WrathofAtlantis

that a 100 plus sq foot surface is assumed to be as easy to tllt as a 4 sq foot surface illustrates quite well the sheer stupidity of the current "science"... My last quote, in this video (with another simiar quote about the Dora 9), drew no answer...; Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor." Pilots are of course clueless in front of the great Science...;) WoA

I mention in it a quote that actually touches directly on the theory: Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor." I'd be interested to see what "experts" have to say about the term "close-coupled"... WoA

I just uploaded this new video, with Radial to Inline (La-5and Ki-100) quotes, and the reverse, with very interesting A-8 to Dora nine observations: Plus a fascinating melee of 16 P-47 needletip Razorbacks out-turning 20 Me-109Gs, on the deck, while each Jug hauled two one thousand pound bombs(!)... WoA

This what I had access to: Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed, implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit. The F6F was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax; the P-47 experienced light buffet at 4.8g. The FG-1 and P-51 were buffet-free up to 6g. Heading Change Time (180 deg at METO, 220 KIAS at 10,000 ft.) FG-1--8.5 sec P-47--9.7 sec F6F--9.9 sec P-51--10.0 sec 320 mph ias is the max P-51 level speed meto at 10 000 ft. Easy. What you said is this: So what you said has far wider assumptions than the "reasonable" ones you are claiming... Note his subterfuge: 255 mph is supposedly "very close" to 320 mph... But then it's actually 276 despite the desperate help of some nose-down... Hmmm... They sure had a hard time lowering that value without unloading the prop, did they? Thanks for strengthening my case... :) This the wording I had available: Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed.(10k) And that to me is close to 300 mph ias, if truly level... So they had trouble matching the claimed values even with the fuzzy factor of putting the nose down? Has a WWII fighter's wing bending measurements ever been taken during level turns? No. I checked: No such data... I posit the wing loads are greater horizontally because the prop must be tilted into slower air, and you ask for formulas about non existent data... Do you see the problem? A one circle radius... A one circle radius. Oh my Holy Lord... Just examine what he is referring to: "Dogfight at 500 ft. (attacking a second higher aircraft, after climbing from 130 ft., after having closed to 50 ft. on a landing wheel down 109G at 130 ft.)"--"At first he began turning inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time (Every TIME, got it?) I got close to the edge of the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns."--"Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings." http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg Let's just say we don't have the same understanding of the English language... The Hanseman fight, btw, is one of the two "initiating sparks" of this theory, although the "triple trick" appears quite often in the 8th AF (about a dozen times, always full coarse prop pitch while slow speed turning). How do the formulas do with the prop on full coarse at minimum speed on the deck?:huh: That couldn't possibly have something to do with stalling the blades... Because he could sense that this unloaded his wings, now could it?:music_whistling: The patent absurdity of this, in the absence of prop-loaded wing bending data, is the very nature of this problem. And why isn't there one? Why is a four square foot thrust pushing assumed to be identical to a 113 square foot surface pulling? If you call "closely" 255 mph being "very close" to 276 mph partially nose-down... I find this problematic, especially if they put the nose down, which greatly strengthens my case... I don't find it close. And no formula can change the fact that the wing bending data for these types does not exist... Formulas are only like a salt grinder: It depends what you run through them, and in this case grinding is not even the correct problem... WoA

Corner Speed is not sustained 6 G... You only have to touch it... At 240 mph ias you are so far above stall speed there is no reason you cannot touch 6 Gs for a split second, lose 100 mph, and still have plenty of speed above stall, regardless how low your power is... Are you then saying a P-40 needs 320 ias to touch 6 Gs? See how this METO caveat does not work? If the SETP used WEP, the 6G Corner Speed would have been higher, not lower... 6G Corner Speed has zero time requirement. But the real nail in the coffin is that amateur guest pilots routinely pull 6 G at 240 ias in the P-51D, no problem, and they certainly don't use power beyond METO... But they do put the nose down, unload the prop, and get 6 Gs easily by pulling up vertically, 80 mph lower than the SETP. Think logically, why P-51s do 6 Gs so easily at 240 ias for guest pilots?... It is 240 in the Flight Manual, with no silly power excuses... The reason the SETP had such a hard time getting 6 Gs is they did not unload the prop by diving... That is why real WWII pilots were so obsessed with lowering the throttle...: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg "Dogfight at 500 ft. (with a second higher aircraft, after climbing from 130 ft., having closed to 50 ft. on a landing wheel down 109G)"--"At first he began turning inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got close to the edge of the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns."--"Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings." Naturally this was all scorching near 400 mph, so he was so fast he had to kill speed right? " When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed (1944 109G). (160 mph)" - Kyösti Karhila 160 mph. There's your preferred 1944 WWII turning speed... The very notion increasing power on a prop helps you turn more and at a lower speed is so opposite to what every WWII pilot was faced with, I don't know where to begin...: Please try to look at this with fresh eyes, and understand how the width of the prop, and the resulting leverage, obliterates all the power/drag energy nonsense that works so well with jets: In this new video I go a bit into the absurdity of comparing prop performance with jets: WoA

The reality is if you think in "energy" terms, and in Gs much over 3-4 Gs (except on the vertical), you don't understand how these things fought differently than jets, and Shaw (plus the doghouse charts using "live" dive pull out data) bears much of the blame for that. They were, horizontally, all about fighting within sustained Gs (3 G range), because, as the SETP found out to their surprise, in 1989, minimum speed for 6 horizontal Gs was maximum level speed, so the things could barely even MAKE 6 Gs for a split second in truly horizontal flight... As for the physics, it's amazing that people graduate high school not knowing you can get more force out of something than you put in... Come on guys, this is part of being in a universe with shapes... The Greeks knew better than this 2400 years ago. WoA

If you keep it to lower speed sustained multiple consecutive turns at lower altitude, there isn't a single one vs the Spitfire. There is one or two Spitfire accounts staying/gaining over one circle, but always after a dive, or at higher altitudes, or both... That is not much over 100s of reports. Keeping in mind the horrible high speed (or high altitude) maneuverability of the 190A, there is one low altitude example of a 190A being out-turned at unknown, but not hugely high, speeds vs a downthrottled P-51, but only when the P-51 uses the "triple trick": Throttle way down, 20 degrees of flaps, prop on full coarse (to unload the prop disc by blade stalling). At least ten Merlin P-51 combat reports describe this "triple trick", always successful, all vs the 109 except that one. This one low altitude, moderate speed P-51D account would seem contradictory, but it is only spread over 1.5 360s with little gain, not multiple turns. Keep in mind Western Front 190As were often loaded with armor and guns for bomber interception, and this usually with no obvious external add ons... It was the general opinion of 8th AF pilots that the FW-190A was more maneuverable than the 109, but this was largely equal or reversed at bomber altitudes, which likely blurs their recollections compared to the much clearer Russian low altitude experience. WoA

The "Red Fleet" 1943 article "190 inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" was a condensed summary of a year's worth of combat across the entire Eastern Front. If you prefer US Navy tests to that, stay in your fantasy world then. WoA

The thing to understand about this is that you can get more force out of something than you put in... If you don't understand that, you don't understand the difference between FORCE and ENERGY... I should have insisted on this in the video: Extra FORCE is possible through leverage, and those forces in turn impact energy outcomes: You have all seen the multiple pulleys Vs single pulley displays in a tech museum: Leverage affects energy outcomes. The only unknown part is how the wing generates extra lift through the prop's resistance to curving: That is what eluded everyone, and I obviously can't do any better but to see the larger initial outcome... From this greater total, different leverages are then free to substract differently depending on the nose lenght-CL ratio... The greater lift through prop resistance is partly due to the trust angling down, but that does not explain the CL's forward movement. So, yes, you can get more FORCE than you put in: That is High School level physics... WoA

50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws. You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome... Energy is affected by force. This is why the Spitfire behaves like it is heavy in low speed turns: The magic of leverage (combined with airflow) makes it fight itself. It does do way better at high speeds, since higher speeds (or dives) unload the prop... And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this... 50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws. You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome... Energy is affected by force. This is why the Spitfire behaves like it is heavy in low speed turns: The magic of leverage (combined with airflow) makes it fight itself. It does do way better at high speeds, since higher speeds (or dives) unload the prop... And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this... The SETP 1989 test Corner speeds absolutely confirms this. The older "live data" prop doghouse charts were all made with dive pull outs, and if you (like me) find this hard to understand, you have to realize how much safer and easier it is to gather hundreds of data points while upright (prop unloaded), as opposed to hanging sideways (with the prop correctly overloaded asymmetrically)... Unbelievably, they ignored that diving unloaded the prop... Because the width of the prop, in their minds, was just a narrow trust vector line... Somewhat less unbelievably, given its informal nature, the 1989 SETP test did not trigger further investigation into this. They tried to gather jet-like "energy" theory turn data, and found props just don't fight like this at all. Shaw may have been right for jets, but he was clueless about props. WoA

I give more details in these two videos: Details on specific quotes: But far more importantly, below, from 16:06 onward, mention of the dive pull out fallacy exposed by the 1989 SETP test, when 6G Corner Speed was found 80 mph higher horizontally than in all those dive pullout-based doghouse charts...: The 1989 Society of Experimental Test Pilots test (p-47,p-51d, Corsair and Hellcat) is what really blows all those prop doghouse charts to bits: The real things ALL had minimum 6G turns at/near maximum METO speeds at 10.000 feet: 320 mph ias, NOT 220-240... This proves all the WWII/Korea prop doghouse charts were done with dive pull-outs G measures (safer and easier), unwittingly unloading the prop disc. The SETP did actual G-measured HORIZONTAL turns in 1989: Full asymmetric load on the prop in a REAL turn, not unloaded prop in a dive pull-out like 40 years before... For actual turning with a loaded prop, the doghouse shape is fiction, which is why slow sustained speed turns mattered a lot more than the comparatively unuseable high G energy burning turns... Hence vertical or horizontal fighters, but comparatively very little "energy" turning above 4-5 G: As the SETP points out, very short-lived high G values HORIZONTALLY, since the minimum speed to make them is top level speed... WoA

Some FW-190A real-life observations: 1-S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Mk XIV vs FW-190A-8): I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height.-------The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water--------The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2, being unable to overtake it, broke away. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..." "The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know." 3-Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back." 4-"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day... 5-Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..." (Jonhson escaped when he abandoned the turn fight, and dived near a Royal Navy ship that fired AAA at his pursuer) 6-A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943. Quote: -The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. -They interact in the following manner: Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb 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." -Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. -A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. -Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. -In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. 7-"Dogfights" Episode 16 "Death of the Luftwaffe" dealing with the January 1st, 1945 "Operation Bodenplatte" airfield attacks: "FW-190As fought at lower altitude and engaged in turn fighting, while the Me-109Gs attacked in dives from a higher altitude." 8-Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45: P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt possessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight" P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane" 9-Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G... Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries." 10-In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40: (Russian experience with lend-lease Spitfire Mk Vs) Première citation : " Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical." [Translation: "The Spitfire V failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."] P. 40-41: " A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification." [Translation: To improve the Spitfire Mk VB's maneuverability and speed to the level of contemporary Soviet and German fighters, the four outer .303 machineguns were removed. This attempt at lightening the Spitfire was not conclusive, and the modification was not widely adopted.] 11-1946 US evaluation of FW-190D-9: "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." 12-Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor." 13-Reichlin assessment team report of Dec 10, 1941 (FW-190A-1 vs Me-109F): "In terms of maneuverability, it (FW-190A) completely outclassed the Me-109. The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed." 14-Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128: FW-190A: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable." 15-Red Fleet, No. 37, November 4, 1943.: "When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire." [This is in the context of dive pull-outs] -"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up] I explain what I think is going on in this video: WoA