PDA

View Full Version : can this technique work to caught up 190 with a spit?



raaaid
05-02-2009, 05:14 AM
ive done this many times in no cockpit view servers:

im driving a spit and im on a 190 six, he dives, i dont dive but keep following him making sure im higher so in thinner air

ive caught many 190 doing this but i wasnt able to do it in cockpit servers for the obstructed view till now:

what if i fly upside down to track the 190 while following higher?

or it cant work for the negative lift?

now if you see someone flying upside down dont think he is crazy, its me using this technique to caught a 190

raaaid
05-02-2009, 05:14 AM
ive done this many times in no cockpit view servers:

im driving a spit and im on a 190 six, he dives, i dont dive but keep following him making sure im higher so in thinner air

ive caught many 190 doing this but i wasnt able to do it in cockpit servers for the obstructed view till now:

what if i fly upside down to track the 190 while following higher?

or it cant work for the negative lift?

now if you see someone flying upside down dont think he is crazy, its me using this technique to caught a 190

Xiolablu3
05-02-2009, 05:32 AM
The problem is that the Fw190 is far faster at low level than the Spit. The priority for the Spit in the first half of the war 39-42 was high altitude work, so that was tended to be favoured. Later in the war, when the LW was worn down, much effort was put in to getting the Spit faster at low level, hence the LF designs, but it had trouble at low level vs the FW190.

Basically the higher you go, the better the Spitfire gets against the Fw190.

JtD
05-02-2009, 05:35 AM
Flying inverted creates more drag as it is aerodynamically not as efficient as flying upside up. This means you'll slow the plane down and this means you can't catch a 190 with a Spit anymore.

Jabout
05-02-2009, 05:42 AM
Wings have lift for 2 reasons.

First they're pitched up against the airflow by about 3 degrees (angle of attack) so the air hits the underside of the wing creating high pressure.

Second the uppersurface is more curved than the underside, to give a greater surface area, so as the air spreads out to cover the greater surface area the air pressure drops or is low.

The high pressure underneath and low pressure on top creates the lift, in level flight the weight of the aircraft equals the lift.

Flying up side down won't work as well, because the curved surface will be underneath and the flatter surface on top.

raaaid
05-02-2009, 05:43 AM
but if you are chasing the 190 2000 m higher

wont you have like 20% more speed?

how much thinner is air at 2000 m with respect to deck?

Jabout
05-02-2009, 05:49 AM
Yeah, you're right your ground speed goes up as you go higher.

It could work.

na85
05-02-2009, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jabout:
Wings have lift for 2 reasons.

First they're pitched up against the airflow by about 3 degrees (angle of attack) so the air hits the underside of the wing creating high pressure.

Second the uppersurface is more curved than the underside, to give a greater surface area, so as the air spreads out to cover the greater surface area the air pressure drops or is low.

The high pressure underneath and low pressure on top creates the lift, in level flight the weight of the aircraft equals the lift.

Flying up side down won't work as well, because the curved surface will be underneath and the flatter surface on top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not correct. It can easily be shown with to some math that Bernoulli's principle (which is not even what you are describing here) is not the primary contributor to lift.

In fact, many successful airfoils have the curved surface on the bottom.

Jabout
05-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Isn't it, very approximately with wide variations, about one third of the lift comes from the upper wing surface? Which tends to be more curved than the lower surface.

With about two thirds of the lift from the wing from the under side, which is usually curved as well, but usually not as much as the upper surface?

DKoor
05-02-2009, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
but if you are chasing the 190 2000 m higher

wont you have like 20% more speed?

how much thinner is air at 2000 m with respect to deck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think if the 2000m is in question that Spitfire level speed at that altitude is still lower than that of FW at deck.
Plus count on top of that that FW is going to be much faster because of diving. Unless you fly Spit25.

You could still fly at parallel course to FW in order to keep vis on him.
Flying inverted as guys pointed out isn't a solution to this problem.

Buzzsaw-
05-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Salute

It's a question of TAS.

As some have mentioned, almost all aircraft reach their maximum TAS at higher altitudes. So while a 190 may be faster than a Spitfire while both are at the same altitude, when the Spitfire is at its critical alt, and the 190 is on the deck, the Spitfire will be faster.

For example, a 190A6 has a speed of approx. 355 mph on the deck. A Spit IXc has a critical alt speed of 408 mph.

And as someone else mentioned, in the case of all Spitfire vs 190 combat, the Spitfire will matchup better speedwise the higher the altitude at which the combat is occurring.

So in this example, the Spitfire might be able to outpace the 190 if the 190 dives to the deck and the Spitfire stays at an altitude where its speed is higher.

Of course, we also have to factor in the extra speed gained by the 190 in the course of its dive, something which will allow it to fly at faster than normal max. TAS at sea level for quite a while.

The tactic of retaining alt is always a good one for a slower diving aircraft in any case. Don't chase the bandit. He's just trying to sucker you so his buddy can come up behind and remove your wing.

Often the target will dive away, then try to regain alt by zooming back up. The result will be a target at lower alt then where it started, and with less E. If the pursuing aircraft has maintained its alt, and E, and built level speed, it then may be in a position to catch the target.

Contrary to the way most people fly the Spitfire, ie. down on the deck in furballs, almost all Spitfires are at their best at 6000 meters or higher.

There are two reasons:

1) Their critical speed alts are generally higher than the Axis aircraft.

2) Their wing design, ie. the wide wingpan, eliptical shape, and pointed tips are optimized for higher alt, they provide more lift. (note this is not the case with the clipped wing versions) In the thin air of higher altitudes, all aircraft are more prone to losing lift in turns and stalling. The Spitfire's wing retains lift better than almost all other varieties. (TA-152H is also optimized for higher alts, the very wide wingspan and sailplane design also works well in thin air, and finally, the P-47's eliptical shape also works well)