Best fighter in Eastern Front, 1943.

[Lighthunmust]

Naw I just voted for the 190 to even it up...

Tomorrow you may change your mind. It is a very close competition in the poll and in the reality of the airspace in which they fought. The more I consider it, I can't fault anyone for choosing the 190, 109 or 39. But I am sticking with the La5FN. I think the Russians more than anyone understood what they needed to win their type of air war.

Adler, can you change the poll to reflect my true opinion? After all we are not voting in a political election so the fate of the Republic is not at stake.

 

[bada]

-40min flight time on cruise settings
-Boost unavailable above 2000m
-unpratical flight commands (throttles)
-poor Build quality incomodating the pilot.

.....

so, i'll go for an A5 anytime, triple flight time, "intelligent" flight commands, more versatile (multi role), heavier armement, and especially so much better looking

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Tomorrow you may change your mind. It is a very close competition in the poll and in the reality of the airspace in which they fought. The more I consider it, I can't fault anyone for choosing the 190, 109 or 39. But I am sticking with the La5FN. I think the Russians more than anyone understood what they needed to win their type of air war.

Adler, can you change the poll to reflect my true opinion? After all we are not voting in a political election so the fate of the Republic is not at stake.

I only voted for the 190 because of your post.

Yes I can change your as well.

 

[Altea]

Hello

-40min flight time on cruise settings

Whow!
Time to change urgently your
-mechanic, for a qualified one
-engine? Your's is burned-out
-plane. There is some discrepancy in La-5FN quality. Really, not a joke*.
-sources. Your's are not very reliable. It takes more than wiki/Lerche trial sometimes.
-take some flight lesson, read the instructions etc.

-unpratical flight commands (throttles)
-poor Build quality incomodating the pilot.

"Na, und?" What's the problem?
.

-Boost unavailable above 2000m....

Even no need for that to beat any FW-190 at low alt. The fact is being a bit smaller the La-5F/5FN is much lighter (~800 kg) and 150 hp more powerfull than the FW of it's time.

So small WL and high P/W ratio. That mean low power to weight request and a lot of available power in excess, no?8)

No doubt that the soviet plane could outclimb, outurn (+LE slats), and outfight the FW-190 with ease.
Now being the much better dogfighter, it's not in turn probably the best bomber-killer or bomber missions.

Paradoxaly it (the FW-190) could be a great weapon, without being a great plane (performance/ manoeuvrability compromise). A little like the Il-2 in it's kind.
I'm quite surprised from the results of the poll. It's not a scoop that the 109 was a more feared and respected opponent than the 190 in the eastern front. Except maybe for assault or bomber planes crews.

Regards

so, i'll go for an A5 anytime, triple flight time,

Triple? God,how much fuel is it carrying?

* What to say if the La-5FN weight is running from 3145 to 3445 kg!! Mid statistical 3290 kg.

 

[DonL]

-unpratical flight commands (throttles)
-poor Build quality incomodating the pilot.
"Na, und?" What's the problem?.

Hell yes, throttles are very unimportant for a fighter and it is total unimportant too, how a fighter reacts to the controls in high speed maneuvers. Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

An advice from me, the FW190A was one of the fighter in WWII, that was to control very very easy at high speed maneuvers. One of the easiest

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
Established from the USAF Navy.

No doubt that the soviet plane could outclimb, outurn (+LE slats), and outfight the FW-190 with ease.

And I have absolutely no doubt that a FW 190A could outroll and outdive a La-5FN in every situation and by the way you don't need a good turning fighter to win a fight, rollrate, climbrate and diving are equal important for fighters in WWII.
And I have no doubt too, that a FW 190A was much easier to fly and handle at high speed maneuvers.

Now being the much better dogfighter

Do you have facts or is this your personal claim?

Paradoxaly it (the FW-190) could be a great weapon, without being a great plane (performance/ manoeuvrability compromise). A little like the Il-2 in it's kind.

Oh I understand!
One question, which other fighter of WWII was also comparable the whole war to any other fighter in it's development? FW 190A, FW 190D-9, Tank 152H1.
And which fighter was likewise multirole capable accept the F4U-4?

To say the FW 190 wasn't a great plane is very funny, but it isn't based on facts!

God,how much fuel is it carrying?

525 Liters.

 

[parsifal]

well, for what its worth, I thjink both aircraft, the FW190 and the La5n were among the best of WWII. The room should be big enough for both to be lauded without thje need to denigrate the other

 

[Altea]

Hell yes, throttles are very unimportant for a fighter and it is total unimportant too, how a fighter reacts to the controls in high speed maneuvers.

Again. So if they are such important, what is the problem with La-5 FN throttle?
Thank you very much for the enlightenment, as you said.

An advice from me, the FW190A was one of the fighter in WWII, that was to control very very easy at high speed maneuvers. One of the easiest

Considering the general level of your post, stop from now and immedialtly to give any advice to others on that forum.

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
Established from the USAF Navy.

And so what?

And I have absolutely no doubt that a FW 190A could outroll and outdive a La-5FN in every situation

Ah yes? Have you got the La-5FN rollrate, and BTW the La-5 FN acceleration?

and by the way you don't need a good turning fighter to win a fight, rollrate, climbrate and diving are equal important for fighters in WWII.

So give me the values for the both planes.

And I have no doubt too, that a FW 190A was much easier to fly and handle at high speed maneuvers.

Your doubts, feelings, prejudices are your personnal problems. Give datas. What are the efforts on commands vs speed on both planes, times of reaction, etc?



Do you have facts or is this your personal claim? As you said.
Stop taking others for idiots. Supposingly i don't have.
1) It's very undifficult to find turn rates and climb rates
2) What are the main parameters that previous values turn rates and climb rates depends on? Make your own estimation based on physics.

Oh I understand!

No.Really? It's a miracle!

One question, which other fighter of WWII was also comparable the whole war to any other fighter in it's development? FW 190A, FW 190D-9, Tank 152H1.

It's flood ot what? We're speaking about eastern front in 1943.
All fighters families evolved, Supermarine, Hawker, Messerschmitt, Lavochkin, Grumman...

And which fighter was likewise multirole capable accept the F4U-4?

Accept what? Why F4U-4? If you, or someone else understand what do you mean, i don't!

To say the FW 190 wasn't a great plane is very funny, but it isn't based on facts!

I didn't said that.
I just said it was not as fast as La-5FN and far not as nimble at low alts. This is fully unsurprising for everyone that understdands the required minimum in mecanics of flight. Where is the scoop? Where is the fun?

525 Liters.

522 from my docs. It's from 468 to 539 liters depending on La-5 version.
So explain me now, why should the FW-190 have triple time flight time?:!!!

 

[parsifal]

come on guys, we are alll adults here.....dont let a good discussion fall to pieces because of a difference of opinion.....

 

[CORSNING]

parsifal is right. The 109, 190, 5FN and 39 were all competative in 1943. From their it just becomes a personal preference. Its like choosing the best escort fighter in 1944 Europe. Do you pick the Jug for its enormous power, tremendous firepower and ability to absorb amazing damage to its engine/airframe? Or, do you decide to go with the P-38L with its hydraulic flaps that allow you to outmaneuver your adversary. This coupled with its excellent acceleration, climb and concentrated firepower? Or, do you pick the Mustang that was easier for you to fly to its limits while saving on cost of fuel and aircraft?
I read an article years ago that was an interview with Erich Hartman. Because he elected to fly the Bf.109 instead of the Fw-190 he was asked if he thought the Messerschmidt was a better fighter. Erich answered,"No, I wouldn't say that. I could fly it better."

 

[Tante Ju]

I read an article years ago that was an interview with Erich Hartman. Because he elected to fly the Bf.109 instead of the Fw-190 he was asked if he thought the Messerschmidt was a better fighter. Erich answered,"No, I wouldn't say that. I could fly it better."

Both good complement between each other, suitable better difference of roles. Some overlap.. but picking I think always is like picking between these - which is better? Truth, same breed of family, you can see, but breed for slightly different purpose and mind..

 

[CORSNING]

WWII Aircraft Performance
Mike Williams has compiled an awsome sight filled with military documents. Kurfurst has an equally awsome sight on the Me-109.
I have studied Mikes sight and my files and come up with the following performance figures for the Fw-190A-5 and P-39N speeds and climb rates:

ALTITUDE Fw-190A-5 P-39N
Sea Level 353mph/3,840fpm 338mph/4,135-50fpm
1,000km 370mph/3,970fpm 360mph/4,290fpm
2,000km 372mph/3,520fpm 382mph/4,400fpm
3,000km 369mph/3,000fpm 397mph/4,110fpm
4,000km 383mph/2,850fpm 393mph/3,650fpm
5,000km 388mph/2,900fpm 388mph/3,150fpm
6,000km 412mph/3,450fpm 382mph/2,650fpm
7,000km 410mph/3,400fpm 374mph/2,325fpm

Performance figures for the Fw come from german documented graphs. Figures for the 39 come from a USAAF graph comparing other fighters. Keep in mind that the P-39 figures are for a USAAF equipped aircraft and not the stripped down highly boosted Airacobra that the VVS flew.

 

[renrich]

DonL, that is an interesting link you posted for the comparison of the FW and the Navy fighters. I see part of it seems the same as the Williams site but some from somewhere else. If those numbers on the Corsair are accurate, some F4U4s were really hot.

 

[Shortround6]

Could you please be a bit more specific about the source of the P-39 information. Some of it looks doubtful even using boosted (WEP) power. Like going from 1200hp (50in MAP take-off) to 57in map and 1420 hp is going to increase the rate of climb by over 1000ft per minute? The speeds at 4000meters and up look a little suspect also even using WEP power.

 

[CORSNING]

Shortround6,
The figures are from a graph on www.wwiiaircraftperformance. Go to P-38 performance and to the bottom of the page. It lists something like COMPARITIVE PERFORMANCE OF FIGHTERS. It compares several different aircrafts speed and climb on two separate graphs. Some of the planes are P-51F, P-38H, P-63, P-39N, Spifire IX and a few others. It appears to be a USAAF document...?

 

[CORSNING]

Just for a little backup on the performance figures Ray Wagner's books list the P-39N V-1710-85/1,420hp. Top speed of 399mph/9,700ft. Climb to 15,000ft in 3.8 minutes (3,947fpm. average). This is at 7,400 lbs. VVS Airacobras weighed closer to 6,900 lbs. or less. Weight of the four .30 calibers was about 300 lbs. The removed all US issued equipment that they deemed superfluous.

 

[CORSNING]

Sorry Shortround, its listed as Fighter Comparison Chart.

 

[Shortround6]

Found it. While that site does have a lot of good info this chart isn't that good. It looks like a Bell salesman's chart

The Performance figures for the P-63 seem to line up with the manufactures figures for a P-63 using water injection (1800hp at sea level) and are way out of wack for even WEP dry. USAAF figures for the P-63 speed using water injection are 30-40 mph less than the manufacturer's data.

It makes the P-39 data rather suspect without a second source.

see http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

For climb using military power.

 

[CORSNING]

Shortround, look at my post at 3:15 today. When reading military material after 1943 about the Bell aircraft you have to keep in mind some things. They chose the P-40 over the P-39 because of range. By the time the P-63 was available they had the P-38, 47 and 51. They were no longer that interested in the Bell aircraft as much. The chart you posted is of a P-39Q-1. Pretty much an N with a lot more government issue junk adding weight. The Russians made quick work of all that stuff too.
I always thought it suspect that the published figures for maximum speeds of the P-63A and P-63C with water injection were both 410mph...? That's got to be a military power not WEP issue.

 

[Shortround6]

I saw your post, I looked at the chart. It has speeds and climb for both the P-39 and P-63 that don't seem to show up anyplace else, at least not without some red flags. Bell seemed to have a real history of over estimating performance.

The Chart is for A "Q", No question. But it uses the same engine as the 'N" and there is a row for a weight of 7200lbs. There is either not much "government issue junk adding weight" or not much ammo and fuel. The Q weighed 5684lbs empty, that is with no guns, no gun sight, no armor or bullet proof glass. 7200lbs gives you 1616lb to play with. 7200lbs should be about right for a "Q" with 87 gal of fuel and NO wing guns, or wing guns and a lot less fuel or 87 gals of fuel wing guns and no government issue "junk" The the climb figures in the chart are around 1000fpm higher than the "Q" figures at 7200lbs in places. At 15,000ft they are showing an additional 600fpm of climb, or about three times the difference the manual shows by lighting the plane by 400lbs (from 7600lbs to 7200lbs). The interesting thing here is that at 15,000ft in a climb there is no WEP power. The supercharger maxes out at 15,500ft, with the engine giving 1150hp with ram effect from forward high speed flight. Slowing down to climbing speed looses the most of the ram effect.
With the throttle wide open at 9000ft the supercharger will provide 57in of MAP and 1420hp. as the plane climbs to 15,000ft the superchargers ability to supply pressure drops as does the HP until at 15,500 the manifold pressure and the power out put are down to the military power level.

P-63s had a similar issue. Lots of power low down with water injection but it goes away by the time the plane gets to 23,000-25,000ft.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Chuck Yeager - who qualified on P-39's but never 'fought' in them believed that in a P-39 he could 'take' anything ... ... at 200 feet.

IT'S THAT KIND OF BIRD.

MM