Best Fighter III

drgondog said:

The Fw 190, until the arrival of the 190D, was less able at altitudes that B-17s and B-24s operated in over Germany. The 109, particularly the G6/AS and G-10 were more or less equal to the P-51 and P-47 at high altitudes, whereas the Fw 190 struggled more, pilot being equal skill, at 22,000 feet and above.

And I don't think 'clearly superior' is the right phrase for the Fw 190 over the 109 at medium altitudes. Better roll rate, probably accelerated faster and much heavier firepower are all good things but the 109 was faster in level flight, climbed better and at a steeper angle, and in the hands of a pro could out turn the 190.

!09 remained excellent throughout the war... and better against allied fighters at high altitude

Galland, however, DID recommend that all fighter production from early 1944 be diverted solely to Fw 190 and Me 262

Click to expand...

Correct, correct, and correct . . . .

I do know that the Luftwaffe tended to send the G-6's -10's after the fighter escort because they performed better at higher altitudes than the Fw 190, and would send the 190's after the (slower) bombers, since they had a little more firepower (especially the Sturmbock 190's). With MW50 and NOS injection, the 109's were still a match for most Allied fighters, even in early '45.

In every German comparative test flight conducted the Bf-109 always easily out-turned the Fw-190, a direct phrase often used is that it got behind the Fw-190 in no time. Only pilots who didn't know the slats had a hard time turning the plane.

The Bf-109 was a very good turn fighter, very much in the same class as the Spitfire. On the Eastern front one sure getaway tactic throughout the war for 109 pilots, if an enemy was on your six, was to engage in a tight climbing turn, as no VVS fighter could follow this. (This was ofcourse without the wing mounted guns)

Now although not nearly as good as good as the Bf-109 the Fw-190 was a pretty good turn fighter compared to its Allied opponents, the Anton having a slightly better turn rate than the P-51 from SL up to ca. 22,000 ft. The Dora was markedly superior all the way. On the western front only the Spitfire could be confident in a good old turnfight with the Fw-190.

Now this having been said most fighters engaging the bomber streams over Germany in 44-45 were heavily armed interceptors, namely Antons and std. 109 G-6's. The few Dora's and methanol water boosted 109's were mostly tasked with protecting the interceptors.

Now the 190 Anton, with or without the extra Rüstsätze most oftenly used, wasn't in its right element above 22,000 ft, which usually was around the altitude which most interceptions took place. Above 22,000 ft the P-51 had the advantage, and higher up the P-47 completely took over.

Now like Bill pointed out the Bf-109 wasn't as affected by altitude as the Anton, however above 32,000 ft the std. 109 without boost was at a performance disadvantage to the USAAF fighters. The Bf-109's equipped with boost had no problems individually against any fighter at any alt being much superior in maneuverability climb esp. all the way up to 7km (The Spitfire equals), but they were simply too few.

However because of the huge numbers of Allied a/c present over the German skies what the Germans needed were fighters with a very marked speed advantage over the Allied fighters, something which wasn't achieved with the std. a/c in service (Most of them just possessed equal speed). This where the Me-262 steps in, it was one of the very few German fighters who when airborne could with relative immunity attack the Allied bomber streams without fear of the escorts. If count the losses caused by aerial combat the Me-262 is second to the Ta-152H as the most successful fighter of WW2, a very few being shot down at altitude, while 95% were destroyed by bombs, strafing attacks or while taking off or landing. The Me-262's scored a good number of kills in the air for almost no losses at all.

I love this thread. So much good data and information, as well as some well thought out speculation.

Just thought I would offer an opinion on whether or not it would be possible to distinguish between a Yak 3, with no oil cooler under the nose, and a Yak1/7/9 which did have a 'chin'. ( JSYK, I lean towards the yak 3 as the 'best' fighter)

Most every farm boy I know can tell you whether a pickup truck is a Dodge, Ford or Chevy at a distance of 1 mile, and tell you pretty close what year it is and how pretty the girl driving it is at 1/4 mile. Pickup truck is half the size of average WWII figher. Pretty easy to spot a bug deflector on the hood as well, and that's close to the size of an oil cooler on a Yak.

Also, you often hear comments about noticing tropical air filters on Spitfires and Me109's, both by pilots and folks reviewing photos and film. Every experienced fighter pilot could recognize long nose from short nose FW190's, twin rad Spit IX's from Mk V's and II's, square wingtip Emils from rounded wingtip Freidrichs, sometimes even hump nosed G6's from smooth nosed G2 and G4. Yak 3 from Yak 9, no different.

Sure, mistakes can be made, excitement, fear, poor eyesight, lack of mental acumen, (why would myopic mental midgets be flying? lol) but it is definately possible in many situations to distinguish a Yak 3 from a Yak 1/7/9 from different angles at distances far enough to enable one to make a decision as to whether or not to engage.

Try looking at fuzzy low res gun cam footage on YouTube, you can often pick out different models within a given type. And unlike the WWII film footage, in realtime we all see in 3D color, at full resolution. So did the guys flying in WWII, and they were considerably more motivated.

Oh look, there goes a Porshe 940 turbo......

but it is definately possible in many situations to distinguish a Yak 3 from a Yak 1/7/9 from different angles at distances far enough to enable one to make a decision as to whether or not to engage.

Click to expand...

Hi,

This explains some of the physiology. It really is much more complicated than spotting an object on the ground.

http://www.mcchord.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060619-018.pdf

This is a neat website which shows all the near misses. Check near misses on the left:

Flight safety is our number one concern. FAA regulations and flight planning are critical to a safe flight.


Here is some information on the Trafffic Alert and Collision Aviodance system.

Facts are spotting another airplane in the sky is problematic to say the least.

Figuring out if it has a feature like a cooler outside of engagement ranges is fantastical.

All the best,

Crumpp

Excellent article about vision, but they fail to mention that outside of the foveal cone, the perception of movement is still very good, the 10% acuity outside the foveal cone is misleading. That's why they test for peripheral vision with a moving object. Note that 85% of MACs occur from an overtaking convergence angle, ie no discernable movement.

However, the argument about identifying features on a plane at longer distances, is really about the ability of the eye to use that 10 degree foveal cone to recognize details, given favorable light and angle of view of the aircraft.

We're not talking about seeing details in the midst of a dogfight, but observing a flight of planes at cruising speeds, with a reasonable amount of time to make a decision, fight or flight (sic).

The human eye can see details such as an oil cooler at distances of say 2000 meters, IF, the plane is in a sideways profile, or is well lit by light from behind the viewer. (actually you can see the cooler from head on or from under at shorter distances too.)

The object in question is an oil radiator that is about 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and a foot deep, which changes the shape of the nose of the plane, it's not like spotting a detail on a flat object. In fact, for those of us who are into the study of the Yak fighters, the first thing we look for is the oil cooler.

I'm just sayingthat one can't dismiss the validity of the controversial order/recomendation/directive "to not engage chinless Yak fighters at lower altitudes", based on the mistaken assumption that it would be impossible to see an oil cooler or lack of oil cooler.

I'm just sayingthat one can't dismiss the validity of the controversial order/recomendation/directive "to not engage chinless Yak fighters at lower altitudes", based on the mistaken assumption that it would be impossible to see an oil cooler or lack of oil cooler.

Click to expand...

Certainly you can, it is not a mistaken assumption. You just cannot pick out that kind of detail outside of engagement ranges. That is a fact. Go up in the pattern and try to pick out comparable details on other planes. The average pilot will have a very hard time.

By the time the average pilot can pick out such a detail, he is well inside of engagement ranges. The order is a contradiction in terms. In order to comply with identifying the oil cooler you must violate the order itself!

It becomes a silly order plain and simple.

It makes more sense that a "dog fighting is not altogether recommended" was issued by Wanderzirkus Rosarius. That is the most common finding of almost all the tactical trials from all sides.

It is much more likely that an amateur author for Squadron signal interpreted this as "do not engage" orders.

the 10% acuity outside the foveal cone is misleading.

Click to expand...

Not really. The FAA is pretty savvy on this flying thing.

they fail to mention that outside of the foveal cone, the perception of movement is still very good

Click to expand...

You failed to read the article. This is the basis of a correct scan.

http://www.mcchord.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060619-018.pdf

an oil radiator that is about 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and a foot deep

Click to expand...

Here we go:

I don't know why you guys are even discussing this, cause fact is that there never was any order not to engage the YaK-3 at low altitude, it was NEVER made.

Try asking any LW veteran about this supposed order and he will look at you with a wondering face as he's never heard of it.

I don't know why you guys are even discussing this,

Click to expand...

You know I was asking myself the same thing.

It's not the only time on these boards either!

Best Wishes Always,

Crumpp

Crumpp said:

You know I was asking myself the same thing.

It's not the only time on these boards either!

Best Wishes Always,

Crumpp

Click to expand...

If you wonder that so much on these forums, why do you post here?

Best Wishes to you too...

Why start a fight? Geeeze...

My advice is that if it does not pertain to you it is best to mind your own business.

Banned as in forever or...?

If so this board just lost itself a major contributor.

He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so.

While I don't claim to know your examples (and I am not asking for them), there is a good number of people here that do such things on a frequent basis. You know who they are.

I hope this is not just a random act of justice vs a specific person or a personal thing, I hope it will become a more frequent event vs people who act in such ways vs other members regardless who the guilty parties are. Justice should be blind.

This is not the place to discuss these things. That is what PMs are for, or a specific thread where these things can be discussed.

A moderator made this decission and he is backed by all other moderators. We have a place where only us Moderators can discuss things and these things are discussed.

Again this is not the place...

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so.

Click to expand...

He tends to belittle everyone and his arrogant and abusive method is non productive. My biggest complaint is that he snuffs out participation by abuse of those who are trying to participate in this site. There are many young participants who have only learned about aircraft from games. There is nothing wrong with this as long as those with experience can tell them the difference between modeled aircraft and the real thing, which I think has been done admirably by most participants. This should not be done in a debasing and humiliating way. They are the future of aerospace and their questions and misconceptions should be addressed in a mentoring and adult manner. Sure, there are some brats, but they quickly found out and dispensed with

Strangely, I enjoyed, and was sometime highly aggravated by, the banter I had with Crumpp and was disappointed by his removal from a couple of sites although I can't say it was unwarranted (believe me, I work very hard not to step on Lesofprimus' toes!)

AFAIK Crumpp has never been banned from any other forum than this one.

Do I have to close this thread. I said this is not the place to discuss it.