# Spitfire IX v. FW 190A



## Medvedya (Dec 27, 2004)

In July 1942 a Spitfire IX was flown in a comparative trial against a Focke-Wulf 190A which had fallen into British hands when its pilot landed by mistake at Pembrey RAF base at in Wales. The trial showed that there was a remarkable similarity in performance. The following are extracts from the official report. 

*SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A*

The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres]. 

At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 - 
the approximate differences in speed are as follows: 

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire 
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same 
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX 
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same 
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 


Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better. 

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. 

Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. 

Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles. 
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction. 

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m]. 

The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage. 

The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

The good old Spitfire V with Merlin 61, Spit. IX. That is why people still say the Spitfire Mk. IX was the best dogfighter because the Griffon on the Spit. Mk. XIV did reduce some handling characteristics while giving it so much more power. 

You know, the Mk. VIII was definitive Merlin engined Spitfire.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 27, 2004)

An other comparison of the Spitfire Mk. IX and the FW 190A.

"The Spitfire was a little faster than the FW 190 at high and medium level. However, the FW 190 was faster at low level. But the difference was only 5 to 10 Km/h at any altitude. The Spitfire Mk. IX was also faster in climb. Over 22,000 feet, the advantage was even more important. In climb from from flight-level or after a dive, the FW 190 was better.

In a dive, le FW 190 was faster and more manoeuvrable in any cases, except in curves, and excellent for spins. In a sharp turn dive, a spin often allowed a FW 190 to escape a Spitfire. If the Spitfire was flying fast, a FW 190 couldn't successfully attack it. The better acceleration of the FW 190 could make it easyer to attack a Spitfire flying at low speed."


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

The test is valid except:

1) The FW190A-5 in the test was not in optimal running condition. In particular, spark plug fouling was a serious problem.

2) MW50 on the FW190A-5 in the test was not operational.

3) Tests were carried out to the Boscombe Downs standards, which tend to favor the Spitfire since it was developed with these tests in mind.

In genral, I consider this a very even matchup. But, I think the FW-190A-6 (best of the series for dogfighting, and about the same time frame as the Spit IX) was probably a little superior. In particular, the Spit IX probably had the edge at combat speeds around 250 IAS, but the FW had the edge at combat speeds over 300 IAS. The FW190A-6 was a slightly better energy fighter than the Spitfire IX.

All FW190A's had problems above 24,000 feet. The flight control computer, which manages fuel mixture, manifold pressure, and prop pitch controls, suffered a "divide by zero" condition when the ambient pressure fell too low, forcing the plane into a "safe mode" providing minimal power. This problem was apparently overcome for the Dora series, either through an improved computer or (more likely I think) by means of a bypass to allow pilot control of the mixture, manifold pressure, and prop pitch.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Jan 23, 2005)

I remember Douglas Badder in an interview saying that he passed a FW190 in an all out climb and the FW190 pilot was most disconcerted as he pushed the supercharger to the limit and left him for dead. so as he was a fella that did it for real I can only bow to his knowledge and experience regarding perfomance of the Spite.


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 9, 2005)

I think that while the test was flawed the results were not far off the mark from how the two adversaries stacked up in summer '42. I've tried to match the speed differential listed above against known early Spit IX and 190 A3 curves without much success. For 1943 the balance definately swung the Spitfire's way with the introduction of the Merlin 66. Witness - Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943): 

The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions. 

I think things were closer to balance with the boost increases in the FW 190 A-8 around autumn 1944. By 1945 the Spit IX was obsolete and wasn't in the same class as the best 190s.

p.s. RG_Lunatic: Faber's aircraft used in the comparitive trials was a FW 190 A-3.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

Schöpfel said:


> p.s. RG_Lunatic: Faber's aircraft used in the comparitive trials was a FW 190 A-3.



Not only that, the A-5 did not have MW50.


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 9, 2005)

> Not only that, the A-5 did not have MW50.



Yes, that's my understanding also KraziKanuK


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 9, 2005)

Hmmm.. I thought it was the same A-5 they used in the P-47 comparative tests, and later vs. the F6F and F4U-1.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

This Fw190G-3, W.Nr.160057 was also referred to as CE.No.2900. This example was one of two captured at Gerbini in Sicily by the 85th FS of the 79th FG in September 1943. It was shipped to the US in January 1944 where repairs were made and it was flown to NAS Patuxent River in February. (text via War Prizes/Image via Focke-Wulf 190, The Birth of the Butcher Bird 1939-43)







This could be the a/c the Americans ballasted because of the lack of outer wing guns to represent an A-5 for the tests.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 9, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> This Fw190G-3, W.Nr.160057 was also referred to as CE.No.2900. This example was one of two captured at Gerbini in Sicily by the 85th FS of the 79th FG in September 1943. It was shipped to the US in January 1944 where repairs were made and it was flown to NAS Patuxent River in February. (text via War Prizes/Image via Focke-Wulf 190, The Birth of the Butcher Bird 1939-43)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The plane that was tested was ballasted for all guns, but I don't believe this included outer wing cannon - 4 gun ballasts were listed. Supposedly it was an A-5, I believe it was landed by mistake on a British field.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

British 190s

PN999 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-5/U8 - W.Nr.2596 - "White 6" of I./SKG10 - despatched to unknown destination July 1946

PM679 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4/U8 - W.Nr.5843 - "Red 9" of I./SKG10 - used for spares July 1944

MP499 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 - W.Nr.313 - single chevron of III./JG2 - SoC September 1943

PE822 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4/U8 - W.Nr.7155 - H+ of II./SKG10 - crashed October 1944 

NF754 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - fate unknown

NF755 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - fate unknown 

AM 27 - Focke-Wulf Fw189A-3 - W.Nr.0173 - coded 3X+AA of unknown unit - scrapped 1947

AM 29 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-8/U1 - w.Nr.584219 - "Black 38" of unknown unit - static display RAF Museum, Henson

AM 36 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-8/U1 - W.Nr.580058 - coded "55" of unknown unit - not delivered to UK

AM 37 - Focke-Wulf Fw190S-1 - W.Nr.582044 - coded "54" of unknown unit - crashed November 1945

AM 111 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-8/R15 - W.Nr.unknown - uncoded - scrapped 1948?

AM 230 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-8D/NL - W.Nr.171747 - coded "13" on rudder on ferry flight to JG26 - fate not recorded



The A-5 carried 4 cannons while the G only carried 2.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 10, 2005)

My understanding is all FW190A's, from the A2 on, had positions for up to 4 x 20mm in the wings. On some these were installed, on some not. A-4's in particular had 2 x MG151/20's in the wing roots and 2 x MG-FFM's in the outboard wing positions. Very often the MG-FFM's were removed to make the plane more nimble.

Certainly it was optional to remove the ouboard cannon on any FW190A that had them. As for the G? I'm not familar with this model (I'd have to look it up - no time right now), but if it was radial powered, how did it fit 3 cannon?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

typo, now fixed. 

The F and G only had the inboard cannons fitted. The G carried no cowl mgs as well.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

Here is the test. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html

The Americans even got the designation wrong. The /U4 carried cameras and was a recon a/c. The designation /U8 was used by the FB version.

W.Nr.160057 is from the block for the G-3.

The other captured Fw190 at Gerbini had external air inlets for the supercharger.


----------



## Jaws (Oct 31, 2006)

The test above against the Spit Mk IX was done with Faber's FW-190 A3 Not with the A5. The same aircraft was tested against MkV spit, P-38F, Mustang1 and i think a P-47C.

The so called A5 was a G5 actually and that one was tested against the F-4U, Helcat and I think P-47D with water methanool injection.

A4 already had more powerfull engine then the A3 they tested so when MkIX with better engine (merlin 66) came in service in numbers with RAF, they were up against A-4's and A5's with better power as well. So the situation did not changed that much.

One more thing. FW-190 A5 did not have MW50. Not even the A8 had metanol injection. MW-50 was good with the 109's. They used a different boost for the 190's because the 190's use better fuel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2006)

Jaws said:


> They used a different boost for the 190's because the 190's use better fuel.



Another dead post, oh well there is nothing wrong with old threads being revived. 

Um on the fuel thing though, 190s and 109s were all using the same low grade fuel. The Germans did not have anything else late in the war.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 5, 2007)

needs to have more scientifical accuracy to complete trials.....seems from the report, the test wasnt accurate


----------



## Hop (Jan 6, 2007)

> A4 already had more powerfull engine then the A3 they tested



It should have had a more powerful engine.

Faber's A3 was running a derated engine, the limits were:

1.35 ata, 2450 rpm for 3 minutes
1.28 ata, 2350 rpm for 30 minutes

However, the AFDU overboosted it in the tests they carried out, using:

1.42 ata, 2700 rpm for 3 minutes
1.35 ata, 2450 rpm for 30 minutes

As such, before the engine failed, it's not possible to say the actual power output. It was almost certainly putting out a lot more power than when Faber flew it, and probably as much as a fully rated A4.

Of course, later in the test the engine began to fail, and power was no doubt dropping off by that time. 



> so when MkIX with better engine (merlin 66) came in service in numbers with RAF, they were up against A-4's and A5's with better power as well. So the situation did not changed that much.



The Merlin 66 engined Spitfire IX was about 20 mph faster and had up to 1,000 ft/min better climb rate than the Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX, below 20,000 ft. That's a very large difference.

There wasn't that large an improvement in the 190 A series, if you look at the German test documents. Certainly no version of the 190 A series ever approached the climb rate of the Spitfire LF IX.


----------



## Joseph Parker (Feb 13, 2010)

The Fw190 could outmanouver any other fighter above 350 mi/h, it combined its wunderful handling characteristics, phonominal role rate and its ability to retain energy using them change direction quickly and easily and stay at the high speeds at wich it flew so beautifuly. It also had a great yahing abilities and its initial turn at high speeds was superior to the sitfire. Not only that, but it was 10 mi/h faster below 25,000 ft and generaly could out accelerate the spitfire at most levals. With thick armore, and an air cooled engine as well as elictrical systems which were taugher,more reliable, and lasted longer with less maintence then the short lived flamible hydrolic sysems of most other plains. The Wurger also controled its flight surfaces ith rods which were longer lived then wires which tended to strech over time, the tail plane could be set at diferent angles giving the aircraft many angles of atack.

The Spitfire ix was a superior climer at almost all levels because it was so much lighter the the flying tank known as the 190 it also had a higher power/ square inch enigine and could out turn the Wurger.

In all the Wurger is a better fighter but the spitfire had greater numbers, and by 1943 much better pilots on average. Dispite this their fw 190 kill ratio is just .04 meaning for 100 hundered Spifire ix shot down 104 fw 190a were shot down. The Spitfire just could mach the 190 in high speed fights were the 190 would be flying around with ease and the Spitfire pilot would be sweating trying to move his stick, Fw 190s were just so hard to atack and could pull so many more G's then the spitfire as ell as tear it apart in a head on fight. Both planes were wunderfull machines loved by their pilots.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 13, 2010)

Joseph Parker said:


> ...its ability to retain energy using them change direction quickly and easily and stay at the high speeds ...


That's contrary to how I understand it


----------



## mike526mp (Sep 20, 2010)

here is a fw-190 and a mustang video from reno


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1DxAjqlqQ_

look, the webmaster is posting comments about himself below!!!!!!!!!!

we all knew that mr webmaster, that you are legally retarded and you see double, you didn't have to remind us by posting it below. just to remind you, the fw-190 was slow and unreliable,you need to grow up

why did the FW-190 do so bad at reno? watch the video, the P-51D went by it like it was standing still, came in last place of all the airplanes, even a T-28 and Wildcat were faster, whipped it's butt.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1DxAjqlqQ_


Place Race
Number Pilot Home Town Aircraft Type Aircraft Name Time Speed 
1 7 Hinton, Steven Bakersfield, CA P-51D Mustang Strega 01:02.694 484.255 
2 5 Whiteside, Will Windsor, CA P-51D Mustang Voodoo 01:03.358 479.180 
3 77 Penney, John Evergreen, CO Grumman F8F Bearcat Rare Bear 01:08.113 445.728 
4 8 Jackson, Matt Northridge, CA Hawker Sea Fury Dreadnought 01:08.215 445.062 
5 11 Hisey, Brent Oklahoma City, OK P-51D Mustang Miss America 01:13.458 413.296 
6 20 Martin, Dan San Jose, CA P-51D Mustang Ridge Runner III 01:13.519 412.953 
7 33 Whiteside, Will Windsor, CA Yak 3U/R-200 Steadfast 01:19.194 383.361 
8 55 Dawson, Stewart Celina, TX F7F-3 Tigercat Here Kitty Kitty 01:20.914 375.212 
9 22 Eberhardt, Bill Gig Harbor, WA P-51D Mustang Merlin's Magic 01:22.628 367.428 
10 1 Lewis, Rod San Antonio, TX F7F-3 Tigercat Big Bossman 01:23.182 364.981 
11 44 Seghetti, Brant Vacaville, CA P-51D Mustang Sparky 01:25.566 354.812 
12 15 Watt, Mark Ontario, Canada P-51 Mustang Geraldine 01:26.406 351.363 
13 81 Patterson, Robert Corona, CA TF-51D Lady Jo 01:26.860 349.527 
14 31 Gordon, Rob Healdsburg, CA P-51D Mustang Speedball Alice 01:28.272 343.936 
15 16 Greenhill, Chuck Lake Zurich, IL P-51 Mustang Lou IV 01:29.636 338.702 
16 4 Morss, Dave Redwood City, CA P-51A Mustang Polar Bear 01:33.208 325.722 
17 17 Paul, John-Curtiss Boise,ID P-40N Parrothead 01:33.734 323.894 
18 0 McKinstry, Jim Mead, CO Yak 3 Shiska Su'Ka 01:34.511 321.231 
19 24 Matthews, Doug Wellington, FL F4U-4 Corsair Corsair 01:36.934 313.202 
20 2 Sanders, Brian El Dorado Hills, CA Grumman FM-2 Wildcat Air Biscuit 01:37.119 312.605 
21 66 Wallace, Bruce San Carlos, CA T-28B The Bear 01:38.083 309.533 
22 14 Malony, John Wildomar, CA FW-190 What Da Fockewulf 01:40.460 302.209 
No Time 30 Martin, Dan San Jose, CA P-51D Mustang Grim Reaper 
No Time 177 Leeward, Jimmy Ocala, FL P-51D Mustang Galloping Ghost 


you need to grow up, and quit the whinning. please don't remind us again that that you are legally retarded and you see double, by posting it below.

by the way people, mr webmaster has numerous names, if you don't agree with him (don't say the german airplanes were the best), he posts aurguements as anonymous and other false names, maybe he thinks he is still in nazi germany? one more time mr webmaster, post your problem below.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2010)

Goodbye...

You spam our forum with retarded posts. You are the weakest link.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 21, 2010)

I like how one of his primary sources was "12 O'clock High" with Gregpry Peck!


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 23, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Um on the fuel thing though, 190s and 109s were all using the same low grade fuel. The Germans did not have anything else late in the war.



Hmm, thats not completely true. The BMW 801Ds of the 190A, F, and G series used C-3, ie. 150 grade fuel and couldnt use anything else. Mid-war 109s until 1944 used low octane B-4, though of course C-3 could be used instead, there would be no advantage from it, except for logistics in certain areas (ie. 109s and 190s being on the same airfield). 

Late war 109s used either 87 octane B-4 or 150 grade C-3, but altough the latter was preferred, it wasn't absolutely necessary except if you wanted to run the G-10/K-4 at high boost and 2000 PS at 1.98ata boost. 

The FW 190Ds would use low grade B-4, although there are some indication that some units used C-3 instead, I don't think there was any advantage from it. Generally they seem to have used B-4, so the situation kinda reversed late in the war, with 190s increasingly relying on low octane and 109s increasingly on high octane.

The Jumo 213 was appearantly existed in two versions, one with higher compression ratio for higher fuel, and slightly greater output, but I am not exactly sure if it was in production.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 24, 2010)

That is not exactly true either Kurfurst. It was only late war that C3 was pushing a PN of 150. Most of the time is was a PN of 125-130.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 24, 2010)

1943 doesn't sound late war to me.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 24, 2010)

The major problem with that report is that it doesn't use the 5min combat rating for the Spitfire, because the Spitfire IX is just about supreme in climb rate when using the combat rating of the Merlin engine:







OTOH, the Fw-190 doesn't gain much performance when using the combat rating during climb.


----------



## Ernst (Sep 30, 2010)

Any of yours have a copy of this report on Spitfire IX and Focke Wulf? I would like the sources.


----------



## bada (Sep 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The major problem with that report is that it doesn't use the 5min combat rating for the Spitfire, because the Spitfire IX is just about supreme in climb rate when using the combat rating of the Merlin engine:
> .



Hum, not really true here i think, 
if spit climbs in combat rating, it's radiators can't follow with the cooling because of the low speed,full drag and not enough air through the radiators. After 5min you'll get a very supreme pilot hanging on it's "chute with the aiframe going doing with an overcooked gripped engine.

the climb test at full power were done with manually blocked (fixed)radiators flaps in maximal technicly permissible open position, an operationnal airframe has it's radiators fully automatic and not even sure the flaps can open at the same angle as they were when manually fixed.

EDIT: forget the above, i miss-matched with something else.


RCAFson said:


> OTOH, the Fw-190 doesn't gain much performance when using the combat rating during climb.



Do you have data on this????? i'd like to see an OFFICIAL focke wulf chart with climb results in combat boost.

Anyway, when talking about the spit9, we must consider from what period of time: mid42->mid43 (M61) ; mid43->end( M66) or the mid43->end (M63 tropical).
so we can consider what versions of 190 to compare A2/3/4 vs M61 .
the rest of 190 VS M66.

And yes, got the scans of original repport on faber's 190 and it's tests in the RAF. you'll got to wait till the weekend to receive it (send me your email adress via mp)


----------



## Glider (Sep 30, 2010)

This should have most of what you want
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw190-papers-22545.html


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 30, 2010)

bada said:


> Hum, not really true here i think,
> if spit climbs in combat rating, it's radiators can't follow with the cooling because of the low speed,full drag and not enough air through the radiators. After 5min you'll get a very supreme pilot hanging on it's "chute with the aiframe going doing with an overcooked gripped engine.
> 
> the climb test at full power were done with manually blocked (fixed)radiators flaps in maximal technicly permissible open position, an operationnal airframe has it's radiators fully automatic and not even sure the flaps can open at the same angle as they were when manually fixed.



Have you any any evidence for this?- the radiator flaps on the IXs were fully automatic and there was no way the aircraft could be tested in the condition you describe unless the pressure capsule which operated the system had been disconnected or disabled. Had the engine overheated after five minutes, as described, any climb tests would have been aborted after five minutes, so why was it possible to measure climb performance ( up to 40,000 feet in the case of BS543 with Merlin 66 in March 1943, up to 30,000 feet in the case of JL165 Merlin 66 on 150 octane fuel + 25 lbs boost in early 1944) _without_ the engine overheating?  

BTW, while people are correct in stating that the original Fw 190 A-3 compared with a Spitfire IX was Faber's machine with a derated BMW 801, it is equally fair to mention that the Spitfire IX that it was tested against might have been AB505 or  BS273 or BS274  (can you confirm this Glider?), which were Spitfire VCs converted by Rolls-Royce at Hucknall - as such they had Spitfire VC wings with the large double blister and the converted VC engine cowling panels which knocked off a few mph.


----------



## bada (Sep 30, 2010)

that's why i've edited the post and addded: 

"EDIT: forget the above, i miss-matched with something else."

so forget about it 

EDIt: the airframe used for test with fw-190 MP499 was the BR980 spit.

BR980:FF 27-6-42 45MU 28-6-42 AFDU 13-7-42 64S 'SH-E' 4-8-42 RAE comparison trials with Fw190 MP499 Shot down by Fw190s nr St.Valery 5-9-42 FH53.20

AB505:FF 25-1-42 CRD R-R 28-1-42 from VA White Waltham M46 install AFDU 26-4-42 R-R 7-5-42 Cv HFIX M61 install AFDU Hornchurch for trials 64S 4-6-42 Sqdn trials R-R 11-7-42 M77 with Rotol Mk XHCR six blade contra prop install VA 17-7-43 mods to fin and rud lateral instability with normal FIX empennage prompted dev of increased area unit retractable tailwheel AAEE 10-9-43 evaluation and comparison trials with Spitfire FVIII Stroboscopic effect of contra/prop produced a white circle of approx 3degree Pilots soon became accustomed to this AST 26-11-43 Cv standard FIX 611S 13-7-44 VA 15-9-44 mods 312S 8-10-44 struck rear of MH357 at Bradwell Bay CE 8-12-44

BS273:FF 14-8-42 R-RH Cv IX M61 64S 16-8-42 AFDU Duxford 16-8-42 Cranfield 3501SU 27-8-42 Special Flt Northolt 5-9-42 Wood prop armour removed armament reduced to 2x20mm can lightweight pt finish operated under code Windgap reached height of 45000ft 124S 25-1-43 3501SU 27-3-43 453S 1-5-43 mods AST 9-5-43 453S 15-5-43 ? AST riw 24-6-43 453S 26-6-43 Shot down by fighters nr Cayeux 4-7-43 F/Sgt C Woodall killed

BS274:FF 12-8-42 R-RH Cv IX M61 incorrectly painted 'BF274' Canadian Pacific retained until scrap. Off CRD contract not to be included in count AAEE 13-8-42 climb and level speed perf and positional error. 6-10-42 range det with 170gal overload tank. Guns removed for cool trials fuel cooler in port wing root 13-10-42 fuel cons trials Boulton Paul 31-10-42 CRD Staverton 11-1-43 AST 18-1-44 major repair mods at Flight Refuelling for fighter towing trials 7-44 58OTU 16-5-45 sold Vickers 11-1-47 Cv Type 509 two-seat trainer RNethAF as H-98 22-3-48


----------



## Milosh (Sep 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> 1943 doesn't sound late war to me.



Do you have proof than 150PN C3 was delivered to operational units in 1943?


----------



## Glider (Sep 30, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> BTW, while people are correct in stating that the original Fw 190 A-3 compared with a Spitfire IX was Faber's machine with a derated BMW 801, it is equally fair to mention that the Spitfire IX that it was tested against might have been AB505 or  BS273 or BS274  (can you confirm this Glider?), which were Spitfire VCs converted by Rolls-Royce at Hucknall - as such they had Spitfire VC wings with the large double blister and the converted VC engine cowling panels which knocked off a few mph.



I am afraid that I cannot comment on the actual allied aircraft used for the test. I can confirm that the 190 was MP499 which did have a de rated engine but was uprated for the test so its a fair comparison. 

What I wonder about is why it was de rated in the first place. Clearly the Luftwaffe had some fairly major problems as no one send its pilots into combat with de rated engines without a good reason.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 1, 2010)

bada said:


> Do you have data on this????? i'd like to see an OFFICIAL focke wulf chart with climb results in combat boost.
> 
> Anyway, when talking about the spit9, we must consider from what period of time: mid42->mid43 (M61) ; mid43->end( M66) or the mid43->end (M63 tropical).
> so we can consider what versions of 190 to compare A2/3/4 vs M61 .
> ...



The data on the Fw-190 came from here:
FW 190 A-5 Performance
and here is combat climb data:




> _German climb figures for the Fw 190 A-5 as shown in the table and charts above are generally given assuming climb and combat power (Steig- und Kampfleistung) engine settings of 1.32 ata and 2400 RPM. The Steigflug section of the Fw 190 A-1 - A-8 Bedienvorschrift-Fl from February 1944, however, states that it was possible to climb with emergency power for 3 minutes with all Fw 190 A production series. Climb rate for the Fw 190 A-5 utilizing emergency power was approximately 1,5 - 2 m/s faster than the A-8 climb with emergency power, therefore, best climb rate at sea level would have been on the order of 3,662 - 3,760 ft/min (18.7 to 19.2 m/s) for the Fw 190 A-5_


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan44.jpg


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 1, 2010)

bada said:


> that's why i've edited the post and addded:
> 
> "EDIT: forget the above, i miss-matched with something else."
> 
> ...



Thanks for that; t'was one of the first operational Mk IXs with the 64 Sqn, first unit to be issued with them - didn't last long. BTW SOME Spitfire IXs - about 400- were fitted with Merlin 70s as HF Mk IX.


----------



## Hop (Oct 1, 2010)

> if spit climbs in combat rating, it's radiators can't follow with the cooling because of the low speed,full drag and not enough air through the radiators. After 5min you'll get a very supreme pilot hanging on it's "chute with the aiframe going doing with an overcooked gripped engine.
> 
> the climb test at full power were done with manually blocked (fixed)radiators flaps in maximal technicly permissible open position, an operationnal airframe has it's radiators fully automatic and not even sure the flaps can open at the same angle as they were when manually fixed.



The Spitfire had 2 radiator positions, open and closed. The A&AEE usually tested with the radiators forced open for a worst case scenario. They did that by bypassing the thermostat or fitting a switch in the cockpit, so the radiators had the normal range of travel.

As to cooling for a normal Spitfire during a combat climb, the A&AEE tested a Spitfire running at 25 lbs boost. 

With the radiator flaps SHUT, the coolant temperature went from 78c at the start of the climb at 2,000 ft to 106c at 30,000 ft. The automatic radiator flaps on a Spitfire opened and closed at 115c, so a normal Spitfire would have made the entire climb with the radiators closed. The coolant temperature limit on the Spitfire was 135c.

That test was carried out in Britain in the winter, with air temperature at sea level of around 6c. However, the A&AEE also worked out the temperatures in temperate and tropical summer conditions. The engine wouldn't overheat in a full throttle, 25 lbs boost climb from 2,000 - 32,000ft under temperate summer conditions with the radiator flaps shut. Such a climb would result in overheating under tropical summer conditions, but not with radiator flaps open.

So no, a Spitfire IX pilot wouldn't have an overcooked engine at the end of a climb. Even when he was using 25 lbs boost. In fact, under most European conditions his radiator flaps wouldn't even open.



> Anyway, when talking about the spit9, we must consider from what period of time: mid42->mid43 (M61) ; mid43->end( M66) or the mid43->end (M63 tropical).



You left out the normal Merlin 63. If you look at the record of first flight dates of Spitfire IXs, Merlin 61 powered aircraft stopped coming off the line in mid February 1943 and Merlin 63 Spitfire IXs started in mid January.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 1, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Do you have proof than 150PN C3 was delivered to operational units in 1943?



See first paragraph of page 120: 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Fuel/mof...ng_Products_via_Fischer-Tropsch_Archieves.pdf


----------



## Milosh (Oct 1, 2010)

> (The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)



Technical Report 145-45 - The Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany

And,
Technical Report 145-45 - The Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany

See about 1/2 way down.

If 150PN C3 was available in 1943 then why did the testing of 1945 C3 fuel not get a 150PN?


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 1, 2010)

Milosh said:


> If 150PN C3 was available in 1943 then why did the testing of 1945 C3 fuel not get a 150PN?



I don't see any testing in the links above, but specifications by the RLM, likely referring to the previous specs of C-3 (pre-1943).

As per ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM REPORT SERIAL NO. ENG-47-1743-A *26 May 1944 * PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE* FW-190 AIRPLANE* AAF NO. EB-104 ...

"140 grade fuel was used for all tests *since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans*; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. "


----------



## bada (Oct 1, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The data on the Fw-190 came from here:
> FW 190 A-5 Performance
> and here is combat climb data:
> 
> ...



thanks, i thought i knew mike's site well, but it seems i missed this chart 

Still +2m/s is not bad.

MK9 with M70 : starting from May 44.(operationnal use)

MK9 with M63: i wrote Tropical, because about 75% (or even more) airframes build with this engine were sent to the MTO.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I don't see any testing in the links above, but specifications by the RLM, likely referring to the previous specs of C-3 (pre-1943).
> 
> As per ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM REPORT SERIAL NO. ENG-47-1743-A *26 May 1944 * PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE* FW-190 AIRPLANE* AAF NO. EB-104 ...
> 
> "140 grade fuel was used for all tests *since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans*; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. "



Wrong link. Try this one, http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 1, 2010)

bada said:


> thanks, i thought i knew mike's site well, but it seems i missed this chart
> 
> Still +2m/s is not bad.
> 
> ...



but still only about a 15-20% improvement, when the Spitfire climb rate goes up by 40- 50%.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I don't see any testing in the links above, but specifications by the RLM, likely referring to the previous specs of C-3 (pre-1943).
> 
> As per ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM REPORT SERIAL NO. ENG-47-1743-A *26 May 1944 * PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE* FW-190 AIRPLANE* AAF NO. EB-104 ...
> 
> "140 grade fuel was used for all tests *since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans*; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. "



This  report on C3  notes (page 6):
"..green C3 fuel has been found to have a very high rich mixture rating when examined under British standard test conditions. However, such trials as have been carried out with captured German engines on German green fuel, or a match for it, have indicated that German engines are not taking full advantage of the possibilities of green fuel at the rich end. At the weak mixture end...there is a deficiency in fuel performance as judged by the U.K methods of test for 100 octane fuel."

Page 8: *2 ) Use of C3. Aviation Gasoline*
"Captured documents infer that this type of aviation gasoline must be used in...:- Daimler Benz D.B. 601 N., and the B.M.W. 801. C D...all recent samples are from F.W.190 fighters."

"The indication was this fuel (initially of 94-95 C.F.R. motor rating) was a special fighter-grade fuel as distinct from the bomber and general purposes fuel-...Some fairly recent Me.109.F fighters with D.B.601 E engines have been operating on the B4 gasoline and the contention that the present aero-engines used by the G.A.F. are not being operated to take advantage of the rich mixture potentialities of the C3 type of gasoline render the reasons for the introduction and use of this fuel somewhat puzzling."

Both this report, and the report from Milosh, (page 9) show that German aero-engines in 1943 were unable to make full use of the fuel's potential
So far there have been no German sources presented to show what the state of supply of C3 in 1943 was, but, according to both Allied reports, supplies seemed to have been limited to Fw 190 fighter units and some Ju 88.


----------



## Gaston (Oct 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that I cannot comment on the actual allied aircraft used for the test. I can confirm that the 190 was MP499 which did have a de rated engine but was uprated for the test so its a fair comparison.
> 
> What I wonder about is why it was de rated in the first place. Clearly the Luftwaffe had some fairly major problems as no one send its pilots into combat with de rated engines without a good reason.




-The engines were de-rated because the FW-190A did not handle at all well at speeds above 250 MPH, or at full power (tail sinking in dives and either tail sinking or violently wing snapping in turns: Check all non-US Navy flight tests, particularly the Italian theater P-47D comparison done by Front-line US pilots), and contrary to popular belief the FW-190A was a specialized, even "stereotyped" (in Russian front-line evaluation parlance), low-speed turn-fighter. 

It boggles the mind that something so vastly described by so many is now completely obscured...

TsAGI turn times saying the contrary are NOT comparative flight tests flown on the same day, and they are at full power anyway, which is detrimental to sustained turn performance, as the German de-rating could suggest (yet unacknowledged today and by many pilots of the time, is that front prop disc traction loads up the wing loading continuously in sustained turns: Check Karhila (Me-109), Hanseman (P-51) and several others for the use of downthrottling in sustained turns)...

The (900 pounds lighter than G) Me-109F was a bit of both: Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer, but already showing a marked tendency towards the vertical in tactics and pilot accounts...

The Me-109G was mainly a boom and zoom fighter (as was the inferior-turning FW-190D: Check British evaluation conclusions: Inferior handling to the radial "A" version negates any performance advantages), leading to the Gunther Rall image: A "floret" (straight) for the Me-109G, while a SABRE (curved) for the FW-190A...

1943 Soviet evaluations of the FW-190A: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"

Johnny Johnson, 32 kill ace post-war comment: "It turned better than the Me-109" (Agreeing with just about all 8th Air Force escort pilots I've heard)

British evaluation: "FW-190A is equal to P-51B in turns. The P-51B vastly out-turns the Me-109G"

German evaluation of an underpowered needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback: "The P-47 out-turns our Me-109G" Source: "On Special Missions. KG 200"

Johnny Johnson himself describes being badly out-turned in flat turns at full power in his Spitfire Mk V against a FW-190A. (I can link his post-war written account later) 

The Spitfire Mk IX had a roughly similar turn time to the Mk V (18.5 s. Mk IX vs 18.8 s. Mk V -TsAGI), and in British tests the Mk IX only exhibited a tactical superiority over the Mk V by using climb and dive tactics: This is likely how the Mk IX redressed the balance against the FW-190A: The opposite of Eric Brown's conclusions...

On the other hand, the FW-190A's unsustained turn handling at high speed was drastically inferior, and I even wonder if could even pull a true 6 Gs above 250 MPH despite Kurt tank's claim of 7 Gs at 400 MPH. I think Gs much beyond 5 or 6 were in fact tail-down decelerations cutting inside, then outside, the curve in a loose curve (indistinguishable to a G-meter from actual circular turn Gs), which accounts for the Italian P-47 test comparison describing a mysterious "tendency to black-out the pilot", despite a vastly inferior pull-out angle to the P-47D at high speed...

I would have de-rated the engines too to avoid the bad-handling high speeds, and this reduced worload on newbie pilots that did not have to downthrottle as a FW-190A-8 Western ace later described...

That FW-190A-8 Western ace also described fighting P-51Ds exclusively by downthrottling and slow speed horizontal turn-fighting, meeting any attack head-to-head if the opponent refused to merge...

If the P-51D did not reduce power in those sustained turns (reducing throttle helped the P-51D a LOT in sustained turns: See Hanseman account in William's site) he was a sitting duck in turns against an A-8, which with the stall-catching long-chord version of its ailerons, stretched further on 3 "field-mounted spacers", and with the broad wood prop for better low-speed "bite", could reverse a tailing P-51D straining at full power in a mere TWO 360°s...

What makes this so complicated is that downthrottling for sustained turns was the result of front-line pilot experience, and contradicts the test pilot procedures and theories that have survived since then better than actual WWII front-line knowledge... These misleading WWII test pilot procedures and maths are now coincidentally supported by actual jet-propulsion real-life characteristics, and post-war "energy" combat theories (Shaw and co)... (As if being pushed in a turn made NO difference to being pulled...)

If down-rated FW-190A engines were related to that it would be fascinating...

Gaston

P.S. If you want to grasp how little we know about WWII fighters, consider the currently accepted 6G "Corner Speed" of the P-51D at 2.44 times Stall: Around 250 MPH... In actual tests done by the "Society of Experimental Test pilots" in 1989? 320 MPH... Not even close... Note similarity to Kurt Tank's 7Gs at a very high 400 MPH: No doubt this was the lowest speed he could achieve 7 Gs (IF they were true circular turn Gs, which is possible but doubtful)... This "delay" pushing the Corner Speed so remarkably high is due I suspect to the effect of prop traction and prop disc load: The heavy disc load at full power depresses the wing's ability to turn the aircraft until higher speeds causes higher relative wing lift to finally overcome the prop disc's downward pressure...
G.


----------



## Gaston (Oct 25, 2010)

Deleted for duplication reasons


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2010)

There is so much here that I hardly know where to start.



Gaston said:


> -The engines were de-rated because the FW-190A did not handle at all well at speeds above 250 MPH, or at full power (tail sinking in dives and either tail sinking or violently wing snapping in turns: Check all non-US Navy flight tests, particularly the Italian theater P-47D comparison done by Front-line US pilots), and contrary to popular belief the FW-190A was a specialized, even "stereotyped" (in Russian front-line evaluation parlance), low-speed turn-fighter.



I have never seen any observations about the Fw190A not handleing well abover 250mph, or at full power or any of the other negative aspects that you mention, certainly the British tests that count as non US Navy didn't mention any. Any to say that the engine was derated due to this I find shall we say unexpected. De rating the engine hinders so much of the performance, climb, speed, acceleration, take off you name it. Can you support this statement or is it an assumption? 



> It boggles the mind that something so vastly described by so many is now completely obscured...
> 
> TsAGI turn times saying the contrary are NOT comparative flight tests flown on the same day, and they are at full power anyway, which is detrimental to sustained turn performance, as the German de-rating could suggest (yet unacknowledged today and by many pilots of the time, is that front prop disc traction loads up the wing loading continuously in sustained turns: Check Karhila (Me-109), Hanseman (P-51) and several others for the use of downthrottling in sustained turns)...



Slowing down in a sustained turn always improves the turn rate in any aircraft, but the vast majority of pilots wouldn't do it so full power tests are valid. Even experienced pilots would only reduce power is certain conditions as you lose energy and that is often fatal.



> The (900 pounds lighter than G) Me-109F was a bit of both: Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer, but already showing a marked tendency towards the vertical in tactics and pilot accounts...
> 
> The Me-109G was mainly a boom and zoom fighter (as was the inferior-turning FW-190D: Check British evaluation conclusions: Inferior handling to the radial "A" version negates any performance advantages), leading to the Gunther Rall image: A "floret" (straight) for the Me-109G, while a SABRE (curved) for the FW-190A...


All Me109's were to use your terminology 'Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer' as at slower speeds normally less than 250mph they had the advantage on a number of Allied fighters. In particular the P51, P47, Typhoon and Tempest. Allied pilots on these types were warned not to get into s slow turning fight with an Me109 as they would probably lose. At higher speeds the advantage passed to the Allied aircraft for a number of reasons not least of which is the way the control forces of the Me109 increased significantly.




> Johnny Johnson, 32 kill ace post-war comment: "It turned better than the Me-109" (Agreeing with just about all 8th Air Force escort pilots I've heard)
> 
> British evaluation: "FW-190A is equal to P-51B in turns. The P-51B vastly out-turns the Me-109G"
> 
> ...


At high speed I can believe these statements, re the last one if you could supply a link it would be appreciated, a flat turn would normally be used to describe a rudder only turn but I cannot think why he would do this in an air to air combat, they were used to reduce the target area for flak when doing ground attack missions.



> The Spitfire Mk IX had a roughly similar turn time to the Mk V (18.5 s. Mk IX vs 18.8 s. Mk V -TsAGI), and in British tests the Mk IX only exhibited a tactical superiority over the Mk V by using climb and dive tactics: This is likely how the Mk IX redressed the balance against the FW-190A: The opposite of Eric Brown's conclusions...


I don't know Eric Browns conclusions, but don't understand yours either. The only advantage a Spit V had against a FW190 was its turn. The Mk IX redressed the balance giving the Spitfire a better climb than the FW190 and matching it in speed. The only advantage the FW was left with was the roll rate and diving away which left the advantage with the Spitfire 



> I would have de-rated the engines too to avoid the bad-handling high speeds, and this reduced worload on newbie pilots that did not have to downthrottle as a FW-190A-8 Western ace later described...
> 
> That FW-190A-8 Western ace also described fighting P-51Ds exclusively by downthrottling and slow speed horizontal turn-fighting, meeting any attack head-to-head if the opponent refused to merge...


As mentioned before I think your first assumption is wrong and the second part matches the belief that in slow speed combat the FW held the advantage.


----------



## Gaston (Oct 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> There is so much here that I hardly know where to start.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen any observations about the Fw190A not handleing well abover 250mph, or at full power or any of the other negative aspects that you mention, certainly the British tests that count as non US Navy didn't mention any. Any to say that the engine was derated due to this I find shall we say unexpected. De rating the engine hinders so much of the performance, climb, speed, acceleration, take off you name it. Can you support this statement or is it an assumption?



Bad FW-190A handling above 250 MPH: 

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

Note "vastly inferior angle of pull-out", yet despite this they mention "a tendency to black-out the pilot"!!

The solution to this conundrum is that the aircraft "tail sinks" and blacks-out the pilot through deceleration but not turning or pulling out as such... I call this "mushing" and it is very bad news.

Eric Brown quote: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 wil be very slow and vulnerablel" -Pretty obvious as to the meaning, and this pathetic handling contradicts E. Brown's own contention of using the vertical profitably...

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190 - World War II Forums

Note: "In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks."

"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming 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)."

This correlates Brown and the P-47 test and indicates nearly unbelievably poor pull-out or high speed turn performance (although above 370 MPH the turn performance disparities of most types tend to narrow down)...

More from the Russian evaluation: " When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air."

"In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs"."

"Hangs" is pretty explicit as to behaviour not accounted for in calculations or simulations... I have spoken to actual warbird and military pilots who had not the slightest idea what "mushing" was... This is actually typical and even universal... Knowledge of the actual behaviour of these powerful nose-pulled aircrafts, at the extremes of the performance envelope, is shockingly poor, believe me... Even something as basic as the 6 G "Corner Speed" is assumed to be 2.44 stall, or around 240-250 MPH on the P-51D. Actual 1989 test by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots"? 320 MPH (this because of prop disc nose pull-down effect I think)

Here's more bad high speed FW-190A handling: Note elongated loop that STILL results in a blacked-out pilot...:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg






[/QUOTE]

Slowing down in a sustained turn always improves the turn rate in any aircraft, but the vast majority of pilots wouldn't do it so full power tests are valid. Even experienced pilots would only reduce power is certain conditions as you lose energy and that is often fatal. [/QUOTE]

-There is no losing energy in downthrottled churning props at low speed below 250 MPH... It is jets that lose thrust at low speed, which is why "energy" never made it into WWII lingo... A slower prop aircraft has MORE potential energy because of the "reserve" power in the engine, while the jet loses thrust as it needs speed and fast air at the intake to create thrust. Not so powerful prop aircrafts that actually suffer in turns from too much power to efficiently tighten the radius in multiple sustained 360° turns...

[/QUOTE]

All Me109's were to use your terminology 'Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer' as at slower speeds normally less than 250mph they had the advantage on a number of Allied fighters. In particular the P51, P47, Typhoon and Tempest. Allied pilots on these types were warned not to get into s slow turning fight with an Me109 as they would probably lose. At higher speeds the advantage passed to the Allied aircraft for a number of reasons not least of which is the way the control forces of the Me109 increased significantly.[/QUOTE]

Not true if you take into account one-sided downthrottling:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

Note the turning here takes places over several 360°s on the deck, and ONLY downthrottling twice reverses the situation. "I turned inside him as I reduced throttle settings" This is SUSTAINED downthrottling...

For more on downthrottling, see Karhila: 

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Quote: ""I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

""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."

You'll have to agree 250 km/h is an unbelievably low "optimal speed": 160 MPH... You cannot argue he meant "high speed" from this...

.[/QUOTE]

At high speed I can believe these statements, re the last one if you could supply a link it would be appreciated, a flat turn would normally be used to describe a rudder only turn but I cannot think why he would do this in an air to air combat, they were used to reduce the target area for flak when doing ground attack missions... [/QUOTE]

Johnny Johnson describes a "vertical turn" in this account: This is WWII lingo for "vertical bank turn", trust me on this... His losing turning combat is due to his being at full power, but in general I have found the Spitfires could only win quickly at VERY high speed in turn fights against radial FW-190As... If the turn fight became prolonged the Spitfire will more often lose in horizontal turns, especially later vs A-8s...:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Note: "The FW-190 turned better than the Me-109", and that this text was written by him with post-war hindsight and a 32 kill experience...

British tests noticed the Spitfire Mk IX sustained turns no better than a Mk V, and that the Mk IX's main tactical advantage over the Mk V was to use its superior climb rate for vertical maneuvers. The same likely held true in redressing the balance with the FW-190A... 

Note the "Russian experience" again: "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."

"A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

And, my favourite...: "Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

Add to this British RAE evaluations: "P-51B with full drop tanks will still out-turn the Me-109G. P-51B clean is equal to the FW-190A" (I can source this)


[/QUOTE]I don't know Eric Browns conclusions, but don't understand yours either. The only advantage a Spit V had against a FW190 was its turn. The Mk IX redressed the balance giving the Spitfire a better climb than the FW190 and matching it in speed. The only advantage the FW was left with was the roll rate and diving away which left the advantage with the Spitfire 


As mentioned before I think your first assumption is wrong and the second part matches the belief that in slow speed combat the FW held the advantage.[/QUOTE]


-The Spitfire V only had a turn advantage over the FW-190A above 250 MPH OR if the FW-190A kept FULL power. As the Johnny Johnson quote demonstrates, it had NO advantage if it kept full power while the FW-190A used a lowered throttle in sustained multiple 360°s at low speeds.

And just to show this 32 kill ace is not alone in his observations, here's Alan Deere:

"-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..."

Note the multinational coalition of agreeing observations... Against all this there is contradictory evidence from ONE German La-5 evaluation, abyssmal US Navy tests, E Brown dubious conclusions and TsAGI turn times that are NOT intended for performance comparison (they were drag tests in turns for wind tunnel correlation)... 

There is more on my side, but for the time being I would encourage you to consider that there is in fact a huge amount of material that is ignored because the reality is counter-intuitive and coincidentally not in agreement with post-war jet-based "energy" theories...

You have to admit that there is a lot here that is correlated widely and being glossed over with suspicious ease since it doesn't fit preconceived notions... 

Gaston


----------



## Milosh (Oct 25, 2010)

For more of Gaston's theories visit the Aces High board and the UBI Il-2 General Discussion forum.

Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
N1K1, Ki-100, Ki-84, and why math is not predictive... - Topic Powered by Social Strata
FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed - Topic Powered by Social Strata


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2010)

Thanks for the heads up, I will save my time and effort.


----------



## mikempp (Oct 27, 2010)

Here’s a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says 

“I’ll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides.” 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bishop-11sept44.jpg

Chuck Yeager said similar things about the p-51 vs. fw-190, as did another WWII p-51 pilot has expressed to me who had encounters with the fw-190.

I think the discussion is moot on which was the better airplane.

Here are some more interesting reading, P-51 encounters
Mustang Encounter Reports


----------



## bada (Oct 27, 2010)

mikempp said:


> Here’s a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says
> 
> “I’ll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides.”
> 
> ...






stop watchinng discovery channel 


.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2010)

mikempp said:


> Here’s a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says
> 
> “I’ll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides.”
> 
> ...



We also do not allow multiple accounts here *mike526mp*. Please stick to your original account and only use that one account.


----------



## beaupower32 (Oct 28, 2010)

mikempp said:


> Here’s a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says
> 
> “I’ll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides.”
> 
> ...



Besides, I thought this was about the Spitfire IX v. the FW 190A!


----------



## Gaston (Oct 28, 2010)

mikempp said:


> Here’s a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says
> 
> “I’ll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides.”
> 
> ...




-You have to read more carefully Bishop's encounter to evaluate it correctly: He describes out-turning the FW-190A's in 5-6 turns at 23 000 ft.: This is a good but not huge rate of gain and is well above the optimal altitude of the FW-190A: I would say the FW-190A had difficulty competing with the P-51D above as little as 20 000 ft...

-At low altitude they were doing well over 450 MPH: Note that I said the FW-190A has very poor handling above 250 MPH, as the P-47D comparison tests demonstrates... (But maybe slightly less comparatively awful to the left above 400-450) 

I have never seen accounts where, at low altitude, the P-51B/C/D out-turns the FW-190A in multiple sustained flat 360° turns without the P-51 pilot describing using the 20° flaps/downthrottling/ coarse prop pitch "trick"... (Without that "trick" the Mustang will not even out-turn the Me-109G, especially without the downthrottling aspect, but all three steps are usually used in conjunction in most such cases)

-Unable to out-turn the Merlin P-51 at high speeds and higher altitudes, the FW-190A will often spiral down to compensate. (This relieves the prop disc load and thus helps turning as if the pilot downthrottled, but the turn performance remains poor or average since the speed then stays in the FW-190A's 250 MPH+ zone)

-Most 8th Air Force pilots will tell you the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109G...

-At low altitude the Me-109G-6 matched the P-51D in turns when both turned at full power, to the extent that 15 minutes of continuous turning to one side was not unheard of(!), and I have heard of one case on the TV show "Dogfights" (with the actual P-51 pilot narrating) going on to 30 minutes... No such thing with the FW-190A...

-I have yet to see a single account of a Spitfire of any mark out-turning the FW-190A in multiple consecutive horizontal 360° turns at low altitude (several of the opposite: The Alan Deere account above ended in a score of 8 to 1 in favour of the FW-190s...). 

With the Johnny Johnson account we do know we do have the opposite (with the supporting opinion of this 32 kill ace as to its representative nature)...

When the Spitfire out-turns the FW-190A, it is always at high altitude, or immediately after a dive, and in a fairly brief turn lasting no more than one to one and a half turn. Again see P-47D test for mediocre FW-190A turn performance above 250 MPH...

-The early P-47D Razorback out-turns the Me-109G, to the left at least, as well or even more decisively than the Spitfire: I would not be surprised if the early Razorback P-47D with needle-tip prop matched the Spitfire MkIX or Mk XIV in sustained horizontal turns to the left at low altitude, especially if the Spifires cranks out at full WEP power and the P-47D does not...

Note that I mean SUSTAINED turns here: Of course if you yank a Spitfire for the tightest possible turn it will cut a smaller radius than a P-47D Razorback... "Out-turn" in WWII almost NEVER refers to this type of turning: It would then be described as a "radius" of a given size, usually from quite a high speed. 

I do welcome contradicting accounts if you have them...

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Oct 28, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -You have to read more carefully Bishop's encounter to evaluate it correctly: He describes out-turning the FW-190A's in 5-6 turns at 23 000 ft.: This is a good but not huge rate of gain and is well above the optimal altitude of the FW-190A: I would say the FW-190A had difficulty competing with the P-51D above as little as 20 000 ft...
> 
> *Anecdotal accounts are written by the winner. There are no metrics for piolt skill, judgment or tactical advantage to be able to judge any type of performance in an Encounter Report.*
> 
> ...



where to start? I believe I am consumed by indifference..


----------



## claidemore (Oct 28, 2010)

Just an observation about Gastons Gunther Rall quote:


> _leading to the Gunther Rall image: A "floret" (straight) for the Me-109G, while a SABRE (curved) for the FW-190A..._



I do not believe Rall was comparing turning ability with that statement. 

He was actually comparing the 109 to a light, swift, precision thrusting weapon and the 190 to a heavy and slower slashing weapon. The thrust is approx 1/3 faster than the cut (slash). Also, a thrust does not necessarily follow a straight line, it is often curved, particularly for the tip of the sword. Besides, in sport fencing, to be safe, a floret "foil" cannot be straight, it must have a slight curve in it so it will bend when it contacts an opponent.

I also noticed a reference to Spitfires using full WEP in turns. The only Spits that had WEP as far as I know are the ones in the IL2 flight sim.


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2010)

drgondog said:


> where to start? I believe I am consumed by indifference..



Even I gave up. Someone who dismisses US Navy tyests which were undertaken at one of the most up to date establishments in the world at the time, in real aircraft, by highly trained pilots, who misquotes his own evidence, ignores evidence from pilots who were not only experienced combat pilots but include some of the few trained test pilots of the period and finaly thinks that all the above are not quite as accurate or realistic as his experience on IL2. Isn't worth the effort

As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all. 

Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.

I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).


----------



## bada (Oct 29, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> Besides, I thought this was about the Spitfire IX v. the FW 190A!



if gaston likes anecdotes, let's go back for a while to the stang,...the 43 stang, it's not the D of course, but still the brand new model of this time, vs an old model that has since it's introduction already 2 new versions (A4+A5)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2010)

bada said:


> if gaston likes anecdotes, let's go back for a while to the stang,...the 43 stang, it's not the D of course, but still the brand new model of this time, vs an old model that has since it's introduction already 2 new versions (A4+A5)



Bada - The first operational P-51B-1 arrived in the UK in November, 1943 so the Mustangs in this narrative (August, 1943) would have been the earlier Allison powered Mk II. 

Great find on the article.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2010)

Glider said:


> Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.
> 
> I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).



You are right that disk loading is associated with propeller efficiency. Disk loading, mathmatically, is expressed best as a function of mass flow rate through the disk plane and reduces to the difference between the free stream velocity and the velocity just aft of the plane of the prop as the flow is accelerated. 

My analogy of excess thrust available was a poor analogy.


----------



## renrich (Oct 29, 2010)

When a post contains an ovious error such as WW2 prop planes doing 450 mph at low altitude, I tend to classify the whole post as fantasy.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Even I gave up. Someone who dismisses US Navy tyests which were undertaken at one of the most up to date establishments in the world at the time, in real aircraft, by highly trained pilots, who misquotes his own evidence, ignores evidence from pilots who were not only experienced combat pilots but include some of the few trained test pilots of the period and finaly thinks that all the above are not quite as accurate or realistic as his experience on IL2. Isn't worth the effort
> 
> As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all.
> 
> ...



-The US Navy tests described it as an "interceptor" -type an aircraft that in reality had a very average to poor climb rate and could not pull out of dives efficiently... They also failed to notice its excellent low-speed sustained horizontal turn rate (due to inadequate aileron adjustment ("snatching"?!?!) and excessive power rating which was way too high and quoted as above in-service rating, thus hurting sustained turn radius and performance: Why do you think the Germans chose to fight with them de-rated?) and focussed instead on its high speed handling...

Please don't ask me to explain how the ailerons affect the turn rate... Let's just say that on the FW-190A it's a major issue...

In other words, they failed to see the aircraft for what it actually was, but instead "saw" what it LOOKED like...

Quote:"-As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all."

Have you read what I said?!?!?! I have said it has great LOW speed handling. It was the one of the supreme low-speed turnfighters of its day, probably ahead of the Spitfire, which on the other hand handled a lot better at high speed than it did...

Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...

Quote: "Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning."

-If you are a pilot I have no doubt that's what you know and have been taught, but believe me, you don't want to pit a modern F-15 pilot inside a P-51 against a WWII-vintage pilot who actually knows that full power from the nose pulls you out of your turn and makes you "heavier" on your wings, especially at low speeds...

What you have to accept is that specialized front-line experience knowledge on outdated weapons gets lost over time, and only irrelevant theories remain on paper... You simply have to accept that modern pilots flying P-51s today don't know as much about what they are sitting in than SOME pilots who actually had to fight and die in them...

Just the fact that being pulled from the nose is assumed to be the exact same as being pushed from the rear should be a clue that something is amiss...

And I'll take Hanseman and Karhila's word on it over any amount of post-war armchair flying... Re-read their accounts, the meaning they intended is clear...

Gaston

P.S. I have designed an air combat boardgame variant which I researched for 14 years (12 of them trying to reconcile unworkable theories with consistently contradicting WWII combat accounts, until I finally gave up on making the theories "work"), but I am not a pilot... Here's my game variant with color Data Cards:

Second try Advanced Air Force Boardgame - Topic Powered by Social Strata

G.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 2, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Just an observation about Gastons Gunther Rall quote:
> 
> 
> I do not believe Rall was comparing turning ability with that statement.
> ...



-Johnny Johnson describes being at full throttle: You'll have to accept that as equivalent to WEP...

As far as the "Floret"... Ho-hum... This is a floret:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Foil-2004-A.jpg/505px-Foil-2004-A.jpg

This is the typical shape most commonly associated with a front-line saber in Europe and elsewhere for centuries:

http://www.gungfu.com/pics-general/pics-swords/swords-other-swords-saber-m-1796-light-cavalry.jpg

I think if Rall wanted to choose a more explicit comparison, he would not have found it...

The Russians agree... You want FURTHER proof that the Me-109 was considered a Boom and Zoomer and the FW-190A was comparatively a slow-speed horizontal turn fighter? Consider this Russian tactical evaluation of hundreds of combats as to how they inter-acted in real life... REAL LIFE with REAL German pilots trying their best to kill them...:

Chapter from a book published in 1943

Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom 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."

So the Me-109s Boom and Zooms while the FW-190A engages "in turning fights lasting quite a long time"

Does the "Floret" and "Saber" methaphor sound more clear now, or did those Soviets front-line pilots all imagine that they concur with Rall, Johnny Johnson, ect?

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 2, 2010)

renrich said:


> When a post contains an ovious error such as WW2 prop planes doing 450 mph at low altitude, I tend to classify the whole post as fantasy.




P-51D placard red line at low altitude was 505 MPH if I am not mistaken... Do you think as soon as they get horizontal they lose all their dive speed?!?

Did you even know their true maximum dive speed was quite a bit higher at low altitudes because of the higher Mach limit there?

Structural buffeting was usually the dive speed limit at low altitude, NOT the Mach number, except for a few types like the P-38... Some had good buffeting behaviour, so they could safely reach significantly higher speeds in dives at low altitudes than they could up high... 

A Spitfire had a very good mach number of 0.92 or 0.85 depending on sources, making for an excellent dive speed limit at high altitudes, but buffeting at low altitudes meant its maximum dive speed there was far inferior to a P-51, and maybe even below that of a Me-109G at the lower altitudes... (The Me-109G could safely manage up to 820-850 km/h (around 520 MPH) before aileron flutter set in, the FW-190A could dive much faster but could not pull out worth a damn, so had to start slowing down as high as 8-10 000 ft(!)... If it didn't, it would then "mush" downward nose level or slightly down until it did what is commonly referred to as "pancaking" in 8th Air Force pilot accounts: Hitting the ground nose up going down...)

Oh, and you do realize near the ground there is little difference between IAS and TAS, do you?

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -The US Navy tests described it as an "interceptor" -type an aircraft that in reality had a very average to poor climb rate and could not pull out of dives efficiently... They also failed to notice its excellent low-speed sustained horizontal turn rate (due to inadequate aileron adjustment ("snatching"?!?!) and excessive power rating which was way too high and quoted as above in-service rating, thus hurting sustained turn radius and performance: Why do you think the Germans chose to fight with them de-rated?) and focussed instead on its high speed handling...



Nearly all aircraft 'mush' to a greater or lesser degree when pulled out of a dive too sharply, the only exception that I know of being the Hurricane. You need to support your statements 
a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly.

FYI The Me109 also had a poor pull out by comparison to RAF fighters indeed pilots were advised that one tactic was to get the 109 to commit to a low altitude high speed pull out.



> Have you read what I said?!?!?! I have said it has great LOW speed handling. It was the one of the supreme low-speed turnfighters of its day, probably ahead of the Spitfire, which on the other hand handled a lot better at high speed than it did...



I did read it and the following is a quote_Eric Brown quote: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 wil be very slow and vulnerablel" -Pretty obvious as to the meaning, and this pathetic handling _



> Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and I am not basing this on Shaw or any post war theorist. But on pilots and tactical instruction given to pilots by the British and American instructors. All aircraft have advantages and disadvantages compared to other aircraft and simply put if you had a better turn rate then try it if you don't don't. Tempest pilots for example were always warned not to get into a slow turning dogfight, use your advantages. 
The following link has a number of Spitfire combat reports and its interesting how few of them involve the low speed turn fighting that you say was the bread and butter of air combat. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Here is another link this time for Tempests and again few had the turning fight you love, interesting on at least one of them the Tempest stayed behind the Fw190 at Tree top level and the Tempest isn't any great shakes as a turning dogfighter.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html



> Quote: "Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning."
> 
> -If you are a pilot I have no doubt that's what you know and have been taught, but believe me, you don't want to pit a modern F-15 pilot inside a P-51 against a WWII-vintage pilot who actually knows that full power from the nose pulls you out of your turn and makes you "heavier" on your wings, especially at low speeds...



I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong.



> What you have to accept is that specialized front-line experience knowledge on outdated weapons gets lost over time, and only irrelevant theories remain on paper... You simply have to accept that modern pilots flying P-51s today don't know as much about what they are sitting in than SOME pilots who actually had to fight and die in them...


And you have to recognise that Test Pilots in the war, with combat experience, at a flight fully equipped test centre, staffed with experts in their fields have a lot better chance of being right than me or you. 


Gaston

P.S. I have designed an air combat boardgame variant which I researched for 14 years (12 of them trying to reconcile unworkable theories with consistently contradicting WWII combat accounts, until I finally gave up on making the theories "work"), but I am not a pilot... Here's my game variant with color Data Cards:

Second try Advanced Air Force Boardgame - Topic Powered by Social Strata

G [/QUOTE]

Used to enjoy playing Air Force many years ago.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2010)

Gaston said:


> P-51D placard red line at low altitude was 505 MPH if I am not mistaken... Do you think as soon as they get horizontal they lose all their dive speed?!?
> 
> *You are mistaken - again - about the 505mph placard referencing low altitude. That was the 'do not exceed' speed - PERIOD. Highly modified, stripped, specialty racers with 3500+ Hp engines can attain that speed today in level flight on the deck and they are pushing structural integrity to the limit -*
> 
> ...



In the manuevers your were just talking about the distinctions are certainly irrelevant..


----------



## claidemore (Nov 2, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Russians agree... You want FURTHER proof that the Me-109 was considered a Boom and Zoomer and the FW-190A was comparatively a slow-speed horizontal turn fighter? Consider this Russian tactical evaluation of hundreds of combats as to how they inter-acted in real life... REAL LIFE with REAL German pilots trying their best to kill them...:
> 
> Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
> 
> ...



Yup, but you need to read the entire report, take it in context, consider qualifying and contradicting parts of the report, and make an interpretation that has not been skewed by an agenda to prove the FW190 was a superior low speed sustained turn fighter. I admit to being intrigued by the notion, but the evidence does not support it. 

That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them. 
The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190 and the 190 has greater firepower so would engage the bomber and ground attack aircraft in the Soviet formation while the 109s covered them. Incorrect assumption to attribute this practice supports the theory about 190 turn superiority and incorrect to assume the 109/190 stacked formation was a counter to Soviet fighter sweeps. 

De-rating engines on the FW190 was because of overheating and engine life issues, (read comment at beginning of FW190 appraisal in Soviet report about 1 minute at full military power) again an incorrect assumption that this was done to help with sustained turn rates. 109s wee flown derated at various stages of the war as well, until approved for higher boost ratings. It had nothing to do with turn ability, everything to do with engine reliability and service life. 

The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII. 

Here's a thought, if turn rate is the war winning performance attribute, why even bother designing a 109 or 190, stick with the old biplanes and you win the war?


----------



## renrich (Nov 2, 2010)

Uh, gaston, I do know the difference between IAS and TAS. My "bible" "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean gives the Vmax of the P51D at SL with combat power as around 365 mph TAS going to a Vmax at around 24000 feet of approx. 435 mph, combat power, TAS. That is at a weight of around 10000 pounds. Methinks you need to get your hands on a copy of Dean to perhaps complete your knowledge about the P51.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> a) That the power rating was too high
> b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
> c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly
> 
> ...




-- If that is so, these "sophisticated" types would at least know what is the 6G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D wouldn't you think?

Would you care to tell me what is the accepted 6G "Corner Speed" for the P-51D after WWII (and up to this day in ALL computer simulations), and then to tell me what it actually tested like when the P-51D was actually tested in 1989 by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots"?

Answer: Post war theory to this day: 6G "Corner Speed" is 2.44 times stall. P-51D Stall 100-105 MPH...

Accepted answer: 240-250 MPH: MINIMUM Speed at which 6 G can be reached...

Actual 1989 test by the "Society of Experimental test pilots"? I kid you not: 320 MPH. They were at roughly "Normal Power" (maximum continuous power) or today's METO; this is clearly because of the unaccounted prop disc load traction, non-existent in jets, which accounts for this staggering 80 MPH difference...

IF they had tested the P-51D at full WEP, my bet is the wing depressing effect of the prop disc would have delayed the minimum speed to reach 6G until it might have been have been as high as 350 MPH or even higher...

Kurt Tank mentionned reaching 7 Gs in the FW-190A at 400 MPH, and you can bet that was the minimum speed too, perfectly consistent with 6 Gs in the P-51D at 350 MPH + (Society of Test Pilots report says of the P--51D/P-47D/FG-1/F6F-5: "Corner Speed is very close to maximum level speed", perhaps implying that they noticed the 6G "Corner Speed" moves up with the Level Speed at increased power...

In any case, I seriously doubt Kurt Tank really carved REAL 7 Gs turns in the FW-190A at any speed: He mentions a control stick weight of 2 lbs per G, or 14 pounds for 7 Gs: Absurdly low for an aircraft that could have "heavy elevators" at high speed depending on trim...

Likely the control weight was so light because the FW-190A no longer responded normally past 5 or 6 Gs at high speed: It went into nose-up deceleration because of tail stall, resulting in abnormally light controls that still responded in pitch, increasing or decreasing deceleration by increasing or decreasing the nose-up/tail down attitude. The turn or pull-out he was carving then was likely very "elongated", yet still very hard on the pilot, hence the P-47D comparison stating "a tendency to black-out the pilot" DESPITE "a vastly inferior angle of pull-out"...:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg


You have to admit that if they don't even know the true 6 G "Corner Speed", they basically know very little of use for combat...

Quote: "I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Let me put this way: The nose pulls ahead AND above the wing, the elevator, to tilt the nose up, pushes down on the opposite side at the other end of a fairly long tail... Can you explain to me how does this NOT push down harder on the wing if the nose pulls harder against the overall drag? Yes I know the wing keeps up by lifting more as the angle increases, but that doesn't change the fact that more power means more-to-lift (Please don't start that the lift axis is 500 ft. above the aircraft: It is the wings that does the lifting, and one half of the prop disc has to go slower in a turn no matter how you cut it... To make one half of the prop disc go slower than the other half you have to beat ALL the thrust in that "inside turn" half: 00000.5% slower STILL requires beating ALL the thrust there. To lift 100 lbs by one micrometer you have to lift with 100 lbs+ of force, or the weight will not move by one micrometer)

When pushed from behind the wings, as in a jet, the thrust is still usually above the wing, but then the leverage for a downward push is ONLY that vertical leverage, and not augmented by a second lever which is the 10-12 foot lenght of nose leverage for being pulled from AHEAD of the wing... Tilting the nose up ahead of the wing means SLOWING DOWN the top half of the prop disc, which has yet another lever to resist: A THIRD lever which is the 90° lever of the prop blade itself, from a blade thrust center 2/3rds of the way up the blade I'm told...

So nose prop vs tail jet: 3 levers versus just 1.... To push down on the wing in turns...

And no, there isn't any way out of it... I have already argued with engineers, pilots, and none of them could explain why this wasn't so... One aeronautical engineer agreed with me about the prop disc effect but not its intensity, which was "unclear" to him...

And notice what is the biggest of the 3 levers: The lenght of the nose... Now isn't that a coincidence that the FW-190A has a much shorter nose and out-sustain turns lighter aircrafts like the Spitfire and especially the Me-109G?

Is it a coincidence that when the British evaluated the FW-190D-9 they found the handling vastly inferior to a FW-190A (as German pilots already knew and commented on, but still often preferred the much better climb of the D-9 which they felt they sorely needed)?

Also: The Ki-100 vastly outperforms the Ki-61-1 in turns despite being heavier... The La-5 vastly out-performs in turns the LaGG-3 despite being ALSO heavier... (The Ki-100 by the way was tested by the Japanese as so superior in maneuverability to the Ki-84 that one Ki-100 could defeat 3 Ki-84s and repeat the feat by exchanging pilots: Another nail in the coffin of existing maths predicting nose-pulled in-flight turn performance...)

Quote: 
"a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly

a) In the report.
b)Whoever said that? At best a possible choice from above them in view of poor high speed handling and better durability. Who cares? Derating does indicate they did not hugely care about high speed performance however...
c) Pronounced aileron snatching described as characteristic: Sorry but the US Navy is all alone on this point at least...

Still waiting for those multiple 360° contest down on the deck, or at least level, slow speed and not too high, where the Spitfire wins versus the FW-190A... Something that looks like this for instance:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 4, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Yup, but you need to read the entire report, take it in context, consider qualifying and contradicting parts of the report, and make an interpretation that has not been skewed by an agenda to prove the FW190 was a superior low speed sustained turn fighter. I admit to being intrigued by the notion, but the evidence does not support it.
> 
> That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them.
> The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190 and the 190 has greater firepower so would engage the bomber and ground attack aircraft in the Soviet formation while the 109s covered them. Incorrect assumption to attribute this practice supports the theory about 190 turn superiority and incorrect to assume the 109/190 stacked formation was a counter to Soviet fighter sweeps.
> ...




-Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner"

-Quote, Claidemore: "The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hohoooo... 3500 meter (11.000 ft.) is HIGH altitude... Did you get that? Yes... The non-turning FW-190 is really weezing out at this height.... That REALLY underlines the objectivity of your post...


Quote, Claidemore: "That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them."

------------------------------------------

-Yes, so short-lived was this low altitude tactic that it came back as is during Boddenplatte: Watch the show "Dogfights" dedicated to "Boddenplatte", and you will see the actual US pilots involved narrating the exact same Me-109G/FW-190A interaction on January 1st 1945, right down to the same altitude numbers...

You will also see a P-47D Razorback fairly quickly out-turn in sustained multiple 360° flat left turns a very late Me-109G around a "slagpile", this of couse very close to the deck...

Quote, Claidemore:"The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII."

---------------------------------------------------

-I said it is the bread-and-butter between AIRCRAFTS OF SIMILAR PERFORMANCE...

Read, as I have, all the 700 Merlin P-51 combat reports here: 

Mustang Encounter Reports

And the 600+ P-47D combat reports here, as I ALSO have read:

P-47 Encounter Reports

...and you will find 80% + of them are mostly sustained turn fighting, often up to 15 minutes to one side between the P-51 and the Me-109G... You will also find that the turn rate superiority of the P-47D over the Me-109G is crushing, especially to the left and in late 1943 and early 1944 when the Razorback was most common: See the "Dogfight" episode again then and remember the "KG 200: On Special mission" book quote of the Germans evaluating their OWN Me-109G vs the P-47D Razorback : "The P-47D out-turns our Me-109G"

And since your objectivity is obviously so superior to mine, perhaps you could explain to me what 32 kill ace Johnny Johnson meant when he said, with post-war hindsight : "The FW-190 turned better than the Me-109"?:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Perhaps you could also explain to me the proper context of these quotes from another similar Soviet evaluation?:

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190 - World War II Forums

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."

"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."


Jeez, can you explain to me the proper "context" of all this, point by point, so that your objective viewpoint may enlighten me?

Gaston


----------



## claidemore (Nov 4, 2010)

Gaston: The Dogfights show isn't exactly prime source for historical research, entertaining though it may be. 

11000 ft is not HIGH, 20,000 is HIGH. Did you get that? 

Did I say the 190 is a 'non turning' fighter? No, I said it is not a 'superior' turn fighter. 

Sure the Luftwaffe repeated tactis throughout the war. Tactics used at the start of WWI were still being used at the end of WWI. That doesn't mean they were good tactics, or that there weren't better ones. People tend to repeat behavior hoping for a different outcome. 

Besides, I was not referring to the stacked echelon tactic, but to the Soviet observation of the tendancy of the FW190 to engage in turn fights. 

Reading combat reports is one thing, comprehension is another. In the first 10 Mustang reports, 9 claims are from line astern attacks with no evasive manuevering, 4 claims are unclear as to whether the e/a was turning or straight, and 2 were claimed in turning fights. That's a far cry from 80% turning battles. If one was to make a generalization of the combat reports from that period one could say that 80% of the claims were made on e/a that were diving away running for their lives! 

I do see turning fights in the P47 encounters, mostly without result, indicating (to me) that the 190 could turn with the P47. AFDU trials support that view. 

AFDU trials also support the 190A turning about as good as a P47, Typhoon or Tempest, with the Mustang being slightly better and the Spitfire being much better.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2010)

Gaston;734320 You have to admit that if they don't even know the true 6 G "Corner Speed" said:


> This sums up your problem. You have no experience, no training but you firmly believe that you know better than real combat pilots, real trained test pilots and real engineers. As for the 6G factor you have fixed on, why I don't know and frankly don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 4, 2010)

Gaston said:


> 3,500 metres (11,000ft) is HIGH altitude...


11,000ft would be considered as the lower echelons of medium altitude


----------



## riacrato (Nov 4, 2010)

If the engines were derated for the purpose of improving low-speed handling, certainly there would be at least one primary source (field report or pilot interview) saying so, no?


----------



## The Basket (Nov 4, 2010)

Training Fw 190 would have a restraint on them so the throttle cant be fully opened.

Read lots of stuff over the years and read nothing which said the 190 was a good turner...good roller...but not good turner.

Go slow in a 190 and you run into its stall which comes without warning and is quite snappy.

That means you dont go slow turning.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 4, 2010)

Gaston
I've just picked up on this thread

Can you elucidate further on your theory 'Derating as a Low-speed Handling Enabler'

Thankyou in anticipation


----------



## The Basket (Nov 4, 2010)

Derating as a low speed handling enabler?

I thought a throttle and.not opening it would have same effect.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Gaston
> I've just picked up on this thread
> 
> Can you elucidate further on your theory 'Derating as a Low-speed Handling Enabler'
> ...




-I did not theorize about this as an advantage over downthrottling... It isn't: I just noted that it idicates the Germans did not care about the FW-190A's high-speed handling, and did not consider high speed an essential part of fighting with it to its best relative advantage, which would allow not losing pilots (who are infinitely more valuable and expensive than the airplane). It could very well be it was done to save wear on the engines, but that STILL demonstrates that high speed handling was not something important that reduced the expected rate of loss of the FW-190A in combat...

Note the Me-109G was FASTER at many altitudes than early FW-190A models, yet IT was never de-rated to save wear on the engine, even though early Me-109Gs DID have serious engine reliability issues (which killed Marseille among others)...

The Germans certainly allowed full power rating on later FW-190A models, especially against the 8th Air Force bombers, which forced the FW-190A to fight at high altitudes where it needed all the power it could get owing to its peculiar abruptly deteriorating handling above 21-22 000 ft..

Probably the FW-190A pilots were lectured in class on how it was best used as a low-speed fighter in sustained horizontal turns at medium-low altitudes (downthrottling in sustained turns was not a universally accepted method by the Germans or anyone else [Fin ace Karhila makes a specific reference to that fact: "Most pilot applied maximum power and then turned, I reduced throttle and found I could turn just as well"], and so downthrottling in sustained turns appears entirely to have been a sporadic application of real front-line knowledge, on 3 types at least: FW-190A, P-51D and the Me-109G), but in some cases, according to Robert Johnson, the FW-190A pilots seem to have applied it unusually coarsely: He describes then "cutting out the engine" which seems a bit extreme and ineffective... He suggested this made them easier to shoot down...

This would indicate these FW-190A pilots were aware of the advantages of the prop disc "pull" reduction (since the effect is IMMEDIATE rather than just from the decreased speed itself, whose theoretical effect requires waiting for speed to bleed off: Unrealistic anyway since most of these WWII fighters had a "Corner Speed" so high ["near max. level speed": 1989 SOETP test] they barely ever flew faster than "Corner Speed" except in dives...), but these FW-190A pilots apparently applied downthrottling coarsely and without patience to reduce their short-term UNSUSTAINED turn rate. This of course did not work since downthrottling is a matter of improving SUSTAINED turning (and thus prolonged turns at low speeds), especially the radius of sustained turning compared to the likely slightly more modest reduction in the actual 360° sustained turn time...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

duplicate post


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> ...early Me-109Gs DID have serious engine reliability issues (which killed Marseille among others)


I believe it was the Bf109F-4 that killed Marseille


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I believe it was the Bf109F-4 that killed Marseille




-No it was a very early G-2.

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Glider said:


> This sums up your problem. You have no experience, no training but you firmly believe that you know better than real combat pilots, real trained test pilots and real engineers. As for the 6G factor you have fixed on, why I don't know and frankly don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



--Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point...

Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:

The Me-109: "Its principal characteristic in combat was speed."

SPEED. This for an aircraft usually slower, or no better, in top speed than most of what Clostermann flew at the lower altitudes he usually fought (especially vs the Tempest V!)... Doesn't that alone say much? If a slower top speed fighter turned tightly in combat, rather than using the vertical, would its PRINCIPAL characteristic in combat be speed? Floret anyone?

About the FW-190A in combat: "Later in the war they started using the flaps which allowed it to tighten its turns even further"

 So a mention of speed for the Me-109, and immediately a mention of turn performance for the FW-190A... Sabre anyone?

I am still waiting for those supposed out-turning Me-109Gs accounts by Gabreski and co... Or low altitude not previously diving multiple 360° sustained-turning Spitfires for that matter!

Gaston


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 8, 2010)

Hauptmann Heinz Lange:

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109.* I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn,* if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> The Germans certainly allowed full power rating on later FW-190A models, especially against the 8th Air Force bombers, which forced the FW-190A to fight at high altitudes where it needed all the power it could get owing to its peculiar abruptly deteriorating handling above 21-22 000 ft..


Even if that was the case
What is peculiar about a single-stage blower running out of steam at 21,000ft? I'd be astounded if my single-stage blower got me that high before wheezing out on me.

Fw190A performance across the majority of BMW801 models began to deteriorate after 18,000ft.


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> --Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point...
> 
> Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:
> 
> ...




A very bizarre post


even in WW2 the plane could in most cases out turn the pilot, pilots used to black out at maximum turn rate.
Test piots dont test a plane to destruction but a piot fighting for his life will, some pilots bent thir planes wings coming out of a dive.

When the FW 190 first appeared around about the Dieppe raid it out performed the current spitfire in every respect except turning according to the pilots who faced it who I think should know more than anyone on this forum. The Mk IX was developed to even the odds with the 190.


PS Closterman started in Spitfires but when flying a tempest feared nothing at all in the Luftwaffe, below 15,000ft he maintained he reigned supreme in 1944/45, at least that was my understanding of "the big show"


----------



## claidemore (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston: 

Check out this page about banning of 1.42 ATA on the DB605A (109G2). 
Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.
As you can see you are incorrect about the Germans never 'de-rating' the 109, and if you read the report you will see that the ban on the use of higher boost was specifically because of engine problems. 

Your statement about the Germans not caring about high speed handling and not considering high speed an essential part of fighting, is one of the oddest and most unsubstantiated statements I've seen on these forums. 

Germany developed the two fastest late war fighters, the Me262 and Ta152. What would that indicate?


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 8, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Gaston:
> 
> Check out this page about banning of 1.42 ATA on the DB605A (109G2).
> Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.
> ...



I read an account by a mosquito pilot that said the best way to evade a 190 which was quicker at the end of the war was to go into a shallow dive then gently weave, however much the mosquito lost in manouvering at maximum speed the 190 lost more.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Quote, Glider: 

"C) I was asking where did you make the assumption that the aileron was not adjusted correctly. Your reply that the aileron snatching was a characteristic wasn't supported by anything. The report you quoted did say _Aileron control is very good at all airspeeds _which doesn't indicate any problem with them being adjusted incorrectly."

---------------------------------

-Sigh... They quote "a tendency to reverse aileron control near the stall" in left turns... Non-existent in any other FW-190A handling evaluation...

This US Navy test also describes a roll rate "about equal to the Corsair", which so incensed the British RAE test establishment that they sent the US Navy an official "rebuttal" document, available online, which in effect argued conclusively that this could not in any way be true, the FW-190A's peak roll rate being around double that of the Corsair...

This is the only instance in WWII, that I am aware of, of one testing establishment actively and officially contesting the results of another...

It is the true ancestor of all those online arguments...

And please, read ALL 1300 combat reports, including the P-47s, not just the first 10 P-51 reports, to formulate an opinion about turn fighting... I did read most of those Spitfire reports too by the way... And reading all those reports, and much more, is in fact exactly how I changed my mind from a viewpoint identical to yours for decades... It is hard I know, since it took me decades to see the obvious, but you have to give contradicting facts a chance, and you haven't addressed them yet...

Gaston

P.S. Here is the US Navy report:

http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/page3.jpg

Very strikingly, an earlier US Navy report with the earlier F6F-3 and F4U variants, against a short-nose FW-190A-4, reads identically almost word-for-word, including the absurd roll rate conclusions, which is not very encouraging for its proponents, given the differences in individual variants present... 

Also, I should emphasize again that the ailerons were a critical aspect of the the FW-190A's slow-speed sustained turn-fighting performance, being described by a FW-190A-8 Western Ace as useable in "catching" the stall after a minimal stick release on stall warning, and thus "riding the turn" on deflected ailerons...

He chose for this the longest chord variant of 3 different types of ailerons, and extended that chord further by using field-installed "hinge spacers", creating a gap at the aileron hinge, which improved the low-speed turn performance even further. He also described the broad wood prop as being another significant advantage in low speed sustained turning with the throttle reduced.

He heavily emphasized the use of downthrottling, and popping the flaps, well before the merge, and used the FW-190A-8 in turn-fighting exclusively, facing into attacks if the enemy would not turn.

He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power: It would have been much closer if the P-51D pilot had done what Hanseman did here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

G.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2010)

duplicate post


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston - I am compelled by profound curiosity to ask whather a.) you have studied aeronautical engineering to the point that you at least understand the theory, can perform simple free body diagrams, and execute the math behind the manuevers while undserstanding the bounday conditions - personally - as in you, and b.) if you have ever had a hand in any aerial manuever other than simulations?

I know the answer to the first by the repeated emasculation of physics with your 'interesting' theories but I have been fooled before.

So, educate me?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power


Was probably?
He was tailing a P-51, or the P-51 was tailing him?
At what speed did both fighters enter the turn? If the P-51 was on the stall boundary, it implies (to me) that they must have entered at low speed, I doubt they bled it all off in two turns, so I'm not sure how the full-power application applies here.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Even if that was the case
> What is peculiar about a single-stage blower running out of steam at 21,000ft? I'd be astounded if my single-stage blower got me that high before wheezing out on me.
> 
> Fw190A performance across the majority of BMW801 models began to deteriorate after 18,000ft.



-It is the FW-190A's HANDLING that deteriorates in a peculiar way above 21 000 ft, and not the BMW 801 engine performance that was peculiar, though it did do less well there than some of the others... Same with the P-38 at about the same altitude... P-38s could not fight real well above 20 000 ft., and despite superior high-altitude turbochargers, they waited for enemy fighters to come down to their level, but the severe dive Mach limitation at high altitude also no doubt also played a role there...

One thing should be emphasized is that performance deteriorations, particularly in handling, are not LINEAR with speed, power, weight OR altitude... Another reason why precise math predictions of those things has to be backed by actual tests...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Was probably?
> He was tailing a P-51, or the P-51 was tailing him?
> At what speed did both fighters enter the turn? If the P-51 was on the stall boundary, it implies (to me) that they must have entered at low speed, I doubt they bled it all off in two turns, so I'm not sure how the full-power application applies here.



-They had to start at around or below 250 MPH, since the FW-190A would not use full power and had flaps deployed, and the FW-190A only turned well below 250 MPH (see P-47D test of an A-5)... The P-51D would be likely coming in a bit faster, and the FW-190A-8 REVERSED the tailing position in two turns, though I still find that hard to believe, and think it could have been say, 2.75 X 360°...

I do believe this is a real account, given all the details about the ailerons and such, but the original thread, started by a relative of the FW-190A pilot who relayed questions and comments, was deleted years ago by the Aces High site owner... Didn't fit dogma you see...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> --Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point..


Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.

PO J Stewart 30th July 1942
I stall turned to attack the rear two Fw190, They broke and turned with me but I could easily out turn them and got several bursts at the rear one.

S/Ldr Watkins 19th August 1942
A FW 190 dived down to my height and swept around behind me, I easily turned inside the enemy aircraft and fired a short burst at 45 degree deflection

Flt Lt Manak 5th September 1942
One of them got onto my tail I avoided him by a left hand climbing turn

S/Ldr T Gaze 11th October 1942
Whilst the left one turned, I easily out turned him and fired a long burst.

Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point.

While you are at it I did look at your combat report links and can only assume that either:-
a) you sent the wrong links or 
b) my reading is very very poor.
I say this as your assertion that 80% of the combat reports invovled long slow turning battles is totally wrong. I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports support your comment I will apologise, note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this.



> Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:
> 
> The Me-109: "Its principal characteristic in combat was speed."
> 
> SPEED. This for an aircraft usually slower, or no better, in top speed than most of what Clostermann flew at the lower altitudes he usually fought (especially vs the Tempest V!)... Doesn't that alone say much? If a slower top speed fighter turned tightly in combat, rather than using the vertical, would its PRINCIPAL characteristic in combat be speed? Floret anyone?



Yes I do know what Clostermann said about the Me109. _ I kept reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300mph for Me109's could turn better than we could at lower airspeeds and you had to watch out for the 30mm in the nose as it wouldn't give you a second chance. The Best Technique was to do a spiral dive and work the speed up to 450 mph, do a stright climb and start all over again_. 
This was in the link that I gave you and you can check it out for yourself. He most certainly wasn't saying that you are better off turning with an Me109, or that the Me109 was any good at high speed.



> About the FW-190A in combat: "Later in the war they started using the flaps which allowed it to tighten its turns even further"
> 
> So a mention of speed for the Me-109, and immediately a mention of turn performance for the FW-190A... Sabre anyone?



As for the turn of the Tempest. The combat report has some meaning
FO Ness 29 September 1944
We then had a turning match lasting four minutes at tree top level, I found that I was able to hold him in the turns in the course of which I was able to fire three short bursts.

So here we have a low altitude sustained turning match with a Fw 190 which after 4 minutes would have been at slow speed. Had he been up against an Me109 the Tempest would almost certainly have lost as per the warning by Clostermann, but against the FW he was able to better it in the turn, in a Tempest a fighter not known for its agility.

Again this was in the link that I gave you and you can check it for yourself. 




> I am still waiting for those supposed out-turning Me-109Gs accounts by Gabreski and co... Or low altitude not previously diving multiple 360° sustained-turning Spitfires for that matter!
> Gaston


As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109, examples for the Spitfire are common, some listed above and I did give you a link with a number of combat reports which you can check for yourself.

As for the statement that sustained turning combats were the bread an butter of air combat, this I firmly believe to be incorrect and that the links you gave support my contention. 

I repeat my offer made above 

I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. *Note *that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, *and *am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information.

I await your reply with interest.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> A very bizarre post
> 
> 
> even in WW2 the plane could in most cases out turn the pilot, pilots used to black out at maximum turn rate.
> Test piots dont test a plane to destruction but a piot fighting for his life will, some pilots bent thir planes wings coming out of a dive.



-They could NOT "out turn" the pilot in sustained turns, since sustaining the speed in those turns allows barely 3.2 Gs or thereabouts...

You have to remember that, in WWII speak, an unspecified "out-turn" quote is nearly always a reference to SUSTAINED turns, and that the UNSUSTAINED turns today's simmers obsess about was usually then spoken of as a "radius" of turn... But sometimes merely as a "tighter turn", as in "a tighter radius".

This is where all the confusion comes in when those implicated use the terms interchangeably... Hence the quote from Heinz Lange: 

"I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a TIGHTER horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well."

Note that despite "a tighter turn" by the Me-109G, he STILL thinks that the FW-190A is more maneuverable, and it is obviously of turns that he is talking about here...

Do you really think a much heavier aircraft like the FW-190A can do more abrupt unsustained turn maneuvers than a Me-109G? It is clear he means that if you can master the FW-190A's stall you can SUSTAIN faster turn rates in the long run, but the Me-109G will turn tighter radiuses in the short run...

Yes the Me-109G and the Spitfires obviously can carve a tighter UNSUSTAINED RADIUS of turn than a FW-190A,..

The reason why sustained turns are more important in real-life, is that the real-life guns were so much weaker in impact (compared to computer games), and the target so unsteady and mobile, that shortly gaining would only gain you one or two hits: In real life you had to "pepper" for quite a while to really ensure a kill...

Note that when boom and zooming, a centralized armament was a big advantage to keep the peppering going for a while over a wide range of diminishing distances... Hence the P-38 and the Me-109G are among the most prominents WWII users of the "floret" step-forward stroke... (While the P-47D sure does a LOT of turn-fighting...)

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Sigh... They quote "a tendency to reverse aileron control near the stall" in left turns... Non-existent in any other FW-190A handling evaluation...
> 
> *I have studied this phoenomena and reasonbly satisfied that a.) the 190 did indeed exhibit a high G/low speed reversal. I am reasonably comfortable that you can look to two root causes. 1) there was no twist on the outer 20% of the 190 wing, leading to 'iffy' aileron effectiveness in this regime - with an outboard/inboard stall sequence, and 2.) that there was an aeroelastic phoenomena in which the loads on the down wing tip/aileron caused the aileron to twist the wing 'up' at the tip - at the stall point that could cause a reversal and snap to the outside of the circle*
> 
> ...



Gaston - you are a breath of fresh air...


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Glider said:


> Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.
> 
> PO J Stewart 30th July 1942
> I stall turned to attack the rear two Fw190, They broke and turned with me but I could easily out turn them and got several bursts at the rear one.
> ...



No sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, or described as long sustained horizontal turns at low/medium altitudes... Again, find an account similar to the Johnny Johnson account... The Spitfire CAN greatly out-turn the FW-190A in short unsustained turns, at altitudes above 20-21 000 ft or at speeds above 250 MPH...

In your second example the FW-190A "dived down" to attack... NOT low-speed...

For all I know all these combats could have occurred above 20 000 ft... One of them is at 27 000 ft if I remember well, as it is not the first time I see these...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 8, 2010)

Glider said:


> Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.
> 
> Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point.
> 
> ...




-Quote: "Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. 

Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-Please refer to everything I have posted so far, particularly the Russian front-line evaluation quote: 

-"The Fw-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" (and is more maneuverable on the horizontal than the Me-109)

-Johnny Johnson "The Fw-190A turns better than the Me-109"

-Heinz lange:"The FW-190A could do just about as well"

So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...

The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...

Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...

The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines, but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)

Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!

Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?

Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?

P-47 Encounter Reports

Maybe you have never said that because you know nothing of the relative turn performance of the P-47D vs the Me-109G?

Let's listen to what the German themselves said of an underpowered captured P-47D needle-tip prop in "On Special missions: KG 200": 

"The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G". No speed, no altitude, nothing specified: Again the ususal sustained turn quote: Assume ALL altitudes, ALL speeds, but don't include into that the notion of downthrottling a Me-109G down to 160 MPH, which Karhila suggest is optimal...

A few routine reports; "http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-mudge-1dec43.jpg"

Note the THREE orbits...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg

Pretty clear...

Gaston


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Heinz lange:"The FW-190A could do just about as well"



Way to selectively mis-quote:

Hauptmann Heinz Lange:

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. *I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well*.


----------



## Glider (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> No sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, or described as long sustained horizontal turns at low/medium altitudes... Again, find an account similar to the Johnny Johnson account... The Spitfire CAN greatly out-turn the FW-190A in short unsustained turns, at altitudes above 20-21 000 ft or at speeds above 250 MPH...
> 
> In your second example the FW-190A "dived down" to attack... NOT low-speed...
> 
> ...



The rather obvious point is that there were few sustained turning combats between Spitfires and Fw 190 as the Spitfire in all those examples easily turned inside the Fw190 and shot them down. A Pilot in combat isn't going to keep turning as an intellectual exercise for the fun of it, he is going to turn inside and shoot the other pilot down.

As for how the Fw 190 was able to turn with the Spitfire in the one example you have hung your hat on I don’t know, the point is neither do you.
A guess and it is only a guess, is that the Fw had a lower airspeed in that combat which would have greatly assisted the pilot in reducing the turn circle. As you have rightly pointed out some pilots did this in other aircraft, its risky but in a one to one situation the risk is acceptable.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> For all I know all these combats could have occurred above 20 000 ft...
> 
> One of them is at 27 000 ft if I remember well, as it is not the first time I see these...


For all you know?

If you remember well? Well do you or don't you? A Fw190A at 27,000ft? If I'd got the kite up that high and then had the misfortune to bump into a Spitfire Mk IX, I think I'd just bail.

There's no scientific, factual edge to your argument.


----------



## bada (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -It is the FW-190A's HANDLING that deteriorates in a peculiar way above 21 000 ft, and not the BMW 801 engine performance that was peculiar,
> Gaston



 my god! have u ever seen the 801 power curve? 




Gaston said:


> -
> The Spitfire CAN greatly out-turn the FW-190A in short unsustained turns, at altitudes above 20-21 000 ft or at speeds above 250 MPH...



rather normal if you look at the POWER CURVE of the 801. 
No spit could follow the 190 in short turns between 250 and 340mph at 190's optimal altitude(0-2000m/3000-6000m), see the naca roll rate chart(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg), simply because they couldn't roll fast enough to follow the 190 *into the turn.*

The 190 could *change angles *very fast, under 340mph faster than any airplane, changing angles does not mean turn as an imbecile in a 360° circle or even 180°, it means changing azimuts by an angle change of 90°max,followed by any offensive or defensive maneuvre(roll, split-s, scissors)...depending on pilot's fatigue and his G abilities.

The 190 was build to fly fast, turn fast (changing angles) at high G's, it never was intended to be a turn fighter in the meaning you give to the word turn-fighter.



Gaston said:


> -
> He chose for this the longest chord variant of 3 different types of ailerons, and extended that chord further by using field-installed "hinge spacers", creating a gap at the aileron hinge, which improved the low-speed turn performance even further. He also described the broad wood prop as being another significant advantage in low speed sustained turning with the throttle reduced.



Any Field modification not directly allowed by the standard FW Manual with all annexes present, was to be directly reported to FW by the staffel Chief-engineer. FW Took the decision to allow to test the modification further or not.Do you have any of such repports? 
As about something that completly change the wing profile as an aileron modification, i really doubt 
that any pilot would risk his life just to test it without any confirmation from the factory.

thanks.


----------



## Glider (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Quote: "Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.
> 
> Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Russian Front Line report is interesting, the J Johnson I covered in my previous posting and you misquoting of the third has been noted.


> So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...
> 
> The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...



I Disagree, I quoted from a source that you know that the Tempest should not get invovled in a slow turning match the the Me109 as the 109 could turn better. I also gave you a live example of a low speed turning battle where the Tempest performed better than the Fw109 in a turning fight.


> Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...



This is the only one that I found, I notice that you haven't quoted any despite your belief that they were the bread an butter type of combat



> The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines,


I don't like saying this but if you have read as much as you seem to by Closterman then you have either forgotten or if you haven't forgotten then you are being as Churchil once said, being economical with the truth. He flew both extensively, you may also want to read up on Beumount a pilot who knew the Tempest best.



> but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)



You must be slipping, quoting flight tests by establishments, those same people you are quick to put down as being out of touch. If you could supply a link to this it would be appreciated. If the tests were undertaken at high speed then I could understand it as the Me109 locked up badly whereas the Fw didn't. If the tests were done at low speed then I admit I would need to think again.



> Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!



I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ which you quote so frequently.



> Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?



Where on earth did you get this from?



> Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."
> 
> My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?
> 
> ...



Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47

On the subject of combat reports I notice that you haven't taken up my offer regarding the subject of slow turning combat being the bread and butter of air combat up to 80%. 

I repeat it just in case you missed it.
_I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. Note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information_.


----------



## Glider (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Quote: "Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.
> 
> Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Russian Front Line report is interesting, the J Johnson I covered in my previous posting and you misquoting of the third has been noted.


> So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...
> 
> The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...



I Disagree, I quoted from a source that you know Closterman that the Tempest should not get invovled in a slow turning match the the Me109 as the 109 could turn better. I also gave you a live example of a low speed turning battle where the Tempest performed better than the Fw190 in a turning fight.


> Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...



This is the only one that I found, I notice that you haven't quoted any despite your belief that they were the bread an butter type of combat



> The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines,


I don't like saying this but if you have read as much as you seem to by Closterman then you must have forgotten. He flew both extensively, you may also want to read up on Beumount a pilot who knew the Tempest best.



> but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)



You must be slipping, quoting flight tests by establishments, those same people you are quick to put down as being out of touch. If you could supply a link to this it would be appreciated. If the tests were undertaken at high speed then I could understand it as the Me109 locked up badly whereas the Fw didn't. If the tests were done at low speed then I admit I would need to think again.



> Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!



I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ which you quote so frequently.



> Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?



Where on earth did you get this from?



> Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."
> 
> My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?
> 
> ...



Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47

On the subject of combat reports I notice that you haven't taken up my offer regarding the subject of slow turning combat being the bread and butter of air combat up to 80%. 

I repeat it just in case you missed it.
_I suggest that you can pick *ANY *of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. Note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information_.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 9, 2010)

Glider said:


> Russian Front Line report is interesting, the J Johnson I covered in my previous posting and you misquoting of the third has been noted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



-Explain "your misquote of the third"....?!?

-I find it funny you question the 80% figure not having read the full collection of reports which you know I have... I include in "turning combat" anything involving a likely one full turn... Also note the bottom of the P-51 column is 100% turning combat with quotes next to them, including two 15 minutes long ones to one side (vs Me-109G of course): 40-45 consecutive 360°s...

Quote, Glider: "I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:

"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one [2-4 full 360° circles in another interview about the same dogfight], but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" 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."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association."


Link: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


Quote, Glider: "Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Well since the Germans themselves say otherwise from testing a captured needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback in the KG 200 book I quoted, you are very hopeful about the Me-109G in sustained NON-DOWNTHROTTLED turns (as test pilots usually test them)...

How about this for low-speed? Note that to the right the P-47D Razorback wasn't as good as that, and the Me-109G was probably about even in right turns and maybe even versus the later Paddle-blade Bubbletops generally: BUT to the left against the Razorback, particularly one with needle-tip props, as the Germans themselves indicated in their own tests, it was hopeless:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19may44.jpg

Note the 140 MPH speed at the end of the first one, after 3 consecutive spiral climb 360°s...

Also note the climbing and turning of the second...

In fact, I would go further: Show me the Me-109G surviving sustained turning combat with ANYTHING other than a Merlin P-51 that does not downthrottle: I would be very curious to see a Me-109G win against anything in prolonged sustained turns if the Me-109G pilot does not downthrottle in sustained turns...

Again, the Me-109G could carve a tighter initial turn than even what a FW-190A could, but was extremely "draggy" while sustaining prolonged turning for some reason...

Oseau demise witness, Quote: "Each turn became tighter, and his Bf-109G-6AS lost more speed in the turns than his P-51D adversaries. He was probably shot down near the ground. Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Me-109G, but being an old Me-109 pilot he preferred it..." "Defence of the Reich" Jagdwaffe series...

So am I to understand you accept that the Me-109G needs to be downthrottled in order to survive in sustained turning combat? That IS what an "optimal" turn speed of 60 MPH above stall entails...

If downthrottling is accepted for reaching the optimal sustained turn performance, we might be getting somewhere...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Nov 9, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Explain "your misquote of the third"....?!?



Full quote

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — *although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn*, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. 


> -I find it funny you question the 80% figure not having read the full collection of reports which you know I have... I include in "turning combat" anything involving a likely one full turn... Also note the bottom of the P-51 column is 100% turning combat with quotes next to them, including two 15 minutes long ones to one side (vs Me-109G of course): 40-45 consecutive 360°s...



Since when does one turn equal sustained turning combat? However if you are so confident then pick an example, *the offer is still open*, despite you changing the basis.


> Quote, Glider: "I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:



Don't put words into my mouth. Any aircraft that reduces its speed will improve its turn radius.

I am aware of the following quote .- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association." and that supports my statement that any aircraft that reduces its speed will improve its turn radius



> Quote, Glider: "Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -Well since the Germans themselves say otherwise from testing a captured needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback in the KG 200 book I quoted, you are very hopeful about the Me-109G in sustained NON-DOWNTHROTTLED turns (as test pilots usually test them)...


I have asked for a link to that quote I notice that you have not supplied one



> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19may44.jpg
> 
> Note the 140 MPH speed at the end of the first one, after 3 consecutive spiral climb 360°s...




The first is intertesting but in the second I notice that the ammunition exploaded in his wing. This being the case this must have been an Me109 with the wing mounted guns which had much worse handleing which would explain this one. In both cases the Me109 is out of energy being at the top of a slow speed spiral. You can keep your speed below 250 and maintain energy.
My main experience is flying gliders and in a stack with a number of other gliders energy conservation is everything. It’s more relevant than at first glance as we are in a tight turning situation whilst climbing as well as being in competition with each other trying to get the best out of the machine.


> So am I to understand you accept that the Me-109G needs to be downthrottled in order to survive in sustained turning combat? That IS what an "optimal" turn speed of 60 MPH above stall entails...
> 
> If downthrottling is accepted for reaching the optimal sustained turn performance, we might be getting somewhere...



No you can take it that the Me109 needs to keep its speed below 250mph. from the start.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -
> -IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:
> 
> *Actually you are comparing apples with oranges - or more explicitly banked turn with straight and level flight, full power versus low power conditions.
> ...



Gaston - when you finally get around to doing the math, you will discover that thrust and drag, lift loading and CLmax are the key variables - and then when you look at the free body equations you will discover that turn rate capability ALWAYS decreases with 'downthrottling' 

ONLY turn RADIUS can be reduced by downthrottling - but tactically speaking you give up energy trying to pull deflection..


----------



## timshatz (Nov 12, 2010)

Man, you guys really get into the weeds on this stuff.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2010)

Tim - it is a complete waste of time. 

Gaston is 'theory espousing' with no facts to support his belief systems..he has done the same thing on other forums.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 12, 2010)

Where did I put the popcorn at......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2010)

Lets not let this get out of hand. Just a reminder, warnings in other threads carry over.

Everything is still fine, just reminding everyone not to let it get out of hand.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 13, 2010)

Glider said:


> Full quote
> 
> I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — *although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn*, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well.
> 
> ...



Well I "notice" too there is no link to your last question: The quote by the Germans of KG 200's test is from a book: "On Special Missions. KG 200". Find the book and look it up...

The quote in full, from German testers, is: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G"

What was the German comment in that same book, about the P-51B, immediately after that? No mention of the P-51B out-turning the Me-109G, but only that its stall was very dangerous and had killed one of the German pilots...



I will re-iterate here I never denied the Me-109G or Spitfire could cut a tighter unsustained turn RADIUS than a FW-190A, and this likely at any speed: In sustained turns past a 1 full 360° however, it is another matter and neither the Spitfire or the Me-109G had much hope against a FW-190A... The Me-109G was confirmed *by the Germans themselves* as slower-turning than a P-47D, and admittedly the early P-47D Razorbacks with needle-tip props could match *in left turns* late 1943 FW-190As (FW-190A-6 most likely).

The P-47D in late 1944 with Paddle-blade prop was easily defeated in turns by later FW-190A-8s.

For the early P-47D Razorback, the proven performance of out-turning the Me-109G *flown by experienced German pilots* , and especially of matching, sometimes, in sustained left turns the FW-190A, indicates the following (despite contradictory later Bubbletop P-47D tests, and some early Razorback tests as well):

The P-47D Razorback with needle prop *in left turns* could out sustain turn the Merlin P-51. It could very likely out sustain turn the Spifire Mk V and likely the Mk IX as well (which was near identical to the Mk V in turns)...

Note that *none* of this is related to the *minimum unsustained radius*: I mean the SUSTAINED horizontal turning...

Now for a more detailed sourcing of a previous quote: From Robert Forsyth's "Jagdwaffe", "Defending the reich 1944-45" P. 202:

"Ofw Leo Suchmacher of II/JG 1 recalled: "Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109.... Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced it into a turning dogfight. *Each turn became tighter, and the Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) slowed down, more so than his adversaries*. Oseau was probably shot down near the ground."

Well slowing down doesn't appear to have been much help now does it?

Again, the 160 MPH "optimal turn speed" quoted by Karhila is quoted in the context of downthrottling. Here is again the quote:

"
"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). *I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well......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."
* "

-Again I would simply note here that, despite the use of "radius" (which I said myself was *usually* a reference to unsustained turns), in WWII *this term of radius was more specific in its use in flight test reports*: In test reports "radius" is almost always a reference to unsustained turns. However, when WWII fighter pilots speak, the word is more indifferently used. What is important then is that when WWII fighter pilots say "out-turned", the time it takes to pepper a target long enough to bring it down (with the average 2% hit rate) means that *"out-turned" for fighter pilots is almost always a reference to sustained turns*, even when the term "radius" is used...

Sustained turns have a radius too... But if you want to continue being in the dark be my guest...

I noticed that whenever I bring material that demolishes the preconceived notions you have, you always dismiss it as "interesting"...

For instance the entire "Russian experience" evaluation... It is very "interesting" isn't it?

I still haven't heard you say what you think they mean by: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"...

It would be very "interesting" to hear what you have to say about it...

Stay tuned for my next post: There is a few more "interesting" quotes and links that surfaced recently that should be enlightening...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 13, 2010)

So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (click on John Weir link):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/.../spitfire/spitfire_html/SF_1/SF_101/SF_101_03 

"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."

Yes the Hurricane had a lighter wingloading than a Spitfire... 

You don't say! "They kept catching up you know..." My oh my...

Doesn't that remind you of a certain "ne'er do well" Johnny Johnson?!?:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

By the way, have you already met my unfortunate friend Alan Deere? here is an "interesting" quote from Osprey's series:

-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..."

Final result of that fight? 8 to one in favour of the FW-190As...

You know, I'll bet these British/Canadian guys just didn't know their math...

It's all very "interesting" isn't it?

Gaston


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2010)

> "Ofw Leo Suchmacher of II/JG 1 recalled: "Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109.... Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced it into a turning dogfight. Each turn became tighter, and the Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) slowed down, more so than his adversaries. Oseau was probably shot down near the ground."
> 
> Well slowing down doesn't appear to have been much help now does it?



While being outnumbered. What a surprising outcome.

Actually he was attacked by P-38s of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF) and the fight is said to have lasted 20 minutes.

Walter Oesau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Oesau was chased by 1st Lt. James Leslie Doyle, 1st Lt. Wilbur L. Jarvis III and 1st Lt. James C. Austin, of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF). All three were experienced pilots and chased Oesau from 28,000 feet to tree-top level. In the ensuing 20 minute dogfight, Oesau defended skillfully, though his aircraft was damaged by gunfire. While attempting an emergency landing, his Gustav received a final burst of fire in the cockpit area and crashed into the ground 6 miles south west of St. Vith. His body was thrown clear of the aircraft some yards away._


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Well I "notice" too there is no link to your last question: The quote by the Germans of KG 200's test is from a book: "On Special Missions. KG 200". Find the book and look it up...
> 
> The quote in full, from German testers, is: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G"
> 
> What was the German comment in that same book, about the P-51B, immediately after that? No mention of the P-51B out-turning the Me-109G, but only that its stall was very dangerous and had killed one of the German pilots...



I will try to get a look at the book in question. I have asked if the British Library have one that I can look at. I am interested a the USAAF considered the P47 and P51 to have almost identical rates of turn so either the USAAF don't know their own aircraft, or the Germans have a problem. You have to admit this difference is 'Interesting', you can belittle the use of this word but it is 'Interesting'.
The reason why its important to me to see the whole quote as it depends on details you have not bee able to supply such as speed, height or condition of the aircraft. Were these aircraft shot down and repaired and if so to what degree. Or are they aircraft such as the German Fw 190 and some of the Me109s that landed by accident at RAF bases without any damage at all or were caputured in their crates straight from the factory.



> I will re-iterate here I never denied the Me-109G or Spitfire could cut a tighter unsustained turn RADIUS than a FW-190A, and this likely at any speed: In sustained turns past a 1 full 360° however, it is another matter and neither the Spitfire or the Me-109G had much hope against a FW-190A...


This you have stated a number of times and the only evidence that you can provide is one repeat one combat report.
I find this interesting and have suggested that the FW may well have done this by reducing its speed and its turn radius. I have said that this is a suggestion but you don't know why this has happened either. You have hung your hat on this one combat and made the assumption that in sustained turns the Fw was at least as good as the Spit V. Any flight tests that say otherwise or the advice that was given to RAF pilots you dismiss, and insist you are right.
Your dogged insistance that the Fw had a better sustained turn then almost anything in the air, despite all the evidence and your treatment of the test pilots, engineers and establishments says a lot.



> The Me-109G was confirmed *by the Germans themselves* as slower-turning than a P-47D, and admittedly the early P-47D Razorbacks with needle-tip props could match *in left turns* late 1943 FW-190As (FW-190A-6 most likely).
> 
> The P-47D in late 1944 with Paddle-blade prop was easily defeated in turns by later FW-190A-8s.


Re the Me109 being out turned by the P47 I find interesting but believable if the tests were undertaken at hig speed as the 109 controls became very heavy at high speed. Which is why the details of the test need to be explored. As I have already said if those tests ere undertaken at slower speeds then I would need to change my mind. There is nothing wrong in that approach.
Re the Fw190 turning inside the P47 easily, I have seen nothing to prove that but do have flight tests that say the opposite. 



> The P-47D Razorback with needle prop *in left turns* could out sustain turn the Merlin P-51. It could very likely out sustain turn the Spifire Mk V and likely the Mk IX as well (which was near identical to the Mk V in turns)...



The P47 had no chance of turning inside the Spitfire, no way at all. Have you anything to say this is the case. It goes against everything that I have read be it flight tests, personal memories, nothing. Suppport this or withdraw it.



> Note that *none* of this is related to the *minimum unsustained radius*: I mean the SUSTAINED horizontal turning...


You have this fixation about sustained turns which were so rare its of no importance and even so you have nothing to suport this statement except your one combat report.
_*That reminds me*_, I am still waiting for you to take up the challenge of giving an example from the hundreds listed and I offer to analyse the ten either side to get a feel as to how common they were. After all you did say it was the bread and butter of air combat and 80% of combats. I do find this reluctance to accept this very fair challange 'Interesting'.
I should add I did look up the example you gave of a 15 minute sustained turn combat and found that it was 15 minutes but of all the tactics described as being used by the Fw pilot, sustained turn was the one tactic *Not *mentioned.



> Again, the 160 MPH "optimal turn speed" quoted by Karhila is quoted in the context of downthrottling. Here is again the quote:



I know the quote


> -Again I would simply note here that, despite the use of "radius" (which I said myself was *usually* a reference to unsustained turns), in WWII *this term of radius was more specific in its use in flight test reports*: In test reports "radius" is almost always a reference to unsustained turns. However, when WWII fighter pilots speak, the word is more indifferently used. What is important then is that when WWII fighter pilots say "out-turned", the time it takes to pepper a target long enough to bring it down (with the average 2% hit rate) means that *"out-turned" for fighter pilots is almost always a reference to sustained turns*, even when the term "radius" is used...
> 
> Sustained turns have a radius too... But if you want to continue being in the dark be my guest...


Where on earth did you get this idea that a turn radius is unsustained in a flight test and something else in combat? I do hope you can support this statement.


> I noticed that whenever I bring material that demolishes the preconceived notions you have, you always dismiss it as "interesting"...



I find a lot of your contributions 'Interesting' that I will admit. 



> For instance the entire "Russian experience" evaluation... It is very "interesting" isn't it?
> 
> I still haven't heard you say what you think they mean by: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"...
> 
> It would be very "interesting" to hear what you have to say about it...



I would want to see the entire statement and your inability to supply it is 'Interesting'. However in combat with the Russians it nearly always took part at low to medium low altitude and the Fw isn't a good climber. If the Russians have the advantage the best thing the Fw would do is go head on where its formidable firepower would give it a considerable advantage and to do that you need to turn into the attack.
That is my guess.



> Stay tuned for my next post: There is a few more "interesting" quotes and links that surfaced recently that should be enlightening...
> 
> Gaston



I read it and am still trying to work out how quoting a Hurricane Pilot has any bearing on the case. Its hardly news that the Hurricane had a lower wing loading than an Me109

As for the rest you have hung a lot on the one combat report of Johnny Johnson which we have covered many times. The fact that you are unable to find a second example I do find 'Interesting'.

As for Alan Deere its hardly news that the Spitfire could turn inside and generally outmanoeuver the Me109, so that the 109 tended to make a pass and get away for a second pass. They would be stupid to do otherwise given a choice. The Fw 190 could out manoeuver the Spitfire V and given aggressive pilots all credit to those German pilots for staying in the fight. Again this is hardly news.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 13, 2010)

GAston: George Beurling was a Canadian, who flew with the British, and he was ok at math. He used trig to compute deflection shots during combat..... pretty good for a Brit/Canadian boy..... you lose that bet, buckwheat. 

The Hurricane did not have a lower wingloading than the Spitfire.
Hurricane Mk1 and Spitfire Mk1 had identical wing loading of 25 lbs/sq ft. 
Hurricane MkIIc was 29.8lbs, Spit Vb was 27 lbs. 
Hurricane MkIV, 31 lbs/sq ft, Spit FMk IX, 30 lbs/sq foot.

IF as you say the FW190's in late 41 early 42 were shooting down MK V Spitfires by 'sustained turning', (rather than by using their 50 mph speed advantage like everyone else in the world has been led to believe), then how did the emergence of the MK IX Spitifre (Mk V airframe, Merlin 61 or better engine) change that? The only difference between the Mk V and the Mk IX is the more powerful engine which gave the Mk IX comparable climb and speed to the FW190. How did that extra horsepower (rather than de-rating) tip the balance in favor of the Spitfire against the FW190?


----------



## Gaston (Nov 14, 2010)

claidemore said:


> GAston: George Beurling was a Canadian, who flew with the British, and he was ok at math. He used trig to compute deflection shots during combat..... pretty good for a Brit/Canadian boy..... you lose that bet, buckwheat.
> 
> The Hurricane did not have a lower wingloading than the Spitfire.
> Hurricane Mk1 and Spitfire Mk1 had identical wing loading of 25 lbs/sq ft.
> ...



This is a very valid point: You often hear how the Spitfire Mk IX "redressed the balance" vs the FW-190A and the Spitfire Mk V... And since this originates widely from combat veterans you won't find me questioning their judgement...

I think the answer to our current confusion lies in over-reliance on Eric Browns's speculations as to how this was done as a practical matter.

No test I have ever seen indicate that the Spitfire Mk IX is vastly superior in sustained turning than a Spitfire Mk V, so the logical conclusion is that it was other advantages that brought equality between the Mk IX and the FW-190A:

Spitfire IX Tactical Trials

Quote: "Manoeuvrability 

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet.* At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding.* The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive." 

The portion I outlined in bold describes perfectly how I think the the Spitfire Mk IX redressed the balance.

Note also how the hugely improved climb rate did not improve significantly the sustained turn rate, even when the difference in climb rate at 30 000 ft. was huge, contrary to what all the math theories would have you believe...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 14, 2010)

Milosh said:


> While being outnumbered. What a surprising outcome.
> 
> Actually he was attacked by P-38s of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF) and the fight is said to have lasted 20 minutes.
> 
> ...



Milosh, the account in my book was related by Leo Shuhmacher of II./JG1, : "*As I was later told by his wingman*, a young Oberfahnrich, Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced him into a turning dogfight. Each turn became tighter, and his Bf-109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries." p.202 in Robert. Fosyth's Jagdwaffe, vol. 5 section 3 of "Luftwaffe colours", "In defense of the Reich 1944-45".

I would say there is virtually no chance a Luftwaffe pilot would confuse a P-38 with a P-51, no matter how inexperienced... This was after all directly relayed from Oseau's actual wingman, who observed large stretches of the combat...

Very likely the P-38s pursued another German they took for Oseau....

As to my "claim" that the early P-47D Razorback, with needle-blade prop, could out-sustain *left* turns with Spitfires, I agree it seems incredible, but I can only go by the totality of its superiority in turns to the Me-109G, which is absolute in sustained left turns, all the way down to the deck in repeated spiral climbs down to 140 MPH, as I have already demonstrated with the linked combat reports, and agreed to with no qualifications by the German themselves in their own tests (which I think is a big deal), and the Germans also not saying the same thing about the P-51B (which is an even bigger deal, and again matches a lot of combat without downthrottling)...

Although the Spitfire is indeed generally superior to the Me-109G in sustained turns, I did not see such a pronounced superiority as with the P-47D over the same Me-109G... And this is confirmed by several accounts of the P-47D Razorback matching left turns on the deck with late 1943 and early 1944 FW-190As, which the Spitfire is obviously hopelessly incapable of doing (an obvious conclusion if you read the Canadian Hurricane pilot interview a few posts above), even though, I repeat again, that the Spitfire AND the Me-109G will both cut a smaller unsustained radius than the FW-190A OR the P-47D...

It does seem a stretch, but formal tests are so capricious and unreliable across types it is the only thing that makes sense, and also I don't claim that the superiority in left turns of the early P-47D is large over the Spitfire: Likely very small, and possibly within production variations.

It is clear from the Hurricane pilot account I overestimated the Spitfire, and might have to re-design my game's Data Cards for it and the P-47D, to make them at least a little closer... Sigh...

Gaston


----------



## Milosh (Nov 14, 2010)

Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.

_Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13._

The Germans had a habit of saying they were shot down by Spitfires instead of an lesser a/c. The P-51 was considered a better a/c than the P-38 by the Germans.

.................................

I would suggest you read '_The Long Reach_'.

In it, P-47 pilots tell of doing yo-yo turns to stay with 109s in a turn. It also says in a horizontal turn engagement not to turn more than a half turn with the EA.

Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.


----------



## Glider (Nov 14, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.


Very Selective. My personal favourite is where he states that because a Hurricane has a smaller turn radius than an early Spitfire. It follows that as a result, this apparently proves:-

a) beyond any doubt that a P47 can turn inside a Spitfire. 
b) It also proves beyond any doubt that the Spitfire is obviously hopelessly incapable of matching sustained turns against a Fw. 

I admit that these two leaps of logic are beyond me.

Any inconvenient things such as flight tests by test establishments that say otherwise are disposed of by simply saying ' _but formal tests are so capricious and unreliable across types it is the only thing that makes sense'_.

I will now leave it and let independent readers make their own minds up.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 15, 2010)

Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03 

"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."

-Gee wiz... If the above isn't even "interesting", it's pretty hopeless... 

I get the distinct impression somebody out there doesn't get it...

I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...

Gaston


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 15, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):
> 
> I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...
> 
> Gaston



The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:

"At 30,000 feet there is *still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding*. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive. "


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 15, 2010)

Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.

Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.

RAF testing with a clipped wing Spitfire Mk V showed that the aircraft had a 40% smaller sustained turn radius than the FW 190A4 at 20,000 ft. 

Soviet testing of a LF MK IX (again with clipped wings) shows a 45% smaller sustained turn radius than a FW 190 A5, this time at 1000 m (3,300 ft).

Soviet turn time testing shows that the FW-190 did a sustained circle in 22-23 seconds at 1000 m, worse than any other fighter they test, bar the P-47D and the Mustang.

Testing by four air forces: RAF, USN, Luftwaffe and VVS all indicate that the FW 190 is not a turn fighter.

What is it that you believe makes the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter?

Is it the very high stall speed (125-130 mph)?
The very high wing loading?
The tendency to go into snap stalls at low speed?
The tendency to reverse aileron control at low speed?


----------



## claidemore (Nov 15, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble.



Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn. 

The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035. 

Jabberwocky? Could you provide a link to the Soviet turn tests? 

Claidemore


----------



## Glider (Nov 18, 2010)

This might be of interest. The voice over by a Tempest pilot makes it clear that the Fw would nearly always try to escape by diving.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A_


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn.
> 
> The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035.
> 
> ...



Claidmore - as you know, decelerating while in a high g sustained turn, reduces energy and leads to a descending spiral - and opponent has all the advantages. You are not confused - but somebody is.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 20, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.
> 
> _Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13._
> 
> ...



And you are not?!?


Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the *actual* wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang... 

It is true the two can be easily confused...

Anyway if the footage is clear, then did you know they stupidly put the P-38's gun camera in the nose near the guns, which when firing obscured everything by vibration and smoke? If when firing the image is clear, then you'll know the footage comes from a P-51...

The guncam footage must be online somewhere...

As for the P-47 yo-yo quote, how about backing up this general pilot opinion with an actual combat account? Then we would know if he was turning to the RIGHT or to the LEFT, as you'll note I ALWAYS make the distinction...

If you find me ONE combat account of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT, in SUSTAINED multiple 360° horizontal turns, a P-47D prior to January 1944, I'll concede defeat for the P-47D (not the 190 of course). How's that?

I have about 250-400 of those combats going completely the other way, including down to 4 consecutive 360° climbing spirals down to 140 MPH at 5000 ft.(Admittedly against a likely Gondola Me-109G, but still...).

I know, I know, it's all about the levitating powers of the pilot you know...

Read those 600 reports and get back to us with your super-turning Me-109Gs combat accounts...

Like this one for instance...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg



If you had read even one tenth of the 600 P-47D combat reports on Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance", you would realize how absurd is your notion of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT a late 1943/early 1944 Razorback in sustained turns, or even ANY P-47 for that matter... There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used). Read the combat reports and see for yourself: The only aircraft putting the P-47D in trouble in sustained turns is the FW-190A... And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...

But of course, according to you, the Hurricane pilot doesn't know what he is talking about when he says the FW-190A "kept coming" when the Spitfire and Me-109 could not...

And Johnny Johnson...

And the combined Russian frontline experience...

And British RAE tests, since YOU like formal tests...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Nov 20, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.
> 
> Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.
> 
> ...






I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...

I keep saying this over and over, and people *still* get it wrong....

RAF tests of the Me-109G vs P-51B vs FW-190A (Source: Le Fana de l'Aviation Hors Serie #38, p.102): 

"Turn Rate P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is vastly superior to the Me-109G.

Turn Rate P-51B vs FW-190A: Not much to choose between them.

Turn rate P-51B with FULL UNDERWING DROP TANKS:

P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is still vastly superior to the Me-109G.

P-51B vs FW-190A: Still roughly equal."

Page 102, check it out, but it is translated in French...

Now I think the combat report evidence of 700 P-51 combat reports on the Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site is somewhat different.... The *unfamiliar* aircrafts in the RAF test here are both underestimated, as you would expect:

Combat evidence (700 reports): The Me-109G can be roughly equal to the Merlin P-51 in sustained low-speed turns, usually mainly on the deck, especially vs the P-51D, but is almost always *slightly* inferior in all other circumstances... Even on the deck, the Me-109G is inferior in sustained turns if the Merlin P-51 uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method (but this only if the Me-109G stays itself at full power??)...

FW-190A is often "lost" by P-51, but the P-51D can out-turn it at low speeds *only* if it uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method in sustained turns.

There is only one case in the 700 reports of low-speed out-turning by the P-51 of the FW-190A, and the P-51 in that case uses this "downthrottling" method, all three elements of it, continuously over two and a half 360°s... (After a very long dive speed might still have been above 250 MPH on the third 360°, but it does seem the P-51 is unusually competitive when downthrotllted over several 360°s. Note the FW-190A was also recommended to be downthrottled by one of its pilots, who always used his FW-190A-8 like this in combat, and used horizontal turns only... "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8" he said. And indeed he described gaining 360° on a TAILING P-51D, turning flat on the deck, in TWO consecutive 360° turns, and shooting it down. This incredible rate of gain of 180° per 360° turn was made possible by the use of downthrottling, flaps, the broader wood prop, and most of all the use of the widest chord of 3 aileron types offered, widened further in the field by the use of field-mounted hinge "spacers" to enhance further the low-speed turn rate, this of course at the expense of the high speed roll rate... Of course the P-51D in this case did not downthrottle...) 

At high speeds (above 250 MPH) in descending combat, the Merlin P-51 is vastly superior in all maneuvers except roll to the FW-190A, and the FW-190A cannot sustain turns to one side without snapping out or mushing, and is forced to constantly shift turn direction as often as possible as it dives.... The FW-190A also blacks out its pilots even in "elongated curve" looping maneuvers... (Suggesting harsh nose-up tail down deceleration)

As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were *not* done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...

These are tests done for wind tunnel evaluation procedures, they were intended to calibrate wind tunnel test results; They have nothing to do with actual test comparisons and were never intended to be used as such by anyone...

Furthermore, many of the numbered results could be calculated extrapolations... The fact that these results were never used in VVS pilot training (Quite unlike my "Russian Experience" evaluation with "FW-190A turns better horizontally than Me-109, and inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed", which originates from the front-line combat pilots themselves, with the intention of informing their fellow combat pilots...).

This information on the background of the TsAGI tests was relayed by another poster on this site (I will link his quote). There are other issues of aircraft unfamiliarity as well, plaguing all these formal tests, and barring seeing the original documents, I saw one Russian-language site quoting the TsAGI turns times for the FW-190A-4 as 19-23 seconds (?), one second below the Me-109G-2 or F for the 19 seconds side of the quote...

Like all formal tests, TsAGI tests are more misleading than the near-perfectly coherent picture of a large number of combat reports and front-line observations...

Gaston

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...)

Oh, and are you really sure Karhila's 160 MPH "optimal" sustained turning speed can be at *full* power? Tsk-Tsk...

G.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 20, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
> 
> The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:
> 
> "At 30,000 feet there is *still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding*. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive. "



Funny, the report says the Spit Mk V had trouble staying at altitude while matching turns at 30 000 ft., and the Spitfire Mk IX had no trouble keeping altitude.

Yet *there is still little to chose between the two aircrafts in the sustained turn rate*, despite the HUGE difference in power and climb rate at that height...

At 15 000 ft. did the Spitfire Mk V have trouble maintaining height while matching the horizontal turn rate of the Spitfire Mk IX? Apparently not...

Yet, were the two equal in horsepower at 15 000 ft?

Yes I will concede, *on the Spitfire*, an increase of 400 horsepower (25%) will compensate for an increase in weight from 6700 lbs to 7400 lbs (10%)...

So an increase of 15% in the power-to-weight ratio yielded 0% of increase in the sustained turn rate... Even at extreme altitudes, with a two-stage supercharger optimized for high altitudes that likely increased the 30 000 ft. power-to-weight ratio by 30%, *still* a 0% increase resulted in the sustained turn rate...

It would seem the power-to-weight ratio has little relationship to the sustained turn rate performance...

Which is exactly why we have Hurricane pilots telling us the Spifire couldn't sustain turns with them, while the FW-190A could...

How about a quote of the Me-109G out-sustaining turns with *something*?

A P-47D Razorback to the left for instance... ...

Gaston


----------



## Njaco (Nov 20, 2010)

Just a reminder not to let this get any louder in here.

Don't know if this will help the conversation but this is from Dr. Alfred Price's book, "Fw-190 At War".

The first capturd Fw 190 was tested by the Air Fighting Detachment Unit at Duxford in July/August 1942 and this is what they reported. An Fw 190A-3 was used.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 20, 2010)

> Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the actual wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang...
> 
> It is true the two can be easily confused...
> 
> ...



What color is the tail band of this 109 Gaston?






Do you see any gun smoke in this video Gaston?
Do you see any vibration in this video Gaston?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8J5-bhgdPc_

The 434th FS flew P-38s.

*P-38J May 1944 to 27 Sep. 1944*
P-51D 13 Sep. 1944 to Sep. 1945

Also the gun camera was in the lower portion of the nose cap and the guns were above.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 21, 2010)

Quote from Gaston:


> And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...


Quote from AFDU trial on P47-C (yeah I know it's not a D)


> 25. Manoeuvrability – The good aileron control gives the P-47 an excellent rate of roll even at high speeds, and during mock combats it was considered to roll as well as, if not better than the Spitfire at about 30,000 feet. At lower altitudes there is nothing to choose between them. The rate of turn of the Spitfire is naturally superior to the heavier P-47 and in turning circles it was found that after four turns the Spitfire could get on the P-47’s tail and remain there with a chance of shooting with correct deflection....



As far as the Spit vs FW 190 goes, here are some quotes from AFDU Tactical Trials of Spitfire XIV:
Comparing to Spitfire Mk IX:


> Turning Circle
> 18. *The turning circles of both aircraft are identical*. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.



Comparing to FW190 : Turning Circle


> 41. *Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190*, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2010)

Gaston said:


> I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...
> 
> As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were *not* done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...
> 
> ...



The Mustang best turn rate at highest CLmax and load factor, lowest turn radius is ~159mph... at full power at SL.

What you do not know is that to achieve the best sustained turn rate you have to increase the local AoA to the near stall point to keep the bird in the air for the bank angle attained. Your engine must be pulling as hard as it can to overcome the enormous induced drag for that condition. 

Once there, if you pull power, you either reduce the bank angle to reduce the load factor or you descend into a spiral turn - or you stall out trying to maintain the bank angle.

PS - nobody in a dogfight has his eyes on his instruments so being able to state 'constant altitude turn' is absurd. The guy in trail is focused on the guy in front, the guy in front is trying everything necessary with stick and rudder and throttle to change the circumstances - he ain't looking at his instruments either.

Most Encounter reports in which a turn is involved is one where the shooter starts shooting at say 300 yards, the target turns one way or the other or dives, the trailer has a lot of room to cut inside and get deflection even in the case where the target tries to turn and dive... game over if he can shoot.

The encounter reports are submitted by the winner based on his recollection of a fight that occurred hours or days before.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2010)

If I can add to Claidemore's posting these test results were supported by the combat reports I posted on Posting 96.

_However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.

PO J Stewart 30th July 1942
I stall turned to attack the rear two Fw190, They broke and turned with me but I could easily out turn them and got several bursts at the rear one.

S/Ldr Watkins 19th August 1942
A FW 190 dived down to my height and swept around behind me, I easily turned inside the enemy aircraft and fired a short burst at 45 degree deflection

Flt Lt Manak 5th September 1942
One of them got onto my tail I avoided him by a left hand climbing turn

S/Ldr T Gaze 11th October 1942
Whilst the left one turned, I easily out turned him and fired a long burst._

So we have the test reports being supported by pilots combat reports that the Spitfire can easily turn inside a Fw190.

Against this we have a report from a Hurricane Pilot. Now lets think about his for a moment. 
a) Did this pilot ever fly a Spitfire in combat? I don't know but the probability is that he didn't. Most Hurricane Squadrons were either posted overseas or converted to Typhoons. His comment makes sense if he was flying Typhoons against Fw 190, as there was little in it so the tactical situation and skill of the pilots involved would have a major influence on the result.
b) If he was only a Hurricane Pilot did he fly combat against Fw 190? Possibly as a Hurrie Bomber which adds another factor to the debate. The RAF knew that the Spit V was clearly outclassed by the Fw 190 and would not knowingly send Hurricane fighters against the Fw 190, as their chances of success were very slim, at best.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2010)

Gaston said:


> P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...) G.



Gaston

I don't have any combat reports about Me109's turning tighter than other fighters but then again:-
a) As the Me109 would have won the battle the loser is unlikely to have been around to write the report.
b) I did post previously the advice given to his Pilots by Clostermann (someone you were keen to quote when you thought it suited you). I repeat it here in case you have forgotten it
_I kept reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300mph for Me109's could turn better than we could at lower airspeeds and you had to watch out for the 30mm in the nose as it wouldn't give you a second chance. The Best Technique was to do a spiral dive and work the speed up to 450 mph, do a straight climb and start all over again. _
I think its safe to assume that he wouldn't have kept reminding his pilots of this advice without good reason.

Finally as you are talking about still waiting for things. I remind you (again) that my offer is still open re analysing the ten combat reports either side of one of your choice to see how common a sustained turning combat was.
I have no preference of aircraft type, Spitfire, Tempest, P51 or P47. The choice is all yours.
I was going to let this lie but you keep repeating this type of comment recently saying:-
_There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (*where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used*)._ 

So all I am asking you to do is support this clearly incorrect statement.

I await your reply with interest.


----------



## DonL (Nov 21, 2010)

Some hints and thoughts.

The Fw 190A and Bf 109G were often compared by the LW in Rechlin.
There were some hints between the line. And the guys at Rechlin were not lying in their own jacket.

The Bf 109 was a true energy fighter, which was a real bitch to fly.The strenghts of the Bf 109 were in the vertical not in the horizontal, The FW 190 were much more easy for rookies and the FW 190 was built to fly high speed with easy controls. The Bf 109 was much harder to control at high speed.
The general comparation was, that the Bf 109 had much more acceleration, could climb better and turn tighter at low speeds with the slats. At high speeds the FW 190 had the edge, cause of the much easier controls. At a dive the FW 190 was faster and much easier to control. But with an very experienced Pilot the Bf 109 G was the better fighter, cause of the much better weight to power ratio (acceleration), and at the horizontal the Bf 109G could turn much tighter than an FW 190.
But that was said very often between the line's, the Bf 109 was in need of a very experienced pilot to bring out it's good's. The FW 190 was much much easier to fly for rookies and much easier to control at high speed.
No german fighter was an horizontal fighter (crossing at high speed at the horizontal), all had their good's at vertical maneuver, climb, dive, and acceleration.

Edit:
Erich Hartmann could bring down 4 USSAF Mustangs in 10 min. with an very classic boom and zoom (from high altitude with the much bettter position) tactic and later on, could turn tighter than 7 Mustangs (the Mustangs played it fair). That's shows in real life, what an ordinary Bf 109 G6 ( without MW50 and GM1) could manage to do, whith an outstanding Pilot.. After that it was more a standof, cause of the high respect from all sides.


----------



## Gaston (Nov 27, 2010)

Glider said:


> If I can add to Claidemore's posting these test results were supported by the combat reports I posted on Posting 96.
> 
> _However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.
> 
> ...



Less slim than the Spitfire V and its lack of superior Mk IX climb rate, and thus boom and zoom ability on the vertical... (The only way the Mk IX will gain an edge over the Mk V, as we have seen in the British test: Remember that math-noxious conclusion about turn rates, with 15% more power-to-weight ratio(!) on the Mk IX side?... +15% in power-to-weight = +0% in turn rate)

After all, we all agree the Hurricane DID out-turn the Spitfire in sustained turns, do we not? Thus they likely did better vs the FW-190A than a Mk V at least....

The whole reason the myth of superior Spitfire turn rate got established, it seems clear to me now, is because of the Spitfire's superior turn RADIUS...

It is also clear to me the mistake in procedure test pilots do is to consider a dogfight won when they get a sight picture and hold it for a few seconds... This allows clearly silly and outrageous statements like "The Spitfire V out-turns the FW-190A" to be pervasive in such tests...

The problem is that the gun hit rate in actual combat is around 2% (Luftwaffe study), and this is what changes a large part of the picture...

A very long burst of 50 rounds per gun: around 5 seconds of continuous firing throughout a full quater circle continuously(!), will yield from a tailing Spitfire a likely TWO 20 mm impacts and about FOUR 7.7mm bullet holes...

If the pilot is lucky... Now he will be firing about one eight of a circle every full circle if he is not wasteful, so ONE 20 mm hit and TWO 7.7 mm bullet holes for every full 360° circle *while in tailing position*...

This *follows* the number of circle it took to get in position... (Hopefully against the FW-190A not more than one and half turns, or it's likely a lost cause...)

So all the successful Spitfire "out-turning" combats are those that gained a firing position quickly (within a 360° turn and a half at most, and not from a head-on merge. You'll note above *one* example of a FW-190A actually tailing and being reversed, and of course the FW-190A was *diving* into the tailing position... Tailing FW-190As being reversed (always very quickly) by Spitfires are always going at a pretty high speed IE: See P-47D comparative test comments for speeds above 250 MPH: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg...) and also the Spitfires had the additional good luck to score fatal hits within the first 50-100 shots of a single burst... All of this you'll note is (what a coincidence!) exactly what all the examples thrown at me here show... No multiple consecutive 360° turns in sight...

What would be more indicative is a head-on merge at co-altitude and *moderate speed* with at least no previous diving... Like *this* for instance!: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

The trouble is that more commonly, if the start situation is more even and as a face-to-face merge, as described in the Johnny Johnson encounter (rather than the Spitfire starting from somewhere behind already) then the time to gain plus the time to hit and destroy is often enough to evolve into the second or third 360°, by which time things start to get hopeless for the Spitfire (unless maybe it is a Mk IX which can make steep climbs out of the turn to shift the fight to the vertical, as it did in tests against the Mk V).

This is I think exactly why there is all this confusion on this issue...: Turn contests by test pilots do not involve actual shooting and hitting until smoke and fire comes out, so the turn contest is limited to gaining an approximate sight picture and calling it a win...

What is striking in this bias is that if we understand the bias of unsustained turn radius vs prolonged turn rate, all the test pilot conclusions vs front line comments make perfect sense: Test pilots note superficially the shorter turn radius, and combat pilot note (with guns firing which also slows down the aircraft noticeably in sustained turns) the prolonged turn sustainability...

In unsustained turn radius, the hierarchy is exactly what intuition would expect:

Spitfire Mk IX, Me-109G, P-51D, P-47D, FW-190A...

In sustained turns, to left at least, the real-life picture is completely different:

FW-190A, P-47D, Spitfire Mk IX, P-51D, Me-109G

This, plus the utter confusion over what full power does to the sustained turn rate (if you don't downthrottle throughout the successive 360° turns), when this power pulls from the nose as opposed to pushing from the tail, makes the overall "corrected" picture very coherent, right down to the shorter-nosed types having generally an edge in sustained turns, though maybe not exclusively for that reason alone...

More coherent than the pathetic notion of the Me-109G out-turning the Razorback P-47 *to left* for instance... (Let's have combat examples of THAT... Lol!)

Anyway, I don't know in how many different ways I can explain the same thing over and over...

Gaston

P.S. As for the Hurricane pilot being an inexperienced doofus, let's just say I don't buy it... After all, why do the Russians combat pilots "consensus experience" say: "The FW-190A will *inevitably* offer turning combat at a minimum speed"?!?

They, and Johnny Johnson, and many others, are all out to lunch, right?

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Nov 27, 2010)

So in the end you believe that a Hurricane stands a better chance against a Fw190 than a Spit V. Priceless, simply priceless.


----------



## Glider (Nov 27, 2010)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that the Hurricane Pilot was inexperienced, just that he was a Hurricane Pilot who probably moved on to either an overseas posting or onto Typhoons. Also if he did fight Fw190's in a Hurricane it was probably as a Hurrie Bomber pilot.

You have been shall we say, liberal in your interpretations of the evidence, which is your choice, I leave others to make their own deductions. 
One example being the fact that sustained turns were the bread and butter of combat. This is patently wrong based on the evidence that you supplied. If this upsets you then take up my offer of reviewing the ten combats either side of one of your choice and I will apologise.
Another example is the one you have just made about the hit rate of 2%. I am sure that figure is correct, but to then assume that applies to all combats no matter what the range is a huge leap. Generally speaking the closer the range the better the chance of a hit. I have no doubt that at long range it was a lot less than 2% and at close range a lot higher. However quite what that had to do with the turn ability of the two aircraft is beyond me.

However don't try to say that I have said things, that I didn't.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 28, 2010)

Are you kidding me?





> Originally posted by *Gaston*:
> The problem is that the gun hit rate in actual combat is around 2% (Luftwaffe study), and this is what changes a large part of the picture...
> 
> A very long burst of 50 rounds per gun: around 5 seconds of continuous firing throughout a full quater circle continuously(!), will yield from a tailing Spitfire a likely TWO 20 mm impacts and about FOUR 7.7mm bullet holes...
> ...



Do you actually expect anyone to believe that every time each pilot fired his weapons at an enemy plane only 2% of his rounds hit? The 2% figure is an estimated average for ALL pilots, and has no applicaiton to any individual encounter. One pilot (or several) will miss completely (0% hits), and another pilot may have every round hit it's target (100% hits). Your example is completely misleading and useless.

By the way, in 5 seconds of firing, the four Browning .303s in a Spit V will spit out 96 rounds each, not 50. The Hispano cannon will fire 50 rounds in 5 seconds.

I don't think anyone has agreed that a Hurricane has a better sustained turn than a Spitfire, and one pilots opinion certainly doesn't prove it. The TsAAGI test show an extremely slim difference between the Spit and the Hurricane, certainly not enough to see a difference in combat. 
Against an FW 190 any Hurricane is so completely outclassed in every performance area that turn ability is completely moot. Climb, speed, accelleration, dive, roll rate, firepower, all favor the 190. The Hurricane cannot catch an FW (except by surprise) and it certainly cannot outrun one. 

As for downthrottling to improve a turn, if the Spit Mk IX has a 15% greater thrust to weight ratio, why doesn't the Mk V turn better? It's definately putting out less power, but turn rate is identical?


----------



## Gaston (Nov 30, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



-The "balance point" at which more power helps the airframe, or doesn't, in sustained turns, is not something I claim is predictable for all airframes...

In any case, I would expect the Spitfire Mk IX to out-turn itself in sustained turns IF it downthrottled, but this might indeed not be the case if it generates an unusual amount of drag in sustained turns, and happens to be one of those airframes that needs more power to maintain speed through level turns at low speeds... 

If both the Mk V and the Mk IX downthrottled, I could not tell you which one would beat the other then, but I would suspect they would both improve on their own turn times, unless, again, they happen to have a greater low-speed high angle of attack drag that gets in the way of this improvement...

The actual drag generated while turning is dependent on complex overall shape and leverage issues, and this makes this drag unpredictable...

I have never heard of the Spifire downthrottling in sustained turns in 14 years of research: The examples that I do know of, that I know for sure were used with success in multiple 360°s, are for the Me-109G, Merlin P-51, and the FW-190A...

I also know the heavier, much more powerful but shorter nosed La-5 and Ki-100 were not inferior in sustained turn rates over their lower-power, slightly LIGHTER (yes, Lagg-3 and Ki-61 were noticeably lighter, 100-200 lbs, I've checked) but longer-nosed predecessors... It would seem the shorter nose more than offsets the extra power the radials had... But which ones would benefit the most from downthrottling? Impossible to say without tests...

There are complex shape and leverage peculiarities at play here, and they would have to be thouroughly tested to see what exactly happens on various airframe shapes with more or less power...

Note the longer-nosed and similar power FW-190D-9 was vastly inferior in handling and sustained turn rate to the FW-190A-8, as my nose-lenght leverage theory would predict...:

FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed - Topic Powered by Social Strata

Quote: "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."

Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

Army Air Force Command, Memorandum on FW-190, D-9, AAF number FE-121. 20 May 1946.

The Spitfire and the P-47D are two types in which I would have expected to hear of a use of downthrottling in sustained turns, but never did... I have no idea why...

Yet in a German captured test, an underpowered P-47D Razorback with needle-tip prop exhibited such a pronounced superiority over the Me-109G that the German evaluators felt confortable with a blanket statement that said "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" (On Special Missions, KG 200), ... NO speeds, NO altitudes, NO qualifiers: Just a blanket statement that certainly was not intended to mislead...

The fact that early 1944 P-47D Razorbacks, maybe with paddle blades most of the time, but surely with less power, seem to do a lot better than later Bubbletops in sustained turns, does seem to suggests that it too benefits from less power...

The Spitfire seems not to be the same... Is it the greater efficiency of the four-blade propeller? Again, without tests, there is no way of knowing how it would behave downthrottled in sustained turns... 

Whatever the reason may be, the lack of difference in sustained turn rates between the Mk V and the Mk IX gives no more ammunition to the sceptics than it does to my theory. Maybe the opposite, in fact...

The fact that the sustained turn rate is the same at 30 000 ft., when the discrepancy in power to weight ratio is well over the 15% existing at lower altitudes (maybe as much as 20-30% at 30 000 ft.!), is pretty telling in itself... And the climb rate of the Mk IX is immensely superior there too, yet barely any difference can be detected in the sustained level turn rate...

This shows the perils of simplistic math predictions: According to those, a huge difference in climb rate and power to weight ratio SHOULD have yielded significant improvements in the sustained turn rate...

Little or none at all show... From the point of view of what I say, it is clear at least that this confirms that maths are not linearly predictive of nose-traction aircraft performance: There is no linear connection between power ratio, climb rate, acceleration vs the sustained turn rate...

So I would say the unpredictability of what gives the best sustained turn rate, at what power level, and with what airframe, is certainly very clear as long as we are talking about nose traction...

I would say the lack of difference in sustained turn rates between the four-bladed Mk IX and the three-bladed Mk V leans heavier in my direction, because at the very least the 15% (and more) difference in the power to weight ratio should have tipped the balance against me, and it didn't...

You see, I don't claim to predict relative performance outcomes based on my theory: I am merely trying to explain those performance outcomes as they are observed from real combat accounts, and why they do not remotely match what would be expected...

The math formulas on the other hand, DO claim to predict relative performance outcomes on nose-traction fighters... And they DO demonstrably fail at doing that...

It is not always what we know that matters the most: We have to know what we don't know. 

Gaston


----------



## riacrato (Nov 30, 2010)

"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."

That is all it says and you are reading an aweful lot into it. Handling can mean a lot of things, turn rate or radius certainly being among them. But it can also mean trim or roll, two aspects I much more often hear about to have worsened due to the re-design.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 30, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -The "balance point" at which more power helps the airframe, or doesn't, in sustained turns, is not something I claim is predictable for all airframes...
> 
> *If you have the drag polars or enough flight test data to develop one, it is reasonably easy to calculate the drag at various bank angles and the thrust required to 'balance the drag' for a sustained altitude, continuous turn. Having said this, it was not easy for preliminary design engineers - WWII era- to perform the same calculations absent flight test data validation for Parasite drag.*
> 
> ...



Gaston - wouldn't you say that your credibility regarding a claim that the math formulas 'fail' for 'nose traction fighters' is suspect when you a.) don't know the math, b.) don't understand the physics, c.) don't understand boundary conditions and last - don't demonstrate that you know and can prove what you believe?


----------



## Gaston (Dec 6, 2010)

I think on the contrary I have convincingly demonstrated that post-war math assumptions, where powerful nose traction on low-wing monoplanes is concerned, are utterly incapable of predicting sustained turn rate outcomes...

How many of you realized that a 15%-(30%?)+ improvement in power to weight ratio yielded ZERO improvements in turn rate in actual Spitfire tests?

How many of you were even aware that the FW-190D-9 had drastically inferior handling to the FW-190A?

I was first aware of that when in sustained multiple 360° turns, vs a non-downthrottling P-51B, the D-9 fell behind quite noticeably in combat. A shocking outcome for a FW-190 series aircraft if there ever was one...

A FW-190A-8 Western ace, versus a presumably *non-downthrottling* P-51D, described reversing a tail position by the P-51D, on the deck, in around TWO 360° turns: A gain of 180° for EACH 360...

Of course if they had both downthrottled it would have been much closer (the P-51 can occasionally gain on the FW-190A in low speeds level turns *if* it downthrottles, but likely only because the FW-190A did not), but it does illustrate the point...

The total lack of resemblance between math calculations and real-life combat is almost humorous... Sadly much more humorous than the widespread attempts to ignore it and erase historical accuracy by saying "you read a lot into this or that". There *IS* a lot to read into things that are clearly worded in an unambiguous way... For instance:

"The P-47D Razorback out-turns our Bf-109G". Educate yourself on the hundreds of combat accounts available out there, and you will see that for early 1944 Razorbacks, the sentence is *quite* an extreme understatement, especially in left turns...

It is amusing that you presume of my knowledge, when you obviously have not read one tenth of the combat accounts I have read... Do you really think "The P-47D Razorback crushes the Me-109G like a ridiculous peanut in prolonged sustained left turns at all speeds and all altitudes" is a conclusion I arrived at easily and found intuitively pleasing?

Gaston


----------



## Milosh (Dec 6, 2010)

Your source Gaston.



> How many of you were even aware that the FW-190D-9 had drastically inferior handling to the FW-190A?



I wasn't aware that you were a P-51B pilot who flew combat in WW2.



> I was first aware of that when in sustained multiple 360° turns, vs a non-downthrottling P-51B, the D-9 fell behind quite noticeably in combat. A shocking outcome for a FW-190 series aircraft if there ever was one...



Here is another board for you to try your theories on Gaston. Make sure you post a link to your thread there.

Aerodynamic engineering Forum - Eng-Tips

As for a P-47 out turning a Bf109: (note this is a tooth-pick prop P-47)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2010)

Milosh - surely you won't rely on a personal account in a Combat Encounter Report which highlights failure to out turn a 109?


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2010)

Gaston said:


> "The P-47D Razorback out-turns our Bf-109G". Educate yourself on the hundreds of combat accounts available out there, and you will see that for early 1944 Razorbacks, the sentence is *quite* an extreme understatement, especially in left turns...
> 
> Gaston



Are these the same hundreds of combat encounters that you clearly didn't read or are there other combat reports that you are relying on?

Remember my offer is still open!!


----------



## Milosh (Dec 6, 2010)

Oh dear, another P-47 vs 109 where the P-47 couldn't out turn a 109 even after down throttling.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2010)

Gaston said:


> I think on the contrary I have convincingly demonstrated that post-war math assumptions, where powerful nose traction on low-wing monoplanes is concerned, are utterly incapable of predicting sustained turn rate outcomes...
> 
> *Couple of questions on that perception of yours. Whom did you convince? What "ost war math assumptions"have you presented, then methodically prove to be incorrect. What sustained turn rates (in either degrees per sec or radians per second) have you shown in your approach which have systematically been at variance with math predictions but in close agreement with a body of controlled tests?*
> 
> ...


*

You wish to place a small wager on that Gaston? How many seconds have you expended at USAFHRC poring over Encounter and MACR reports? or the British War Museum?

I have NOT looked at all the 8th AF Encounter Reports at HRC but I did cover all that were the source of USAF Study 85 for the 8th which is a major part of the official USAF Victory Credits for all 'awarded credits for enemy aircraft destroyed.

I repeat, I did not look at 9th, 5th, 15th, etc but I supect that you have not scratched the surface - nor read the Causalty Reports filed by Evadees and POWs (the guys that didn'tout turn their opponents or see them)

Tell me that I am wrong about your credentials and I will listen.*


----------



## Gaston (Dec 7, 2010)

drgondog said:


> You wish to place a small wager on that Gaston? How many seconds have you expended at USAFHRC poring over Encounter and MACR reports? or the British War Museum?
> 
> I have NOT looked at all the 8th AF Encounter Reports at HRC but I did cover all that were the source of USAF Study 85 for the 8th which is a major part of the official USAF Victory Credits for all 'awarded credits for enemy aircraft destroyed.
> 
> ...



-Why don"t you start by reading ALL the 600 P-47D combat reports at the site by Mike Williams called "WWII Aircraft performance"?:

WWII Aircraft Performance

Find me ONE example of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D in sustained (two or more) 360 degrees horizontal LEFT turns, before April of 1944, in ALL the 600 P-47 reports, and I will concede YOU WIN the the argument... How about that?

Even a vague suggestion of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D to the left after a little time has passed will win you high praise from me for your effort and persistence... I do not think there is even the slightest suggestion of that anywhere...

There are, on the other hand, several examples of the P-47D being hopelessly outmatched in multiple horizontal 360s at low altitude against the FW-190A, especially later in 1944...

There are 600 P-47D reports there, and about 700 P-51 reports.

P-51 combat reports usually show that they will gradually out-turn the Me-109G, particularly low to the ground or if the P-51 reduces the throttle for long periods while coarsening the prop pitch and dropping the flaps, but it often does so only with difficulty and sometimes the stalemate lasts 15 minutes or more to one side of continuous turning with periodical stalling of the P-51 everytime a firing lead is attempted...

No such example of turning combat inadequacy for the P-47D...

In turn fights to the left in all circumstances, the P-47D will gain lead on the 109 in less than 3 360s. Usually one and a half... 

If you don"t even know the P-47D ALWAYS crushes the Me-109G in prolonged sustained left turns, at ALL altitudes and in ALL circumstances, all the way down to the fourth consecutive climbing spiral to the left under 5000 ft. (but then likely against a Gondola Gustav), ending in a speed of 140 MPH, then I suspect you haven"t read as many P-47D combat accounts as you think...

You have the list of P-47D combat reports here:

P-47 Encounter Reports


Again, find me ANY turning battle in there where the P-47D is even remotely in trouble in left turns against the Me-109G... (There is one in 1943 during a prolonged downward left spiral, but at lower altitudes the P-47D suddenly improved and gained the upper hand on what might have been a cleaner and better performing Me-109G-2, not G-6. This prolonged diving turning combat is extremely atypical of P-47D vs Me-109G combat, and it is all in a steep downward spiral, not level turns at all... The P-47D was in trouble in the initial part of the dive spiral which was to the right. When it shifted to the left he was not in trouble again but took some time to gain: Very unusual, and not during horizontal turns anyway...)

With the P-51 here:

Mustang Encounter Reports

You will find at least TWO where the Mustang fails to gain lead in 15 minutes of continuous turning with the Me-109G: That is at least 40 consecutive 360s folks, and there is at least a half dozen more of 4 minutes or more (about 12-15 360s)...

Many P-51D turning battles vs the Me-109G in here last for many consecutive 360s, usually five or much more, vs almost always less than three for the P-47D... One and a half typically...

Note the only one clear P-51D gain over the FW-190A in sustained low-altitude level turns involves the use of downthrottling, dropped flaps and coarse prop pitch... Surely you"ll write that down as a coincidence that this procedure matches word for word the superiority of "downthrottling" in sustained turns on the deck displayed here (for those with an unbiaised reading):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

I think it is clear you did not know about at least the first two of the three following items:


1- I do not think you knew that, in the own words of the Luftwaffe, that "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", something pathetically obvious (in horizontal left turns) to anyone who even glances at the above combat reports: Find me ONE exception...

2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, *coarsening the prop pitch* and *reducing the throttle* was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

3- I will wager that you did not know either that epidemic gun jamming under high Gs was reduced but absolutely never solved by the P-51D even far into 1945, and a virtually constant feature of fighting with the P-51B model regardless of date... (Almost non-existent on the P-47D, I kid you not...)

Ok, maybe this means the P-51 had a sharper turn initiation, but it still means nothing for sustained turns, if the relatively unimpressive showing of the P-51 vs the Me-109G is any guide...

If you did not know any of those three things, just how many combat reports have you studied ? 

I find it stunning you claim to have read many, yet do not understand the use of downthrottling in the P-51... Do you know by the way why the prop pitch is set on "coarse" at low speed to complement the downthrottled engine over several 360s?

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -Why don"t you start by reading ALL the 600 P-47D combat reports at the site by Mike Williams called "WWII Aircraft performance"?:
> 
> WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> ...



Have you ever in your life flown an airplane, either with manual pitch control or automatic? Do you understand where 'fine pitch' is best, versus 'coarse pitch? Have you even so much as flown a glider so that you can talk intelligently about stick and rudder feed for a controlled no-yaw turn with no power?

Have you ever taken the time to research any WWII Fighter Group history - usually compiled by the Squadron or Group Intelligence officer? Have you read any of the German histories compiled by Prien, Goyat, etc? Have you even taken the time to see what is available at USAF HRC in Montgomery, AL?

Please answer these simple questions.

I don't put you on 'ignore' because, candidly, you are a souce of amusement.

If you are in high school, consider taking more math and then look into Introduction to Aero books. If you are an adult, take flying lessons and much of this discussion can be had with the instructor - who does this for a living - and living proof that he didn't do something dumb.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 12, 2010)

Quote: "drgondog: 

(Me)2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

drgondog answers- As a matter of fact I do know this, and hence the instructions from veteran Mustang drivers to 'new guys' - keep your airspeed up and do not attempt a turning fight with either ships at low altitude. In the approximate 50 pages of drivel and clueless comments you have consumed on this forum, this may be the closest comment - except for the 'coarsening pitch and reducing throttle part' - coarsening pitch was a direct result of increasing power - not decreasing power."

-I'll post yet again the Hanseman report, as you have just proved beyond question you have chosen the absolutely ridiculous path of not reading it... (Either that, or your reading skills are near zero, which I doubt.)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg


There are here *two* consecutive descriptions of downthrottling, after many multiple 360°s on the deck.

First: "A dogfight developped at 500 ft." (This after gradually closing on an aircraft that was LANDING, firing at 50 yards (no great closure rate then)observing the crash AND the burning, and then climbing: Speed must have been terrific...)

The other Me-109 appeared just after the short 350 ft. climb from 150 ft.:

"At first, he began to turn 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."

EVERY TIME means the turning was tight and sustained enough he had to go towards the airfield even though he knew they were going to fire... EVERY TIME means EVERY 360°...

*SECOND CONSECUTIVE MENTION OF DOWNTHROTTLING IN ONE PARAGRAPH*: "Gradually I worked the Me-109 away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I decreased throttle settings."

Number of mentions of going POWER UP in THIS report?: Zero... Again, you have just proven you did not read this link I repeatedly made, and you'll have to admit this should not encourage me to argue with you... 

Obviously increasing the prop pitch, which is to say coarsening it away from "fine" pitch to displace more air per revolution, is USUALLY intended for use at higher speeds... That is certainly the intent of the design as stated in any number of places... This is of course the dogma you were hanging on for your explanation that this was UPTHROTTLING...

Your failure of understanding here comes from the fact that "high"-"coarse" pitch is used here (and in at least a half dozen other similar combats on the deck, with great success) *opposite to the normal design-intended way*...

Apparently, your interpretation of what limited clues you allowed yourself to have has not been able to allow for the fact that engineering features, such as adjustable prop pitch, *CAN be used, in this case, opposite to the design-intended use, and to gain an unanticipated better effect that the engineers never intended or foresaw...*

The reason why high prop pitch works better at low speeds, HERE, I don't claim to know (I do have a few theories, but what is the point of discussing them with you given the seriousness your demonstrated above?). All we can do is observe the cross-purpose use of prop pitch described here in unmistakable terms, and accept that sometimes things used in the opposite way they were intended to be used actually works better... 

Gosh, if that is too much for you to take, you are hereby excused...

As for your claims that US combat pilots say the opposite thing to what 1200 combat reports actually describe, I'm not impressed: No quotes, no combat reports, not even any accounts of the Me-109G out-turning anything in sustained turns (I"ll get to Milosh further down): Come up with something concrete if you want to be treated seriously...

Even the TsAGI turn times, which I discount as *not* comparitive tests flown the same day at all, and flown at full power anyway, show the FW-190A-5 out-turns, in *right* turns, ALL the Me-109Gs present except for one G-4 which barely equals it: 21 seconds to 21 seconds... Show me your math and what it says about that... Lol...

The "Russian Experience" I linked previously indicates the FW-190A preferred sustained left turns in combat, which I think is true flaps up. TsAGI indicates better to right, flaps up or down, which indicates to me a flaw in methodology since this contradicts combat observations... I'll go with combat observations as flaps up for 1943...:

Chapter from a book published in 1943

As for the two P-47D vs Me-109G examples provided by Milosh, I find them particularly unimpressive: No sustained turns (6 seconds of firing), no mention of "several turns" or the number of turns, no mention of the *speed*, which must have been high in one case for the Me-109's wing to break two feet from the root (Gosh!)... Also no mention of the SIDE of the turn, which I insisted on as significant...

Basically nothing... Compare to this example here...: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg

That is the one Glider described as "interesting"...


The comment about the P-51D jamming guns under G load being "fixed" on the D model also demonstrates to me no significant portion of the 700 combat reports on the Mike Williams site have been read, or there would be no way you could make such a patently absurd statement...

Mind you, a tighter initial turn radius could be the culprit at high speeds, but I never argued the P-47D or the FW-190A were superior in that... 

I now saw on another site that a tighter initial 180 degree radius is assumed to be fully equivalent to a higher sustained turn rate over several consecutive 360 degree turns... This is so pathetic I will not bother argueing with that either...

So it now established that you guys, posting here as a whole from the same side of the issue, do not know about:

-The P-47D routinely out-turning the Me-109G as a matter of course, by a wide margin, in sustained multiple 360 (usually left) turns... Confirmed by Luftwaffe captured tests for the Razorback at least, BTW...

-The P-51D guns jamming under g-load mentionned in about 10-20% of all combats including turns, often ending with just the *one* outside-turn gun working... The P-51B? Oh, gun troubles in about 50-70% of all combats including turns, maybe more, all the way into very late 1944 or even 1945...

-The P-51 using downthrottling, flaps and *coarse prop pitch* in multiple low-speed consecutive 360s to far increase its otherwise unimpressive sustained turn rate at low speeds and low altitudes...

It makes me wonder, just what the heck do you know?

But that would be OK, if some of you did not just prove they do not even read the links I provide, but are still willing to argue about them in utter ignorance...

Sorry, but that is a bit much to take...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2010)

I can see into the future and a short stay for one member.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2010)

Gaston keep it civil, or find another place to post. I will not tolerate you insulting other forum members. If you can't keep it civil, I will remove you from the forum.

You also might want to check up on Bill (drgondog) before you insult his knowledge like that. He probably knows more about the P-51 than anyone on this forum.

1. His father actually flew it in combat in WW2.

2. Bill actually has stick time flying an actual P-51 that belonged to his father. 

What is your experience with the P-51?

So do us all a favor, act like an adult and quit the bullshit insults. *No more warnings!*


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2010)

so whats the diagreement about....anyone care to explain in language we can all understand....it looks like "the FW 190 could out turn any other fighter in existence!. is that about it?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Quote: "drgondog:
> 
> (Me)2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...
> 
> ...



Sigh - with such frustration maybe you will retire in a huff and never speak to us again? How many forums have you been trashed in so far?

BTW - Chris Hanseman was the youngest ace in the USAAF and maybe in US. He was KiA a month later.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2010)

Gaston the major problem with these discussions are three fold.

First, you don't display the requisite math and physics to question your assumptions ('ie throttle down in successive 360 degree constant altitude turns - pursuing or being pursued.) Based on that you have no reason to question why the physics and aerodynamics prove that the tightest possible turn with fastest rate of turn is at the stall speed of that airplane at say, 3g, for the high performing fighters of WWII... and the stalling speed for a high G banked turn is considerably higher than for level, low rpm flight. It is also operating at CLmax and pushing the bank angle or reducing the thrust is a recipe for disaster. Dropping flaps increases CLmax, but also increases induced drag and 'moving pitch to coarse' further increases drag - and therefore the stall speed moves to a higher point...

Second, you select a portfolio of USAAF Encounter Reports that present you with the perspective of the 'winning pilot' but have no ancillary facts like a.) the skill of the opposing pilot, b.) the attitude of the aircraft in the manuever (climbing, level, spiral down, turn roll, turn, reverse, turn, enemy fighter conditions (engine not 100%, using lower boost than achievable, thereby losing power from optimal), etc, etc. In other words you don't have any validation or verification of the combat parameters other than the singular perspective of the winning pilot. 

A very good example of questions that could be asked is in the May 24 Encounter report from Hanseman. It "Seems Like" Hanseman enters the combat going after the Me 109 approaching the runway (gear down, on final, and low Rpm, flaps deployed, etc) causing Hanseman to 'throttle down' just to slow down for a good shot at the sitting duck without over running him.

Coming out of that engagement, he spotted the second one. It was high when he made his pass on the one on final. Where was it now? above and in front? off to one side at same altitude? Did he throttle up to get airspeed and turn to engage or what?

If he entered the turn with the 109, was it trying to turn on him, or escape and try to out turn Hanseman? What was the relative airspeed and altitude when the engagement began and each pilot had the other in sight.

Was the 109 pilot a low timer, or a pro, did he panic instead of throttling up and making for the airfield to get hanseman in range of the AA?

When Hanseman 'down throttled' how much airspeed did he have and was it significantly higher than his opponent. If so, the 109 would initially out turn him w/o much effort and if he wished to turn with the guy he needed to slow down. If he was in a high g, near max turn, he was skirting disaster with reducing power (which also reduces thrust, which in the case of near stall - takes you into stall unless you quickly push forward on the stick to stabilize.

As the turn continued, was the 109 pilot taking advantage of good acceleration and better angle of climb to try to corkscrew out of the manuever and get himself some energy or even room to bail out?

Did the 109 pilot see the other 51s and alter his turn accordingly knowing he had very little time left for survival. How did he adjust, accordingly?

Can you plot with high confidence what each flight path and energy state was for each aircraft? Do you know that both ships and pilots were operating at max capability for their respective fighters?

Ditto for every Encounter Report you have read.

Last, there is little enough fact based information regarding competitive performance among the various aircraft - and the engineering precision to record the data (dash number of engine, boost, WI/No WI, engine rpm and Hp, engine spec'd or as recovered when captured for enemy aircraft, pilot skill (i.e willing to push an airplane to stall speed at low altitude where there is no hope of recovering from a violent stall departure)..


----------



## rousseau (Dec 13, 2010)

The Spitfire got more power per unite than Fw-190 and its Wing Load much lower than Fw190 how do you guys possibly convinced that Fw.190 are capable to overwhelming the Spitfire?




Above is the wing load ranking list you can see.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 13, 2010)

rousseau said:


> The Spitfire got more power per unite than Fw-190 and its Wing Load much lower than Fw190 how do you guys possibly convinced that Fw.190 are capable to overwhelming the Spitfire?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about listening to the opinion of a 32 kill ace: Would that change anything?:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Or Hurricane pilot John Weir:

"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."

Or(ad nauseam)...: -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..."

8:1 for the FW-190As that day...



Note that all British and Soviet tests have widely indicated (especially the British ones), that there was NO significant differences in *sustained* turn rates between the Spitfire Mk V and the Mk IX, this even remaining true (with a bit of difficulty) at 30 000 ft...

So given that, the Johnny Johnson outcome above would have been nearly identical with a Mk IX... It is his tactics that were wrong...

The British Mk V/Mk IX tests even described that the only advantage the Mk IX could use, to gain the upper hand over the Mk V, was to use its tremendous climb rate on the vertical, and then dive on the Mk V... :

Spitfire IX Tactical Trials

Quote: "Manoeuvrability 

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. *At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. *The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive."

No doubt this is exactly the same tactics that were successfully used by the Mk IX to redress the balance with the FW-190A... NOT turn-fighting... Note Eric Brown's claim to the opposite from his own personal combat with the FW-190A proved so ineffective for *both* fighters, holding to their supposed respective "best" tactics, that they both decided to call it quits...

No hits, or even danger of hits, from either side is NOT a sign of effective use of their respective aircrafts... They called it quits because they were both getting nowhere, and of course the FW-190A is pathetic in vertical maneuvers, as the "sinking" dive pull-out and so-so climb rate should make obvious...

I'll re-iterate again that I am not argueing the Spitfire does not have a tighter unsustained turn *radius* than the FW-190A... The mistake here is to assume that this tighter radius necessarily translates into sustained turns when pulled from the nose over several 360s... It doesn't...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Dec 13, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Gaston the major problem with these discussions are three fold.
> 
> First, you don't display the requisite math and physics to question your assumptions ('ie throttle down in successive 360 degree constant altitude turns - pursuing or being pursued.) Based on that you have no reason to question why the physics and aerodynamics prove that the tightest possible turn with fastest rate of turn is at the stall speed of that airplane at say, 3g, for the high performing fighters of WWII... and the stalling speed for a high G banked turn is considerably higher than for level, low rpm flight. It is also operating at CLmax and pushing the bank angle or reducing the thrust is a recipe for disaster. Dropping flaps increases CLmax, but also increases induced drag and 'moving pitch to coarse' further increases drag - and therefore the stall speed moves to a higher point...
> 
> ...





I'll post again here the Hanseman combat report, so that anyone loosely following here can judge for themselves if the situation Hanseman describes is clear...:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg


Fully correlating this are at least 6 other Merlin P-51 combat reports with the exact same 3 downthrottling steps at low speed, including the strange coarser prop pitch at low speeds...

Further correlating the use of downthrottling is a FW-190A-8 Western Ace describing using the FW-190A-8 ONLY as a *downthrottled* low speed horizontal turn fighter, preparing for the merge with P-51Ds by downthrottling and popping the flaps long before the merge... Doing this "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8"... And he described the three ailerons type he could choose from, how he chose the widest chord for low speed performance at all costs, and added field-installed hinge "spacers" to widen the aileron chord further to catch better the low speed stall while turning...

He then described how, with the wider wood prop, reduced throttle and wider ailerons he reversed a *tailing* P-51D *on the deck* in *two* 360 turns, the formerly-tailing P-51D almost straining into a stall just before being hit and shot down...

The relative who posted this direct from the pilot's mouth did not say the pilot's name, and this Aces High thread was pulled by "Hitech" after many pages as it wasn't in line with his obviously well-set notions on the issue... (Note Hitech is also a recent P-51D pilot)

But even if you think that this above FW-190A-8 ace thing was all a fraud, including all that business about spacers on the aileron hinges, you still have a third aircraft type to deal with, along with another multiple ace pilot singing the praises of downthrottling...:

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Quote:

"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they *usually applied full power* and *then* began to turn. In the *same situation* I used to *decrease power*, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" *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."*
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.


Notice the extraordinary quoted "optimal sustained turn speed" for the Me-109G-6: A measly 160 MPH (250 km/h) or barely 60 MPH above stall was *optimal*... 

Now downthrottling, in the sadly confused currently accepted theory sense, should apply only if you are above "Corner Speed"... Below that it makes no sense to downthrottle for the highest turn rate...

"Corner Speed", the lowest speed at which a given amount of Gs can be reached, *reached*, ie: regardless of sustainability, is for WWII aircrafts usually given for 6 Gs, since that is pretty much the pilot's practical limit without G suit...

For most if not all prop WWII fighters, the 6 G "Corner Speed" is *calculated* to be between 220 MPH and 280 MPH: They almost all fall, according to aeronautic engineer math, in between these two values... Sort of a high mid-range of speeds: Makes sense intuitively...

So 220-280 MPH is the range of the lowest speed to reach 6G...

Does anyone know how well the aeronautic engineer math  did when that value was actually looked for and tested in flight for the P-51D, FG-1, F6F-5, P-47D?

I await the answer I am sure someone has out there... Hint: The aeronautic engineer math didn't do too well...

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2010)

Gaston said:


> I'll post again here the Hanseman combat report, so that anyone loosely following here can judge for themselves if the situation Hanseman describes is clear...:
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
> 
> *Gaston - use YOUR intellect and quit trying to use someone else's narratives*
> ...



See Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" for the results of the turn factors for the P-51D-15, P-47N, F4U-1, F6F-5 following the October 1944 Convention at Patuxent River.

And 'hint' the aero math worked very well in correlation with flight results. Also 'hint' Dean is an Aeronautical Engineer.

Pay particular close attention to the lift vector in a banked turn - which must increase as the aircraft banks at a steeper angle - necessary to provide a component of lift equal and opposite the vertical weight vector. To get that increase in lift vector for a given speed, the angle of attack on the wing has to increase to give a higher Coefficient of lift.. (that's when the pilot pulls on the stick 'thingy').. at some point in the stick pulling exercise, the pilot will pull the stick too far back - reach CLmax (stall) and his metal steed falleth out of the sky. Hope that helps!!


----------



## claidemore (Dec 13, 2010)

Gaston said:


> How about listening to the opinion of a 32 kill ace: Would that change anything?:
> 
> http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
> 
> Gaston



Johnsons story changes nothing. We don't know what altitudes the 190 and Mk V were at when combat began, we don't know if Johnson was above the 190? or level? We don't know what speeds they were at, we don't know who was flying the 190. We know 610 Sq was bounced earlier on at 10000 feet, but that's it so far as actual numbers. 

Johnson was alone, had already made a decision to bug out, had used a large part of his ammo already (long burst at previous 190). He 'eased' towards the solitary plane and it 'snaked' towards him. He mentions greying out as he turned, indicating high G, which indicates high speed. You simply don't grey out when turning at low speed close to the stall. So... the Spitfire was pulling a lot of G in a fairly high speed turn with resulting *large radius*. 

Johnson doesn't mention making a decision to attack the 190, he just says that he spotted it over the town and 'eased' towards it. Given his usual documented and successful tactic of attacking with alt advantage, we can make an assumption that he was above the 190. Alone, low on ammo, and being an extremely intelligent fellow, he would not have even approached an unknown fighter from below. So the 190 had to make a quick zoom climb to meet him head on (good tactic for a FW 190), thus bleeding off speed. Consequently when they went into that left hand turn, the 190 was turning at a much lower speed with a resultant *small turn radius*. 
As soon as Johnson saw the 190 getting inside of him, he attempted to disengage. He was high enough to try a near vertical dive, and mentions the warning they had not to fly below 4000 feet, so the combat probably took place between 10000 and 4000 feet. 
He makes another hard turn at the end of his dive, (indicating he had not given up on the Spits turn ability as a defensive move), and he makes another hard turn after he gets past the destroyer which he used to facilitate his escape. *Johnson used two breaking turns after he had lost the initial turn fight*, but the two breaking turns occurred during pursuit, when the 190 was at the same speed, or more likely closing with superior speed. 

What this story does do is illustrate the weakness of relying on level turning in the initial stages of the fight. Had Johnson done just about any vertical manuever he would have ended up on the 190s tail, but he used a level turn and gave away the advantage to the slower plane. 

Derating and downthrottling limits one to turnfighting, giving the advantage to the opposing fighter, ie it's a dumb thing to do.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2010)

Guys excellent critiques, but I fear your efforts are being wasted. Somebody is just not listening, except to himself.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2010)

I had an email exchange with RCAF pilot Warren Peglar who came to the 355th FG in July 1944, shot down a 109 and a 190 on August 3 and then two 109s on Sept 11.

During the latter mission, he shot down his first one at medium altitude, then chased and shot down a second on the deck when a third one got on his tail. He pulled into a hard turn but the 109 stayed inside his turn and had deflection on him.

In desparation Peglar dropped, and just as quickly, retracted his flaps.. then actuated his gear, but stopped from deploying and retracted. The effect was the 109 was finally forced 'outside' the turn but Peglar had run out of moves, was in a stall turn at near stall, full power - when his wingman slid in behind the 109 and terminated his fun.

Peglar said simply 'there was no way' he ever contemplated reducing power as he knew that would lead to a full blown stall.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2010)

I've been in and out of this topic for a while and it seems to me the idea proposed is to slow down in an air brawl to allow the lower speed to give you a smaller turning radius. While I see the point, I wouldn't do it. Not if I wanted to go home in the airplane I came in.

Here is why:
- Against one other aircraft, you might get away with it. But dogfights tended to be slashing events where the guy who go you was not seen until too late (if at all). So while you're lowering your speed to get the edge on the guy, his wingman or some other guy swings down out of nowhere and pastes you. Not good.

-Dogfights are relatively rare events, most kills are "shoot and scoot" affairs. A low speed turn is a very limited value event in that world. It is more of desperation option than a skilled setup. It is not for nothing that many a "There I was, flat on my back..." starts with "I was out of AIRSPEED, altitude and ideas.". 

-Even if you avoid the guy behind you with a low speed turn, you are still in an area full of hostile aircraft (most likely), flying slowly, the picture of fat, dumb and happy (even if you are thin, sharp and neurotic). Not conductive to a long life span. 

The math says a slower aircraft will turn tighter. Ok. But it also makes you more of a target for other birds. Nice idea in theory, not smart in practice. 

Just my .02 on it.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 18, 2010)

drgondog said:


> See Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" for the results of the turn factors for the P-51D-15, P-47N, F4U-1, F6F-5 following the October 1944 Convention at Patuxent River.
> 
> And 'hint' the aero math worked very well in correlation with flight results. Also 'hint' Dean is an Aeronautical Engineer.
> 
> Pay particular close attention to the lift vector in a banked turn - which must increase as the aircraft banks at a steeper angle - necessary to provide a component of lift equal and opposite the vertical weight vector. To get that increase in lift vector for a given speed, the angle of attack on the wing has to increase to give a higher Coefficient of lift.. (that's when the pilot pulls on the stick 'thingy').. at some point in the stick pulling exercise, the pilot will pull the stick too far back - reach CLmax (stall) and his metal steed falleth out of the sky. Hope that helps!!



-Yes I have read Americas hundred thousands....

Those turn comparison figures are nothing more than weight divided by wing area plus another few -crude- considerations: They are supported by no flight tests, as even the pilot preferences on the elevators performance make clear in the very same pages...


Overwhelmingly, such Aeronautic engineer math calculation peg WWII aircraft 6G Corner Speeds at between 220 MPH and around 270-280 MPH at most: The P-51D being usually quoted at 2.44 stall or 240 MPH, the Me-109G being the same but sometimes quoted a bit lower at 220-230 MPH...

Confirming this notion is a set of two complex 1940 graphs depicting turn "performance" of a Spitfire Mk I and a Me-109E... As expected these charts display the familiar "Doghouse" curve appearance which has NO, I repeat NO relevance to a piston-engine nose-driven WWII aircraft... Availability of a still barely in service Me-109E to the Brits in shape for months of testing in 1940 is also doubtful...

These two charts, very tellingly, have no later war counterparts: This is obviously because they were found to be complete aeronautic engineer nonsense and of no practical value for combat, otherwise 1944 pilots would have had them for every fighter type in existence...

Basically, if they cannot even locate correctly the 6G Corner Speed, they (engineers and test pilots of that fairly primitive time) know very little about turn behaviour (or how downthrottling may or may not help)... The front line pilots were the ones doing the real "testing" in other words, which is why so little is officially left of whatever their dicoveries were...

In 1989 an ACTUAL test was done by "The Society Of Experimental Test Pilots" , with MODERN instruments, allowing up to 6Gs at METO Power (Normal Power in WWII speak), or 325 MPH maximum speed for the P-51D Mustang at 10 000 ft.

The results: "Corner Speed is very close to the Maximum Level Speed on all 4 types: This meant an actual 6G "Corner Speed" of 320 MPH for the P-51D!!!!

This is 80 MPH above any previous "calculated" estimation... Confirming this, the same was true of the P-47D, FG-1 and F6F, all tested at the same time by the same team of modern professional test pilots in 1989...

IF full WEP had been allowed, I have the impression the prop load would have delayed the minimum speed to reach 6Gs even higher, maybe 340 MPH, and I think they noted the "Corner Speed" went up with more power, because they chose to put this "adjustable" statement on it: "Corner Speed is very close to the Maximum Level Speed"... Hint: Whatever that maximum level speed *the power level* might be set at...

So you can see what all those little WWII "doghouse" charts are worth when confronted with the actual reality...

This underlines what nonsense it is to claim downthrottling is in any way beneficial to the turn rate for the "accepted" reasons of being "above" Corner Speed (besides of course not overshooting, like in a straight line for instance): To be above the 6G "Corner Speed", in those old aircrafts, you have to be nearly in a steady dive!!!!!

Therefore the benefits of downthrottling in sustained level turns can ONLY be for some other reason: Not an issue of speed but of *prop load* in my view, which is why, in the Hanseman account, the benefit is clearly described as *instantaneous*, not delayed by a time-consuming deceleration to a lower speed...

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2010)

Gaston said:


> -
> 
> Overwhelmingly, such Aeronautic engineer math calculation peg WWII aircraft 6G Corner Speeds at between 220 MPH and around 270-280 MPH at most: The P-51D being usually quoted at 2.44 stall or 240 MPH, the Me-109G being the same but sometimes quoted a bit lower at 220-230 MPH...
> 
> ...


*

Babble and more babble. If Hanseman increased pitch it would have a quick increase to prop drag but woe unto the pilot that does this on ragged edge of stall.

Produce your Test Pilot report please - re: Corner Speed for P-51D*


----------



## Gaston (Dec 18, 2010)

You have never heard of "The Society of Experimental Test Pilots", or of their 1989 side-by-side tests of the P-47D. P-51D. FG-1, F6F...

Badboy here has the full test: Badboy's BootStrap Calculator...

Or you can order it directly from their website or by contacting them...

Badboy's explanation for the mysterious non-math approved 320 MPH 6G Corner Speed was that they "went easy" on the planes to avoid stalling... Laughable when you consider that they do not mention this at all, while they do for every aspect they did that was not full wartime, like limiting to METO or weights for instance, and that an 80 MPH lay off is quite substantial... In fact ridiculous... Also they did test the stall anyway...

Oh the powers of self-delusion...

Note I have little doubt you can pull 6Gs at a lower speed than 320 MPH IF you have less power than METO pulling... Which is what they likely meant when they said "close to the maximum level speed", INSTEAD of saying the fixed speed of 320 MPH on their graph...

I also have to point out the P-51D Mustang test you linked says nothing about turn rate or even turning at all, and I would be interested in hearing the to me totally inscrutable reason why you posted it...

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Dec 18, 2010)

Link to SETP site:

SETP Home

Gaston.

P.S If you want to know how serious is the America Hundred thousands turn rate hierarchy, note the relative position of the F4U...

G.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 18, 2010)

Gaston, I would suggest that if you want to talk about the merits of the P-51, you should start a thread and discuss it. If I remember correctly, this thread is about the Spit vs the Fw 190 and is starting to grow tiresome with all the off-topic Mustang tidbits.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2010)

Gaston said:


> You have never heard of "The Society of Experimental Test Pilots", or of their 1989 side-by-side tests of the P-47D. P-51D. FG-1, F6F...
> 
> Badboy here has the full test: Badboy's BootStrap Calculator...
> 
> ...



No Gaston - no turn rates - but an extremely well planned and recorded sets of tests at many important power settings at many different altitudes with tabulated speeds, Bhp, Gross weight and external stores (wing racks only, 2x110 gallon tanks, 2x500 pound bombs, 2x250 pound bombs, etc). The latter is crucial to cruise settings at different altitudes, engine boost/rpm and Bhp for each adjustment.

The subtle point I was making is that the P-51D-15 tested, and report submitted on June 15, 1945 recorded for ~9660 pounds gross weight the following

10,000 Feet
War Emergency Power 3000rpm/67" Hg --------------> 417mph
Military Power (your METO) 3000rpm/61"-------------> 413mph

You will note, Grasshopper, that both of those speeds are considerably Higher velocity than the "320 mph 6G Corner Speed" you quoted from your source 'as near top speed' is only 77% of 'top speed' - at least for GW around 9700 pounds. Now, if the tests were made, for extremely odd and dangerous reasons, at 12,500+ pounds GW then a.) you might be able to get a Corner Speed at 6G at 10,000 feet. 

At 12600 the Limit Load for a P-51D is 8x8000/12600 = 5.07 G

In fact, given that the Definition of Corner Speed is the velocity 'not to exceed' is calculated based on the Gross Weight and Limit Load. By definition for that P-51D tested in your source, would have to be 

6=8*8000/"X" -----------> "X" =64000/6 = 10,666 pounds for a Limit of 6G.

The Calculated Corner Speed = 290.6 mph 

Whether my math is correct or not the DEFINITION of Corner Speed is a Calculated one - not a flight test 'measured' value. Flight Test instruments can tell you what you actually experienced in flight - but NOT what you Should (or Should Not) experience if you wished to be home in time for supper!

Look it up.

V= K*sqrt(Nmax*2*[W/S]/{Rho*([email protected]/[email protected])*CLmax})

K=1.467 for conversion to mph from fps
Nmax = Maximum Limit Load (see above)=6 @10,666 pounds
Rho=.0023769 pound seconds>>2 per ft>>4
[email protected]/[email protected]=.7386
W=10,666
S=233.2 ft>>2


----------



## Gaston (Dec 19, 2010)

I see you are hell bent on complicating very simple things, and posting links devoid of relevant content to obfuscate clear issues like the P-51D tests without turn tests, despite turn tests being the only subject here...

Here is the "condensed" version of the SETP 1989 test which is all I, or anyone else, needs to know that traditionnal calculations are worthless for estimating the turn performance for nose traction aircrafts...:

F6F, FG-1, P-51, P-47 comparison

The P-51 was lighter than normal according to Badboy, which I have no trouble believing...

The one useful added detail provided by Badboy was that the complete graph has the *6G Corner Speed at 320 MPH precisely*, which is indeed very close to maximum level speed at METO and 10 000 ft. for the P-51D...

I do not have to care about the (higher weight) calculated "Corner Speed" you mention as being 290 MPH on the P-51D, because I always specified my figure was at 6G (for an unusually light weight: Ask Badboy what the weight actually was, but it was somewhat below normal WWII service, which is basically all we need to know...) The structural limit is therefore irrelevant to my 6 G quote... You therefore don't have to tell me that the Corner Speed is defined as calculated, since I qualified the statement correctly (minus actual weight which was very light anyway), and you are not argueing that calculated is superior to real life, are you?...

That 290 MPH is the "calculated" minimum speed for 6G at 10 660 pounds, when in reality 6G can only BEGIN to be touched at 320 MPH at METO at around 9000 lbs, in actual modern tests with an actual pilot at the controls, shows just how off base these calculations are...

In fact previous "calculated" figures I have seen were much lower: 270-280 MPH for 7 Gs at normal load....

I am sure that at full WEP the actual minimum 6G Speed is at least 340 MPH and maybe more... If "Close to the maximum Level Speed" is taken at face value, then a 400 MPH minimum is not impossible...

Your assumption that the aircraft is aerodynamically unaffected by engine nose traction power is what prevents you (and apparently aeronautic engineers throughout the world!), of understanding that the prop power does indeed load the wing up with at least a thousand pounds, or maybe much more, of extra weight through the position of the raised nose leverage... (The elevator does not heavy up a lot in spite of this extra load, because of the wing's "pulley assist" effect when the wing angle of attack is increased; the same "pulley effect" which, in addition to the inherent stability resistance or lack of thereof, allows a reasonably low force on the elevator to create 6Gs on the 9 000 lbs aircraft as a whole (54 000 lbs of force total) without tearing away the elevator under thousands of pounds of force...)

That extra prop disc-created load is what pushes back the 6 G Corner Speed (The lowest speed at which 6 G can be reached), from a "calculated" roughly 270 MPH to 290 MPH (according to you at a comparatively high weight of 10 600 lbs) to 30 MPH higher at 1600 pounds lighter... Or, according to me, up to maybe 50-100 MPH higher than calculated if the power is all out at WEP...

The basic point why this is relevant to *any* discussion is that your notions of the benefits downthrottling make no sense in the context of an "optimal" 6 G "Corner Speed" being that high even at light weights...

How long can you turn level above such speeds for it to be worth downthrottling?

Compare Karhila's own quoted "optimal" downthrottled sustained turn speed of 160 MPH in a Me-109G-6, whose 6 G "Corner Speed" was probably close or similar to the Mustang (In fact in dive pull-outs, trimmed tail heavy, the Me-109G-6 outperformed in dive pull-outs at least the fabric elevator P-51D at 400 MPH +, to the surprise of many combat pilots...).

In theory, sustaining turns should be as close as possible (maximum power then) to the Corner Speed: 220-240 for most types at 3-3.5 Gs... 160 MPH on a Me-109G means this obviously wasn't the case, which is why the whole edifice falls down where nose-traction is concerned...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Your assumption that the aircraft is aerodynamically unaffected by engine nose traction power is what prevents you (and apparently aeronautic engineers throughout the world!),



This sums up the problem with all his postings. He an untrained, inexperienced, unqualified person who knows what is correct and that all the trained, experienced and qualified engineers throughout the world of all nations, are wrong. Simple really.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 19, 2010)

> Because of the age of the aircraft, structural loads were kept to 6g max.



F6F, FG-1, P-51, P-47 comparison

*Nowhere* did I see 6G mentioned for turns. *4G* was the only mentioned. When a *4.5G* turn was attempted, a spin resulted.

*Nowhere* was the weight of the a/c mentioned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2010)

I see this thread is going to go down hill again...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2010)

chris - I will quit responding..this is way off topic


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2010)

Milosh said:


> F6F, FG-1, P-51, P-47 comparison
> 
> *Nowhere* did I see 6G mentioned for turns. *4G* was the only mentioned. When a *4.5G* turn was attempted, a spin resulted.
> 
> *Nowhere* was the weight of the a/c mentioned.



Milosh are you talking about the Experimental Test Pilot report of the Bootstrap model?

edit - i just signed up at Aces High so I will peruse and see if I can find data..I can see why Gaston so clueless - he doesn't know how to interpret what he reads...


----------



## Gaston (Dec 19, 2010)

Milosh said:


> F6F, FG-1, P-51, P-47 comparison
> 
> *Nowhere* did I see 6G mentioned for turns. *4G* was the only mentioned. When a *4.5G* turn was attempted, a spin resulted.
> 
> *Nowhere* was the weight of the a/c mentioned.



4-4.5 Gs was only for the sustained tracking *after a turn reversal* part of the test at a lower speed of 220 knots... For "Corner Speed", you don't have to sustain the 6G turn or follow an opposite turn reversal...

What does *this* mean to you?
: "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."

Do you really think the original version of these tests does *not* have the weights? It does and includes several charts too... Ask Badboy for the weight details... They were in *no* way heavy and in fact were all very light...

These tests were, after all, run by modern professional test pilots in 1989, as part of the publication of a book by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", which you can still order from them...


These were *four* separate types and they *all* displayed the minimum speed to reach 6G as being *very* close to their METO maximum level speeds, despite the inevitable variations in that level speed among the types...

They all posted these very high minimum 6G speeds while being all seriously underweight; No real guns or ammo I am fairly sure... In doing so they without question demonstrated that calculations are not accurate. I don't know what else needs to be said about 220-280 MPH 6G Corner Speeds for WWII single engine piston fighters at normal or even light weights: Four different types show these ranges to be completely fictional even for underweight aircrafts... This basic notion likely remains mostly true for the entire family of high power post 1940 low-wing monoplanes piston fighters of the WWII period... 

Kurt Tank correlates this by quoting a minimum speed of 400 MPH for 7Gs on the FW-190A, but considering the stick forces showed only 2 pounds per G at 400 MPH (abnormally light), I am sure the FW-190A was in fact incapable of real 7G turns or dive pull-outs: It was Gs from high speed nose-up deceleration "sinking"; the mushing still going up or down in Gs as the elevator still could change the pitch up or down, but the actual trajectory was likely little above 5 Gs or maybe less, the rest being the deceleration mushing: More or less nose-up meant more or less deceleration vs the actual tightness of the trajectory's curve... See Eric Brown comment on FW-190A pull-outs: "Care had to be taken not to kill speed by "sinking" on dive pull-outs, or the FW-190A would be very vulnerable on dive exits"... Or the Russian evaluation: "After diving at 40 degrees from 1400 m, the FW-190A, when pulling-out of the dive, will fall an extra 220 M. (660 ft.)" The "extra" here means *after* nose-level or up...They describe this behaviour as "hanging"...

So to conclude, the SETP tests show the "Doghouse" to have a roof slanted quite some way to one side: Not a symmetrical doghouse shape at all...

You can choose to look at the facts or ignore them, but I don't know why you would expect your credibility to rise above that of a clearly objective and unbiaised institution like the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", doing such tests with far more modern instruments than WWII evaluations...

Gaston


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2010)

I agree with NJ....the viewpoints of the protewgonists are well known....done to death really. i say we move along and discuss something new....


----------



## Gaston (Dec 19, 2010)

Glider said:


> This sums up the problem with all his postings. He an untrained, inexperienced, unqualified person who knows what is correct and that all the trained, experienced and qualified engineers throughout the world of all nations, are wrong. Simple really.




-Well... I have corresponded with several aeronautic engineers so far for over two years, and to date none of them has explained to me how:

1- You can curve the trajectory of an aircraft without compressing its thrust on one side...

2- Then, none of them has explained to me how compressing the thrust on one side will not induce a "slant" to the thrust, no matter how small... One aeronautic engineer has agreed, on the "Aces High" forum, that the thrust "slant" probably does occur, but is very small in amplitude... (Halleluia!)

3- If the thrust slanting *does* occurs on the curving of the trajectory (slanting the *forward* direction of the thrust towards the *outside* of the turn since the extra pressure that is applied by the wing angle of attack rotation is to pull the the top of the prop disc back, not the bottom), then there is also no way that the wing's increased angle of attack does not *shorten* the length of a line paralell to the trajectory between the wing's pivot point level and the top end of the prop disc... In effect, the nose gets shorter when viewed from the center of the turn...

4- If 3 is true, then there is no way that an increasing wing angle of attack does not require "pulling back" on the thrust if the thrust "traction" is from the nose... (The effect is much less on rear propulsion because the thrust source is going down, not up, and is also going forward as the aircraft rotates to the higher angle of attack: No real fighting of the thrust, or very little)

5- If 4 is true, then there is no way that pulling back on about half or more of the prop disc does not require defeating the *entire* amount of thrust existing there...

6- 5 remains true *even if the amount of top prop disc half pull-back is so small a microscope cannot measure it*... *ANY*, I repeat, *ANY* amount of pull-back requires defeating *ALL* the thrust there to move the top of the prop back even a micrometer compared to the trajectory...

If it is 2000 lbs pulling in the upper prop disc half, then it is 2000 lbs you pull before you can even start thinking about that first millionth of a degree of angle of attack increase...

The elevator action does *not* bear all that load to beat the prop: It may provide 100 lbs of extra force for it: The tilting of the wings creates the upward wing leading edge drag that multiplies the elevator effort to finally beat the prop with little actual pilot-elevator effort. Say 100 extra pounds of effort on the elevators leads to 2100 pounds of extra effort on the wings, 2000 lbs of it being *by* the wings: total extra wing load due to prop disc: 2100 pounds. (Not a big deal out of the 50 000+ pounds total at very high Gs, but at a *sustained* 3 Gs a P-51D will be down to say 27 000-30 000 lbs of wing load, at wich point the 2100 lbs will start to be a significant advantage if they could be reduced to, say, 500 lbs by downthrottling...

Hence downthrottling from WEP to well below METO could lead to the prop load being much less on the wingload...

Think about it: All these effects are clearly irrelevant to tail propulsion, since obviously no "pulling back" on the thrust occurs when you increase the wing angle of attack: Do you really think basic common sense allows for there to be *NO* difference in that regard for nose traction?

Do you really think there can be no fundamental handling differences between being pulled from the nose and pushed from the tail?

I have been discussing this for over two years now, on various boards with several aeronautic engineers, and so far not one has advanced the slightest rebuttal to the points above, except to deny there is any slanting of the thrust, *as if there was no compression of the thrust in a curve*...

In other words, to them, the thrust is exactly the same forced in a curve or going straight... It is not altered in any way by the curvature...

Without the thrust slanting compared to the aircraft's attitude, there is, of course, no "shortening" of the nose thrust location-to-wing distance. Basically their argument is that the aircraft's nose stays the same length in a turn!

Not compared to the trajectory it doesn't...

Just because that is an integral part of their schooling, does that mean you have to buy it? 

If they cannot calculate the 6G "Corner Speed" within 50-80 MPH of actual data at similar weight, just how much do you think they know about the esoteric issue of fighting at the limit on long outdated fighters?

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Dec 20, 2010)

Oooops... Note I said downthrottling could reduce the prop disc load on the wings down from 2100 lbs to 500 lbs: The reason I made what looks like an exaggeration in reduction (1600 lbs: But the real exaggeration is in the three-quater reduction in thrust...) is that I usually assume for my example that half the prop disc load (the pulled-back upper disc half) is at 1000 lbs of thrust, so that is why I halved it to 500 lbs downthrottled...

I think that, more realistically on a WWII single engine fighter, the engine thrust on the upper disc half could be cut, by downthrottling, from 2000 lbs at the prop disc half at WEP, this giving say 6000 lbs of force at the wings (this much larger number coming from the nose lenght and the thrust center height leverage, giving a right-angle compound leverage above and ahead of the wing's center of lift), which then allows a more realistic one-third power reduction from WEP: A one-third reduction from 2000 lbs to 1400 lbs of thrust at the prop disc half, and thus of one-third from 6000 lbs to 4000 lbs at the wings, which is still about 2000 lbs less wingloading (this being achieved through downthrottling alone) out of a rough 30 000 pounds of total force in a 3G sustained turn... (About a 7% reduction in total wing load: Possibly a significant edge in sustained turns.)

Since the elevators do originate *all* the 60 000 lbs of total force existing in a P-51D doing a 6G turn, and doing this with only a few hundred pounds of force at the starting point (the tail), such an ability to apply massive forces through leverage and the wing leading edge's "raised drag" is in fact not as wild as it seems...

I hope it is clear I don't intend these numbers as actual precise values; this is just to give a better sense of "scale" to what I mean...

I have heard very disparate numbers as to what the total prop disc thrust actually is... 

The nose length, and the thrust center's height above the wing's center of lift, both do give a very long compound right angle leverage to the nose thrust, which is why I think the nose length matters a lot...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Dec 20, 2010)

So you say that you have discussed this with a number of engineers and found one, on a web site (with no evidence that they are an engineer) who says it probably does occur but the difference in very small and as a result, this proves all your theories.

It’s a bit like your theory that the Fw190 can turn as well as if not better than a Spitfire (which this thread is all about) based on one combat report. The fact that all the test flights between the Fw190 and the Spit, and the vast majority of the combat reports that exist say something else are therefore null and void.

You may want to get support i.e. qualifications and experience of the engineer before you nail your flag to the mast. I was given some training in aerodynamics as a five year apprentice with the FAA, but do not claim to be an aeronautical aerodynamic engineer. But if I had to choose between your totally unsubstantiated theories and that is all they are, theories, and the experience of all the engineers of all nations then I know which I will pick.


----------



## claidemore (Dec 20, 2010)

Which (Glider) brings us back to the original premise of the discussion. 

All discussions and conversations tend to deviate (evolve?) from the original topic, whether online or face to face, and I personally do not see a problem with using the P51 and data and tests involving it as evidence to support or disprove a theory about turn ability of the FW190. Both planes are after all subject to the same laws of physics and there is limited data available on any one type. 

I have found the discussion thus far entertaining and enlightening, in fact it is one of only two threads I have been following for the past few weeks. 

Whether or not either protaganist ever 'sees the light' is irrelevant for me, as I will make my own decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 20, 2010)

From the "Report of Comparative Combat Evaluation of Fw-190 A/4 (should be A-5/U4) Airplane":

_In general it [Fw 190] is considered to be an excellent interceptor-type airplane which is at a disadvantage against airplanes designed for the purpose of "in-fighting".
...
In view of the fact that the Fw-190 can outrun the F4U-1 and the F6F-3 in a 160 knot or faster climb, the best solution in offense is for the F4U-1 and F6F-3 to get the Fw-190 to close with them so that advantage can be taken of the superior maneuverability, provided, of course, that any initial advantage in altitude is not sacrificed merely for the sake of closing._


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Oooops... Note I said downthrottling could reduce the prop disc load on the wings down from 2100 lbs to 500 lbs: The reason I made what looks like an exaggeration in reduction (1600 lbs: But the real exaggeration is in the three-quater reduction in thrust...) is that I usually assume for my example that half the prop disc load (the pulled-back upper disc half) is at 1000 lbs of thrust, so that is why I halved it to 500 lbs downthrottled...
> 
> *T=ma. In equilibrium T=D: Present your model and explain your assumptions. *
> 
> ...



*Think, then Do the math, then pause and re-think *


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2010)

drgondog said:


> *Think, then Do the math, then pause and re-think *




You can safely assume that wont happen.......


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Which (Glider) brings us back to the original premise of the discussion.
> 
> All discussions and conversations tend to deviate (evolve?) from the original topic, whether online or face to face, and I personally do not see a problem with using the P51 and data and tests involving it as evidence to support or disprove a theory about turn ability of the FW190. Both planes are after all subject to the same laws of physics and there is limited data available on any one type.
> 
> ...



Claidmore - I think you can very safely assme that I will not 'see the light' and embrace the 'new religion' of 6G sustained turns at 'corner velocities of 320mph' while embracing the mysteries of 'prop disk and long nose leverage while downthrottling at stall speed' forces of the universe.

On the other hand I did resort to putting a Mickey Mouse hat, with taped antenna and tinfoil sail, on my head to improve my receptivity to the ether and such input that may improve my comprehension..

Stay tuned..


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2010)

drgondog said:


> On the other hand I did resort to putting a Mickey Mouse hat, with taped antenna and tinfoil sail, on my head to improve my receptivity to the ether and such input that may improve my comprehension..
> 
> Stay tuned..


----------



## claidemore (Dec 21, 2010)

Question about curved trajectory: Is a curved trajectory in flight actually a series of straight trajectories connected by imperceptable small turns? A ball on a string makes a smooth curve (I think), but an object in free flight tends to want to go straight? 
This post (#339) in another thread got me thinking. 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-23.html#post748543

Or is the curve simply not smooth and constant?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

Here is a jewel - a true beauty that approaches a Casey Stengal rupturing of both the English language and priciples of Aerodynamics...

From Gaston on ubi.com What is the P-51D's Corner Speed in Il-2? - Topic Powered by Social Strata

*No. What you are saying is that the stall hierarchy relationship between aircraft types at "medium" speeds stays the same going down to stall speed (I don't really contest that "stable" relationship for speeds much higher than "medium"; say 350 MPH+: It is the higher prop load relative to wing lift in "medium" speeds that mixes things up).

Here is why I think the stall in sustained turns from low speed to "medium" speeds is altered differently, from prop aircraft type to prop aircraft type: Higher speeds mean higher power, and propeller traction gains a NEW leverage when the nose is raised, either through a raising of the center of thrust, or a lowering of the airframe"s center of drag vs the prop center of thrust, and this new leverage taxes the WINGLIFT. 

The center of thrust is inevitably offset upward compared to the airframe center of drag by the act of raising the nose. That offset can only create a vertical lever, and that vertical lever will inevitably push downward on the center of the wing lift: In effect increasing the WINGLOADING in ways peculiar to a specific aircraft type.

The only way that this extra wingloading could be avoided (besides downthrottling) would be to keep the drag center and the prop disc"s center of thrust PERFECTLY aligned when the elevator is deflected: Impossible on a prop-traction fighter. This is irrelevant on jets because there is nothing ahead of the wing that needs to be kept in perfect alignment.

Also the lack of a jet thrust "disc" means the "thrust center" cannot move upward and "ouside" the disc center under the pressure of a nose-up angle change, creating leverage; there is no lateral extension (the prop blade) for the thrust center to move on to... 

Either through fuselage/wing shape or the shortness of the nose, WWII fighters do not tax their wing lift in the same way in "medium-speed" turns, where the prop disc load relative to the wing lift is the greatest.

I think the nose lenght probably plays a big role in mixing things up at those "middle" speeds."*


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Question about curved trajectory: Is a curved trajectory in flight actually a series of straight trajectories connected by imperceptable small turns? A ball on a string makes a smooth curve (I think), but an object in free flight tends to want to go straight?
> This post (#339) in another thread got me thinking.
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-23.html#post748543
> 
> Or is the curve simply not smooth and constant?



Claidmore - a ball on a string is a classic example of the 'centrifugal force' construct whereas the curvilinear flight about a center is an example of Centripetal force. 

String/Ball wishes to go 'straight' but the tether exerts a constant force making the velocity vector change in direction but not magnitude.

Aircraft in a perfect circular path, banked turn, constant speed also wishes to follow an 'independent' path but it also is thwarted by inward direction force making the velocity vector change direction but not magnitude 

Both are described and modelled mathmatically as *F*= d/dt (M*V*)
You probaly have done the Calculus thing so I won't be pedantic about this differential expression with respect to time.

Short answer - in 'real life' and in the calculus, each increment of time will cause the velocity vector to change in direction but the physical world sees only a continuous circle about a fixed point..Differential calculus however is a minute change in direction for a minute change in time, with both change intervals approaching zero - meaning the math says that you have an infinite series of straight line segments, attached, one at a time, each with a very slight change in direction but with equal magnitude.

Please don't get offended if you are conversant with Calculus. If not, visualize the first 'approximation' if we integrated over six intervals as a hexagon, then 8 intervals an octagon, and so on until you have a polygon with so many sides that it is indistinguishable from a circle. 

In a circular path about a fixed point and constrained by a tether, the force magnitude is constant, the radius of the circle is constant. If the 'tether' is gravitational force, the radius is also constant and the calculation for 'r' and "V' and 'omega=rate of turn' is straightforward.

There is no difference between an infinite polygon to express the path and a circle for an aircraft under perfect thrust, perfect control, perfect altitude maintenance, perfect aerodynamic behavior of the free body aircraft in a perfect atmosphere, no outside interference from turbulence/gusts/20mm impact, etc.

An aircraft in a banked turn without Yaw, experiences a Lift vector perpendicular (normal) to the plane of the wing, and would have a component equal and opposite of the Weight vector pointing to the center of the earth, and a 'lateral force' pointing inward to the center of rotation. 

Strictly speaking the downward component of negative lift from the Elevator and positive lift component from the Rudder must be added to Weight to determine the required vertical component of the total Lift Vector.

*BTW - NONE of the discussions we have all enjoyed or cursed for turning manuever calculations have ever introduced the contribution of the tail forces into the model. They would not be ignored in a sophisticated computer model* 

Summary - virtually all the models of interest in Performance predictions resuly from the above equation which is simply expressing the forces as change in momentum with respect to time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2010)

This thread is about the Spitfire IX and the Fw 190A. Lets try and keep it that way.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 21, 2010)

I am having some trouble with this thrust slanting and prop disc.

With reference to the fuselage datum line, the Fw190A has a slightly negative angle for the engine and ~+6 degree for the wing and a nominal +2 degree for the stab.

In normal level flight I would think this gives the Fw190A a slight nose down attitude.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

Milosh - I further encourage you to have a 'lot of trouble' with 'thrust slantin and prop disk' as presented in the above narrations.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 22, 2010)

I have done a bit of thinking about the forces involved in the nose lenght leverage, and I came up with this, as it seems to me a drop of 7% in total wingload would not cover a drop of power of 30%...

We can take as a basis what Karhila has said about the Me-109G-6 (this is all very relevant to the FW-190A vs Spitfire as you'll see...):

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Full quote:"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."
" 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. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.


Ok. So he quotes an "optimal" downthrottled sustained turn speed of 160 MPH for the Me-109G-6, which allowed him to "Turn equally well" as one who throttled up to WEP: Optimal sustained turn speed *at full power* for the Me-109G-6 is usually quoted as around 220 MPH in Fin tests: So "equally well" means, say, the same 3 G (no decimal for the sake of simplicity) sustained at both speeds: 160 MPH and 220 MPH: All of it 3 Gs...

The radius of 160 MPH, to be equal in Gs to 220 MPH, must be a whole lot smaller, which makes up some if not most of the speed lost by downthrottling.

Let's take a lower figure of 2000 lbs prop disc total, and split it in half for the upper disc load: 1000 lbs, just for the sake of simplicity.

Let's assume the height of the wing's center of lift is one foot below the center of thrust when the angle of attack is raised to turn: Nose up, *and* slightly slanted thrust all in one...

Now we agree I hope that the elevator's effort is multiplied by the wing's leading edge drag as it is raised, so that the 3 G total of 21 000 lbs total wing lift is not borne by the elevator directly (I have it from an aero engineer that the load on the tail is only a few hundred pounds at most to generate those 21 000 lbs at 3Gs in the end).

So the upper prop disc load (1000 lbs) is on a vertical lever that is one foot high pulling forward *at a right angle* to another lever that is say, 12 foot long, on the Me-109G, to the point of rotation as the angle of attack is increased. (I think there is some thrust center migration into the upper disc half on nose-up too, but let's keep the total to one foot above the wing's center of lift.)

I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the point of rotation to change the angle of attack is also one foot behind the wing's center of lift, to give the wing's lift-drag center *some* leverage to raise the nose, and thus tilt the prop back compared to the trajectory...

With the wing's center of lift one foot lever vs the angle of attack change's point of rotation, what is the leverage ratio to the nose?: I don't know what the vertical one foot right angle at the nose precisely does, except that I am sure it gives a downward pull to the thrust, this at the end of a 12 foot lever...

The critical point is, what is the lever available to the wing's center of lift compared to the (unclear location to me) actual point of rotation as the angle of attack is raised?: If it is one foot, I would say it is 12 to 1 in favor of the nose thrust upper disc half load: So it takes, right from the start, 12 000 lbs of extra lift on the wing's center of lift to even begin tilting back the prop compared to the trajectory, as changing the wing's angle of attack requires...

Mind you, the prop is not pushing straight down with the 1000 lbs top disc half, put to pull the top disc half backward vs the trajectory against its thrust, you do have to beat 1000 lbs from a twelve foot lever with a one foot lever...

If the point of rotation is .5 foot behind the wing's center of lift, then 24 000 lbs of force would be required of the wing's center of lift... Let's again keep it at one foot for simplicity...

If you reduce the throttle by one third to 700 lbs, that 12 000 lbs becomes 8400 lbs... A drop of 3600 lbs... 3600 lbs on a total Me-109G wing load at 3 G of 21 000 lbs: That's a 17.1% drop...

But if you add the prop disc and wing load totals it becomes 33 000 lbs of total effort, of which 3600 lbs is down to a still reasonable 10.9% of drop in total force when a 30% reduction in prop thrust is done.

I am not sure for now if the prop disc load is beaten by moving the center of lift forward for greater than one foot leverage at a greater cost in drag, or if simply the force is added to the total wingload, or a mixture of both... I'll just add totals for now...

A 17.1 % or 10.9% drop in the total wingload would certainly better allow sustaining the same 3Gs at 160 MPH just like full power would allow it at 220 MPH... Especially when you consider the much smaller 160 MPH turn radius which makes up a lot of the lost speed by being smaller in circumference...

*So you can see here how what Karhila says makes perfect sense...*

Same thing with the Spitfire Mk IX being defeated at 7450 lbs by a FW-190A-8 at 9460 lbs...

Here's the FW-190A8's 4300 kg weight in a document: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg

I picked the lower weight, since all of the numerical values I present here are simply a very rough demonstration of the potential scale of the issue. Spitfire IX weight is the heaviest because that is all I could see when I saw the summary test outline text originally, and I don't want to do over the whole calculations again...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

Let's assume a nose lenght of 12 feet on the Spitfire (to center of lift), meaning 12 000 lbs to lift the nose by the wing's center of lift theoretical one foot lever...

At 3G we get 22 350 lbs total wingload for the Spitfire Mk IX.

For the FW-190A-8 we get 28 380 lbs. But the nose is only, say conservatively (I would think 7 feet is possible even for the later ones, but again, only a rough demonstration here...), 8 feet: "Only" 8000 lbs extra to lift the nose...

So the *actua*l total wingload at "1000 lbs upper half disc" at full WEP power for both (assuming same power for simplicity again) is: 

FW-190A-8: 28 380 lbs + 8000 lbs: 36 380 lbs

Spitfire Mk IX: 22 350 lbs + 12 000 lbs: 34 350 lbs.

Look at the margin: 2030 lbs: 5.5 % of margin...

Now what happens if the FW-190A-8 downthrottles in turns, Which I have heard at least one Western FW-190A-8 ace say is the *only* way to fight with it, and that he feared NO other fighter doing this...

700 lbs at the disc (30% downthrottled) with 8 foot of lever: 5600 lbs: 28 380 lbs + 5600 lbs: 

Result: 33 980 lbs for the FW-190A-8... Vs 34 350 lbs for the MK IX...

Now you might say the Spitfire's wing was larger and thus had more lift: I heard quite the opposite: That it was a very sleek wing with a high Mach numbers, but with poor lift capabilities relative to its size, so that at high speed (300 MPH +) you could only move the stick top back 3 quaters of an inch before the wings warned of stall quite severely... What the Spitfire *did* have was an uncanny ability to maintain 3 axis control even while the wings were stalling, allowing "accross the circle" high angle of attack shots while stalling; great offensively, but a terrible feature defensively because of the lost speed...

The only real question is: If lifting the nose to tilt the prop back compared to the trajectory requires up to 12 000 lbs of force from the wings, is this achieved by shifting the center of lift more forward at the cost of more drag, or is this actually simply more load on the wing the way I calculated it? Likely a mixture of both...

For the record, I think no Spitfire at full power could sustain turns with a downthrottled FW-190A-8, but the Mk IX was the closest, perhaps very close. It is clear from combat accounts, and the above calculations, that the Spitfire Mk XIV was particularly hopeless against a FW-190A-8 in sustained turns, and this is correlated by at least one Mk XII and one Mk XIV account I have read... (Not even remotely such a thing for the Me-109G of course...) 

Wartime Mk XIV pilots complained that the Mk XIV was handling more like a P-51D Mustang, to which the joking reply, long post-war, was "And that's a bad thing?" Well, not a very good thing, since the Merlin P-51D is about even, or barely better, than a Me-109G... And needs downthrottling in spades to really beat it, as the Hanseman account clearly demonstrates...:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

Again, early Razorback P-47Ds displayed some parity with earlier FW-190A-6s to the left, which leads me to think the Razorback P-47D could slightly out-turn some, maybe all, Spitfire marks in sustained *left* turns, but not of course in unsustained radius...

The P-47D of course crushed the Me-109G in sustained left turns like it wasn't even funny, and, again, the Luftwaffe captured testing by KG 200 fully correlates this: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" (Source: On Special Missions, KG 200)

Overall the picture seems pretty coherent to me...

Gaston


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 22, 2010)

Walter Wolfrum (137 victories, all in 109sn for JG52)

"The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. [...] The P-51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and do it much better. First off, it was hard to recognize. Unless you saw it from the side, it looked like a Me 109. This caused us trouble from the outset. We would see them, think they were ours and then the damned things would shoot us full of holes. We didn't like them at all! " .


Hansotto Nehls (8. 11./JG 300)

".. At low to medium altitudes the P-51s were agile and could pull tight turns but the AS-engined Messerschmitt was generally superior over 6,500 metres due to the lower wing loading. Our Messerschmitts largely out-performed the P-47. I would often re-trim during a dogfight but had to be careful not to let too much speed bleed off in the turn. Combat was usually very brief.."


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2010)

Gaston said:


> Overall the picture seems pretty coherent to me...
> 
> Gaston



Shame that the test flights and combat reports say something else, isn't it.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2010)

Gaston - IF an attacking fighter like a 109 or 51 or 47 entered combat with a slower opponent, or one that initiated a turn to evade - then if the attacking fighter wished to pull deflection, it will initiate a pursuing curve.

Different fighter pilots like Duane Beeson would never downthrottle..If they could get a deflection shot, they simply used their superior energy to zoom past and above - then assess whether to return for another pass.

Some Would downthrottle to reduce speed, decrease their turn radius to seek deflection, and make a decision whether to try to out turn their opponent or break off the fight and use the remaining superior energy to gain altitude and position.

The last batch would reduce speed in the turn and try for the deflection shot all the way down to stall speed - and live or die based on a.) ability to do so, or b.) having a wingman take it from another position.

Giving up all available superior energy to reduce turn radius was risky if the fight was between an Fw 190 or an Me 109 and a Spit IX and risky, but less risky against a P-51B/D

You have constantly referenced Encounter reports written by 'winners'.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 22, 2010)

If you had height and speed, why would you throttle down at all? Boom and zoom seems the way to handle it. By throttling down, you are bringing the fight down to his level and his envelope. 

Just doesn't seem smart.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2010)

timshatz said:


> If you had height and speed, why would you throttle down at all? Boom and zoom seems the way to handle it. By throttling down, you are bringing the fight down to his level and his envelope.
> 
> Just doesn't seem smart.



It isn't smart, but it did happen... sometimes successfully, sometimes not.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 26, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> Walter Wolfrum (137 victories, all in 109sn for JG52)
> 
> "The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. [...] The P-51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and do it much better. First off, it was hard to recognize. Unless you saw it from the side, it looked like a Me 109. This caused us trouble from the outset. We would see them, think they were ours and then the damned things would shoot us full of holes. We didn't like them at all! " .
> 
> ...



Note the wording: "we could out turn and outclimb it, *initially*." Doesn't that suggest an initial gain in a smaller unsustained initial turn radius, but no superiority in the slower speed sustained turn rate?

This is exactly the same thing we observe with the Spitfire vs the FW-190A: A rapid initial gain in unsustained *radius* by the Spitfire, leading to the inaccurate notion that this superiority extended to sustained turning... It didn't...

And at a 300-400 MPH full power merge, it makes sense: At a 6 G unsustained turn, the total force exerted by the Me-109G's weight is 42 000 lbs, while the added force exerted by the prop/nose leverage is still 12 000 lbs: Reduce that to 8000 lbs by downthrottling and it is minus 4000 lbs out of a 54 000 lbs total... : 7.6% of the total.

At 3Gs in *sustained turning* it is 21 000 lbs + 12 000 lbs, total 33 000 lbs, so the same reduction of prop disc leverage to 8000 lbs results in a 12.1% reduction in total wing force... Nearly *double* the percentage it is at high speed...

So right there, it is obvious downthrottling is nearly twice as beneficial at sustained low-speed turns than unsustained 6G turns... 

Incidentally, this actually provides a partial explanation to a lot of things, such as why these 12 G (P-51) or 13 G (Me-109G) rated aircrafts still broke up in combat, despite being theoretically only doing 6G turns (to the recorded astonishment of engineers): The stresses on the wings at 6Gs of turning, or pull-outs, were actually closer to 8Gs right from the start... Probably wing fluttering or vibrations brought things higher for a split second...

Quote: "The P-51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and do it much better."

This is really an approximate statement: Only the P-51B/C boosted at 21 lbs with "Purple Passion" 150 Octane fuel could in any sustained way out-climb the most basic Me-109G-6... It did not usually in any significant way out-climb the Me-109G, but the Spitifire really did at +25 lbs (boost only used by the RAF in Merlins, not by the USAAF). The P-51 could out-zoom the Me-109G if it dived from above, and it certainly tended to fly higher usually...

In the same way, references to the P-51 out-turning anything is likely not a reference to multiple sustained 360s (unless downthrottled), but of less than one 360 turn at above 300 MPH where full power on a long nose is less detrimental to the total load (+7%), as the calculations above demonstrate. Note the German pilot's experience: "Combat was usually very brief..."

Note also his comment: "I would often re-trim during a dogfight but had to be careful not to let too much speed bleed off in the turn."

Which is to say, not to let too much speed bleed off against *P-47s* as well...

If you are not going to downthrottle down to the Karhila-recommended 160 MPH optimal sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, this is indeed sound advice...

Quote, Drgondog: "Different fighter pilots like Duane Beeson would never downthrottle..If they could get a deflection shot, they simply used their superior energy to zoom past and above - then assess whether to return for another pass."

It is a luxurious way to fight, likely with numbers on your side, or if you are a better shot: Keep in mind the 2% hit rate determined by the Luftwaffe as "average". This is why in 1944 Western Europe such repeated passes from above are hardly ever seen, especially the dubious opportunity of repeating the passes on the same target, *which I have never seen in any of the 1300 P-47 and P-51 combat reports, written as you say by winners...*

In fact, I can't even remember a single diving firing pass made from above at a flying target that was not itself already in a dive...

* The only examples of diving firing passes at a non-diving target I remember reading were all against ground targets...* At the very least, the prevalence of boom and zoom tactics by US fighters in Europe in 1944 is spectacularly unimpressive in actual combat (Likely not quite the same thing in the Pacific vs slower and more fragile Japanese fighters), and you can put an even heavier emphasis on this for the P-47D which seemed much happier with relentless, and winning (except vs the FW-190As), horizontal turn-fighting...

And remember, I did read them all...

I did see dozens of cases of P-51*D* being down to hammering away with just one unjammed outside turn gun because of turning Gs, certainly a far more common occurrence than any kind of repeated diving passes all the way into 1945... 

That this persistent jamming problem is not more widely known on the P-51D tells me the pilots were not keen on criticizing the P-51 in general...

How come I have to slog through 700 reports to hear about it?

Gaston


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2010)

This thread is about the Spitfire IX and the Fw 190A. Lets get back on topic!


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2010)

Concentrating on the 190 vs Spit parts of the posting


Gaston said:


> This is exactly the same thing we observe with the Spitfire vs the FW-190A: A rapid initial gain in unsustained *radius* by the Spitfire, leading to the inaccurate notion that this superiority extended to sustained turning... It didn't...



It has been proven many times that the Spit did turn inside the Fw 190 both in combat and in flight tests. The statement often made by Gaston is that this doesn't mean that a rapid initial gain equates to a better sustained turn.
I would argue that there is no proof in Gastons statement. It is recognised that the Spitfires wing was the most aerodynamically efficient shape and if any aircraft can maintain such an advantage it will be the Spitfire. Gaston your sole evidence is one combat report, just one with a lot of unknowns which you haven't explained. 
Prove that the Fw was better than a Spit in real life as without that proof your statement is without meaning.

You unproven and unsupported theories and calculations are just that, unproven and unsupported, by anyone. Your only repy to this has be to say that all the engineers and designers in all nations have got it wrong. Sorry but that doesn't amount to a can of beans



> How come I have to slog through 700 reports to hear about it?
> 
> Gaston



You may well have slogged through 700 reports but you clearly haven't taken in and read what is in those reports. This statement is supported by your own words which condemn you. 
The obvious example is your contention that 80% of all combats involved sustained turns. A cursory glance at those reports proves that you are wrong and I have challenged you on this many times.
The offer is still open, find one example and I will analyse the ten either side of them and withdraw if I am wrong. This is something that you have ducked every time and no doubt will continue to do so. Your continued evasion supports my position.


----------



## Gaston (Dec 27, 2010)

To begin with, you have provided nothing of substance to counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations: One foot of rotation leverage vs 12 foot of nose lenght *does* require 12 000 lbs of force to change the angle of attack on a reasonable upper prop disc half thrust load of 1000 lbs (The bottom disc half is ignored because no power is added to it in a turn)... 

The change in wing angle of attack *does* require a displacement against the upper disc half thrust to change the angle of attack compared to the trajectory, which does inevitably requires at the very least matching and exceeding *all* the thrust there...

The 12 000 lbs value in the circumstances above remain valid even for an infinitesimally small amount of angle of attack change at 1000 lbs of upper disc half thrust, and the minimal value would be 24 000 lbs if the thrust-defeating rotation leverage was actually 1/2 foot...

Since the wing angle of attack change does multiply the elevator action, the wing does bear most of the load, not the pilot's stick...

So far, several actual aero engineers have failed utterly to provide any rebuttal to the above in several months of arguments... At least one has agreed on some of the basic principles but not on the outcomes...

Pretty telling....

My calculations show perfectly well why, in low-speed sustained turns, a greater part of the turn load is due to the prop disc load, and why this is less so in unsustained turns at maximum possible unsustained Gs.

This explains perfectly well why a mediocre, wider-turning, high speed unsustained turn radius aircraft type (FW-190A) can actually perform better in slow speed sustained turns than a much tighter-turning high speed unsustained turn aircraft type (Spitfire Mk V-IX), as was the opinion of the top Allied Western ace Johnny Johnson (and a whole slew of others)...

Accepted calculations are apparently mostly incapable of making any distinction between the sustained turn performance, and the unsustained turn performance, in any way that matches actual accounts...

Finally, I have asked, or am asking you, to provide:

1-Examples of the Me-109G out-turning *any* aircraft type in sustained level turns in combat... (Other than the Karhila downthrottling example)

2-Examples of P-51s or P-47s diving at a non-diving flying target, following this by a zoom climb, out of 700 P-51 or 600 P-47 combat reports on the Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site... This with, say, a minimal duration of turning of a single 90 to 270 degrees turn at most...

(This would be a lot less work than providing all the examples of multiple 360 turning combats, especially for the P-47D!!!)

3- Examples, in those above reports, of the "boom and zoom" tactic being carried out repeatedly...

4- Examples of the Spitfire of any Mark out-turning the FW-190A in *sustained* turns, not destroying the FW-190A target within 1 or one and half 360 degrees...

These should all be very easy to provide if your opinions had any validity... But since they don't, examples of Spitfires out-turning FW-190As are all of very short duration (just like the quoted Me-109G pilots pointing out brief combats, or to not lose speed in turns), or of Me-109Gs indeed out-turning P-47Ds only to show unsustained turns shedding Me-109G wings off...

I am actually surprised how hard it is to find any combat examples clearly contradicting any of my quite general points above...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Dec 27, 2010)

Gaston said:


> To begin with, you have provided nothing of substance to counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations: One foot of rotation leverage vs 12 foot of nose lenght *does* require 12 000 lbs of force to change the angle of attack on a reasonable upper prop disc half thrust load of 1000 lbs (The bottom disc half is ignored because no power is added to it in a turn)...


The key word is_ counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations_ It is your reasoning, no one elses, supported by no one, not proven by any flight tests or any flight examples. It is a theory nothing more nothing less. Many aircraft probably all aircraft even today do not perform exactly as the designers predict, thats why we have flight tests and why changes are made. 



> This explains perfectly well why a mediocre, wider-turning, high speed unsustained turn radius aircraft type (FW-190A) can actually perform better in slow speed sustained turns than a much tighter-turning high speed unsustained turn aircraft type (Spitfire Mk V-IX), as was the opinion of the top Allied Western ace Johnny Johnson (and a whole slew of others)...


There are two important points here. You have no evidence that this one action proves all your points. A very good potential explanation was posted earlier and again its one that you ignored. 
What is more likely
a) a logical defintion based on known facts (see posting 164) or 
b) a theory which assumes that you have discovered a law of aerodynamics that has missed all the engineers and designers in the world? 

The second point is you do tend to exagerate. Here *for the first time *you mention a slew of others. What slew, who are they can you support this or have you got carried away again.


> Finally, I have asked, or am asking you, to provide:
> 
> -Examples of the Me-109G out-turning *any* aircraft type in sustained level turns in combat... (Other than the Karhila downthrottling example)



Mentioned in posting 96. RAF pilots were told not to get into low speed turning battles with the Me109 when flying Tempests

_I kept reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300mph for Me109's could turn better than we could at lower airspeeds and you had to watch out for the 30mm in the nose as it wouldn't give you a second chance. The Best Technique was to do a spiral dive and work the speed up to 450 mph, do a stright climb and start all over again_. 



> - Examples of the Spitfire of any Mark out-turning the FW-190A in *sustained* turns, not destroying the FW-190A target within 1 or one and half 360 degrees...


Again this has been covered in previous postings. These will not exist as the Spitfire pilot will attack once they have the advantage. They would not engage in an intellectual exercise of sustained turns when its life and death.

However there is no doubt that the Spitfire wing was the most efficient design aerodynamically and it would hold the energy better than the Fw190. Bleeding energy is the key reason why any turn would diminish. 

I do notice that you have not taken up my challenge re the turns. All I ask is that you stop telling everyone that you have read all those combat reports, you may have skimmed them, you certainly didn't read them.


----------



## claidemore (Dec 28, 2010)

I have read all the Spitfire combat reports at Mikes site, but I thought I would look through them for some illustrations of FW190s attempting to turn with a Spitfire (sustained or instantaneous). 
Here's a quote from a Spitfire vs FW190 encounter. 


> S/Ldr N. A. Kynaston himself found 2 F.W.190's endeavouring to get on his tail. *He out-turned them* and one dived away. The other F.W. 190 turned away and climbed up after another Spitfire nearby. S/Ldr Kynaston thereupon turned quickly, got on the tail of this E/A, climbed and caught it, and opened fire from about 200 yards *as the E/A was turning slowly*. The F.W.190 burst into flames, turned over and dived into the sea. The pilot was seen to bale out.



And another: 


> After orbiting there I picked up a F.W. 190 who was at about 5,000 ft. I fastened onto his tail and *he pulled up in a steep left hand climbing turn and I was closing fast* firing at intervals. We did a *360 degree orbit *of Le Touquet in this manner my No. 2 still with me. He then half rolled inland and I followed him, in the dive he pulled away from me a little. My No. 2 was by now following another F.W. when he was hit by light flak over Etables. Meanwhile I followed the F.W. over the tree tops indicating 355 and closed on him. I gave him about 3 bursts from about 300-400 yards and after the last one, he hit some trees and crashed and cartwheeled over.



And another that shows clearly why an FW190 should not attempt to beat a Spitfire with a sustained turn: 


> The Squadron was passing between Bernay and Beaumont aerodromes when I saw 2 F.W. 190’s diving (not at all steeply) from 6 o’clock. I headed around into them and chased one down. I estimated I was at about 700 yards when I first fired – *hoping he would turn*. He turned right *and by cutting the corner *I drew into about 450 yards. I gave him two or three bursts closing to about 300 yards and observed a strike on the left wing root and pieces falling off. In my last burst his hood – with bits and pieces – flew off. (He probably jettisoned this). As I then saw the Pilot getting out I ceased firing. The F.W. 190 crashed into a field from 200 feet and burst into flames. I claim 1 F.W. 190 Destroyed.



Another where an FW190 apparently tried to escape with a sustained turn: 


> The E/A was taking mild evasive action and during one or two of his gentle turns I fired several short bursts with about 10 degrees defelction, observing strikes.


And lastly a report of a lengthy dogfight at 500 feet where the 190s had alt advantage, were on the Spitfires tail twice, and the Spit got away unscathed. 


> I saw about twenty aircraft turning towards us from Gris Nez. We were at 500 feet and they were at about 2,000 ft. On turning towards them I recognized them as F.W. 190's and climbed into to them head on. A general dog-fight ensued. I attacked one at about 200 yards range from the beam, closing to 50 yards, deflection varying from one to two rings. I gave him approximately a two second burst and saw strikes on fuselage and mainplane. I was being attacked from astern by two more E/A so broke away, and seeing no result claim only a damaged.
> I made another beam attack on E/A (F.W. 190) which appeared in front of me. I gave a two second burst at 250 yds range closing to 200 yds allowing between one and two rings deflection. Strikes were seen on fuselage. Again I had to pull away because I was being attacked from astern and lost the E/A.


I haven't found a single Spitfire encounter report where an FW190 escaped by turning, sustained or quick. The only reports I can find that mention 190s that got away had them half-roll and dive.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 28, 2010)

well, dont laugh, but I have watched Rc pilots fly scale models of the P-51, FW190, ME109, P-51 and the Spitfire at my local flying club, and i have questioned these guys pretty extensively about the flying characteristics of each. The engines and power are not to scale, but the ings and aerodynamics are all in pretty close scale to the real thing. I know the limitations on this kind of comparison, but i thought it might be intersting to hear what some pretty experienced pilots had to say. Most of these guys have more than 500 hours RC experience, and quite a few many times that. They know what they are talking about when it comes to the models at least.

Without a doubt the Spit is the best turner in the horizontal plane, because of its huge wing area. The trapizoidal wings of the other types just cant compare with the Spit in this regard. The 109s and 190s, relatigve to the US types have generally a proportional greater length and naroower wingspan. This makes them fast, and good divers, but not as good in the horizontal. The US types are kinda mid way between the Spit and the German types...sort of jack of all trades really

Of course, how much of this is useful to real life planes of that type, I wouldnt know. But thought it might be of interest


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2010)

The Spit had two significant advantages but wing plan form per se wasn't so important. While it looked like an eliptical wing it did not produce the optimal induced drag that a theoretical elliptical wing produced. It did however produce a better lift distribution than a trapezoidal wing of similar aspect ratio. A trap wing like the 51, incorporating twist would closely approximate the lift distribution of the Spit (and P-47)... ditto the 109 with no twist, but incorporating slats for low speed control... 

What it did have however is a lot of area coupled with a thin airfoil relative to chord. The former gave it superior low wing loading and the latter, a delay of transonic effects in a dive. The tapered planform of the P-51, Fw 190 and Me 109 achieved the same basic lift distribution as well as the same relative tip effects to achieve nearly the same induced drag/tip vortices strength.

As to the RC model refelctions, RC models would be hard to use to compare relative manuever characteristics because of the challenges in a.) modelling the exact airfoil, b.) proportional thrust to weight of the airframe, and c.) proportional weight to wing area - for starters. For example a Dave Platt model would be very close dimensionally while a Top Flite would be significantly different 

Additionally the parasite drag for the models contrasted from the real thing depending on surface roughness of the model, gaps in wheel wells, ailerons, elevators, etc.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> As to the RC model refelctions, RC models would be hard to use to compare relative manuever characteristics because of the challenges in a.) modelling the exact airfoil, b.) proportional thrust to weight of the airframe, and c.) proportional weight to wing area - for starters. For example a Dave Platt model would be very close dimensionally while a Top Flite would be significantly different
> 
> Additionally the parasite drag for the models contrasted from the real thing depending on surface roughness of the model, gaps in wheel wells, ailerons, elevators, etc.




The only thing I would say in response is that the wing form in models termed "scale" must, by definition, be the same or nearly the same, as the real aircraft. Models with different wing forms either in plan or section can only be termed semi-scale, or sometimes non-scale. 

I was referring specifically to scale models, so the wing forms should be the same.

In terms of finishes, these are not scale, or true to the historical. In terms of materials. The P-51, for example, historically used mostly bare metal finishes, which I understand produced a fairly low amount of drag compared to the finishes of the RAF or the LW. Might be good for 3-5 mph in a real aircraft. In a model a p-51 will have a painted finish, so doesnt have such a drag reducing advantage. In terms of finish, most scale models are all finished in the same skin, a thin plastic ship wrap finish, bonded onto a plywood or balsa wood frame. the frame is usually a reasonably accurate facsimile of the parent aircraft in terms of weight distribution and strength comparisons, but the shrink wrap is common to all models. There are other materials, like foam for example, but these are rare on the true scale models I was referring to. They tend to be used in what are termed semi-scaled park flyer models.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Dec 28, 2010)

Gaston said:


> To begin with, you have provided nothing of substance to counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations: One foot of rotation leverage vs 12 foot of nose lenght *does* require 12 000 lbs of force to change the angle of attack on a reasonable upper prop disc half thrust load of 1000 lbs (The bottom disc half is ignored because no power is added to it in a turn)...
> 
> The change in wing angle of attack *does* require a displacement against the upper disc half thrust to change the angle of attack compared to the trajectory, which does inevitably requires at the very least matching and exceeding *all* the thrust there...
> 
> ...


And who were these "actual aero engineers" and can you provide evidence of your ability to out-argue them with the above? Also note the Spitfire IX may have had a 12 foot long nose but it had an even longer rear fuselage and a rudder with which to exert some aerodynamic force.

From  Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering pp.410-411

Torque may also have an effect on turn performance, particularly with
high-powered prop fighters at slow speed. The effects of engine torque
must generally be offset by rudder power to maintain balanced flight.
Normally under these conditions considerable right rudder will be required
to balance the torque of a prop turning clockwise (when viewed
from behind), and vice versa. Another consideration here is called "PAPPENDIX
[sic - APPENDIX] 411 factor," which is the tendency of a propeller to produce more thrust from
one side of its disc than from the other. P-factor usually affects the aircraft
in the same manner as torque, and it is exacerbated by slow speeds and
hard turning. Since even more rudder is usually required in the direction of
a turn to maintain balanced flight, there may be conditions under which
sufficient rudder power is just not available. The resulting unbalanced
flight (slip) may cause loss of aircraft control. Generally the high wing (i.e.,
the outside wing in a turn) will stall, causing the aircraft to "depart"
controlled flight with a rapid roll toward the stalled wing.
This phenomenon has been used to good effect in combat, since it is
more pronounced in some fighters than in others, and because proprotation
direction may be reversed between combatants. The following
World War II combat example of this tactic involves the P-38J Lightning
versus the German Fw 190. The P-38 is a twin-engine fighter with counterrotating props and essentially no net torque or P-factor.

My flight of four P-38s was bounced by twenty-five to thirty FW-190s of the
yellow-nose variety from Abbeville. A string of six or more of them got in
behind me before I noticed them, and just as No. 1 began to fire, I rolled into a right climbing turn and went to war emergency of 60 inches manifold
pressure. _As we went round and round in our corkscrew climb, I could see
over my right shoulder the various FW-190 pilots booting right rudder
attempting to control their torque at 150 mph and full throttle, but one by
one they flipped over to the left and spun out._

Nowhere in this book is Gaston's "formula" (12,000 lbs of "force" - what type of force? Ft lbs thrust? ) mentioned or quoted...

P 397
In general, for a wing of a given size and shape, the greater the lift
produced under given conditions, the greater the induced drag will be.
Although this relationship is important for any aircraft, it is especially
critical for fighters, since their mission often involves high-load factors
requiring a great amount of lift. Induced drag is minimized by designing
wings of large area with long, thin planforms. The actual shape of the wing
is also very important. For subsonic flight an elliptical planform, made
famous by the Spitfire fighter of World War II, is theoretically optimum.
Other shapes, however, may be nearly as efficient from an induced-drag
standpoint and have other overriding advantages.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 28, 2010)

claidemore said:


> I have read all the Spitfire combat reports at Mikes site, but I thought I would look through them for some illustrations of FW190s attempting to turn with a Spitfire (sustained or instantaneous).
> Here's a quote from a Spitfire vs FW190 encounter.
> 
> 
> ...



The problem with combat reports is that we typically read about part of the battle. I have read several P-51 combat reports and sometimes think that the plane is amazing and completely overpowered any opposition. But, we don't read where the aircraft was engaged and was unsuccessful like "I engaged a Bf-109 and he out turned me and I had to break off and escape", or, "I engaged a Fw-190D and he out turned me and caught me as I tried to escape and shot me down and killed me". Also, I have not read combat reports of the Axis pilots in regard to their fights with Allied aircraft. I suspect they report a different picture.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 29, 2010)

'Johnnie' Johnson relates a fight were a Fw 190 outturned him at sea level. He was shocked that he was unable to outturn his opponent and assumed it showed the skill of the German pilot.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 29, 2010)

steve51 said:


> 'Johnnie' Johnson relates a fight were a Fw 190 outturned him at sea level. He was shocked that he was unable to outturn his opponent and assumed it showed *the skill of the German pilot*.



and you won't find that in any formula.


----------



## claidemore (Dec 29, 2010)

davparlr said:


> The problem with combat reports is that we typically read about part of the battle. I have read several P-51 combat reports and sometimes think that the plane is amazing and completely overpowered any opposition. But, we don't read where the aircraft was engaged and was unsuccessful like "I engaged a Bf-109 and he out turned me and I had to break off and escape", or, "I engaged a Fw-190D and he out turned me and caught me as I tried to escape and shot me down and killed me". Also, I have not read combat reports of the Axis pilots in regard to their fights with Allied aircraft. I suspect they report a different picture.



No you won't find a report where the pilot says he got outturned and killed..... but you will find plenty of incidents where multiple ea were engaged with various results, some escape unharmed, some get damaged and escape, some are claimed as probables or confirmed. 
For example:


> My No 2 and I made for one lot, but they broke hard, leaving us no chance to fire. I then saw a single FW 190, same height, flying straight and level. I easily got onto his tail, giving him a 3 seconds burst from dead astern at about 200 yds.


One of the reports where you will find FW190s 'breaking hard' and successfully escaping.

Or this which shows an unsuccesful attack by 190s on a Spitfire. 


> Shortly after bombers had turned for home Red section was attacked by 6 to 8 F.W. 190 and 109’s from starboard quarter above. I ordered section to break right and climb and as enemy aircraft went past I stall turned down behind the last one and chased him down from 24,000 to 19,000 but could not catch him. I tried to climb up again but was attacked from above and behind by five or six more F.W.’s. As I was climbing and they had the speed on me, they out climbed me when I broke into them, so I went into an aileron turn and dived at full throttle. The aileron turn threw them off and with over 500 m.p.h. on the clock I climbed like a rocket at 18 lbs. boost and 2,900 revs in a steep climbing turn.



There's probably more to be learned by weeding out the ones that got clobbered and analyzing the ones that evaded, though admittedly (and understandably from the viewpoint of the authors) the reports tend to concentrate on the ones that got clobbered.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Dec 29, 2010)

Njaco said:


> and you won't find that in any formula.


Nor will you find any of Gaston's "calculations" in a formula that works


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2010)

Gaston truly does not seem to know the difference between Force vectors (Lift, Thrust, Drag, Weight) or that each must be resolved along their correct axes. 

His last two posts were painfully close to a technical "Tourette's Syndrome experience" coupled with blather..

If I could be sure he was genuine and not a clever troll - I would invite him to Air Combat Gamer's Anonymous' to provide testimonial regarding the evils of bad physics.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 29, 2010)

ah DG, ever the gentleman....why dont you say how you really feel....


----------



## NZTyphoon (Dec 30, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Gaston truly does not seem to know the difference between Force vectors (Lift, Thrust, Drag, Weight) or that each must be resolved along their correct axes.
> 
> His last two posts were painfully close to a technical "Tourette's Syndrome experience" coupled with blather..
> 
> If I could be sure he was genuine and not a clever troll - I would invite him to Air Combat Gamer's Anonymous' to provide testimonial regarding the evils of bad physics.



I'm still trying to figure out why rudders don't seem to factor into Gaston's "calculations" - I'm sure I read somewhere that rudders _might_ be important when it comes to helping many aircraft to turn circles. Maybe he's assuming the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX were flying wings?

Just for interest here's an account of a Typhoon taking on an Fw 190 at low altitude (Desmond Scott  Typhoon Pilot p. 37):

"The FW 190s foolishly dived under us towards the sea....Within seconds I was firing directly down on an FW 190. He turned to port close to the water....Suddenly we were at the same level and locked in a desperate battle to out-turn each other.
I applied the pressure to get my sights ahead of him, but I kept losing my vision...; a little less pressure on the control column would bring my sight back into focus. I could see him looking back at me on the other side of our tight circle. I knew he was experiencing the same effects, and although I could feel my own aircraft staggering a little, I continued to apply the pressure...With my heart pounding in my throat I applied some top rudder to get above him. Just as I did so his wings gave a wobble and he flicked over and hit the sea upside down."

At low altitudes it seems that a Typhoon was capable of keeping up in a turning dual with an Fw 190, with the result that the 190 flicked into a stall trying to tighten his turn.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 30, 2010)

parsifal said:


> ah DG, ever the gentleman....why dont you say how you really feel....



You are correct, I should have tempered the remarks.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 30, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why rudders don't seem to factor into Gaston's "calculations" - I'm sure I read somewhere that rudders _might_ be important when it comes to helping many aircraft to turn circles. Maybe he's assuming the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX were flying wings?



The rudder/elevator combination creates some interesting (potential)theoretical holes in applying Oswald efficiency factors to the manuevering models at low speeds versus cruising conditions in perfect trim.

It is the substance of my taking opposite sides from 'well known' applications of the Induced Drag portion of the Thrust=Drag equations.

Beginning with Oswald's 1932 NACA papers through various texts applying 'e' to account for increased viscous/paraite drag due to planform and Lift Coefficient (changes to AoA) through many different derivations to better model theory to wind tunnel tests - I have never seen an extension to better account for an airplane in asymmetrical flight conditions at high AoA... such as a 360 turn.

I suspect that increasing contributions of lift and drag surrounding a tail at a different AoA from the wing (immersed in downwash), which must change as the required deflections increase to maintain equilibrium, and are further subjected to the increasing turbulence (beyond normal flight rotating stream tube of prop wash) as separation inevitably increases on the wing - and vortex drag increases behind the wing - must change any previously accepted value of 'e' for that wing/body combination in level flight.

Ergo - applying 'e' = .8 or .85 (or any value), so many use to start a Performance discussion, has roots in level flight dash or cruise but must be carefully re-examined starting with level flight stall and really questions in high G asymmetric flight conditions.

Probably a better approach is to first examine 'e' when Thrust is supplied by jet engine so that variations in propeller efficiency may be eliminated at the beginning of the study.

Any thoughts?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 30, 2010)

I was "serious"....I thought you have excercised a great deal of restraint to be honest


----------



## drgondog (Dec 30, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I was "serious"....I thought you have excercised a great deal of restraint to be honest



Perhaps the archtypical Aussie and Texan have different views regarding 'restraint' than others on the thread.. I have tried to not unleash the dreaded 'bonehead' accolade for Gaston..


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why rudders don't seem to factor into Gaston's "calculations" - I'm sure I read somewhere that rudders _might_ be important when it comes to helping many aircraft to turn circles. Maybe he's assuming the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX were flying wings?
> 
> Just for interest here's an account of a Typhoon taking on an Fw 190 at low altitude (Desmond Scott  Typhoon Pilot p. 37):
> 
> ...



This is not only a combat betwen two machines but between two men, the typhoon pilot was clearly suffering from the effects of "G" forces, he was the hunter but struggled to keep the FW in his sights. The pressure is on the persued aircraft since one hit from a cannon at sea level is almost certain death, as is blacking out, stalling or just hitting a wave. He saw the wings wobble is that a stall or the pilot blacking out? The persuing pilot was losing vision, the persued must push harder he may have stalled or he may have just lost conciousness. These two men wernt playing a video game you can re load it was a fight to the death where the typhoon pilot had the advantage, if the positions were reversed the outcome would possibly be the same. Even in 1944 (and much earlier) a fighter could turn fast enough to render its pilot unconcious, flying on the limit was a skill learned by the lucky ones and it isnt a constant. The g forces a man can withstand arnt constant between men and with one man on different days it can vary. 

To say the typhoon out turned the FW is reading something that may not be there, reverse the situation and the same may have happened since the FW190 certainly downed a huge number of allied fighters of all types (in the quoted engagement the typhoon started with height advantage). An ace pilot in an fw190 could out fly a novice no matter what allied plane they were flying and vice versa.

Having read the above and many other accounts like them I treat discussion of 15 minute individual turning fights as pie in the sky not only would the combatants be delirious and dizzy but since all aircraft had radios any friendly aircraft (from either side) within 100 miles could intervene with a free shot. 

To resolve all the vectors on a turning aircraft is an impossibility, even with todays computer programmes aircraft and cars still have a test programme. Thrust is the pilots choice, weight is constantly changing everything changes with altitude and air pressure. If you use the same values you can approximate which is the better plane under most conditions but not all and factoring in pilot skill is pure guess work. I have read many times that during the B o B a hurricane was a better plane for a novice and spitfire was the better plane for an expert. 


The turning performance of an airplane is the least significant and most readily sacrificed attribute of a combat plane. A plane turns better with no armour oxygen bottles radios ammunition or parachutes. Any plane of that era gave its best tuning performance with only one bullet left in its guns and on its last pint of fuel. The last models of the spitfire were almost 2 times the weight of the first but no pilot would want to fly a Mk I into battle in 1944, however many would like to fly a Mk I for the joy of flying it, it was by all accounts I have read the most pleasant to fly.

Since the poll is about a report compiled by people who forgot more than I could hope of knowing I agree with it.


----------



## claidemore (Dec 31, 2010)

Good post _cocky pilot_.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 7, 2011)

Question to Gaston or someone who knows:

Why is it that the Fw 190 had such a poor ability to pull out of a dive in comparison to other fighters?
Was it ever remedied?

regards
Huey


----------



## Glider (Mar 7, 2011)

cocky pilot said:


> This is not only a combat betwen two machines but between two men, the typhoon pilot was clearly suffering from the effects of "G" forces, he was the hunter but struggled to keep the FW in his sights. The pressure is on the persued aircraft since one hit from a cannon at sea level is almost certain death, as is blacking out, stalling or just hitting a wave. He saw the wings wobble is that a stall or the pilot blacking out? The persuing pilot was losing vision, the persued must push harder he may have stalled or he may have just lost conciousness. These two men wernt playing a video game you can re load it was a fight to the death where the typhoon pilot had the advantage, if the positions were reversed the outcome would possibly be the same. Even in 1944 (and much earlier) a fighter could turn fast enough to render its pilot unconcious, flying on the limit was a skill learned by the lucky ones and it isnt a constant. The g forces a man can withstand arnt constant between men and with one man on different days it can vary.
> 
> To say the typhoon out turned the FW is reading something that may not be there, reverse the situation and the same may have happened since the FW190 certainly downed a huge number of allied fighters of all types (in the quoted engagement the typhoon started with height advantage). An ace pilot in an fw190 could out fly a novice no matter what allied plane they were flying and vice versa.
> 
> ...


 
It is clear that this combat was very very close and the difference marginal. The reason why one should be able to take more G than the other could be as simple as their build. A shorter stockier person is able to take more G than a taller slimmer person. We do not know but something as simple as this which had nothing to do with the turning ability of the aircraft may well have been the difference.


----------



## bada (Mar 8, 2011)

spicmart said:


> Question to Gaston or someone who knows:
> 
> Why is it that the Fw 190 had such a poor ability to pull out of a dive in comparison to other fighters?
> Was it ever remedied?
> ...



 
what comes this idea from?
the wurger has no pb pulling out of a dive, he had just a tendendy to "sink" when pulled too fast from a dive. it was still responsive without any heavy load on the stick till at least 850 KMH TAS, but there was also a need of enough "air" under the plane to be able to pull out, but that's sometinhg common to all airplanes.
If you pull out frome a dive at 5,6 or 7 hundreds kmh, you need some Km's alt to do that.

About the G's, i would like to know the real numbers about the 190's seat position that allowed pilots to sustain more G's than other fighters. I've read numbers from 0.5 till 1.2 G's .


----------



## spicmart (Mar 10, 2011)

Maybe it was just my impression. I read somewhere that the Spitfire was able to pull out of a dive better.
Lerche wrote that the La-5 was able to escape german fighters by going into a straight dive at 800 m altitude. Me 109 and Fw 190 were not able to recover from a dive at that height.


----------



## Gaston (Apr 1, 2011)

I did not reply for a while because I realized there were still areas of my theory, and the accepted theory, that I did not fully understand...

I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is *much* clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable...

The idea that sustained turn outcomes all depends on mythical "pilot skills" is exactly what has kept things in the dark for so long, and in fact it is hard to see how it could do anything to clarify things...

Especially when some of the said "skilled" pilots mention reducing the throttle for long periods as being a key part of their success...

See you soon...

Gaston


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2011)

Well, this the appropriate day for this "revelation"


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2011)

Its April 2nd here, a day late I believe.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 3, 2011)

> Especially when some of the said "skilled" pilots mention reducing the throttle for long periods as being a key part of their success...



Well, what we need then is a Cyberdyne T-800........


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2011)

That one flew past me NJ. Can you explain?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2011)

Gaston said:


> I did not reply for a while because I realized there were still areas of my theory, and the accepted theory, that I did not fully understand...
> 
> *You could expand that concept a great deal by acknowledging there nothing about accepted theory that you understand.*
> 
> ...


 
Please don't.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2011)

_ I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is *much* clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable..._
What is this??? are suggesting that the principles of powered flight are not understood??? that seems ridiculous. Please explain


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2011)

Seems that Boeing 747 is soon to fly with only one engine aboard. And the engine will be engaged only for take off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Seems that Boeing 747 is soon to fly with only one engine aboard. And the engine will be engaged only for take off.



Wrong thread?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2011)

I was refering to this:



Gaston said:


> ...
> 
> I have done more calculations and graphics, and the full picture is *much* clearer now: It does look like aero engineers got the wingloading vs turn rate relationship fundamentally wrong for traction (and I now know why). They have been making for decades a rather enormous mistake that should be demonstrable...
> ...



Since the engineers were making so many mistakes in one field, guess they weren't exactly shining in another ones. Hence 747 flying with one engine, with Gaston's knowledge applied.


----------



## Gaston (Apr 30, 2011)

I have to find the time to make the graphics, and real busy otherwise...

At 3 Gs sustained, the Spitfire's wings bear about twice the load aero-engineers think it does...

Aero-engineers assume around 22 500 lbs at 3 Gs (aircraft's weight at 7500 lbs X 3): It's likely in reality around 45-48 000 lbs...

So where does the extra wing lift, for the extra 24 000 lbs, come from?

Read what I wrote here (minus a few minor mistakes) and assume wind tunnel tests gave them *a perfectly accurate assessment of a wing's lifting abilities*: The lift values are confirmed: It was all there right under their noses...

Let's see if you can find why they didn't know about half the lift force effectively borne by the wings at 3 Gs...

The bottom line is, even if the Spit does beat the FW-190A in turns (which it does do by a wide margin above 4 Gs unsustained) there is no reason, according to them, why the two should be so close at low sustained speeds...

Even Russian TsAGI tests show the FW-190A-5 beating, in right turns, *all* the Bf-109Gs except one: A Bf-109G-4 that barely matches it at 21 seconds for a sustained 360...

Where the hell is the math that accounts for this match?

There is plenty of evidence engineer calculations predict nothing when it comes to heavy, powerful nose traction types...

I think it's about time they noticed how an aircraft flies...

Let's see if you can find the mystery of the missing 24 000 lbs...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (May 1, 2011)

Gaston said:


> Let's see if you can find the mystery of the missing 24 000 lbs...
> 
> Gaston


 
All this time I didn't realise that a Spit could carry a Grand Slam, how foolish of me.


----------



## parsifal (May 1, 2011)

I am underwhelmed by this argument. And in fact we dont have to prove anything. The accepted theory is on our side, you are the one promoting a view outside the accepted norms and trying to dispute the universally accepted theory, and that means its up to you to present the supporting facts and arguments, and then even explain it to technophobes like me. Youve done none of that I submit. just a bunch of unsupported statements, expressed in ever more frantic terms and making ever more fantastic and unbelievable positions. Then you get upset that we dont follow you into this descent into madness.

If you want us to treat you seriously, go away find the supporting argument, present it and then explain it in a way that people can understand. Until then, be a bit more respectful, and learn a little humility


----------



## Gaston (May 1, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I am underwhelmed by this argument. And in fact we dont have to prove anything. The accepted theory is on our side, you are the one promoting a view outside the accepted norms and trying to dispute the universally accepted theory, and that means its up to you to present the supporting facts and arguments, and then even explain it to technophobes like me. Youve done none of that I submit.



Fair enough Parsifal: I'll write the text and do the graphics.

You still do have to explain discrepancies in your "facts", if you claim to be open-minded about the subject being discussed...

But I still think it should be noted that the accepted theories that are on "your side" do little to predict what is actually observed to occur: Where does your math predict an observed sustained turn parity between the Bf-109G and the FW-190A at 21 seconds in right turns?

How does it arrive at such a result? I've yet to see the math demonstrated in any coherent way...

Also at least one very experienced Fin ace quotes the "optimal" sustained turn rate for the Bf-109G-6 as being at 160 MPH.

"Accepted math" puts it around 220-240 MPH at least...

6G unsustained "Corner Speed" on the P-51D Mustang is tested as being at a *minimal* speed of 320 MPH... Your math? 250-260 MPH...

Even if my theory is completely wrong, at least it attempts to explain *all* of the above in spades, while "your side" accepted math theories explains nothing of it...

It would be more encouraging if you at least recognized the failings of accepted theory to match observed reality... I am still waiting for that kind of open-mindedness to be on display, even if my theories turn out to be nonsense...

I mean, if you can't predict the most basic data that the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" found in 1989 with *real* aircrafts, just exactly what can you predict with "your" math?

Gaston

P.S. By the way, for those treating the P-51's Pilot's flight manual figures as gospel, note that the B-29's flight manual was said to be the very first to have, by a very wide margin, serious and complete flight data gathered in a serious scientific way... The P-51, pre-dating the B-29, was obviously not included in that...

G.


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2011)

gaston

As I said, I cannot respond, this will have to wait for the pilots and the engineers in this place to review your submission. in the meantime you should do just as you say, post your calculations and your figures to support your theory.

Becaus this is such a drawn out thread, perhaps we should summarise wehat is your position. I am given to believe you are of the opinion that the Spitfire IX could not out turn an FW 190???/ Or is your supposition something else again?


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2011)

Being serious for a moment I am looking forward to your maths and graphs, but can I also ask you to put any sources down for your comments. 

For instance the statement _note that the B-29's flight manual was said to be the very first to have, by a very wide margin, serious and complete flight data gathered in a serious scientific way _

This looks at first glance like a big assumption without foundation. However if it was a recognised expert then more authority would be given to the statement, so the who said it and when, is pretty important.


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2011)

Gaston said:


> I have to find the time to make the graphics, and real busy otherwise...
> 
> At 3 Gs sustained, the Spitfire's wings bear about twice the load aero-engineers think it does...
> 
> ...



"Don't feed the trolls" - my last intersection of your endless bloviating.


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2011)

Gaston said:


> How does it arrive at such a result? I've yet to see the math demonstrated in any coherent way...
> 
> *We have yet, here or HiTech or every site you have trolled, to see you coherent in any demonstarble way.*
> 
> ...


 
The P-51 Flight Manual was complied with theory accepted in 1940, in 1940, in 1960,, etc all the way to this date - and set limit loads, operations planning, cruise settings, etc that are 'guidelines' for the prudent pilot to observe.

The tools are more sophisticated, assumptions to simplify the solution of non-linear differential equations are no longer necessary to predict complex flight conditions - but neither the engineering mathmatics nor the underlying physics have changed.

Gastion - you are not being rejected because your theories are beyond anyone's level of comprehension - they are rejected because your levels of comprehension are below expectations to carry a serious discussion regarding physics of motion, fluid mechanics or structures.


----------



## parsifal (May 3, 2011)

I am not even going to attempt the engineering argument. I am not an engineer, dont fly, and and was never much chop at maths. But I do understand the history, and history is the big brother of operational research. Understanding the history allows you to put all the other bits into perspective.

This is my basic take on the history.

Throughout 1941, the RAF mounted a very costly, but ultimately successful campaign to push the defending LW away from the channel coast in the vicinity of the channel ports (Dunkerque, Calais, Boulogne). The exchange rate in that campaign was heavily in favour of the LW...around 3 RAF fighters lost for every 1 LW fighter. Main types involved were Spit IIs and Hurri IIs on the RAF side, and Me 109 Es and Fs for the LW. 

In 1942 the RAF began to deploy Spit Vs in substantial numbers which appear to have added range. The LW began to deploy FW 190s, which also had additional range. the LW and the RAF traded blows throughout 1942, with the LW able to undertake tip and run raids across the channel with small groups of FW190s. I dont have figures on the exchange rates but over Dieppe, the RAF deployed mostly Spit Vs at long range. This long range hampered the numbers they could maintain over the invasion fleet, and meant that the LW was able redress the numbers imbalance to a large degree. An exchange rate between the Spit Vs and the FWs was roughly 110 Allied aircraft lost to about 35 LW machines. The ratio of losses RAF:LW remained the same as it had been the previous year, but qualitatively the RAF had to be improving, as it was a battle fought by the RAF at considerable tactical disadvantage. I am led to believe that at other times the exchange rate between the RAF and the LW was much closer, which is corroborated by the fact that soon after the battle at Dieppe, the LW pulled back from the channel coast pretty much completely. The RAF had won.

The Spit IX was developed specifically to counter the high speed low level attacks into British controlled airspace by the FW JGs. Unless a range of general histories are wrong, I am of the opinion that in this capacity the Spit IX was superior to the FW190. These Fws were not Jabos, they were operating as Fighters....the Spit IX was developed to restore qualitative parity between the LW and RAF, and in this it was successful. 

So, to try and argue that a Spit IX was inferior and somehow outclassed by a FW is a nonsense to me...clearly the operational results show that the Spit IX was at least competitive to the FW, and IMO was in fact superior in some respects. 

These are the basic facts as I see them. Perhaps people can post corrections to that understanding, I am happy for that to occur, but once we arrive at an agreed set of basic facts, we then need to go after the reasons why those basic facts are as they are. If I am right, and the Spit IX bested the FW in the battles over the channel, then why is that so.......its no good accepting the basic facts and then skipping off into lala land trying to prove that the FW was superior, or that they somehow won their battle. there are other factors of course, but the writings of the time dont suggest to me that the Allies were flying inferior machines by the time they were using the Spit IX....quite the opposite.....


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2011)

In my opinion the Spit IX was a superior dogfighter to enemy oppostion throughout its prime deployment subject to comments below. When the 109K and the 190D were introduced they were faster and had more options to engage/withdraw against the MK IX than in 1943 and 1944.

During the time the A5-A7 were in play along the coast against the RAF (or Med) I suspect the outcome was dictated by the pilot that saw the other one first and pilots skill to capitilize on a tactical advantage - as the Fw 190 was terrific in a high energy manuever fight, giving sustained turn and climb to the Spit as well as slower than the Spit > 25000 feet, but faster at low altitudes, much better roll/reverse to neutralize the Spit turn advantage, and very good in dive and initial turn.

I'm less inclined to think that the 109G could compete as well as the 190A5-A7 but the fight would be close in both the vertical and horizontal with the edge (period to period engine variants) going to the MK IX.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2011)

According to the USN reports published by Williams where an FW190 was compared to the F6F3 and F4U1, the Navy fighters were both judged to be superior in a turning fight to the FW to the point that Navy pilots were advised to only fight the FW by closing with it. My strong impression is that the Spitfire IX would be superior to the F6F and F4U in a turning fight (dogfight) so it would have to have a substantial advantge over the FW in that type of action. For what it is worth, Eric Brown also says that the Seafire LIIC had a better turning circle than the FW190A-4.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2011)

well now i am confused. If we are all in agreement about the basic historical facts (or are we???), which is that the Spit IX was more manouverable than the FW 190A in the horizontal plane, then what on earth has all this bitter recrimination been about this last 10 pages of this thread. What exactly is the divisive issue here????


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2011)

Personally I agree with you and am waiting for Gastons evidence, which might be a long wait.


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2011)

Parsifal - only one entitiy was invloved in 'bitter disagreement' relative to the Spit IX overall manuever superiority to the Fw 190 series.. and the Troll will be back. I haven't seen him return to the other sites but he trashed their tranquility with absurdities (piled very high) with equal zeal


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2011)

drgondog said:


> and the Troll will be back.


 

Thats just downright funny DG. i like it......


----------



## renrich (May 5, 2011)

To add to the William's published report, the Navy fighters were said to be able to follow the FW in all maneuvers whereas the FW could not follow the Navy fighters in those same maneuvers. Something I did not understand since the FW had a better rate of climb than the Navy planes was that the FW could not follow the two other fighters in a loop. If it tried to it would stall out. ???


----------



## Altea (May 17, 2011)

Gaston said:


> Even Russian TsAGI tests show the FW-190A-5 beating, in right turns, *all* the Bf-109Gs except one: A Bf-109G-4 that barely matches it at 21 seconds for a sustained 360...


A rather unsustainted assesment.
The TsAGI tests "Samoletostroenie p. 95" are clearly showing that soviet FW-190 A-5 is turning a sustainted 360°, in 22-23 secunds, the 109 F4 in 19.8-20.6s, the 109 G-4 in 21s (that means it's might be a _best_ or a _middle _value).
In case that you have two different values in soviet tests, one is for the left turn, the other one for the right.

The Spit IX beats them all, due to low wing loading, high power to weight ratio.
Ñïèòôàéð Mk.IX â ÖÀÃÈ. 
No mystery in physics



> Where the hell is the math that accounts for this match?


? Either a type mismatch from your sources, or your own error.

Regards


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2011)

and still we wait.........


----------



## Njaco (May 24, 2011)

Now, now, .... research takes time.


----------



## Gaston (Aug 20, 2011)

Altea said:


> A rather unsustainted assesment.
> The TsAGI tests "Samoletostroenie p. 95" are clearly showing that soviet FW-190 A-5 is turning a sustainted 360°, in 22-23 secunds, the 109 F4 in 19.8-20.6s, the 109 G-4 in 21s (that means it's might be a _best_ or a _middle _value).
> In case that you have two different values in soviet tests, one is for the left turn, the other one for the right.
> 
> ...




No. I had the scans from the original documents: It showed the following: Best Bf-109G turn time, to right: G-4: 21 seconds (This G-4 bested all the other Gustavs, including the G-2, by a small margin. 21 seconds was the very best a Gustav ever did in those tests.)

The FW-190A-5 had TWO sets of values: Flaps down and flaps up: Flaps up: 22 seconds to right, 23 seconds to left.
 Flaps down: 21 seconds to right, 22 seconds to left.

If you don't want to believe, don't, but that was from an original scan, and it was clear to *the right* NO Me-109G bested the best the FW-190A-5 did...

So you have a significant difference in wingloading that is ignored in real-life, by a lower power-to-weight ratio aircraft, in a way you can't explain...

Furthermore, the TsAGI tests found the FW-190A-8 to be slightly slower turning, but I know from combat reports this was unlikely to be a valid comparison (in this case the likely explanation is the A-8 had four wing guns while the A-5 had two): The FW-190A-8 is in fact capable of being at least as good or better, but probably only by using downthrottling, and it was likely worse than the A-5 at high Gs...

If the Spitfire did 17.5 seconds in these test (which did not occur on the same day, so are worthless for comparisons: They are not comparative data at all), then I would think a downthrottled FW-190A-8 with broad ailerons and broad wood prop can do at least 17.5 seconds to the right...

I do find the methodology of these Russian tests suspicious: 17.5 seconds is better than most Russian types, yet the Russians in combat were never impressed by the Spitfire's maneuverability, and even tried to lighten the weight by removing the outer machine guns... They found the Spitfire unsuccessful in combat in horizontal maneuvers, but superior in vertical maneuvers, and changed their way of flying accordingly (source: Le FANA de L'Aviation)...

Once again, tests and reality seem irretrievably divorced... 

Many or even most British pilots knew the Hurricane turned much better in sustained turns than the Spitfire... If so, does that mean 16.5 seconds for a Hurricane? 

If entry speed and exit speed were the same, did they use a sustained G load during the turn? I doubt the Spitfire would shine so much if they did... My guess is they made the first 90° a very high G turn, bleeding speed, then relaxed it on the remaining 270° to regain some of the speed using the power available to keep speed constant... The British in fact found NO differences in truly sustained turns between the Spitfire Mk V and the Spitfire Mk IX, even at 30 000ft(!), and this has been borne out numerous times by numerous tests: The Russians have this one Mk IX at quite a lower value than the Mk V at 18.8 seconds with 17.5 seconds, then another Mk IX at a more reasonable 18.5 seconds...

To me 18.5 is a more plausible Mk IX time. We'll probably never know the real downthrottled, flaps down, broad wood prop turn times of a FW-190A-8, but it was lower than that, while at high Gs the FW-190A probably could not even carve above a real 5 Gs without mushing...

The Me-109G had no hope whatsoever in sustained turns against a P-47D, even at 140 MPH, yet the wingloading of the P-47D was much higher than the FW-190A!: 50% greater than the Me-109G!

I have all the elements of my wingloading theory written down in a comprehensible format, but have to put them into a graphic form... I am sorry this took so long but there were many problems I had to solve to understand all the implications of how the forces balanced each other out to produce a neutral result that was hard to detect (unless in actual combat!).

This is some of the data I am working with: A P-51's Merlin at Full WEP at 72" I will assume puts out a force of 1800 lbs on the entire surface of the prop disc. The tilted back surface I will assume amounts to 60% of that, so we are back to an easy to calculate 1000 lbs...

There were a lot of problems to solve to understand all the implications of the theory: I have the diagrams on paper, and will now reproduce those on computer to post them here.

My theory has to do with leverages, and if it is wrong, then there is the simple possiblity that some aircraft simply generate a lot more drag at higher angles of attack than others, leading to unpredictable disparities... I doubt it, because I can't see such large differences in drag arising out of details in the shape from aircrafts that are all basically similar in drag...

Also my theory explains why heavy wingloading does much better at low Gs but more poorly at high Gs, which angled drag disparities alone would not...

Sorry again for the wait, but it won't be too long now... About one week, not much more...

Gaston


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2011)

Gaston - congratulaions! a masterpiece of obfuscation, speculation, and parsing of facts to fit your reality.

Come to the table with a knowledge of the physics, present the model founded on aerodynamics and flight mechanics - that were successfully used then, improved upon over 60 years but still the same physics, then apply the flight test data and ask the questions based on the agreed model.

Conversing while influenced by Tourette's Syndrome usually causes great confusion and hard to make a rational point.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2011)

and the vacation is over.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2011)

I dont know what to say, I have been disproven.....its a start I guess, or perhaps a continuation


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2011)

don't worry about a flame war - he simply isn't worth the time to debate.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2011)

I dont claim to know, but the arguments presented seem thin and dodgy to say the least. I am underwhelmed


----------



## Altea (Aug 22, 2011)

Hello Gaston,



Gaston said:


> No. I had the scans from *the original documen*ts: It showed the following:


No problem, share them with us.




> Best Bf-109G turn time, to right: G-4: 21 seconds (This G-4 bested all the other Gustavs, including the G-2, by a small margin. 21 seconds was the very best a Gustav ever did in those tests.)


As you can see, from *the original document* i gave you the link, the G-2 performed at 20s to the right, 21.5s to the left, without flaps use.

The best time for the FW-190 A-4 was still 22.5s





> If you don't want to believe, don't, but that was from an original scan, and it was clear to *the right* NO Me-109G bested the best the FW-190A-5 did...


It's not a beliefs problem, only demonstration that we are still waiting for...



> So you have a significant difference in wingloading that is ignored in real-life, by a lower power-to-weight ratio aircraft, in a way you can't explain...


Explain what? There is no physical aberration in soviet tests...
I think it's up to you to explain, no.?





> If the Spitfire did 17.5 seconds in these test (which did not occur on the same day, so are worthless for comparisons: They are not comparative data at all),


A genius of aviation matters as you even don't know untill now that *all* aviation tests are corrected in standart athmosphere conditions?





> then I would think a downthrottled FW-190A-8 with broad ailerons and broad wood prop can do at least 17.5 seconds to the right...


What do you mean by *broad*? And why *downthrottled*?



> I do find the methodology of these Russian tests suspicious: 17.5 seconds is better than most Russian types, yet the Russians in combat were never impressed by the Spitfire's maneuverability, and even tried to lighten the weight by removing the outer machine guns... They found the Spitfire unsuccessful in combat in horizontal maneuvers, but superior in vertical maneuvers, and changed their way of flying accordingly (source: Le FANA de L'Aviation)...


What Fana number? 



> Once again, tests and reality seem irretrievably divorced...


Not sure, all soviet fighter pilots found the Bf-109 harder to fight both in verticals and in turning circles.



> Many or even most British pilots knew the Hurricane turned much better in sustained turns than the Spitfire... If so, does that mean 16.5 seconds for a Hurricane?


What better turn? Radius or Time of Turn?






> The Me-109G had no hope whatsoever in sustained turns against a P-47D, even at 140 MPH,


Where is it taken from?

Regards


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

Gaston said:


> The Me-109G had no hope whatsoever in sustained turns against a P-47D, even at 140 MPH, yet the wingloading of the P-47D was much higher than the FW-190A!: 50% greater than the Me-109G!
> 
> Gaston


your math is a tad off. 58.3 lb/ft² wing loading for the P-47D and 40 lb/ft² wing loading for the Bf109G. thats 31% more wing loading for the P-47D. Also, I'd rethink the notion of the Bf109 not being able to turn with the P-47.


----------



## dwad (Aug 23, 2011)

Gaston,

Once again you demonstrate your uncanny ability to post what amounts to nothing more than absolute drivel.
Perhaps a beginners course in the theory of flight would help you to see the light or perhaps in this instance you should avail yourself of the complete sets of comparative flight test data from the various wartime Spitfire 9 v Fw 190 trials rather than consulting Wikipedia or your flight sim gaming manual.

Dave W.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 23, 2011)

I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
Mention has been made of the stall, in the Spitfire, with the implication that it was quite violent; again, this is twaddle, since, due to Mitchell's genius in his design of the wing, the root would stall, first, but the ailerons remained fully functional, and, even from the first flights of K5054 (the prototype,) pilots remark on how gentle the stall was, and how easy it was to recover, since it did not spin.
Edgar


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...

It was Kurfust: Here is the link to the original russian language text, and it shows I didn't imagine things:
Kurfurst__ 
Posted Tue November 30 2010

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-5, indeed at 21-22 seconds, flaps down.:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/FW190A-5_Soviettrials.png


So you see my recollection was accurate from the original-language documents...

As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M

Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M

So 50% more for the Me-109G-6 would be 294 KG/ sq M.

So I exaggerated by 10 KG/ sq M... Is that what you call being informative?

Please improve the quality of your arguments against what I say if you don't mind...

As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...

I've issued the challenge *many* times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat *in sustained turns*, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...

As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...

It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...

Yes, wingloading does determine the hierarchy of turn performance to a large extent... And the math does agree with what I, and virtually every *combat* pilot of WWII, have been saying...

Gaston

P.S. As to the Airfix 1/48th Spitfire XII model, I am almost done correcting it right now, after about five whole tubes of putty went into it (it turned out OK, finally!), and let me just say it illustrates nicely why models should never be done from drawings alone... Still likely the best Spitfire in 1/48th, which is very depressing...

G.


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...

It was Kurfust: Here is the link to the original russian language text, and it shows I didn't imagine things:
Kurfurst__ 
Posted Tue November 30 2010

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-5, indeed at 21-22 seconds, flaps down.:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/FW190A-5_Soviettrials.png


So you see my recollection was accurate from the original-language documents...

As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M

Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M

So 50% more for the Me-109G-6 would be 294 KG/ sq M.

So I exaggerated by 10 KG/ sq M... Is that what you call being informative?


As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...

I've issued the challenge *many* times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat *in sustained turns*, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...

As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...

It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...

Yes, wingloading does determine the hierarchy of turn performance to a large extent... And the math does agree with what I, and virtually every *combat* pilot of WWII, have been saying...

Gaston

P.S. As to the Airfix 1/48th Spitfire XII model, Edgar, I am almost done correcting it right now, after about five whole tubes of putty went into it... Please tell Airfix not to rely on drawings alone...

Also, I will find the "Fana" issue to quote the Spitfire being seen as inferior on the horizontal, but superior on the vertical, but it will take a while as I have to post a query to find it: It was the issue within the last four months about Russian Spitfires, so it shouldn't be hard to find...

G.


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
> To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
> A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
> Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
> ...



Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"

-First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is *always* AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some *downforce* to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you... 

In conventional designs (which covers basically all of WWII) the tailplanes ALWAYS compensates (downward) for the untruth of what you just said... This is why tailplanes do not contribute to lowering the wingloading, and the Main wing area alone is all that is counted in estimating wingloading.

As for the ten tons, you will how and why they work the way they do soon...

Gaston


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2011)

You still have this total fixation re sustained turns which were almost as rare as hens teeth in real combat 

Can I remind you about my challenge back in 21st November *last year *

_Finally as you are talking about still waiting for things. I remind you (again) that my offer is still open re analysing the ten combat reports either side of one of your choice to see how common a sustained turning combat was.
I have no preference of aircraft type, Spitfire, Tempest, P51 or P47. The choice is all yours.
I was going to let this lie but you keep repeating this type of comment recently saying:-
There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used). 

So all I am asking you to do is support this clearly incorrect statement.

I await your reply with interest. _

*I still await your reply with interest *but it must be admitted, with little expectation.


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
> To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
> A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
> Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
> ...



Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"

-First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is *always* AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some *downforce* to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you... 

In conventional designs (which covers basically all of WWII) the tailplanes ALWAYS compensates (downward) for the untruth of what just said... This is why tailplanes do not contribute to lowering the wingloading, and the Main wing area alone is all that is counted in estimating wingloading.

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

Here is the "Fana de l'Aviation" #496 issue in question: March 2011...: It mentions Russian pilots having to shift their tactics from their usual horizontal turns to the vertical plane after a noticeable lack of success using their usual tactics of horizontal turns. The Spitfire was considered comparatively excelled on the vertical...

Fana de l'Aviation : Le

This is also where it is mentionned the Russians tried removing the Spitfire's outer machineguns to improve performance, to no avail...

Gaston


----------



## Altea (Aug 24, 2011)

Gaston said:


> I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...



But Gaston, if you want to compare planes, it takes the same condition; both of them flaps up or both of them flaps down. Have you got flaps down values for the Bf-109G? 




> The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:


Yes 23-24s for the A-4 flaps up from soviet guenine docs, if you want to compare it with the 109.
Note that the later TsAGI report give the benefit of 0.5s to the FW-190 A-4, for some fair reasons (supposal that plane was not in brand new condition, not perfectly regulated and flown). 









> As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...
> 
> I've issued the challenge *many* times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat *in sustained turns*, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...


No problem
Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions

I would say there's others P-47 tests, with 27.4 even more than 28 the turn. So the 26s it's for the best (R or L?) one.




> As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...
> It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...



Gaston, i don't want to be unkind but, before discussing about complex and unknown flight theories, just learn some basic ones and try to unserstand.




> then I would think a downthrottled FW-190A-8 with broad ailerons and broad wood prop can do at least 17.5 seconds to the right...


 If you downthrottle the engine, you loose power, and so total lift....That mean you're just decreasing your AoA, speed and so ToT! Or i dont understand what did you mean...

Regards


----------



## Altea (Aug 24, 2011)

> QUOTE=Gaston;814930]Here is the "Fana de l'Aviation" #496 issue in question: February 2011...: It mentions Russian pilots having to shift their tactics from their usual horizontal turns to the vertical plane after a noticeable lack of success using their usual tactics of horizontal turns. The Spitfire was considered comparatively excelled on the vertical...
> 
> Fana de l'Aviation : Le



I wonder if something was not "lost in translation"
Пилоты, летавшие на F.Mk.VB, отмечали, что самолет прост и "летуч", доступен летчикам со средним уровнем подготовки, а зачастую и ниже. Двигатель "Мерлин-46" сохранял мощность 1165 л.с. и на высоте 5800 м, а наш М-105А, например, имел максимум 1050 л.с. уже на 4000 м. Самолет был цельнометаллический, что делало его прочным и живучим. Прекрасная аэродинамика и малая нагрузка на крыло делали F.Mk.VB маневренным на горизонталях и обеспечивали хорошие взлетно-посадочные характеристики. По мощи секундного залпа (3,54 кг/с) F.Mk.VB превосходил все советские истребители до конца 1943 года.

From 57th IAP report: Pilots flying on MkVn noticed that it was simple and affordable for crews with middle (in fact low by western standards) qualification and even low (very low by western standards). ...Due to good aerodynamics and low WL the spit was very manoeuvrable at horizontal and had good landing/ TO caracteristics. etc...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2011)

Gaston said:


> As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M
> 
> Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M
> 
> ...



7900KG for a P-47 (at least up until the D-25) means it was carrying *TWO* 300gal drop tanks and that they were full. A much more reasonable weight would be 6174KG which would be full internal fuel (370 US gallons) and 664lb worth of ammo. 

Wing loading is now 221.5KG/sq M. 

6940lbs for a 109G-6 is without the drop tank. Lets do try to compare apples to apples. 
 
P-47 now has a wing loading 13% greater. 

While wing loading is a very good base it does not tell us the co-efficient of lift, which varies with the airfoil, angle of attack, air speed and aspect ratio of the wing. Co-efficient of lift can also change drastically with the deployment of flaps depending on the area and shape, type of flap (plain, split, slotted, or Fowler/extending) and the amount of flap used (8^ or 30^?)


----------



## Gaston (Aug 24, 2011)

As far as the P-47"s weigth is concerned, I went by "normal loaded" data.

And the "Bubbletop" was at least 1000 lbs heavier than the Razorback, if not more... What is the comparable weight of a D-25 "Bubbletop"? 6700 kg?



Altea said:


> But Gaston, if you want to compare planes, it takes the same condition; both of them flaps up or both of them flaps down. Have you got flaps down values for the Bf-109G?
> 
> 
> Yes 23-24s for the A-4 flaps up from soviet guenine docs, if you want to compare it with the 109.
> ...



There's no "flaps down" for the Me-109G because they were hard if not impossible to use that way (at flying speeds the load and deployment times were laughable)... On the FW-190A you push a button...


It's interesting about the P-47D doing 27 seconds, but I said *combat* accounts... The performance exhibited in your link here by the P-47D is so ridiculously low it all but puts an end to any notion of thrust we should have in tests of the era...

Let's face it about the reliability of tests in those days: The "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" found in 1989 that the 6 G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D (and 3 other types) was at a *minimum* of 320 MPH on the P-51. Tests of the times have that very simple value at 240 MPH...

Real combat over 600 reports:P-47 Encounter Reports

In these: The P-47D *always* out-turns the Me-109G in sustained turns, always in less than 3 X 360 typically. It almost never out-turns the FW-190A but is close to even until mid 1944, then it is badly out-turned by later A-8s.

In here, 700 P-51 combat reports; Mustang Encounter Reports

The P-51 often has trouble out-turning the Me-109 (up to 45 X 360(!!!): Two instances of 15 minutes of continuous one-side turning, plus one of 30 minutes on "Dogfights"!), unless the P-51 downthrottles. Not the same with the FW-190A, because the P-51 often out-turns it very quickly at high altitude or at high speeds (no contest there) in less than one turn. At low speeds and in low altitude turns, there is very often a note from the P-51 pilot that the FW-190A pilot is not using his airplane to the full, and is timid in pulling the stick because of a nasty stall (never any such statements for the Me-109G)... Yet despite this, at low altitude and at low speeds the FW-190A is always much more of a challenge in turns than at higher altitudes or higher speeds (often 4 turns or more, versus no ability to contest turns *at all* when higher or faster, constantly shifting sides on the ailerons instead)...

The P-51 very often "loses" the FW-190A, almost *never* the Me-109G, but the term "out-turned" is studiously avoided by P-51 drivers, even when that is obviously what happened, because I think the pilots did not want to be admonished by someone they did not pull lead hard enough... *No* such complexes from P-47D drivers who will readily admit such, and yet do *infinitely* better than the P-51 against the Me-109G in sustained turns...

Read all these, and you will find the above pattern holds true...

Downthrottling is mentionned numerous times in those reports as a huge advantage for the P-51 at low speeds after multiple 360s... This is because at full throttle, and when turning level, the P-51"s prop adds tens of thousands of pounds to the wingload... That is why Karhila, in his Me-109G-6, says the "optimal" sustained turn rate for his 109G is downthrottled to 160 MPH: Turning about 55 MPH above stall is best... 

Of course nose-down unloads the prop, which is why the altitude advantage is so crucial (among other reasons)...

Don"t worry, even with tens of thousands of *extra* downward pounds of load on it, the winglift is quite capable of dealing with a pilot ignorantly running his engine at full power, just not so well that the thing will turn tighter or faster...

That is the beauty of how this remained hidden: The aircraft naturally compensates for being more heavily loaded by the prop... It is quite amazing when you know how... 

And yes, that does mean aero-engineers have no clue how these particular airplanes flew... I am sorry if that is hard to take, but it is all there in the math, coming soon your way...

Gaston


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 24, 2011)

Gaston said:


> Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"
> 
> -First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is *always* AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some *downforce* to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you...
> 
> ...


And if you knew how the Spitfire was designed, you'd know that the tailplane was set at zero incidence, and had a symmetrical aerofoil section, so imparted neither lift, nor downforce, to the tail. Visit the RAF Museum, who have around 45,000 drawings; they will enlighten you.
Edgar


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 24, 2011)

Gaston, did you take into account prop wash? relative humidity? ambient temperature? liters of fuel consumed? fuel slosh? ammo depletion? exhaust thrust? how many cups of coffee the pilot had? trim settings? wind speeds? head wind? tail wind? port wind? starboard wind? updrafts? downdrafts? crosswind? into your equations? why not just ask somebody who was there whether or not a 109 can sustain a turn with a 47? math is math yes. but sometimes the math is wrong.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2011)

Gaston said:


> As far as the P-47"s weigth is concerned, I went by "normal loaded" data.



No, you did not. "normal loaded" data is never going to include 600 gallons of external fuel and tanks. 


Gaston said:


> And the "Bubbletop" was at least 1000 lbs heavier than the Razorback, if not more... What is the comparable weight of a D-25 "Bubbletop"? 6700 kg?



Try again, I did say up until the D-25 which are razor backs. A bubble top weighed about 320lbs more than an "EARLY D" without ammo or fluids. Of that 320lbs about 90lbs is taken up by the change from the 305 gal internal tankage to the 370gal internal tanks. The propeller on the later models weighed about 118lbs more than the prop on the earlier "D"s, trapped fuel and oil in the chart for the later version that are not counted in the earlier version account for another 80lbs or so of that 320lb difference. 

You want to compare actual wing loading of planes in "combat" condition rather than in max loaded condition ( the 7900kg weight you listed is higher than the gross weight of the plane full internal fuel and a pair of 1000lb bombs.)

A bubble top P-47 with 143lbs on oil still on board. (having used 72 gallons>edit 'lbs'< to get there) and with 248lbs of water/alcohol still on board plus 664lb of ammo (267 rounds or so per gun) and just over 2/3 fuel (out of 370 gal internal) comes in at 13,620lbs including the 200lb pilot and chute. 6191KG. 
Taking 1/3 to 1/2 the fuel out of the 109G-6 isn't going to change things much. The difference in wing loading has the bubble top about 16.6% higher. 

Of course the 6940lb weight for the 109G-6 doesn't include an MW50 installation does it?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2011)

If you guys feed this idiot he will never go away.. please put him on ignore.

Chris/Joe can you shut this thread down?


----------



## Glider (Aug 25, 2011)

Gaston said:


> Real combat over 600 reports:P-47 Encounter Reports
> 
> In these: The P-47D *always* out-turns the Me-109G in sustained turns, always in less than 3 X 360 typically. It almost never out-turns the FW-190A but is close to even until mid 1944, then it is badly out-turned by later A-8s.
> 
> ...



There you go quoting the combat reports again. My offer is still open. Pick one and I will analyse the ten reports either side of the one identified for accuracy and numbers of sustained turn combats that took place.

For someone who is putting such faith in these reports to support your case you are very reluctant to use them to actually support your case.



> The P-51 very often "loses" the FW-190A, almost *never* the Me-109G, but the term "out-turned" is studiously avoided by P-51 drivers, even when that is obviously what happened, because I think the pilots did not want to be admonished by someone they did not pull lead hard enough... *No* such complexes from P-47D drivers who will readily admit such, and yet do *infinitely* better than the P-51 against the Me-109G in sustained turns...



You have of course examples to support your statement that P51 pilots had the concerns you state, don't you?



> Read all these, and you will find the above pattern holds true...


I have, it doesn't.



> And yes, that does mean aero-engineers have no clue how these particular airplanes flew... I am sorry if that is hard to take, but it is all there in the math, coming soon your way...


Priceless


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2011)

Closed...


----------

