Battle over Germany, January, 1944

That's an interesting report buzzard. Those US tests of the G-3 showing 415 mph at critical altitude compare favorably with German figures of 408 mph for a clean 190 A-5 and 388 mph for a standard 190 G-3 with belly and wing racks. I didn't see anything in that report that this aircraft had funky ailerons; is this noted in another related US report somewhere? I apologize if this strays somewhat from the topic of the Battle over Germany in January 1944. Well… 415 mph would be good performance for any 190 over Germany during the first half of 1944.

Ponsford,

I also noted that the top speed of the Fw 190 in the USAAF report was consistant (allowing for calibration errors) with most 190 performance data. I also noted that they gave the RoC as 4000fpm (altho they don't show the alt.at which this was measured),which is actually higher than generally reported. So, I'm also curious as to how Soren knows that the test plane's engine was not up to par. Ditto the funky ailerons and misadjusted tailplane.

Whether the FW-190 could out-turn the P-51 is moot. This is about the Corsair, and in any case, everything I've seen gives the F4U a clear edge over the Mustang in a turning fight. I did see mention of a P-51/F4U comparison chart somewhere in this forum, and I wouldn't mind seeing it, but the comparison I've seen (I'll add the link when I find it) shows that the F4U was the better close-in dogfighter. The USN report claims that the F4U was far superior to the '190 in a turning fight at all speeds and altitudes. It also shows that the two were about even as to RoR. The 190's main advantage was superiority in the fast climb and heavier armament.

Given that Luftwaffe head-to-head comparison tests between the 190 and F4U are probably gonna be rather difficult to unearth , the USN report is probably the most credible source.

JL

EDIT: In regards to the veracity of the Fw190's reputed tendency to stall and depart in combat...

Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., American P-51 ace, 357th Fighter Group, 8 1/2 victories:
"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."

Notice the last sentence?

Soren said:

Again the cause was ill adjusted ailerons. When adjusted properly the a/c gave ample warning of an approaching stall with some slight buffeting and a slight notching of the stick.

Click to expand...

Can I ask if this is an assumption or is there any evidence. I say this as if you have problems with ailerons its normally pretty obvious and I would expect any trained engineer to be able to fix it.
The engineers assigned to captured aircraft tended to be well chosen due to the value of the aircraft being maintained.

Kruska said:

Hello drgondog,

Could you pleeeeease stop on "indicating" towards Soren. I am sure that you as well as Soren are matured persons right?

BTW how were the reports on the German side, evaluating P-47's and P-51's, does anyone have reports on this topic?

Regards
Kruska

Click to expand...

Kruska - this topic has been debated ad nauseum.

The ONLY reports of head to head comparisons of F4U and Fw 190, or P-51 and F4U or P-47 versus Fw 190, or Spit vs P-51B versus Me 109G and Tempest and Fw 190 - presented in this forum, are all derived from flight tests conducted at RAE in UK and/or Pax River or Wright Pat in US.

Both the 'unmentionable' and Kurfurst have presented interesting opinions with respect to reason those tests are 'not fair' or not valid'. They range from reasoned to pure speculation.

The obvious and fact driven opposition to the points cited in the above reports would be an equivalent set of reports citing Luftwaffe results in the same type tests from say Rechlin.. but no such reports have been presented here by anyone, and most specifically 'the unmentionable', who has repeatedly cited them as proof of his thesis (multiple).

In my opinion Kurfurst does an excellent job of a.) presenting questions that are not resolved in those reports because of reasonable suspicion that the a/c may not have been in condition suitable for comparative flight tests, and b.) stick to facts that he can bring to the forum.

I apologise for your distress at my mention of 'the unmentionable', but there is a reason you don't see me getting angry or sarcastic with Kurfurst. If I really want to know what is Fact or opinion based on fact about all aspects of all 109s I will definitely go to him.

EDIT: In regards to the veracity of the Fw190's reputed tendency to stall and depart in combat...

Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., American P-51 ace, 357th Fighter Group, 8 1/2 victories:
"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."

Notice the last sentence?

Click to expand...

Buzzard this was a quote extracted from a Tommy Hayes Encounter Report and was used to support one of our member's claims that 109s could pull out of a dive faster.

I then posted I think 10 counter examples to show - a.) catching up to the 109 and b.) 109s failing structurally in the dive - either losing the tail or a wing.. so what conclusions do we reach?

Third - with all due respect to a great combat leader, Hayes was at perhaps
.8 to .85 Mach in his dive, well into compressibility and nowhere near the speed of sound ar anywhere near his IAS.

Next - I also pointed that the combat was probably started when Hayes spotted the 109 out in front and it probably got the jump on Hayes several hundred yards in front. Two possible conclusions 1.) as the 109 had close to the 51's dive speed it maintained separation, and 2.) it reached the pressure density altitude at which its controls regained 'traction' slightly earlier than the 51 and started pulling out while Hayes in trail was just getting to the same altitude.

At any rate if you search all the encounter reports on Mike W's website you will see the contradictions.

If I have the time I will post one of my father's encounter reports in which the 109 he was chasing 'lost control' in the dive.. but who knows, the 109 pilot might have been dead as the old man was shooting at him all the way down but not scoring heavily. What conclusion do we draw?

Regards,

Bill

According to Eric Brown who was an advocate for the FW 190(he called it a superb creation) He said " the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. This proved to be the fighter's Achilles heel, for if it was pulled into a "g" stall in a tight turn, it would flick into the opposite bank and, unless the pilot had his wits about him, into an incipient spin." Those pesky misadjusted ailerons again. The F4U1 had an internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons with an external tank of 175 gallons. The internal wing tanks were not self sealing but could be purged with CO2. I don't know how often the wing internals were used but they were used enough that Boone Guyton(chief Corsair test pilot) got his butt chewed by an admiral because of the placement of the CO2 bottles for the tank purging and the emergency landing gear blow down. Seems a young Corsair pilot in combat mistakenly blew down his gear instead of purging the tanks as intended and his reduced performance because the gear could not be retracted got him shot down and killed. They must have been used on long missions.

Skilled pilots in the 190 used the stall/spin on purpose to great effect in escaping Allied fighters...

They did it in the 109 as well...

Does anyone have any details about these misadjusted ailerons? I know they keep being mentioned but its something that doesn't ring true.

If I understand it if they were out of true they had to go back to the factory to be readjusted, which just doesn't sound right. Thousands of aircraft all over the world having to go back to the factory or at least a high level repair shop to be adjusted.

I think you can see where I am coming from. If it ever existed I am sure that it would have been amended so they could be fixed in the field. It just doesn't feel right.

lesofprimus said:

Skilled pilots in the 190 used the stall/spin on purpose to great effect in escaping Allied fighters...

They did it in the 109 as well...

Click to expand...

P-51 pilots used this as well.

However, I don't see how this could be done on the Bf 109 due to the leading enge slats. (which would make it difficult to spin)


Glider,
I've heard the refrence to the midadjusted ailerons mostly in the context of allied tests. So, maybe it just required a properly trained technician, acustomed to the 109's specific characteristics. (it was designed not to need any in-flight trim changes to the rudder or ailerons, in fact the elevator/tailplane was the only thing that could be trimmed in flight)

This last bit recently came up in the best designer poll. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/who-better-designer-german-aircraft-15839-3.html

Once the controls had been correctly balanced, it was important that they stayed that way over a wide range of speeds. Tank did not want a fighter pilot to have to re-trim the aircraft each time he moved the throttle. The team was so successful in this that movable trim tabs were considered unnecessary on the Fw 190. Small fixed trim tabs were fitted to the ailerons, the elevators and the rudder. These were adjusted on the ground after a fighter's initial test flight to compensate for the manufacturing variations inevitable with a mass-produced aircraft. The only system for re-trimming the aircraft in flight was in the elevator sense, and that was achieved by using an all-moving horizontal stabilizer.

Click to expand...

KK Thanks for the posting, I must have missed it for some reason and thanks to Timppa for posting it in the first place.

kool kitty89 said:

P-51 pilots used this as well.

Click to expand...

As did at least one Mosquito pilot, ironically to escape from 190s, which brings us full circle, so to speak.

His Nav was not happy.