Freddie
04-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Best Rate of turn is the fastest speed the aircraft can move through the degrees of a compass.

Maybe it might be more accurate/easier to understand if ...

Best Rate of turn is the fastest angular speed the aircraft can turn at.

I don't limit this to horizontal as the vertical component also counts when transversing the compass.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
04-11-2010, 01:17 AM
What else is Turn Rate besides angle?

GH_Klingstroem
04-11-2010, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Like the Aliens that helped the Allies win? That kind of unwritten secret?



nah .... its just OUR aliens were better than their aliens </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha I spilled my coffee Galway!! Interesting how the debate went from fw190s to our aliens were better than their alien... haha Thx for a good morning laugh

M_Gunz
04-11-2010, 02:08 PM
Interesting story behind the original "Our German scientists are better than yours." remark is told
in a BBC series IIRC titled "The Space Race". The main man behind the Russian program was not a
German. His name and existence was a closely kept secret. Reason was the Amis would assassinate.

Korolov.

fphpcp1953
04-27-2010, 03:06 PM
Take pity on an old Infantryman. Will someone help explain some of the terminology or where I can find the information explaining it. I enjoy the subject but am sorely lacking on knowledge in the field.

M_Gunz
04-27-2010, 03:27 PM
Ex-17 here where you were an 11? IIRC 13 was cannon-cockers....

Anywho you can learn a lot at See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/).

ROXunreal
04-27-2010, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
The sooner we can go over to flying SoW:BoB the better. No Fw 190s to argue about!

WHAT WHY!? If this is true it is a COLOSSAL disappointment, almost to the point of not wanting to play the game until a patch comes out that includes the plane. ffs

AndyJWest
04-27-2010, 03:43 PM
WHY!?

BoB = Battle of Britain: 1940. Fw 190 came into service in mid 1941.

I'm sure that the SoW series will include 190s at some point though, and it will be possible for third parties to add aircraft too. I wanna Walrus!

ROXunreal
04-27-2010, 03:46 PM
Yeh but, I didn't think it would be strictly limited to THE BoB, rather to the britain/north france early war theater in general :/

AndyJWest
04-27-2010, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by fphpcp1953:
Take pity on an old Infantryman. Will someone help explain some of the terminology or where I can find the information explaining it. I enjoy the subject but am sorely lacking on knowledge in the field.

I see M_Gunz has already provided a useful link. Even Wikipedia can be useful for some things (abbreviations etc), and there are lots of other sites. One aimed at Australian recreational fliers has some useful info too: http://www.raa.asn.au/remoteindex2.html

Just don't ask anyone to explain Gaston's terminology... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
04-27-2010, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by ROXunreal:
Yeh but, I didn't think it would be strictly limited to THE BoB, rather to the britain/north france early war theater in general :/
Maybe eventually... but I didn't think anyone was under any illusions that we wouldn't see anything but aircraft limited from June 1940 to November 1940. Dunkirk is on the map... so maybe we'll get to that planeset before too long. By then we'd even have the first Mustangs in the air http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
04-27-2010, 11:11 PM
SoW: Fewer planes (per release?) in much greater detail.

It will be interesting to see if a number of planes made by one company ever make it into SoW as official.
History has a way of being owned.

Jaws2002
04-27-2010, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
SoW: Fewer planes (per release?) in much greater detail.

It will be interesting to see if a number of planes made by one company ever make it into SoW as official.
History has a way of being owned.

Are you talking about Classic Hangar? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
04-28-2010, 08:09 AM
Had to look that one up, I don't run MSFS-anything. Nice look on their page.
Not them. A certain airplane company who also made canoes and has lawyers.

K_Freddie
04-28-2010, 01:46 PM
I'm sure if you made a similar looking 3D model and gave it the 'correct' FM, the dog company and their lawyers wouldn't stand a chance... yes, not a real 'chance'.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif