Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7

[J_P_C]

Wouldn't you need oxygen equipment to fly at 7,000 metres (23,000 feet) - or even to reach 5,000 metres (16,700 feet)? At what altitude is an oxygen supply a necessity? I don't think many Soviet pilots had oxygen equipment on their aircraft.

3600m is the celling when you are starting observing oxygen starvation symptoms, right now this is the limit, above equipping airplane with life support system is obligatory

 

[CORSNING]

Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.
Low and medium altitudes is where the majority of combat was conducted on the
Eastern Front. Nikolay mentions in his interview that he flew as high as 8,000 m.
in the P-39 with no trouble. He does not expand on what the circumstances were
when he went that high.

Of course they had a few high-altitude squadrons operating sometimes experimental high-altitude fighters and fighter prototypes, but they didn't represent the vast majority of PVO or even VVS.
Agreed. Some of the high altitude fighters being the final production version of the
MiG-3 service ceiling: 12,000 m. (39,370 ft.), Yak-9PD service ceiling: 13,100 m.
(42,973 ft.) and Yak-3PD service ceiling: 13,000 m. (42,640 ft.)

The La-7 had a service ceiling about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5.
The LaG-5/La-5, La-5F & La-5FN were all very different aircraft performance wise. The
following service ceilings come from official documentation or authors who used
official documentation (Erik Pilawskii, Yefim Gordon Sergey Komissarov & Dmitriy Komissarov).
LaG-5/La-5 June 1942-Jan. 1943: 9,450-9,500 m. (31,000-31,160 ft.)
La-5F Jan. 1943-Jun. 1943: 9,530-10,090 m. (31,250-33,100 ft.)
La-5FN May-Nov. 1943: 10,670-11,000 m. (35,000-36,100 ft.)
La-7 1944: 10,500-11,300 m. (34,250-37,073 ft.)
La-7 1945: 10,747-11,483 m. (35,259-37,674 ft.)
La-7 1945 three cannon: 10,450 m. (34,250 ft.)

Nobody is going to seriously suggest the Pe-3 was a high-altitude unit.
Not me: 8,800-9,100 m. (28,900-29,900 ft.)

It may seem unlikely that a biplane could be a high-altitude fighter, but the I-153 had a service ceiling a bit over 37,000 feet and they made 3,437 of them.
Pilot's Manual of 1939 states 10,700 m. (35,102 ft.) with M-62 engine. The later M-63 engine
I-153 was capable of 10,600 m. (34,750 ft.)

While the USSR DID have high-altitude capability, my reading and talking with 3 former Soviet VVS pilots tells me they heavily preferred NOT to use it very much. They operated very much mostly in support of ground operations, which generally don't manage to get to high altitudes.

Agree. The Germans were forced to come to them.

 

[Dimlee]

[

Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.

The author of post #167 quoted VVS pilot memoirs with the reference to one type of operation. Neither the author of the post nor the VVS pilot said that "the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently".
But even if someone says something like that, I think that we need to agree on terminology before arguing. What is high and low on that theater and what is frequently and seldom.

 

[CORSNING]

Then the corps commander began to set tasks for "cobras" at low altitude - 3,000 and below. And losses of the cobras went up, because at this altitude, the cobra's maneuverability is not very different from the maneuverability of the sturmovik.
The Cobra's losses went up because it was seeing more combat at the lower levels
NOT because of a lack of maneuverability. The Cobra did just fine on the deck.
Just ask Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin who scored most of his 59 kills in the P-39 and
chose it over the Yak-3, Yak-9 or even La-7 for his squadron because of its
ruggedness, performance and reliability.

 

[Dimlee]

Then the corps commander began to set tasks for "cobras" at low altitude - 3,000 and below. And losses of the cobras went up, because at this altitude, the cobra's maneuverability is not very different from the maneuverability of the sturmovik.
The Cobra's losses went up because it was seeing more combat at the lower levels
NOT because of a lack of maneuverability. The Cobra did just fine on the deck.
Just ask Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin who scored most of his 59 kills in the P-39 and
chose it over the Yak-3, Yak-9 or even La-7 for his squadron because of its
ruggedness, performance and reliability.

Inferior agility of P-39 at lower altitudes is mentioned more than once in various Russian language sources. Saying that I have never seen any test results confirming or disproving that.
As for Pokryshkin, the (higher) altitude was one of the components of his famous "altitude-speed-maneuver-fire" formula. It was typical to deploy P-39s at altitudes higher than other frontline fighters.

 

[CORSNING]

Inferior agility of P-39 at lower altitudes is mentioned more than once in various Russian language sources. Saying that I have never seen any test results confirming or disproving that.
There is no question that the P-39N/Q was not as agile as the Yak-3 and La-7. They both had excellent
roll rates and the Airacobra did not. They could both out climb the Airacobra also. The P-39 could
out dive the Soviet fighters. The P-39(D)'s best roll rate was 75 deg./sec. at 235 mph, less than
the Fw 190 or Bf 109. However, once into the turn... The following are the sustained turning time for
360 degrees @ 1,000 m. recorded by the VVS.

P-39N @ 7,056 lb.: 19.0 seconds.
P-39Q-5 @ 7,705 lb.: 19.0 seconds.
Yak-3 1943 @ 5,945 lb.: 19.0 sec.
Yak-3 1944 @ 5,945 lb.: 17.0 sec.
La-7 @ 7,298 lb.: 19.0 sec.
Bf 109G-6 (3-gun) @ 6,734 lb.: 21L - 22R sec.
Fw 190A-8 @ 8,789 lb.: 21L - 22R sec. (larger circle & faster speed than the Bf 109.)
Fw 190D-9 @ 9,254 lb.: 22L - 23R sec.

Once into the turn the P-39 could hold its own.

 

[spicmart]

Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.

Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?

I'm amazed that the Me 109 is worse even though it had similar wing loading than the La-7. Might that be because of higher power loading?

Normal weight for A-8 and D-9 should be similar and the D-9 is said to be a much better turner. Only at high speed though. All 190s were
horrible low speed turners.

 

[BiffF15]

Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.

Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?

I'm amazed that the Me 109 is worse even though it had similar wing loading than the La-7. Might that be because of higher power loading?

Normal weight for A-8 and D-9 should be similar and the D-9 is said to be a much better turner. Only at high speed though. All 190s were
horrible low speed turners.

My assumption on the right / left data for some planes and not others is that it's only published when relevant (aircraft that have a significant difference between left and right).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?
...

The 1st series-made Yak-3 was delivered in February 1944. In 1943, there were just a few prototypes around.
Initial batches of Yak-3 were heavier than prototype, and about 10 mph slower. The low quality of manufacture rendered 800 of Yak-3 being withdrawn from operations. A few batches, manufactured in 1944, were with one cannon + one HMG.

 

[spicmart]

My assumption on the right / left data for some planes and not others is that it's only published when relevant (aircraft that have a significant difference between left and right).

Cheers,
Biff

The Dora was a quite good turner, only at high speed though. IIRC in that it could almost compete with the Spitfire Mk XIV in a right hand turn. Reason was that its propeller turned to the right and the Spitfire Mk XIV to the left.

 

[CORSNING]

I forgot to add that the P-39's fire power was another big reason that Pokryshkin chose it.
One of his friends was killed in a landing accident when his La-7s landing gear failed. That
was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.

Interesting. I wonder why the VVS gave right and left turn times for German fighters but not for their own planes.
I have several VVS aircraft with right & left hand turn times. They just were not always
listed.

Why is the 1944 Yak-3 so much better than the version from 1943?
Quality of production and surface finish were a couple reasons. Yak-3 c/n 1112 built
at Plant 292 in Saratov was tested in July/August 1944 and had a best turn rate of
21 seconds at 1,000 m. for a production fighter.

I'm amazed that the Me 109 is worse even though it had similar wing loading than the La-7. Might that be because of higher power loading?
Aircraft design, power available, handling qualities...etc. all come into play.

Normal weight for A-8 and D-9 should be similar and the D-9 is said to be a much better turner. Only at high speed though. All 190s were horrible low speed turners.

Who said the D-9 was a much better turner?

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary
Volume Two 1943-1945". December 17,1944; "The new airplane lacked the high turn rate
and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. Its 2,240 hp*
with MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and
dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster.
* Actually 2,100 PS.

Page 121 Long-Nose by Deitmar Hermann:
"Take-off and climb were rather better than in the A-8. It was possible to make tighter
turns before the onset of flow separation. In a dive, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8
with its drag-producing radial engine"

 

[Dimlee]

That
was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.

Just for the sake of accuracy. Not the squadron but the whole division.

 

[CORSNING]

I was in a hurry. So, now that I have the time, the following is concerning Aleksandr
Pokryshkin and his decision to stay with the Airacobra:

"Finally, in 1944, he found an aircraft that he was willing to convert to: the Lavochkin
La-7. One of his close friends, Soviet 50 kill ace Alexander Klubov, was killed in a landing
mishap while converting to the La-7. The crash was blamed on the malfunction of the
plane's hydraulic system. Pokryshkin subsequently cancelled his regiment's conversion,
and there are multiple reports that they instead began flying Bell P-63 Kingcobras."

I was wondering when another off-topic A/C (P-63) was going to be mentioned to
counter the off-topic Fw 190A-8 mentioned earlier. ...or even the Yak-9U...?

 

[spicmart]

I forgot to add that the P-39's fire power was another big reason that Pokryshkin chose it.
One of his friends was killed in a landing accident when his La-7s landing gear failed. That
was a main reason Pokryshkin had his squadron remain with the P-39.



Who said the D-9 was a much better turner?

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary
Volume Two 1943-1945". December 17,1944; "The new airplane lacked the high turn rate
and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. Its 2,240 hp*
with MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and
dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the early models were not equipped with
tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster.
* Actually 2,100 PS.

Page 121 Long-Nose by Deitmar Hermann:
"Take-off and climb were rather better than in the A-8. It was possible to make tighter
turns before the onset of flow separation. In a dive, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8
with its drag-producing radial engine"

I read it a couple of times, here, there (once in a book by Heinz Nowarra) that it turned better.due to more power and better aerodynamics.
That contradicts other sources like the one you stated. Donald Caldwell, did he interview German pilots about that?
Just by going b y intuition I would rate the rate of roll as not that much worse. Later Doras were to have boosted ailerons.
And if its turn rate at speed narrows down to the Spit 14's it should well be better than the Antons.

What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before the onset of flow separation? Don't know about it.

 

[CORSNING]

What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before the onset of flow separation? Don't know about it.[/QUOTE]

That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.

 

[Milosh]

Flow separation. The air flowing over the wing, loose and the wing stalls.

 

[BiffF15]

What does it mean that it makes "tighter turns before the onset of flow separation? Don't know about it.

That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.[/QUOTE]

I believe Milosh is correct and that is referring to the stall. IIRC the FW-190 would bite in a stall (wing would drop dramatically). Also a reduced / idle power stall will not usually be as abrupt as a power on. High power aggravated by abrupt pulls can be even worse.

Modern fighters will stall, but usually that word isn't used in the debrief as you fight well past / below flying airspeed. Buffet occurs prior to the stall, and depending on weight, speed, g load, external configuration (assuming missiles and no tanks) could start at 350+ kts and continue to below 100kts ( and still hold level flight or climb at that speed). I recall in excess of +60 degrees of pitch and airspeed in the vicinity of 65-70kts while climbing (LOW fuel weight, 5k altitude, and an early A model with no bullets, 1 training heat seeker missile, and missing electronic gear - really light jet).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Koopernic]

That is an excellent question. Biff, are you out there? We could use your experience here sir.

I believe Milosh is correct and that is referring to the stall. IIRC the FW-190 would bite in a stall (wing would drop dramatically). Also a reduced / idle power stall will not usually be as abrupt as a power on. High power aggravated by abrupt pulls can be even worse.

Modern fighters will stall, but usually that word isn't used in the debrief as you fight well past / below flying airspeed. Buffet occurs prior to the stall, and depending on weight, speed, g load, external configuration (assuming missiles and no tanks) could start at 350+ kts and continue to below 100kts ( and still hold level flight or climb at that speed). I recall in excess of +60 degrees of pitch and airspeed in the vicinity of 65-70kts while climbing (LOW fuel weight, 5k altitude, and an early A model with no bullets, 1 training heat seeker missile, and missing electronic gear - really light jet).

Cheers,
Biff

The Fw 190A had a twin spar wing. This structure provided a torsional rigid wing that didn't have a tendency for aileron reversal hence the legendary high roll rate. Unfortunately, despite its rigidity when under high load at high G the wing tips twisted so as to increase the angle of attack. This could bring on a stall with limited annunciation and flip into a part spin, however once the load was of the aircraft recovered quickly. Fock-Wulf pilots used it as an escape manoeuvre. (Norbert Hanning describes using this) Washout was just over 2 degrees at the 87.5% mark. In a low G stall (say while landing) the Fw 190 stall was mild and well annunciated. Allied test pilots commented on it but it seems the German once did develop a sense of incipient stall.

Interestingly the Spitfire's single spar wing tended to aileron reversal however its aeroelastic properties under load must have been the opposite and it twisted to decrease angle of attack therefore delaying wing tip stall. Fock-Wulf was aware of the issue and it seems it disappeared in the Ta 152H, the aircraft reputedly mushing into the stall.

 

[spicmart]

KOOPERNIC. Indeed the Luftwaffe Flugzeugführer noted that the Dora stalled very easily and used it as an evasive manoeuver no enemy plane could emulate. 1500 m of height loss was needed for recovery though. As mentioned in Urbanke's book.

Maybe the lengthening of the rear fuselage contributes to a tighter turn, too. Leverage increased.

 

[GregP]

Added length makes an airplane less maneuverable, not more maneuverable, in turning flight.