Dora-9's turning abilities

[gaussianum]

I've engaged in a bit of virtual flying (with Warbirds), and I'm really surprised at the Dora's low to medium altitude performance.

It appears to turn even worse the the Antons, and climbing and diving maneuvers seem to be difficult to initiate rapidly. It's only asset seems to be speed, and even there, it seems that the Corsair can catch it.

Historically, from what I've read, the aircraft seemed to outturn, outclimb, and outdive the Antons.

So, what is the explanation for this? Did it have these nice characteristics only at high altitude?

From Brown's account, it was an excellent dogfighter (only matched by the Spit), wasn't it? But from the sim, it appears to be exactly the opposite.

Perhaps some german performance charts would explain the enigma.

 

[Gnomey]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

That might help, it contains a lot of data on flight tests done on the Dora.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[gaussianum]

Thanks Gnomey, and hello to all the posters, nice corner you have here!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe because it is a simulation and simulations are not flying the real thing.

 

[gaussianum]

Of course. I know that some sims advertise that real pilots have tested them, but I don't know if it is really true.

Are there veterans, alive and well, that have piloted it, and could give us an account of its characteristics?

Since less than 1000 were produced, that is probably very unlikely.

I'm very interested in the flight characteristics of the new Dora to be built by the FlugWerk company.

 

[Twitch]

I'd like to drop my 2¢ on this topic as a whole with no negative comments to the original poster. I have found people seem to obsess on stats and specifications of aircraft rather than the events when their pilots flew them in combat.

It all seems quite logical to look at performance stats and imagine a Zero with a very high climb rate simply running away in a climb from a P-40 or F4F. Looks logical on paper! But it almost never happened in that way. Zeros didn't disengage by climbing away. They simply turned away in an oblique direction that would require their enemy to reverse course or scrub speed in a tight turn to follow. By then they'd be far ahead and impossible to run down- even if the book says the pursuer had a 20 MPH top speed advantage on them. Visions of balls out war emergency power to reel in an enemy 3 miles away cause the pilot was bent on a kill are fairytales.

The stat and spec books can make you think that it's all the machine. When I began interviewing aces years ago I knew for certain that success was due to the men not the planes. Just because a plane can turn tight doesn't mean a thing since there are myriad scenarios where that one factor doesn't come into play. Speed, altitude, visibility, situational awareness, direction of each plane in initial engagement move and other things determine who is favored in a fight.

So these fantasy combats of "who would win with equal pilots" are slippery ground to walk on. It could be as simple as which maneuver a pilot used before he used another one or how the other guy reacted when there are several quite logical reactive countermoves possible, none of which are ""wrong."

Anyhow it is interesting to compare performance specifications of planes but specifications don't get kills, pilots do. 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well Put!

 

[gaussianum]

You're right Twitch.

The pilots are the main factor, we know that.

For me, pilots are living history. They are precious, not only as human beings, but also for what we can learn from them.

But war is a ghastly thing, even with all the aerobatics.

That's probably why people engage in statistics; it makes us become absorbed by the machines, and the idea of flying is what it's all about, not the idea of destroying the foe.

But you already know that.

We've all read the books, and they give us a chivalrous, romantic idea of aerial engagement.

Sims give us an opportunity to experience, in some unrealistic way, the emotion of flying against the enemy, without the nasty consequences it would have in real life.

I think it's a healthy, harmless obsession. I don't think real pilots should be annoyed by it, or consider it to be underestimating them.

I have the deepest respect, and salute all pilots.

Best Regards

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'd like to drop my 2¢ on this topic as a whole with no negative comments to the original poster. I have found people seem to obsess on stats and specifications of aircraft rather than the events when their pilots flew them in combat.

It all seems quite logical to look at performance stats and imagine a Zero with a very high climb rate simply running away in a climb from a P-40 or F4F. Looks logical on paper! But it almost never happened in that way. Zeros didn't disengage by climbing away. They simply turned away in an oblique direction that would require their enemy to reverse course or scrub speed in a tight turn to follow. By then they'd be far ahead and impossible to run down- even if the book says the pursuer had a 20 MPH top speed advantage on them. Visions of balls out war emergency power to reel in an enemy 3 miles away cause the pilot was bent on a kill are fairytales.

The stat and spec books can make you think that it's all the machine. When I began interviewing aces years ago I knew for certain that success was due to the men not the planes. Just because a plane can turn tight doesn't mean a thing since there are myriad scenarios where that one factor doesn't come into play. Speed, altitude, visibility, situational awareness, direction of each plane in initial engagement move and other things determine who is favored in a fight.

So these fantasy combats of "who would win with equal pilots" are slippery ground to walk on. It could be as simple as which maneuver a pilot used before he used another one or how the other guy reacted when there are several quite logical reactive countermoves possible, none of which are ""wrong."

Anyhow it is interesting to compare performance specifications of planes but specifications don't get kills, pilots do. 8)

Yes well said.