Originally Posted by
Pilot DAR
Yes, and I sometimes do this just a little in my flying boat on very short final onto the water. I had it demonstrated to me aggressively in a Bellanca Viking decades back, however, the rapid drag rise I experienced, and transient RPM changes, seemed abusive to me. However, it's considered a poor technique for those engines with gear reduction, as the gears are not supposed to drive the engine. Some WW2 fighters had geared engines, though I agree that in combat, the pilot might disregard good technique in battle.
The problem is with the assumption of a match between model and reality. The current model predicts the 30 lbs Spitfire is a turn fighter to the FW-190’s 45 lbs: The radical opposite is observed in combat. The model predicts the FW-190 as needing high speed vertical maneuvers and poor in low speed turn maneuvers: the exact opposite is observed historically over thousands of combats, this condensed into Russian manuals and published articles after one full year of front-wide encounters. The model is not just wrong, it is the opposite of widespread experience, with the sole exception of wwII test pilot experience, who all act as if desperately trying to get the hardware to fit the model... No wwII combat pilot ever claims emergency power helps in life or death turning combat: the complete opposite of the model. 6g corner speed as tested in 1989 is 30-50 mph higher than in 1943 aircraft manual, but matches when doing dive pullouts... heavier radial airframe conversions lead to massive gains in turn rates over the same airframe with a lighter same power inline engine: no explanation in the model... Reversing from radial to inline leads to large losses in turn rate: again no explanation in the model. The current model not only does not predict wwII pilot constant power-reducing behaviour in combat (unheard of with jets), but it makes predictions opposite to reality as to the strong points of each type: FW-190s and P-47s being best as low speed turn fighters, spitfires, mustangs and me-109s being best as high speed vertical fighters.
The model is not just not predictive, it is the OPPOSITE of observable reality in the crucible of actual combat experience... Test pilots of the era appearing, on the other hand, to be at odds with what the machines are trying to tell them.
The assumption that the model is correct in the face of the ENTIRE, but less precisely technical, historical record seems fragile to me...