Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Lol - My Momma thinks your Momma is right -

Bill,

I am not trying to pick sides, as you can see before this post of yours I was sticking up for you. But this post of yours comes across as you are discrediting Crumpp opinion after the fact.

Before when Soren said he would contact Crumpp you had no problem with him contacting him. Now it seems you don't like what Crumpp has to say so you are discrediting him with this comment.

What is it Bill? Do you respect Crumpps opinion or not? Seems you are flip flopping little.

I am trying to get facts from both of you, nothing else. I don't really care who is correct and who is wrong.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The email IS posted in its entirety Bill, nothing was left out or altered in any way. And you can contact Gene yourself if you don't believe me.

And as you can see in my email to him I directed him to read this thread.

Now I'm not going to play all hotshot on you Bill, don't worry, like you said no one is perfect. However I hope that from now on you'll keep your snide remarks to yourself and stop insinuating I don't know what I'm talking about.

So just admit defeat so we can get on with our lives man!

Thank you.

Soren - the reason I wanted to see the the email is for everyone to see what YOU said. I have zero problem with the quotes you have from Gene - I AGREE with them.

The reason I AGREE is that a.) they are right and .b) do NOTHING to support your quote I just reposted for the (4th?) time about your ridiculous statement about Fw 190 wing design and the reason it was designed that way... and my inability to read the Lednicer report.

What truly confuses me is why you think Gene's statements contradict what I have said - or more importantly why they support you?

Take that Post - and show where Gene contradicts any statement I have made. Then show how any of Gene's statements support the underlined parts of your 'statement'?

Hotshot - over and out

PS Hunter, I appreciate your concern for my 'feeler's but I am doing OK.. sniff, sniff.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Hmmmmmmmmm

Not saying your right or not Soren (b/c I don't know), but you might of went to far rubbing his nose in it, IF you are right.

Stick to facts, if your facts are right.....no nose rubbing is needed. Facts speak louder then any gloating does. Your post is about 25% too much, rest is valid.

I'm in no way trying to gloat, that is again prick like behavior.

However I do often talk in absolutes, it's not the first time I've been accused of that and I know it.

But infact believe it or not all I want is for me and Bill to agree on this. And I was hoping that after Bill showed the good will by posting in my "Help me out finding a new rimfire rifle" thread, I thought we were starting to get some progress.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Bill,

I am not trying to pick sides, as you can see before this post of yours I was sticking up for you. But this post of yours comes across as you are discrediting Crumpp opinion after the fact.

Before when Soren said he would contact Crumpp you had no problem with him contacting him. Now it seems you don't like what Crumpp has to say so you are discrediting him with this comment.

What is it Bill? Do you respect Crumpps opinion or not? Seems you are flip flopping little.

I am trying to get facts from both of you, nothing else. I don't really care who is correct and who is wrong.

Nah - I have enormous respect for Crumpp, and as I noted I AGREE with the comments contained. The reason I keep drawing Soren back to my Post 77 is I sate several of the same things - then go on to explain how aeroelasticity affects load distribution over a wing - to tie into the Lednicer speculation.

I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.

Soren - I am ready to discuss why I said Aeroelasticty was more an art than a science in WWII. But first I want You to start by describing the analytical problems to be solved to get an accurate model of an airframe as a system.

Absent your understanding of That - you will be like a goose in a barnyard when I get into the what's and the Why's??

Your ball.

As I just noted I was more interested in what Soren said to Gene?

[buzzard]

My vote goes to the Spit. If the contending pilots of the Spit and '109 are both exceptionally skilled, it seems rather problematic. OTOH, if we're talking about AVERAGE pilots of 'equal ability', then the friendlier handling of the Spit should give it the edge.

In the words of Captain Eric Brown, RN...

"The Bf 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for wartime pilots to overcome."

JL

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'm in no way trying to gloat, that is again prick like behavior.

However I do often talk in absolutes, it's not the first time I've been accused of that and I know it.

But infact believe it or not all I want is for me and Bill to agree on this. And I was hoping that after Bill showed the good will by posting in my "Help me out finding a new rimfire rifle" thread, I thought we were starting to get some progress.

We were - on my initiative until your above series of posts.

You have work to do to take Gene's comments and one by one stick them against each of your 'Fw 190 wing comments' that I just requoted for your benefit, to prove your points.. a LOT of work

Then take Gene's comments against my Post 77 and do the same thing to disprove what I said.

[Soren]

Ahem!

Originally Posted by Bill

Uh, no they don't say that.. and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn.

Nothing about G forces 'achieve' elliptical lift in turns, they (G forces) only tend to shift lift distribution based on aeroelastic effects.

[Soren]

Bill I posted the entire mail in its original form, and all I wrote is there in the exact original context!

So stop believing I'm trying fool anyone here man! Go contact Gene for crying out loud!

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by buzzard

My vote goes to the Spit. If the contending pilots of the Spit and '109 are both exceptionally skilled, it seems rather problematic. OTOH, if we're talking about AVERAGE pilots of 'equal ability', then the friendlier handling of the Spit would give it the edge.

In the words of Captain Eric Brown, RN...

"The Bf 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for wartime pilots to overcome."

JL

I gave the same reasons for placing the Spit above the 109

Regards
Kruska

[Soren]

Then take Gene's comments against my Post 77 and do the same thing to disprove what I said.

The problem is Bill, that you change your mind between different posts (Read the qoutes in my last post #142), which is what got us into this mess.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.

I bow in sincere respect to your intelligence and abillity of interpretation in between the lines.

Regards
Kruska

[Soren]

Again the second mail in its entirety:

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No you are right. That is what causes the harsh stall. It is not a design feature however. It is just and explanation for the two different stall characteristics of the design.

You are right on this too. The Spitfire does not achieve the full efficiency benefits of elliptical wing construction due to the washout. At the same time though it is probably the most efficient of the three. If we examine the aircraft at a design optimum point, you will find little to no difference.

This is what I've been saying all along, which I think everyone following this thread can testify.

[Soren]

Oh btw, Gene notes that the full elliptical lift distribution occuring in turns wasn't a design feature from the start, which I said it was, so on that point I was wrong and I gladly admit it.

[drgondog]

Soren - I missed your email to Gene and now I see it. Apologise for thinking you didn't show it.

Here is what one of your comments to me prior to your email to Gene

The Fw-190's wing was twisted 2 degree's but left straight at the ends so that under G's the twist was removed, thus creating elliptical lift distribution over the wing. And as we both seem to know ellipitical lift distribution is sought after because it offers the best 'e' value (Which is used to acquire the Cdi).

But - Here is what you said to Gene in the email

The Fw-190's wing achieved elliptical lift distribution during G's because of aeroelasticity negating the original 2 degree twist applied to the 190's wing. This is what caused the violent departure in turns when pulling G's as compared to when stalling at 1 G.


In other words - you 'fudged' by adding the aeroelasticity comment after I pointed it out to you

This is what I said

"So, Lednicer (and I say) aeroelastic bending caused the outboard shift in lift distribution, combined with no twist in outer region of wing, which in turn resulted in the outboard chunk of the wing reaching critical stall at the same time..


and further

Bill - We just finished settling the fact that the Fw 190 cut out the outer 20% span's twist - they sacrificed tip control for aerodynamic efficiency in a straight line

Soren -The wing was left straight at the ends to gain the benefits of elliptical lift production at the tips making the tips more efficient and reducing induced drag production.

Bill - "This is true - and the reason it lost tip control at nearly the same time it lost the rest of the wing lift.. So? It was a design feature in cruise and an design flaw in high speed/high angle of attack manuevers.

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall.

Actually I am not exactly sure that the issue was torsion (remove the twist) Soren, in fact I suspect bending because of the outboard shift to lift distribution - as I indicated several pages ago - but you wouldn't know the difference. Inboard (and aft) shift of Lift distribution from the wing stress axis usually results from Torsion as the CP tends to move aft. Outboard from bending" - (same effect either way - the CLmax at the tip is reached at the same time as the inboard (twisted)region)

This is what Gene says

This statement refers to the fact aeroelasticity removes the aerodynamic twist placing the airfoil sections at the same co-efficient of lift. The sections then reach CLmax all at the same time. When one side of our wing or the tips stall, the aircraft will drop a wing or if the stall is large enough, the aircraft will roll inverted. That is what Lednicer is saying. This was not a design feature. It is just an explanation for the differences in the FW190's stall behaviors.


Next - I will find some areas where you quoted me out of context in your email to Gene if you wish to pursue this further?.

[Soren]

Bill there's no point in dismantling the email, what was said was said to the specific question & comment made, it's all in the original context.

I only quoted you once and Gene got to see the whole thread as-well, so he got the whole argument in its original context.

Now come on Bill, just admit you were wrong this time.