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

[Soren]

Seriously...

What you have a poll or something hidden away which says this or what ?

I'm sure if it was really like you say I would've been contacted by others than you..

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

And from Gene (Crumpp):

"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it.

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

Gene is correct..Lednicer is correct.. that is why virtually ALL a/c have twist.

You think you have stumbled onto a fundamental 'aha'??

Having said this a.) All trapezoidal wings have somewhat of eliptical lift distribution, (take a look at plot in Lednicer Report that I pointed out to you many times) b.) the elliptical distribution survives through a range of angle of attack for the trapezoidal wing although downwash varies spanwise with no twist, .c) all elliptical wings have better elliptical lift distributions (take a look at the abovementioned Lednicer plot) , downwash is constant for no twist and d.) elliptical planform has and less induced drag than trapezoidal planform although a tip chord to root chord ratio of .4 will closely approach the elliptical.. as I said in the posts above.

Lednicer specifically cites the Fw 190 spanwise twist as ranging from 2+ degrees at root to zero at 81.5.. then constant from there to 100% (that would be tip root chord for you).

I'm not sure Gene recalls this tidbit in the Lednicer report - or he has information that Lednicer was wrong about the outer 20% where Lednicer cites 'no twist'.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

What you have a poll or something hidden away which says this or what ?

I'm sure if it was really like you say I would've been contacted by others than you..

No Soren the PM's sent to me by members of the forum because they are tired of the arrogant and insulting way you post tells me this.

[Soren]

Oh and I didn't put this in: "[elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. " I just copy pasted the qoute from another forum as I didn't want to write it down directly myself, but now I took a photo of it instead.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No Soren the PM's sent to me by members of the forum because they are tired of the arrogant and insulting way you post tells me this.

PM from who ?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Gene is correct..Lednicer is correct.. that is why virtually ALL a/c have twist.

You think you have stumbled onto a fundamental 'aha'??

Having said this a.) All trapezoidal wings have somewhat of eliptical lift distribution, (take a look at plot in Lednicer Report that I pointed out to you many times) b.) the elliptical distribution survives through a range of angle of attack for the trapezoidal wing although downwash varies spanwise with no twist, .c) all elliptical wings have better elliptical lift distributions (take a look at the abovementioned Lednicer plot) , downwash is constant for no twist and d.) elliptical planform has and less induced drag than trapezoidal planform although a tip chord to root chord ratio of .4 will closely approach the elliptical.. as I said in the posts above.

Lednicer specifically cites the Fw 190 spanwise twist as ranging from 2+ degrees at root to zero at 81.5.. then constant from there to 100% (that would be tip root chord for you).

I'm not sure Gene recalls this tidbit in the Lednicer report - or he has information that Lednicer was wrong about the outer 20% where Lednicer cites 'no twist'.

Gene has all the stuff there is on the 190, and so I trust him a heck of a lot more on this than you!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

PM from who ?

Soren over the last few years I have recieved lots of PM's from members of the forum addressing you. I am sure I am not the only moderator.

I have told you this on several occasions. There goes your selective reading again.

In addition to this, many members have called you out on it on numerous occasions. Bill is just the newest to this.

Believe it or not, I am not taking his side here. I am just tired of you. If he is the latest member to call you out then so be it.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Sorry but you can't wiggle yourself out of this one Bill!

Here it is DIRECTLY from the article:


So Bill what is a matter ? Are unable to read suddenly ?

Lol! I invite you to slither back to post 77 for the precise reference to that quote.

I invite you to see how you changed the wording when you 'quoted it' as I explained a couple of posts above this reply.

No wiggle, it is EXACTLY what I Said and Mean.

Are we in a dual personality mode here Soren.. you post funny stuff, I rebut with source - you then use my references to 'prove your point - thinking you are Me'??

The point I made early, middle and long on the Fw 190 violent manuevering stall was a.) elastic deformation, b.) outward shift of lift distribution and c.) no twist in outer 20% to alleveiate a sudden and complete stall of the entire wing at nearly the same time.

What point do YOU want to make with this article quote from page 89?

[Soren]

Bill,

Lednicer & Crumpp are saying the same thing:

By Gene:

Correct, however the harsh stall of the NACA 230xx is without twist. The reason for the twist was to improve stall characteristics. 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.

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

David Lednicer conducted a interesting CFD analysis of the Focke Wulf and these were his conclusions. It's the only reasonable explaination I have seen for the two contrasting stall behaviors of the Focke Wulf.

[Soren]

And in fear of repeating myself:

I didn't write this: "[elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. " I just copy pasted the qoute from another forum as I didn't want to write it down directly myself, so it stayed there because I didn't notice it right away, but now I took a photo of the orginal text instead (Which says what I've been saying all along)

Here's where it came from, in the guy called JG14_Josf's post:
A Complete Waste of Space

[Soren]

So Bill, since this time YOU missunderstood something Lednicer wrote am I then supposed to act all hotshot & rude now just as you started doing ??

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

Lednicer & Crumpp are saying the same thing:

By Gene:

Correct, however the harsh stall of the NACA 230xx is without twist. The reason for the twist was to improve stall characteristics. 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.

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

David Lednicer conducted a interesting CFD analysis of the Focke Wulf and these were his conclusions. It's the only reasonable explaination I have seen for the two contrasting stall behaviors of the Focke Wulf.

I am delighted but mystified regarding why you continue to make my point?

I appears that Gene agrees my interpretation of the report including 'no twist' at the tips.. I pointed that out and suggested to you that Gene may have missed that in the report - you said you would trust him more than me - but it appears he agreed my point.

Summary - Gene superbly demonstrated that he can read and comprehend - no suprise.



And I submit the quote from you that started all this

"However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp."


Maybe I did 'grasp' what Lednicer had to say - so did Gene.. but you? Not so much.. along with 'suction' versus drag.. but you know a lot about aero.



Now is a good time to shut this one down - I really am tired of picking on you.

[Kruska]

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Interesting little side note. A lot of people say that the problem with the 109 was because of its narrow track. pbfoot who has a 109E and a Spitfire readily available to him actualley went and measured them and the Spitfire's track was actually a bit narrower.

Well, now that is really interesting to hear.

Regards
Kruska

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Kruska

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Interesting little side note. A lot of people say that the problem with the 109 was because of its narrow track. pbfoot who has a 109E and a Spitfire readily available to him actualley went and measured them and the Spitfire's track was actually a bit narrower.

Well, now that is really interesting to hear.

Regards
Kruska

At the museum he works at they have aflying Bf 109E as well as a Spitfire. You should check out his thread, he has many pics of them both.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I am delighted but mystified regarding why you continue to make my point?

I appears that Gene agrees my interpretation of the report including 'no twist' at the tips.. I pointed that out and suggested to you that Gene may have missed that in the report - you said you would trust him more than me - but it appears he agreed my point.

Summary - Gene superbly demonstrated that he can read and comprehend - no suprise.

You? No so much

LoL ! Wiggle wiggle! Trying to dodge the subject at hand are we Bill ??

Crumpp & Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!

Quote from Gene:

Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it.

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.

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

And by Lednicer

A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneous. Combined with the sharp stalling features of NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidenced by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise.


So who was it that was having problems with reading comprehension again Bill ??