MW-50 Bf 109s Vs Fw 190 A

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As far as I'm aware the December 1941 version is the only version of the Heuschrecke ordered into mass production. If not for the war Germany would have procured at least 200.

Procurement of any other Heuschrecke model is only speculation. Personally I have my doubts about the turret unloading crane making it past prototype. I think Heer artillery personnel would prefer additional armor protection over the weight of the crane.
 

I think you've jumped on the wrong person here.

It is Gaston who is basing his thesis on combat reports - mainly from ww2performance.com, which I would guess are predominately allied reports.



Again it is Gaston making the claim.

Somehow he thinks that the P-47 can out turn P-51s and Bf109s, and he also believes that the Fw190 outturns the Spitfire.

I think Gaston even claims that German tests show that the P-47 out turns the Bf109. The rest of us are sceptical.

I think if you look at previous posts Juha's numbers do not agree with this at all.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jim,

The reported rates of climb for the Fw 190 radial models is about 60% of the reported rates of climb for the Spitifre IX and XIV. In zoom climbs, I'd suspect the Fw 190 of holding its own or being slightly better. The same can be said for the P-47 ... it's zoom climb was as good as anything in teh war. Once past the built-up kinetic energy, though, sustained rate of climb takes over and the P-47 was what it was. It could outclimb any Fw 190 at high altitude, but not on the way up there.

I have nothing against German aircraft or pilots; they were amomng the best in the world. Pilots like Hartmann, Rall, and Barkhorn certainly prove that.

All sides overclaimed, and that was probably mostly not out of any intention to do so. More likely the errant claimer lost sight of his quarry when it was goling down, apparently out of control and / or smoking and going down. The pilot of the damaged plane may well have been "playing dead" to separate and escape. Still, I am not a fan of revisionism. The victory awards should be as awarded during the conflict; not as revised by armchair quarterbacks laster sifting through records. To me, Erich Hartmann was the master with 352 victories. Doesn't mean he would not have done as well or better in another mount. All it means is he had the good fortune, good strategy and good planning / tactics to be in position to take advantage of his sklills repeatedly and not get caught unaware too many times. he was lucky to live through the times he DID get caught unaware.

I have seen rates of climb for the Me 109 F, G, and K up in the 4,000 - 4.500 feet per minute range and have no doubt they could climb strongly. I have NOT seen anything like such high claimed climb rates for the Fw 190. Mostly the radial engine version is quoted as in the 2,500 - 3,400 feet per minute range, and most Spitfiress after the Mk I were better than that rate by a nice margin. I even have a book on the Fw 190 written by a German that doesn't make claims of ultra-high rartes of climb for the Fw 190, especially the radial-powered versions.

I would not be surprised to hear the Fw 190 could fight quite effectively at 25,000 - 30,000 feet; I expect it could ... but the P-47D-25-RE and later were at home at 43,000 feet where the radial-powered Fw 190's could not even hope to get to, much less conduct a fight. Now I don't claim the P-47 was a better fighter than the Fw 190. Indeed, the Fw 190 ranks among the top 5 in almost anybody's book. What I claim is that the German planes, while good, were not greatly superior nor greatly inferior to Allied planes of the same general timeframe. That is, the German fighters, British fighters, and American fighters in the ETO were well matched, with possiby the experience going to the German experts, especially at first, but who were in serious decline after mid-1943 or so. Mostly, both sides had good aircraft with good characteristics in at least some area of the flight envelope ... or they would not have been selectedf for production!

By mid-1943, the bombing was taking effect and there were fewer and fewer well-trained German pilots coming down the pike who were having a very hard time surviving their first ten mission to become seasoned verterans and experts in their own right. The Germans were having a hard time fielding enough gasoline, and propellers were becomming as valuable as airframes by late-1944. The Germans lost to superior numbers with virtual parity in equipment, except for the jets, which were too few, too late. The Ta-152, as I have said many times before, was ... in my opinion ... a non-relevant aircraft with too few delivered to do any good and an average or worse kill-to-loss ratio, which may well have been caused by the overwhelming numbers of Allied fighters flying over Germany at the time. Whatever the reason, the Ta-152's did not affect the war to any degree at all.

The size of Germany is about 1 or two of our 50 states, depending upon the sates, and they came very close to winning WWII. You don't do that with inferior equipment, inferior manpower, or inferior anything. Their Achilles heel was Adolph Hitler and his group of advisors, not the German people, who, by the way, didn't want war as much as escape from the poverty caused by the Treaty of Versailles.

Getting long-winded so I'll stop.
 
Last edited:

That's a very interesting quote Juha, I had never seen it, and thanks for bringing it: I already knew the P-47D could likely not cope with the Me-109G in high altitude spiral climbs, especially to the right, which is why when one P-47D did it in one combat account (at 140 mph, on the deck, after 3 consecutive climbing 360s!!!) I speculated in my post that the Me-109G in question must have had gondolas...

I can quote another pilot with a similar conclusion about spiral climbs: Johannes Steinhoff, who said (from memory): "The best way to escape was a climbing spiral (to the right?), as the neither the P-51 or the P-47D could cope with that maneuver. The P-38 however could follow us and was an especially dangerous adversary".

This P-38 "dangerousness" is not supported by the combat/loss/kill numbers in Europe, where the P-38 was seen as a "relief" by German pilots, I think for good reasons at high altitudes...

I did find a surprising amount of P-47Ds out-spiral climbing the Me-109G however, but usually this was most common precisely around May 1944, just when the new "Bombers Only" Luftwaffe directive had its greatest influence on German operations (This directive is an absolutely huge historical factor that remained, in a more diluted form, for the rest of the war). This directive, in practical terms, yielded a disproportionately large number of gondola-equipped and non-maneuvering Me-109Gs for the month of May 1944, leading to a huge numbers of US "Ace in a day" during that particular month, a very visible "Ace in a day"-making effect to observe in the linked combat accounts when you look at the date: May 1944 is indeed a very special month in the story of the Air War over Europe...

I think the mid-1943 time period of Juha's quote is crucial as well: The early P-47Cs may still have been facing the sleeker G-2/G4s without gondolas, and they themselves were not yet the fully evolved P-47D with familliar pilots.

Note however that being "forced" to slow "turning and climbing actions" suggests to me spiral climbs, which still leaves room for the Me-109Gs not coping in pure horizontal turns. The FW-190A might still be able to contest horizontal turns with the P-47C at this height, but was not climbing competitively compared to a Me-109G...

Later in 1944, the Me-109Gs would try turning horiontally with the P-47D at 22 000 ft., and, in the words of one account: "After two turns they quickly lost interest and rolled down and out."

It is well established in my mind that a "clean" gondola-less Me-109G in a right hand climbing spiral is something the P-47D cannot easily follow: It could be the "unseen" tactic of successful German pilots, not recorded in US victory combat accounts by virtue of its success... It is equally clear to me climbing spirals are not a common tactic without a very favourable situation set-up, as barely hanging on in horizontal turns is about all most turn fighting seems to manage...


I think some of these aircrafts were actually tested, then some where calculated from that, the nonsensical ones like the Lagg-3 being the calculated ones (or from grossly stripped and cleaned airframes): Take for instance the Spitfire Mk V being significantly out-turned by the Mk IX, 18.8 to 17.5, which Grep P said was the reverse of what "Planes of Fame" observed... (Brit tests showed a very close parity at all altitudes in sustained turns: I lean a little towards "Planes of Fame" on that!).

American tests also had the Zero out-turn the P-47D in less than one turn, the P-51D in 1.5 turns, and the P-38 in 2 turns: Makes sense doesn't it? The P-47D also outclimbed all of them in the test, and had the slowest accelerating dive... This was P-47D Bubbletop however, an issue I address below...

Another US test has the P-51B getting behind the P-47D Razorback in around 3 turns: Absolutely laughable when you compare the sum of their respective combat accounts, but in agreement with Soviet Tsagi tests and the above Zero comparison... It's either or: Either you choose the tests, or you choose the combat accounts.

Sorry, but I have examined this for 15 years, and after much sweat and tears I have finally come down on the side of the shooting... And never looked back... I am sorry for all the WWII testing veterans, but the procedures they used just sucked: They produced the expected results, and the combat shows just the opposite (as do the German tests conclusions for both the FW-190A and the P-47D: I guess they were just better testers...)

(Completely off-subject: Combat accounts, interestingly, also reveals a huge gun jamming problem on the P-51 when maneuvering hard, for all P-51s, including the D: Despite improvements, gun jam statistics confirm this on a month by month chart, showing [despite 100+% improvement accross all the types when maintenance improved and altitudes got lower in June to late 1944] that the P-51 jamming rate always stayed at 2-3 X that of the P-47D, including for the P-51D, but on the B gun jamming is just of epidemic proportions: You almost never fired your full ammo load on any gun on any Bs(!) is the strong impression you get reading the accounts, and that remains just as true as ever in 1945(!)... P-47 jams seem absolutely non-existent in comparison... And still one in six to one in eigth P-51D mission ended with just one gun left firing or nothing at all... Sorry for the disgression, but maybe this will illustrate to you why I rely so heavily on real-life combat reports, and tend to give flight "tests" a very distant second seat...)

Next post
 
Continued...

As for the later P-47D Bubbletop issue, you have to keep in mind that, in my proploading theory, more power and bigger paddle-blade props are not a good thing for sustained level turning (increased prop loading means increased wingloading, remember?), so the later, more powerful P-47D Bubbletops may have had just as good an initial turn radius as a Needle prop Razorback, but a serious deficit in sustaining a high turn rate compared to that same Razorback... It would seem from the combat reports I posted that the Bubbletop was a big step back in true sustained dogfighting maneuverability... It could no longer compete with the FW-190A but still did well enough vs the Me-109G, but no longer with such a crushing superiority as it had pre-paddle blade Razorback, say early half of 1944.

I know many Jug pilots claim the Paddle-blade was a huge boost in maneuverability, but they make the same claim for the extra power of the later models, and all of that is just not consistent with the aggregate of P-47 combat reports: A marked decline in competitive turning vs the FW-190A from June-July 1944... But then again, maybe the FW-190A just got better with its own paddle-blade wood prop used in a heavily downthrottled fashion? This was exactly how one FW-190A-8 pilot described using it, citing the "bite" of the big prop at reduced power as a big factor to win reduced-throttle turning fights down on the deck...

As I noted, the Russian 27 seconds turn time for a P-47 Razorback, and 21-22 seconds(?) for the P-51B, is in good agreement with the US tests of the two types: It does sound convincing, but when you have read your umpteeth thousanth P-47D combat report, all of them saying the same (completely opposite) thing, these slow-turning P-47Ds just seem like a particularly imaginative fairy tale from Alice in Wonderland...

Furthermore, I have seen guncam footage of a prolonged dogfight between the FW-190A-8 and a P-47D Razorback, over several 360s, and the obsessive reliance of the P-47 on its turning performance, despite being hit, is well supported by the incredible turning rate it displays against its background compared to any other gun cam footage I have seen: A Me-109G would have been left in the dust, and the footage lasts so long only because it is an FW-190A doing the filming...


Which is exactly why the Me-109 was kept in production: The FW-190A was not as good past 22 000 ft., and the Me-109G out-turned it up there for reasons that likely had little to do with power output, but rather with wingloading becoming more important than "prop-loading" in the thinner air...

I think the resistance of the prop to assymetrical angles simply went down faster with thinner air, becoming an increasingly less important factor to loading up the wing...

Contrary to legend, Jug maneuverability did not improve all that much relatively to other types with altitude, at least not to any hugely significant degree: It did just as well down low, despite what some Jug pilot claim: The overall combat record again speaks louder than individual pilot impressions...

In a Me-109G-6 I would rather face a P-47 above 15 000 ft but below 25 000 ft., climbing above it to then dive to attack, choosing a "clean" gondola-less Me-109G to do so...

In a Me-109G-6 against a P-51D Mustang scenario, I would rather face the P-51D below 15 000 ft. with a full three cannons, and would try to avoid fighting with it above 20 000ft, but still try to get the diving surprise from up there at first... I would keep in mind that a P-51D with "purple passion" 150 octane fuel (from July-August 1944 mainly) can out-climb my G-6 even if I was flying a "clean" gondola-less Me-109G-6, and that the MW-50 of the G-14 is of no reliable help in prolonged climbs or dives (oil starves in climbs or blows up the engine in dives): I would leave MW-50 out for weight/maintenance reasons, which most of them did anyway... I would use reduced-throttle horizontal turns on a three-cannon G-6, if the P-51D didn't know well enough to cut the throttle (in which case I would cut the throttle further, just as Karhila advises), and would go head-to-head with it at reduced power (again with three cannons as a preferred set-up) if it didn't turn with me but climbed above to dive on me.

And I would be dearly wishing for a FW-190A...


I did keep that in mind and this is a very valid point: After all, the enemy pilots are shown doing something wrong somewhere! However, you can still gather a "picture" from the repeated facts of hundreds upon hundreds of accounts... And some individual accounts are much more significant and detailed out of the hundreds, which is exactly where my "prop loading the wing" theory comes from: From a pilot's combat description in minute detail...

Many unexpected things show in these accounts: I mentionned the P-51 gun jams, but even more interesting is that, in late 1944, German pilots usually take much more effort to shoot down than their early 1944 "more experienced" colleagues, despite far worse odds: This seems related to the increasing Western prevalence of the FW-190A (70% of Western Front front-line strength, by late 1944), but also to pilots better informed on how to fight against the US: Less use of speed, of vertical maneuvers, and more use of horizontal turning.

Quote: "Every Ace sent to me from the Eastern Front was shot down on the Western Front"

These Eastern Front pilots were used to fast dives and zooming in their Me-109Gs, against slower and especially lower Russian fighters. In the West the Germans very rarely had the altitude advantage, and had to resort to unfamilliar tactics for which the Me-109G was less well-suited. I remember one account in particular: "I told [this Eastern Front ace] to always turn against Allied fighters, and to never use the vertical. He did not listen to me, and in combat he went in a full MW-50 climb, with smoke pouring from the exhausts of his Me-109G-14AS, and was immediately shot down."

Another similar (if non-Eastern Front related) example: "Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109, but being an old Me-109 hand, he preferred it".

This reminds me of an amusing American quote, not really related but just for fun: "We designed the P-47D for high-altitude fighting and the P-51 for low-altitude bombing: Given where they ended up, it's a wonder we won the war!"

Gaston
 
Last edited:
Gaston said:
This reminds me of an amusing American quote, not really related but just for fun: "We designed the P-47D for high-altitude fighting and the P-51 for low-altitude bombing: Given where they ended up, it's a wonder we won the war!"
Click to expand...

It may be an amusing quote, but it is completely incorrect.
 

Why don't you go look up the German claim of the P-47D (needle-tip prop) out-turning the Me-109G?: It's in the recent book "KG 200: On Special Missions"

The Rechlin testing center, on Dec 10 1941, also issued a report stating the FW-190A out-turned and out-rolled the Me-109F at all speeds.

But what do they know compared to your great science?

Maybe your great science can explain this?:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

It does seem to show the P-51 turning like crap for a long while at low speed before the throttle is cut, and stays cut, saving the day...


Gaston
 
Heuschrecke was the vehice with detachable gun turret, not depicted in this image. Superstructure clearly shows this vehicle is based on a modified tank chassis, not on the special-made Geschützwagen. See the image linked above for a real Heuschrecke. The Sd.Kfz.165/1 was never named Heuschrecke.
 

Maybe dropping the flaps had something to do with it. It is also unclear what measures the German pilot took.

Surely if cutting power enabled the P-51 pilot to turn tighter than the Bf109 pilot that would also hold true for the Bf109 pilot?
 
If the P-51 was going faster than corner speed (about 265 mph) then cutting teh throttle would help the turn until he got to corner speed. After that he is just losing ground. Also, if he was going faster than corner speed, the correct response is either to cimb until corner speed is reached or dive away and extent for either escape or reengagement.

Gaston, how does increasing the propeller blade area hurt turning ability?

That doesn't make sense. All it did was to increase thrust, particularly at lower speeds.

Last the Me 109 had automatic slats. If the Me 109 were traveling fast eniough so the slats didn;t open, it was less maneuverable. Once the slats open, it is moer maneuverable, though the slats DO open asymmetrically if not in coordinated flight and momentarily spoil an aim.

According to everything I have read, the bubble-top P-47D was a step forward, not backward. You might notice we are still, to this day, flying mostly bubble canopies. Think of the F-22, F-35, F-18, Eurofighter, Su-27/35/37, J-10 ... I can't think of many modern fighters without a bubble canopy.
 

I think you got it wrong. Slats do not depend on speed for open, but the degree of incidence of wing! Meaning they pull out if the wing is very close to stalled, or if aircraft is turned as hard as it can be, ie. pulling very high G-s. Granted they were not likely not open at high speed, but this is because at high speed you have plenty of speed for manouver without need to reach maximum degree of incidence - you still pull many many g. So its not really that slats add "manouver" ability, but ability to pull more when speed is so low that high angle of wing is needed or otherwise you stall out, ie. at low speeds.

At high speeds its very easy to pull 5-6 g without being near the stall.
 
Hello Gaston
I have very little time so only a few comments.


Not necessarily IMHO probably means slow speed turning, slow speed climbing and slow speed spiral climbs, all three and 109 was good in all those.

Because you are intering in 1944 air fighting if you don't already own a copy of Ospreys VIII Fighter Command at War "Long Reach" I highly recommended it. It is in fact a reprint of a study made by the VIII FC which was originally printed in May 44 in which 24 US aces tell their views on tactics against Jagdwaffe at the time when P-47 was still the main fighter type of the VIII FC.

Which was better questions tended to produce mixed answers. Some quotas from the Long Reach:
Lt Col John C Meyer CO 352 FG "...We have found that the turnig characteristics of the P-47 as against the Me 109 and Fw 190 are very nearly equal..."

Capt Virgil K Meroney 487th FS/352 FG
"...There is a lot of argument on wheather the P-47 can out-turn the Fw 190 and the Me 109. I feel that it all depends on the situation of the moment..."
1Lt Jesse W Gonnam 352nd FS/353rd FG
"...I believe the P-47 can both out-turn and out-climb either the Me 109 or the Fw 190" He specifies this later to high speed and at high altitude situation.


You must remember that LF IX (Merlin 66) was a bit different animal than later F.IX (Merlin 63) which on the other hand had better power loading than early F. IX (Merlin 61) under FTH.


Tsagi tested Mustang Mk I (AG348 ) and speed at 4600m (587km/h), the designation used in some Soviet docus, NA-73, and V1710-F3R engine. So not P-51A but XP-51 in USAAF parlance)
- 23 sec, weight 3884kg

Juha
 
Last edited:
Soviet Spitfire tests give wing area, and its clear that the Mk V tested was a clipped wing version, while the Mk IX tested was a full wing version.

This helps explain the difference in turn times.
 
I know Gaston from the IL2 simulator Ubisoft forum, and he is well know as a troll by aircraft performance discussions there. I don't recommend lose time with him.
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Maybe dropping the flaps had something to do with it. It is also unclear what measures the German pilot took.

Surely if cutting power enabled the P-51 pilot to turn tighter than the Bf109 pilot that would also hold true for the Bf109 pilot?
Click to expand...

Absolutely it would, but not if the Me-109G pilot did not believe that it did... I think the Me-109G probably had a slight edge over the P-51D in downthrottling the engine in sustained horizontal turns, if the pilot was willing to go far enough down that counter-intuitive path... I think even the three-cannon Me-109G could compete if downthrottled... Karhila recommended a reduced throttle to 250 km/h (160 mph) for the best turn rate: Not necessarily a widespread opinion...

Note how the P-51 pilot throws conventional theories to the wind, and uses coarse prop pitch at low speeds in a sustained turn...

Gaston
 
Last edited:
Jabberwocky said:
Soviet Spitfire tests give wing area, and its clear that the Mk V tested was a clipped wing version, while the Mk IX tested was a full wing version.

This helps explain the difference in turn times.
Click to expand...

How is it clear? Do you have the dates for these "flights"?

Gaston
 

OK, guys, let's keep the 265 mph "corner speed" in mind (which is really 320 mph as measured in 1989 by the SETP, but no matter):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

The fight starts with the P-51 closing on a landing Me-109G at the huge altitude of 150 ft,, the shooting starting at 300 yards, which shooting is carried on to 50 yards, indicating a moderate closing pace over the Me-109G's landing speed: 300 mph? Doubt it: Let's say 250 mph... OK, let's say 300 mph just to be 35 mph above the "corner speed" (at this unproven horizontal corner speed value, at full continuous power, which turned out to be 55 mph below the actual reality when tested in 1989 with modern instruments by the SETP, remember?)... I say "horizontal", because a dive pull-out unloads the prop's load during the dive, which could "artificially" lower the true 320 mph horizontal corner speed as measured by the SETP...

He then pulls up to avoid AAA. Let's say 290 mph at the very most now... 25 mph above the mythical Corner Speed...

Then a turn fight starts at 500 ft.... He is being out-turned by a Me-109G-6 (given the May 1944 timeframe). He then cuts the throttle and this and immediately stops the Me-109G-6's gains.

This happens over several 360s, because "every time I got close to the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns".

He gradually works the Me-109G away from his airfield, suggesting again that this occurs over several 360s. Speed could not be above 220-230 mph now, at best... 35-45 mph below corner speed...

He then went to do some further downthrottling, going from stopping him "to cut inside me" to "commenced to turn inside him as I decreased throttle settings", all this after numerous 360s, at 500 ft. altitude at the most...

The striking thing is there is no delay mentionned: If he was at a much higher speed that prevented him to turn tightly, how come there is no delay between the lowering of the throttle and the reduction in speed gradually improving his turn?: It would take a delay for the speed to go down, if he was in fact going too fast: No such thing here, where the turn superiority is instantly gained the moment the throttle is lowered: This is mentionned twice in clear language:

-"He stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle"
-"I commenced to turn inside him as I decreased throttle settings"

If this was lowering speed to a very hypotethical "Corner Speed", it would have been:

-"He stopped cutting me off after I cut throttle"
-"I commenced to turn inside him after I decreased throttle settings"

Confirming that the effect is both immediate and permanent, and not transient, is that there is no mention of throttling back up, but two mentions of throttling down: Throttling down produces instantly a superior turn rate permanently compared to a fixed reference point, the chasing Me-109G-6.

And if you don't want to believe it, show me where he mentions that he throttled back up to save his life, for which he cared as much as you do, in addition to providing a combat report of some use to his fellow pilots...

This jives rather well with Karhila's opinion of an optimal, very downthrottled, 160 mph sustained turn speed for the Me-109G-6 does it not? As well as his comment: "When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more." No mention of throttling back up here either, what a curious coincidence...

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


GregP said:
Gaston, how does increasing the propeller blade area hurt turning ability?

That doesn't make sense. All it did was to increase thrust, particularly at lower speeds...
Click to expand...

You mean Karhila doesn't make sense?: " I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well." virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

I've explained many times over why thrust is leveraging wingload when it comes from so far down the nose. That is why needle-tip prop P-47Ds (which are always Razorbacks for needle tip props), out-turn the Me-109G in sustained turn, as the Germans themselves found out in their own tests.

It is the same with downthrottling: Less trust gains you more reduction in radius than loss in speed, up to a point, and that, unlike what you say, does make perfect sense...


That doesn't explain why the P-51's turning performance suddenly improves relative to that, at clearly very low speeds, when the throttle is cut.


As I said, it has to do more with a lesser maximum power and skinnier needle-tip props than the canopy...

Gaston
 
Last edited:
rtGaston,

I read your link. Speed isn't mentioned at all. How do you get your conclusions from a report of such a general nature? No speed is mentioned, a P-47 turning inside an Me-109 pilot in one report is not in any way proof of performance. It means one guy of unknown experience flying at unknown speed turned inside one Me-109 being flown by a pilot of unknown experience and unknown airspeed ... and the Me 109 guy lost. That's about all it shows.

Also, 265 mph is NOT 320 mph. The correct airspeed is around 265 - 270 mph, ask any Mustang pilot. They know the V-N diagram. The one I have is not detailed enough to decipher 2 - 3 mph, but 265 is right there about the right place. My own P-51 pilot's manual is currently in my household goods that I haven't unpacked yet.

You never answered my request for you to further explain your "prop-to-tail ratio" either. At least explain the "prop" part and tell me how dividing the "prop" by the lift force (the "tail") creates a number that means anything.
 
Last edited:
All based on flying a PC sim?!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
801
Jerrybandit67
J
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
HELP A NEWBIE - FW 190's on Drive to Leningrad
Replies
8
Views
2K
sopwith21
S
50 year old airplane
Replies
12
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register