Impressions of Axis pilots regarding Allied planes.

[Crumpp]

Thank you, Adler and nice to know you both agree!

 

[Mangrove]

Virtualpilots - Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics

The I-153 Chaika is mainly used at low altitudes of 0-2,000 m. Quite difficult to shoot down because of its excellent manoeuvrability. If attacked from below and rear, tends to evade by pulling up and after that shoots back when we go up. Superior in dogfights. The best way to shoot it down is to approach fast from lower rear quarter, in which case you can pull up behind it after firing.

The I-16 and I-16bis are very nimble fighters used at lower altitudes. A formation of several planes (about 5-10) willingly form the so called "Spanish fly", that is, the planes fly round in circles on a horizontal plane [Lufberry circle], so when attacking against one of them you become target of the next plane. The best method against this kind of circle is to form a similar one above it. The circle goes around in the same direction, but you attack from above, and after firing, pull up. When flying alone the I-16 (as well as the Chaika) prefers to shoot head-on. In such a case you should try to evade either up or down depending on [original text illegible] using the rudder with force.

The LaGG-3 is not especially agile in dogfight. It usually tries an outflanking approach from up and behind, shoots and pulls up. Likes head-on shooting. The tail has a heavy armour. When attacked it tries to evade with a quick half aileron roll to either side. The most vulnerable points are the engine and the radiator below the aircraft.

The LA-5 is an extremely agile and fast fighter. Similar hooking tactics as LaGG-3 thanks to its good climb performance. The method of fighting: usually an attack in sections from above; the flight leader fires first and his wingman when the target is evading.

The YaK-1 is nowadays mainly used as a close escort for bombers. The ailerons are very effective. Tends to attack head on because of the small and thin airframe. Evades even at low altitudes with a half aileron roll down and pulls away. Not especially fast. YaK-7B and YaK-9 are noticeably faster and as manoeuvrable.

The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good. Used these days as night-fighters by the enemy. The Spitfire is faster than the Hurricane.

In addition to aforementioned planes the enemy uses American types, such as the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, which are not as good as the LA-5. They are about on a par with LaGG-3 but more vulnerable.

There is nothing special to tell about bomber tactics. If a bomber (PE-2, Boston) flies alone it uses high altitudes (5,000-8,000 m.), in which case it is extremely difficult to shoot down. If the bombers appear in larger formations, they fly regularly at very low altitudes (below 2,000 m.), mostly at 200-300 meters. In such a case they rely on their combined firepower. If attacked, the bombers gather together into a tight formation, and all the rear-gunners fire whenever they have the slightest opportunity. The bombers don't make any evasive manoeuvres.

The IL-2 uses side slip in evading; they always fly at low altitudes in formations of several planes. If possible they try to use their forward-firing guns and rockets under their wings.

 

[AL Schlageter]

If we take our FW190A6 vs P51 example, generally speaking the Focke Wulf has a slightly faster maximum continuous cruise velocity than the P51D.

Was is the maximum continuous cruise speeds for each?

 

[davparlr]

Very good post there Crump and I have to agree with you.

Me too....

Thank you, Adler and nice to know you both agree!

WOW! Did you guys miss the point. I am surprised! Let me restate the points I was making and let me know which ones are incorrect.

1. Effective figther pilots tend to be a self-reliant sort and by necessity have immense confidence in their ability.
2. Their ratings of their aircraft are with them at the controls (obviously).
3. Fighter pilots estimations of opposing aircraft will indicate that they wil almost never say they are superior, and will consider theirs superior, especially if they are close in capability.
4. All fighter aircraft tend to have areas of better performance and areas of lesser performance, generally due to design philosopy and/or aerodynamic variations.
5. Expert fighter pilots know how to use their aircaft's strength and how to avoid its weaknesses and try to make the other pilot not do the same.


So, why did responses my comment go flying off into some area unassociated with this thread and emphasis an example and turn into one of those ad infinitum discussions on Fw-190 vs. P-51.

I would be surprised if the there was not an operational envelop of the P-51 where it did not have a max continuous airspeed greater than the FW and and certainly a combat situation where the P-51 could indeed catch a Fw-190, and, if the roles were reversed, the Fw-190 would not be able to catch the P-51. I am also sure there are situations where the Fw-190 would have the P-51 at a disadvantage and, if the roles were reversed, could escape.

 

[Crumpp]

Let me restate the points I was making and let me know which ones are incorrect.

I agree with the points made in your second posting. The post is much clearer on the points you were trying to make in the first.

All fighter aircraft tend to have areas of better performance and areas of lesser performance, generally due to design philosopy and/or aerodynamic variations.

Certainly. Keep in mind that the margins of superiority generally half to be rather large for it to even be noticable in the air and all parameters of an aircraft's performance is a percentage variation over a mean average.

Makes nailing down specific performance rather ambiguous and performance comparison's rather silly waste's of time.

Was is the maximum continuous cruise speeds for each?

According to the data I have:

~320mph for the FW190 and ~315mph for the P51 at S.L.

Sources - Focke Wulf GmBh, Kennblatt Cruise performance appendix
North American Aviation, Flight Operation Instruction Chart, P51D/K

The specifics do not matter and the listed speeds are within 1.5% with a normal manufacturer's variation of 3%, hence my statement:

The P51 will no longer close the distance, the distance will increase, or the closure rate will drop to the point the aircraft will run out of fuel before it can close.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Matt308]

WOW! Did you guys miss the point. I am surprised!

Yours was a good post, davprlr. Take it easy, no one's keeping score. Besides, it usually takes a couple of posts for Adler and Les to keep up.

 

[AL Schlageter]

According to the data I have:

~320mph for the FW190 and ~315mph for the P51 at S.L.

Sources - Focke Wulf GmBh, Kennblatt Cruise performance appendix
North American Aviation, Flight Operation Instruction Chart, P51D/K

Thank you. Do you have the numbers for higher altitudes?

 

[Crumpp]

I have the numbers for all altitudes but I did not really look at them very hard.

Application of compressibility errors and differences in atmospheric modeling make a direct comparison problematic.

Using EAS we at least eliminate some of these problems. At a glance on paper, it looks like above ~5000 feet the P51 moves to advantage but who is to say?

We are getting off the subject of the thread too.

The Axis pilots I have interviewed all said in the FW190 was that they were equal or slightly faster at low altitude. That trend does hold true for EAS speeds. I have even had some Mustang Pilots relate that same information.

However both agree that at altitude, the P51 had a slight advantage. Neither airplane had a decisive advantage at any altitude.

The general impression is that the Mustang was not the issue, it was the Mustangs.

End of comparison for me.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[lesofprimus]

Bout sums it up for me as well Crumpp... Reading and re-reading, and reading some more in the Dora/JG54 pretty much gives the same line....

 

[renrich]

Crumpp, your posts regarding relative performance of fighter AC make a lot of sense to me. I have a book by a Navy fighter pilot who flew fighters from Hellcats to F4s and the phrase he uses to describe those differences in similar fighters is;"not tactically significant" Hear, Hear.

 

[Crumpp]

Reading and re-reading, and reading some more in the Dora/JG54 pretty much gives the same line....

That is the key IMHO, Lesofprimus. You have to get the facts as both sides saw it as well as bounce things off a solid base in the science!

those differences in similar fighters is;"not tactically significant"

Exactly renrich. The more one learns about aircraft of a similar class, the more one realizes simple physics and the fact none of these aircraft represent a quantum leap in technology over another dictates the performance will be very similar.

Take Care all.

All the Best,

Crumpp