Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

Do you agree with the report?

  • Total voters
    38

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you had height and speed, why would you throttle down at all? Boom and zoom seems the way to handle it. By throttling down, you are bringing the fight down to his level and his envelope.

Just doesn't seem smart.
 
timshatz said:
If you had height and speed, why would you throttle down at all? Boom and zoom seems the way to handle it. By throttling down, you are bringing the fight down to his level and his envelope.

Just doesn't seem smart.
Click to expand...

It isn't smart, but it did happen... sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
 

Note the wording: "we could out turn and outclimb it, initially." Doesn't that suggest an initial gain in a smaller unsustained initial turn radius, but no superiority in the slower speed sustained turn rate?

This is exactly the same thing we observe with the Spitfire vs the FW-190A: A rapid initial gain in unsustained radius by the Spitfire, leading to the inaccurate notion that this superiority extended to sustained turning... It didn't...

And at a 300-400 MPH full power merge, it makes sense: At a 6 G unsustained turn, the total force exerted by the Me-109G's weight is 42 000 lbs, while the added force exerted by the prop/nose leverage is still 12 000 lbs: Reduce that to 8000 lbs by downthrottling and it is minus 4000 lbs out of a 54 000 lbs total... : 7.6% of the total.

At 3Gs in sustained turning it is 21 000 lbs + 12 000 lbs, total 33 000 lbs, so the same reduction of prop disc leverage to 8000 lbs results in a 12.1% reduction in total wing force... Nearly double the percentage it is at high speed...

So right there, it is obvious downthrottling is nearly twice as beneficial at sustained low-speed turns than unsustained 6G turns...

Incidentally, this actually provides a partial explanation to a lot of things, such as why these 12 G (P-51) or 13 G (Me-109G) rated aircrafts still broke up in combat, despite being theoretically only doing 6G turns (to the recorded astonishment of engineers): The stresses on the wings at 6Gs of turning, or pull-outs, were actually closer to 8Gs right from the start... Probably wing fluttering or vibrations brought things higher for a split second...

Quote: "The P-51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and do it much better."

This is really an approximate statement: Only the P-51B/C boosted at 21 lbs with "Purple Passion" 150 Octane fuel could in any sustained way out-climb the most basic Me-109G-6... It did not usually in any significant way out-climb the Me-109G, but the Spitifire really did at +25 lbs (boost only used by the RAF in Merlins, not by the USAAF). The P-51 could out-zoom the Me-109G if it dived from above, and it certainly tended to fly higher usually...

In the same way, references to the P-51 out-turning anything is likely not a reference to multiple sustained 360s (unless downthrottled), but of less than one 360 turn at above 300 MPH where full power on a long nose is less detrimental to the total load (+7%), as the calculations above demonstrate. Note the German pilot's experience: "Combat was usually very brief..."

Note also his comment: "I would often re-trim during a dogfight but had to be careful not to let too much speed bleed off in the turn."

Which is to say, not to let too much speed bleed off against P-47s as well...

If you are not going to downthrottle down to the Karhila-recommended 160 MPH optimal sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, this is indeed sound advice...

Quote, Drgondog: "Different fighter pilots like Duane Beeson would never downthrottle..If they could get a deflection shot, they simply used their superior energy to zoom past and above - then assess whether to return for another pass."

It is a luxurious way to fight, likely with numbers on your side, or if you are a better shot: Keep in mind the 2% hit rate determined by the Luftwaffe as "average". This is why in 1944 Western Europe such repeated passes from above are hardly ever seen, especially the dubious opportunity of repeating the passes on the same target, which I have never seen in any of the 1300 P-47 and P-51 combat reports, written as you say by winners...

In fact, I can't even remember a single diving firing pass made from above at a flying target that was not itself already in a dive...

The only examples of diving firing passes at a non-diving target I remember reading were all against ground targets... At the very least, the prevalence of boom and zoom tactics by US fighters in Europe in 1944 is spectacularly unimpressive in actual combat (Likely not quite the same thing in the Pacific vs slower and more fragile Japanese fighters), and you can put an even heavier emphasis on this for the P-47D which seemed much happier with relentless, and winning (except vs the FW-190As), horizontal turn-fighting...

And remember, I did read them all...

I did see dozens of cases of P-51D being down to hammering away with just one unjammed outside turn gun because of turning Gs, certainly a far more common occurrence than any kind of repeated diving passes all the way into 1945...

That this persistent jamming problem is not more widely known on the P-51D tells me the pilots were not keen on criticizing the P-51 in general...

How come I have to slog through 700 reports to hear about it?

Gaston
 
Last edited:
Concentrating on the 190 vs Spit parts of the posting
Gaston said:
This is exactly the same thing we observe with the Spitfire vs the FW-190A: A rapid initial gain in unsustained radius by the Spitfire, leading to the inaccurate notion that this superiority extended to sustained turning... It didn't...
Click to expand...

It has been proven many times that the Spit did turn inside the Fw 190 both in combat and in flight tests. The statement often made by Gaston is that this doesn't mean that a rapid initial gain equates to a better sustained turn.
I would argue that there is no proof in Gastons statement. It is recognised that the Spitfires wing was the most aerodynamically efficient shape and if any aircraft can maintain such an advantage it will be the Spitfire. Gaston your sole evidence is one combat report, just one with a lot of unknowns which you haven't explained.
Prove that the Fw was better than a Spit in real life as without that proof your statement is without meaning.

You unproven and unsupported theories and calculations are just that, unproven and unsupported, by anyone. Your only repy to this has be to say that all the engineers and designers in all nations have got it wrong. Sorry but that doesn't amount to a can of beans

How come I have to slog through 700 reports to hear about it?

Gaston
Click to expand...

You may well have slogged through 700 reports but you clearly haven't taken in and read what is in those reports. This statement is supported by your own words which condemn you.
The obvious example is your contention that 80% of all combats involved sustained turns. A cursory glance at those reports proves that you are wrong and I have challenged you on this many times.
The offer is still open, find one example and I will analyse the ten either side of them and withdraw if I am wrong. This is something that you have ducked every time and no doubt will continue to do so. Your continued evasion supports my position.
 
Last edited:
To begin with, you have provided nothing of substance to counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations: One foot of rotation leverage vs 12 foot of nose lenght does require 12 000 lbs of force to change the angle of attack on a reasonable upper prop disc half thrust load of 1000 lbs (The bottom disc half is ignored because no power is added to it in a turn)...

The change in wing angle of attack does require a displacement against the upper disc half thrust to change the angle of attack compared to the trajectory, which does inevitably requires at the very least matching and exceeding all the thrust there...

The 12 000 lbs value in the circumstances above remain valid even for an infinitesimally small amount of angle of attack change at 1000 lbs of upper disc half thrust, and the minimal value would be 24 000 lbs if the thrust-defeating rotation leverage was actually 1/2 foot...

Since the wing angle of attack change does multiply the elevator action, the wing does bear most of the load, not the pilot's stick...

So far, several actual aero engineers have failed utterly to provide any rebuttal to the above in several months of arguments... At least one has agreed on some of the basic principles but not on the outcomes...

Pretty telling....

My calculations show perfectly well why, in low-speed sustained turns, a greater part of the turn load is due to the prop disc load, and why this is less so in unsustained turns at maximum possible unsustained Gs.

This explains perfectly well why a mediocre, wider-turning, high speed unsustained turn radius aircraft type (FW-190A) can actually perform better in slow speed sustained turns than a much tighter-turning high speed unsustained turn aircraft type (Spitfire Mk V-IX), as was the opinion of the top Allied Western ace Johnny Johnson (and a whole slew of others)...

Accepted calculations are apparently mostly incapable of making any distinction between the sustained turn performance, and the unsustained turn performance, in any way that matches actual accounts...

Finally, I have asked, or am asking you, to provide:

1-Examples of the Me-109G out-turning any aircraft type in sustained level turns in combat... (Other than the Karhila downthrottling example)

2-Examples of P-51s or P-47s diving at a non-diving flying target, following this by a zoom climb, out of 700 P-51 or 600 P-47 combat reports on the Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site... This with, say, a minimal duration of turning of a single 90 to 270 degrees turn at most...

(This would be a lot less work than providing all the examples of multiple 360 turning combats, especially for the P-47D!!!)

3- Examples, in those above reports, of the "boom and zoom" tactic being carried out repeatedly...

4- Examples of the Spitfire of any Mark out-turning the FW-190A in sustained turns, not destroying the FW-190A target within 1 or one and half 360 degrees...

These should all be very easy to provide if your opinions had any validity... But since they don't, examples of Spitfires out-turning FW-190As are all of very short duration (just like the quoted Me-109G pilots pointing out brief combats, or to not lose speed in turns), or of Me-109Gs indeed out-turning P-47Ds only to show unsustained turns shedding Me-109G wings off...

I am actually surprised how hard it is to find any combat examples clearly contradicting any of my quite general points above...

Gaston
 
Last edited:
The key word is counter the reasoning behind my Spitfire IX vs FW-190A calculations It is your reasoning, no one elses, supported by no one, not proven by any flight tests or any flight examples. It is a theory nothing more nothing less. Many aircraft probably all aircraft even today do not perform exactly as the designers predict, thats why we have flight tests and why changes are made.

There are two important points here. You have no evidence that this one action proves all your points. A very good potential explanation was posted earlier and again its one that you ignored.
What is more likely
a) a logical defintion based on known facts (see posting 164) or
b) a theory which assumes that you have discovered a law of aerodynamics that has missed all the engineers and designers in the world?

The second point is you do tend to exagerate. Here for the first time you mention a slew of others. What slew, who are they can you support this or have you got carried away again.
Finally, I have asked, or am asking you, to provide:

-Examples of the Me-109G out-turning any aircraft type in sustained level turns in combat... (Other than the Karhila downthrottling example)
Click to expand...

Mentioned in posting 96. RAF pilots were told not to get into low speed turning battles with the Me109 when flying Tempests

I kept reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300mph for Me109's could turn better than we could at lower airspeeds and you had to watch out for the 30mm in the nose as it wouldn't give you a second chance. The Best Technique was to do a spiral dive and work the speed up to 450 mph, do a stright climb and start all over again.

- Examples of the Spitfire of any Mark out-turning the FW-190A in sustained turns, not destroying the FW-190A target within 1 or one and half 360 degrees...
Click to expand...
Again this has been covered in previous postings. These will not exist as the Spitfire pilot will attack once they have the advantage. They would not engage in an intellectual exercise of sustained turns when its life and death.

However there is no doubt that the Spitfire wing was the most efficient design aerodynamically and it would hold the energy better than the Fw190. Bleeding energy is the key reason why any turn would diminish.

I do notice that you have not taken up my challenge re the turns. All I ask is that you stop telling everyone that you have read all those combat reports, you may have skimmed them, you certainly didn't read them.
 
Last edited:
I have read all the Spitfire combat reports at Mikes site, but I thought I would look through them for some illustrations of FW190s attempting to turn with a Spitfire (sustained or instantaneous).
Here's a quote from a Spitfire vs FW190 encounter.

And another:

And another that shows clearly why an FW190 should not attempt to beat a Spitfire with a sustained turn:

Another where an FW190 apparently tried to escape with a sustained turn:
The E/A was taking mild evasive action and during one or two of his gentle turns I fired several short bursts with about 10 degrees defelction, observing strikes.
Click to expand...
And lastly a report of a lengthy dogfight at 500 feet where the 190s had alt advantage, were on the Spitfires tail twice, and the Spit got away unscathed.
I haven't found a single Spitfire encounter report where an FW190 escaped by turning, sustained or quick. The only reports I can find that mention 190s that got away had them half-roll and dive.
 
well, dont laugh, but I have watched Rc pilots fly scale models of the P-51, FW190, ME109, P-51 and the Spitfire at my local flying club, and i have questioned these guys pretty extensively about the flying characteristics of each. The engines and power are not to scale, but the ings and aerodynamics are all in pretty close scale to the real thing. I know the limitations on this kind of comparison, but i thought it might be intersting to hear what some pretty experienced pilots had to say. Most of these guys have more than 500 hours RC experience, and quite a few many times that. They know what they are talking about when it comes to the models at least.

Without a doubt the Spit is the best turner in the horizontal plane, because of its huge wing area. The trapizoidal wings of the other types just cant compare with the Spit in this regard. The 109s and 190s, relatigve to the US types have generally a proportional greater length and naroower wingspan. This makes them fast, and good divers, but not as good in the horizontal. The US types are kinda mid way between the Spit and the German types...sort of jack of all trades really

Of course, how much of this is useful to real life planes of that type, I wouldnt know. But thought it might be of interest
 
The Spit had two significant advantages but wing plan form per se wasn't so important. While it looked like an eliptical wing it did not produce the optimal induced drag that a theoretical elliptical wing produced. It did however produce a better lift distribution than a trapezoidal wing of similar aspect ratio. A trap wing like the 51, incorporating twist would closely approximate the lift distribution of the Spit (and P-47)... ditto the 109 with no twist, but incorporating slats for low speed control...

What it did have however is a lot of area coupled with a thin airfoil relative to chord. The former gave it superior low wing loading and the latter, a delay of transonic effects in a dive. The tapered planform of the P-51, Fw 190 and Me 109 achieved the same basic lift distribution as well as the same relative tip effects to achieve nearly the same induced drag/tip vortices strength.

As to the RC model refelctions, RC models would be hard to use to compare relative manuever characteristics because of the challenges in a.) modelling the exact airfoil, b.) proportional thrust to weight of the airframe, and c.) proportional weight to wing area - for starters. For example a Dave Platt model would be very close dimensionally while a Top Flite would be significantly different

Additionally the parasite drag for the models contrasted from the real thing depending on surface roughness of the model, gaps in wheel wells, ailerons, elevators, etc.
 
Last edited:


The only thing I would say in response is that the wing form in models termed "scale" must, by definition, be the same or nearly the same, as the real aircraft. Models with different wing forms either in plan or section can only be termed semi-scale, or sometimes non-scale.

I was referring specifically to scale models, so the wing forms should be the same.

In terms of finishes, these are not scale, or true to the historical. In terms of materials. The P-51, for example, historically used mostly bare metal finishes, which I understand produced a fairly low amount of drag compared to the finishes of the RAF or the LW. Might be good for 3-5 mph in a real aircraft. In a model a p-51 will have a painted finish, so doesnt have such a drag reducing advantage. In terms of finish, most scale models are all finished in the same skin, a thin plastic ship wrap finish, bonded onto a plywood or balsa wood frame. the frame is usually a reasonably accurate facsimile of the parent aircraft in terms of weight distribution and strength comparisons, but the shrink wrap is common to all models. There are other materials, like foam for example, but these are rare on the true scale models I was referring to. They tend to be used in what are termed semi-scaled park flyer models.
 
And who were these "actual aero engineers" and can you provide evidence of your ability to out-argue them with the above? Also note the Spitfire IX may have had a 12 foot long nose but it had an even longer rear fuselage and a rudder with which to exert some aerodynamic force.

From Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering pp.410-411

Torque may also have an effect on turn performance, particularly with
high-powered prop fighters at slow speed. The effects of engine torque
must generally be offset by rudder power to maintain balanced flight.
Normally under these conditions considerable right rudder will be required
to balance the torque of a prop turning clockwise (when viewed
from behind), and vice versa. Another consideration here is called "PAPPENDIX
[sic - APPENDIX] 411 factor," which is the tendency of a propeller to produce more thrust from
one side of its disc than from the other. P-factor usually affects the aircraft
in the same manner as torque, and it is exacerbated by slow speeds and
hard turning. Since even more rudder is usually required in the direction of
a turn to maintain balanced flight, there may be conditions under which
sufficient rudder power is just not available. The resulting unbalanced
flight (slip) may cause loss of aircraft control. Generally the high wing (i.e.,
the outside wing in a turn) will stall, causing the aircraft to "depart"
controlled flight with a rapid roll toward the stalled wing.
This phenomenon has been used to good effect in combat, since it is
more pronounced in some fighters than in others, and because proprotation
direction may be reversed between combatants. The following
World War II combat example of this tactic involves the P-38J Lightning
versus the German Fw 190. The P-38 is a twin-engine fighter with counterrotating props and essentially no net torque or P-factor.

My flight of four P-38s was bounced by twenty-five to thirty FW-190s of the
yellow-nose variety from Abbeville. A string of six or more of them got in
behind me before I noticed them, and just as No. 1 began to fire, I rolled into a right climbing turn and went to war emergency of 60 inches manifold
pressure. As we went round and round in our corkscrew climb, I could see
over my right shoulder the various FW-190 pilots booting right rudder
attempting to control their torque at 150 mph and full throttle, but one by
one they flipped over to the left and spun out.

Nowhere in this book is Gaston's "formula" (12,000 lbs of "force" - what type of force? Ft lbs thrust? ) mentioned or quoted...

P 397
In general, for a wing of a given size and shape, the greater the lift
produced under given conditions, the greater the induced drag will be.
Although this relationship is important for any aircraft, it is especially
critical for fighters, since their mission often involves high-load factors
requiring a great amount of lift. Induced drag is minimized by designing
wings of large area with long, thin planforms. The actual shape of the wing
is also very important. For subsonic flight an elliptical planform, made
famous by the Spitfire fighter of World War II, is theoretically optimum.
Other shapes, however, may be nearly as efficient from an induced-drag
standpoint and have other overriding advantages.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The problem with combat reports is that we typically read about part of the battle. I have read several P-51 combat reports and sometimes think that the plane is amazing and completely overpowered any opposition. But, we don't read where the aircraft was engaged and was unsuccessful like "I engaged a Bf-109 and he out turned me and I had to break off and escape", or, "I engaged a Fw-190D and he out turned me and caught me as I tried to escape and shot me down and killed me". Also, I have not read combat reports of the Axis pilots in regard to their fights with Allied aircraft. I suspect they report a different picture.
 
'Johnnie' Johnson relates a fight were a Fw 190 outturned him at sea level. He was shocked that he was unable to outturn his opponent and assumed it showed the skill of the German pilot.
 

No you won't find a report where the pilot says he got outturned and killed..... but you will find plenty of incidents where multiple ea were engaged with various results, some escape unharmed, some get damaged and escape, some are claimed as probables or confirmed.
For example:
My No 2 and I made for one lot, but they broke hard, leaving us no chance to fire. I then saw a single FW 190, same height, flying straight and level. I easily got onto his tail, giving him a 3 seconds burst from dead astern at about 200 yds.
Click to expand...
One of the reports where you will find FW190s 'breaking hard' and successfully escaping.

Or this which shows an unsuccesful attack by 190s on a Spitfire.

There's probably more to be learned by weeding out the ones that got clobbered and analyzing the ones that evaded, though admittedly (and understandably from the viewpoint of the authors) the reports tend to concentrate on the ones that got clobbered.
 
Gaston truly does not seem to know the difference between Force vectors (Lift, Thrust, Drag, Weight) or that each must be resolved along their correct axes.

His last two posts were painfully close to a technical "Tourette's Syndrome experience" coupled with blather..

If I could be sure he was genuine and not a clever troll - I would invite him to Air Combat Gamer's Anonymous' to provide testimonial regarding the evils of bad physics.
 

I'm still trying to figure out why rudders don't seem to factor into Gaston's "calculations" - I'm sure I read somewhere that rudders might be important when it comes to helping many aircraft to turn circles. Maybe he's assuming the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX were flying wings?

Just for interest here's an account of a Typhoon taking on an Fw 190 at low altitude (Desmond Scott Typhoon Pilot p. 37):

"The FW 190s foolishly dived under us towards the sea....Within seconds I was firing directly down on an FW 190. He turned to port close to the water....Suddenly we were at the same level and locked in a desperate battle to out-turn each other.
I applied the pressure to get my sights ahead of him, but I kept losing my vision...; a little less pressure on the control column would bring my sight back into focus. I could see him looking back at me on the other side of our tight circle. I knew he was experiencing the same effects, and although I could feel my own aircraft staggering a little, I continued to apply the pressure...With my heart pounding in my throat I applied some top rudder to get above him. Just as I did so his wings gave a wobble and he flicked over and hit the sea upside down."

At low altitudes it seems that a Typhoon was capable of keeping up in a turning dual with an Fw 190, with the result that the 190 flicked into a stall trying to tighten his turn.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
  • Poll
Spitfire MK-IX vs Messerchmitt Me109G-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
La-5 vs Fw 190
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
Menu
Log in
Register