Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[drgondog]

if gaston likes anecdotes, let's go back for a while to the stang,...the 43 stang, it's not the D of course, but still the brand new model of this time, vs an old model that has since it's introduction already 2 new versions (A4+A5)

Bada - The first operational P-51B-1 arrived in the UK in November, 1943 so the Mustangs in this narrative (August, 1943) would have been the earlier Allison powered Mk II.

Great find on the article.

 

[drgondog]

Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.

I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).

You are right that disk loading is associated with propeller efficiency. Disk loading, mathmatically, is expressed best as a function of mass flow rate through the disk plane and reduces to the difference between the free stream velocity and the velocity just aft of the plane of the prop as the flow is accelerated.

My analogy of excess thrust available was a poor analogy.

 

[renrich]

When a post contains an ovious error such as WW2 prop planes doing 450 mph at low altitude, I tend to classify the whole post as fantasy.

 

[Gaston]

Even I gave up. Someone who dismisses US Navy tyests which were undertaken at one of the most up to date establishments in the world at the time, in real aircraft, by highly trained pilots, who misquotes his own evidence, ignores evidence from pilots who were not only experienced combat pilots but include some of the few trained test pilots of the period and finaly thinks that all the above are not quite as accurate or realistic as his experience on IL2. Isn't worth the effort

As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all.

Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.

I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).

-The US Navy tests described it as an "interceptor" -type an aircraft that in reality had a very average to poor climb rate and could not pull out of dives efficiently... They also failed to notice its excellent low-speed sustained horizontal turn rate (due to inadequate aileron adjustment ("snatching"?!?!) and excessive power rating which was way too high and quoted as above in-service rating, thus hurting sustained turn radius and performance: Why do you think the Germans chose to fight with them de-rated?) and focussed instead on its high speed handling...

Please don't ask me to explain how the ailerons affect the turn rate... Let's just say that on the FW-190A it's a major issue...

In other words, they failed to see the aircraft for what it actually was, but instead "saw" what it LOOKED like...

Quote:"-As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all."

Have you read what I said?!?!?! I have said it has great LOW speed handling. It was the one of the supreme low-speed turnfighters of its day, probably ahead of the Spitfire, which on the other hand handled a lot better at high speed than it did...

Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...

Quote: "Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning."

-If you are a pilot I have no doubt that's what you know and have been taught, but believe me, you don't want to pit a modern F-15 pilot inside a P-51 against a WWII-vintage pilot who actually knows that full power from the nose pulls you out of your turn and makes you "heavier" on your wings, especially at low speeds...

What you have to accept is that specialized front-line experience knowledge on outdated weapons gets lost over time, and only irrelevant theories remain on paper... You simply have to accept that modern pilots flying P-51s today don't know as much about what they are sitting in than SOME pilots who actually had to fight and die in them...

Just the fact that being pulled from the nose is assumed to be the exact same as being pushed from the rear should be a clue that something is amiss...

And I'll take Hanseman and Karhila's word on it over any amount of post-war armchair flying... Re-read their accounts, the meaning they intended is clear...

Gaston

P.S. I have designed an air combat boardgame variant which I researched for 14 years (12 of them trying to reconcile unworkable theories with consistently contradicting WWII combat accounts, until I finally gave up on making the theories "work"), but I am not a pilot... Here's my game variant with color Data Cards:

Second try Advanced Air Force Boardgame - Topic Powered by Social Strata

G.

 

[Gaston]

Just an observation about Gastons Gunther Rall quote:


I do not believe Rall was comparing turning ability with that statement.

He was actually comparing the 109 to a light, swift, precision thrusting weapon and the 190 to a heavy and slower slashing weapon. The thrust is approx 1/3 faster than the cut (slash). Also, a thrust does not necessarily follow a straight line, it is often curved, particularly for the tip of the sword. Besides, in sport fencing, to be safe, a floret "foil" cannot be straight, it must have a slight curve in it so it will bend when it contacts an opponent.

I also noticed a reference to Spitfires using full WEP in turns. The only Spits that had WEP as far as I know are the ones in the IL2 flight sim.

-Johnny Johnson describes being at full throttle: You'll have to accept that as equivalent to WEP...

As far as the "Floret"... Ho-hum... This is a floret:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Foil-2004-A.jpg/505px-Foil-2004-A.jpg

This is the typical shape most commonly associated with a front-line saber in Europe and elsewhere for centuries:

http://www.gungfu.com/pics-general/pics-swords/swords-other-swords-saber-m-1796-light-cavalry.jpg

I think if Rall wanted to choose a more explicit comparison, he would not have found it...

The Russians agree... You want FURTHER proof that the Me-109 was considered a Boom and Zoomer and the FW-190A was comparatively a slow-speed horizontal turn fighter? Consider this Russian tactical evaluation of hundreds of combats as to how they inter-acted in real life... REAL LIFE with REAL German pilots trying their best to kill them...:

Chapter from a book published in 1943

Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.



FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

So the Me-109s Boom and Zooms while the FW-190A engages "in turning fights lasting quite a long time"

Does the "Floret" and "Saber" methaphor sound more clear now, or did those Soviets front-line pilots all imagine that they concur with Rall, Johnny Johnson, ect?

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

When a post contains an ovious error such as WW2 prop planes doing 450 mph at low altitude, I tend to classify the whole post as fantasy.

P-51D placard red line at low altitude was 505 MPH if I am not mistaken... Do you think as soon as they get horizontal they lose all their dive speed?!?

Did you even know their true maximum dive speed was quite a bit higher at low altitudes because of the higher Mach limit there?

Structural buffeting was usually the dive speed limit at low altitude, NOT the Mach number, except for a few types like the P-38... Some had good buffeting behaviour, so they could safely reach significantly higher speeds in dives at low altitudes than they could up high...

A Spitfire had a very good mach number of 0.92 or 0.85 depending on sources, making for an excellent dive speed limit at high altitudes, but buffeting at low altitudes meant its maximum dive speed there was far inferior to a P-51, and maybe even below that of a Me-109G at the lower altitudes... (The Me-109G could safely manage up to 820-850 km/h (around 520 MPH) before aileron flutter set in, the FW-190A could dive much faster but could not pull out worth a damn, so had to start slowing down as high as 8-10 000 ft(!)... If it didn't, it would then "mush" downward nose level or slightly down until it did what is commonly referred to as "pancaking" in 8th Air Force pilot accounts: Hitting the ground nose up going down...)

Oh, and you do realize near the ground there is little difference between IAS and TAS, do you?

Gaston

 

[Glider]

-The US Navy tests described it as an "interceptor" -type an aircraft that in reality had a very average to poor climb rate and could not pull out of dives efficiently... They also failed to notice its excellent low-speed sustained horizontal turn rate (due to inadequate aileron adjustment ("snatching"?!?!) and excessive power rating which was way too high and quoted as above in-service rating, thus hurting sustained turn radius and performance: Why do you think the Germans chose to fight with them de-rated?) and focussed instead on its high speed handling...

Nearly all aircraft 'mush' to a greater or lesser degree when pulled out of a dive too sharply, the only exception that I know of being the Hurricane. You need to support your statements
a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly.

FYI The Me109 also had a poor pull out by comparison to RAF fighters indeed pilots were advised that one tactic was to get the 109 to commit to a low altitude high speed pull out.

Have you read what I said?!?!?! I have said it has great LOW speed handling. It was the one of the supreme low-speed turnfighters of its day, probably ahead of the Spitfire, which on the other hand handled a lot better at high speed than it did...

I did read it and the following is a quoteEric Brown quote: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 wil be very slow and vulnerablel" -Pretty obvious as to the meaning, and this pathetic handling

Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and I am not basing this on Shaw or any post war theorist. But on pilots and tactical instruction given to pilots by the British and American instructors. All aircraft have advantages and disadvantages compared to other aircraft and simply put if you had a better turn rate then try it if you don't don't. Tempest pilots for example were always warned not to get into a slow turning dogfight, use your advantages.
The following link has a number of Spitfire combat reports and its interesting how few of them involve the low speed turn fighting that you say was the bread and butter of air combat. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Here is another link this time for Tempests and again few had the turning fight you love, interesting on at least one of them the Tempest stayed behind the Fw190 at Tree top level and the Tempest isn't any great shakes as a turning dogfighter.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html

Quote: "Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning."

-If you are a pilot I have no doubt that's what you know and have been taught, but believe me, you don't want to pit a modern F-15 pilot inside a P-51 against a WWII-vintage pilot who actually knows that full power from the nose pulls you out of your turn and makes you "heavier" on your wings, especially at low speeds...

I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong.

What you have to accept is that specialized front-line experience knowledge on outdated weapons gets lost over time, and only irrelevant theories remain on paper... You simply have to accept that modern pilots flying P-51s today don't know as much about what they are sitting in than SOME pilots who actually had to fight and die in them...

And you have to recognise that Test Pilots in the war, with combat experience, at a flight fully equipped test centre, staffed with experts in their fields have a lot better chance of being right than me or you.


Gaston

P.S. I have designed an air combat boardgame variant which I researched for 14 years (12 of them trying to reconcile unworkable theories with consistently contradicting WWII combat accounts, until I finally gave up on making the theories "work"), but I am not a pilot... Here's my game variant with color Data Cards:

Second try Advanced Air Force Boardgame - Topic Powered by Social Strata

G [/QUOTE]

Used to enjoy playing Air Force many years ago.

 

[drgondog]

P-51D placard red line at low altitude was 505 MPH if I am not mistaken... Do you think as soon as they get horizontal they lose all their dive speed?!?

You are mistaken - again - about the 505mph placard referencing low altitude. That was the 'do not exceed' speed - PERIOD. Highly modified, stripped, specialty racers with 3500+ Hp engines can attain that speed today in level flight on the deck and they are pushing structural integrity to the limit -

Did you even know their true maximum dive speed was quite a bit higher at low altitudes because of the higher Mach limit there?

Gaston - do you know that what you don't know about this subject would fill volumes?

First - the limits for dive speeds are a.) critical Mach number of the airfoil and b.) dynamic pressure loads on the airframe, and c.) altitude (AGL) of dive initiation. At 'low' altitude - b.) and c.) will stop you before a.) is a factor

Structural buffeting was usually the dive speed limit at low altitude, NOT the Mach number, except for a few types like the P-38... Some had good buffeting behaviour, so they could safely reach significantly higher speeds in dives at low altitudes than they could up high...

For the amusement of all those reading your comments with great anticipation, could you elucidate on your arcane definitions?

Start with 'structural buffeting' and explain whether you really meant 'buffeting' as in the excitation of control surfaces in extremely turbulent flow?

Start with 'good buffeting behavior' and explain why this is similar to desirable rabies effects or great herpes?

Explain why significantly high diving speeds at low altitudes is better at low altitudes than at high altitudes? Perhaps because one could reach the scene of the crash 'quicker'? For example if you were assured your mustang would dive faster starting at 10,000 feet and could reach the highest speed posssible by diving from that altitude instead of 25,000 feet - would you do it?

A Spitfire had a very good mach number of 0.92 or 0.85 depending on sources, making for an excellent dive speed limit at high altitudes, but buffeting at low altitudes meant its maximum dive speed there was far inferior to a P-51, and maybe even below that of a Me-109G at the lower altitudes... (The Me-109G could safely manage up to 820-850 km/h (around 520 MPH) before aileron flutter set in, the FW-190A could dive much faster but could not pull out worth a damn, so had to start slowing down as high as 8-10 000 ft(!)... If it didn't, it would then "mush" downward nose level or slightly down until it did what is commonly referred to as "pancaking" in 8th Air Force pilot accounts: Hitting the ground nose up going down...)

Ah, sources please?

Credentials to discuss (intelligently) any topic related to Aerodynamics, flight mechanics, aeroelasticity, airframe structuress, combat or just simply pilot skills and experience in the types (or any type) of aircraft you are lecturing about ??

Oh, and you do realize near the ground there is little difference between IAS and TAS, do you?

Gaston

In the manuevers your were just talking about the distinctions are certainly irrelevant..

 

[claidemore]

Russians agree... You want FURTHER proof that the Me-109 was considered a Boom and Zoomer and the FW-190A was comparatively a slow-speed horizontal turn fighter? Consider this Russian tactical evaluation of hundreds of combats as to how they inter-acted in real life... REAL LIFE with REAL German pilots trying their best to kill them...:

Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:

FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

So the Me-109s Boom and Zooms while the FW-190A engages "in turning fights lasting quite a long time"

Does the "Floret" and "Saber" methaphor sound more clear now, or did those Soviets front-line pilots all imagine that they concur with Rall, Johnny Johnson, ect?

Gaston

Yup, but you need to read the entire report, take it in context, consider qualifying and contradicting parts of the report, and make an interpretation that has not been skewed by an agenda to prove the FW190 was a superior low speed sustained turn fighter. I admit to being intrigued by the notion, but the evidence does not support it.

That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them.
The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190 and the 190 has greater firepower so would engage the bomber and ground attack aircraft in the Soviet formation while the 109s covered them. Incorrect assumption to attribute this practice supports the theory about 190 turn superiority and incorrect to assume the 109/190 stacked formation was a counter to Soviet fighter sweeps.

De-rating engines on the FW190 was because of overheating and engine life issues, (read comment at beginning of FW190 appraisal in Soviet report about 1 minute at full military power) again an incorrect assumption that this was done to help with sustained turn rates. 109s wee flown derated at various stages of the war as well, until approved for higher boost ratings. It had nothing to do with turn ability, everything to do with engine reliability and service life.

The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII.

Here's a thought, if turn rate is the war winning performance attribute, why even bother designing a 109 or 190, stick with the old biplanes and you win the war?

 

[renrich]

Uh, gaston, I do know the difference between IAS and TAS. My "bible" "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean gives the Vmax of the P51D at SL with combat power as around 365 mph TAS going to a Vmax at around 24000 feet of approx. 435 mph, combat power, TAS. That is at a weight of around 10000 pounds. Methinks you need to get your hands on a copy of Dean to perhaps complete your knowledge about the P51.

 

[Gaston]

a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly



The following link has a number of Spitfire combat reports and its interesting how few of them involve the low speed turn fighting that you say was the bread and butter of air combat. Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
Here is another link this time for Tempests and again few had the turning fight you love, interesting on at least one of them the Tempest stayed behind the Fw190 at Tree top level and the Tempest isn't any great shakes as a turning dogfighter.
Tempest V Performance



I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong.


And you have to recognise that Test Pilots in the war, with combat experience, at a flight fully equipped test centre, staffed with experts in their fields have a lot better chance of being right than me or you.


Gaston

-- If that is so, these "sophisticated" types would at least know what is the 6G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D wouldn't you think?

Would you care to tell me what is the accepted 6G "Corner Speed" for the P-51D after WWII (and up to this day in ALL computer simulations), and then to tell me what it actually tested like when the P-51D was actually tested in 1989 by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots"?

Answer: Post war theory to this day: 6G "Corner Speed" is 2.44 times stall. P-51D Stall 100-105 MPH...

Accepted answer: 240-250 MPH: MINIMUM Speed at which 6 G can be reached...

Actual 1989 test by the "Society of Experimental test pilots"? I kid you not: 320 MPH. They were at roughly "Normal Power" (maximum continuous power) or today's METO; this is clearly because of the unaccounted prop disc load traction, non-existent in jets, which accounts for this staggering 80 MPH difference...

IF they had tested the P-51D at full WEP, my bet is the wing depressing effect of the prop disc would have delayed the minimum speed to reach 6G until it might have been have been as high as 350 MPH or even higher...

Kurt Tank mentionned reaching 7 Gs in the FW-190A at 400 MPH, and you can bet that was the minimum speed too, perfectly consistent with 6 Gs in the P-51D at 350 MPH + (Society of Test Pilots report says of the P--51D/P-47D/FG-1/F6F-5: "Corner Speed is very close to maximum level speed", perhaps implying that they noticed the 6G "Corner Speed" moves up with the Level Speed at increased power...

In any case, I seriously doubt Kurt Tank really carved REAL 7 Gs turns in the FW-190A at any speed: He mentions a control stick weight of 2 lbs per G, or 14 pounds for 7 Gs: Absurdly low for an aircraft that could have "heavy elevators" at high speed depending on trim...

Likely the control weight was so light because the FW-190A no longer responded normally past 5 or 6 Gs at high speed: It went into nose-up deceleration because of tail stall, resulting in abnormally light controls that still responded in pitch, increasing or decreasing deceleration by increasing or decreasing the nose-up/tail down attitude. The turn or pull-out he was carving then was likely very "elongated", yet still very hard on the pilot, hence the P-47D comparison stating "a tendency to black-out the pilot" DESPITE "a vastly inferior angle of pull-out"...:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg


You have to admit that if they don't even know the true 6 G "Corner Speed", they basically know very little of use for combat...

Quote: "I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Let me put this way: The nose pulls ahead AND above the wing, the elevator, to tilt the nose up, pushes down on the opposite side at the other end of a fairly long tail... Can you explain to me how does this NOT push down harder on the wing if the nose pulls harder against the overall drag? Yes I know the wing keeps up by lifting more as the angle increases, but that doesn't change the fact that more power means more-to-lift (Please don't start that the lift axis is 500 ft. above the aircraft: It is the wings that does the lifting, and one half of the prop disc has to go slower in a turn no matter how you cut it... To make one half of the prop disc go slower than the other half you have to beat ALL the thrust in that "inside turn" half: 00000.5% slower STILL requires beating ALL the thrust there. To lift 100 lbs by one micrometer you have to lift with 100 lbs+ of force, or the weight will not move by one micrometer)

When pushed from behind the wings, as in a jet, the thrust is still usually above the wing, but then the leverage for a downward push is ONLY that vertical leverage, and not augmented by a second lever which is the 10-12 foot lenght of nose leverage for being pulled from AHEAD of the wing... Tilting the nose up ahead of the wing means SLOWING DOWN the top half of the prop disc, which has yet another lever to resist: A THIRD lever which is the 90° lever of the prop blade itself, from a blade thrust center 2/3rds of the way up the blade I'm told...

So nose prop vs tail jet: 3 levers versus just 1.... To push down on the wing in turns...

And no, there isn't any way out of it... I have already argued with engineers, pilots, and none of them could explain why this wasn't so... One aeronautical engineer agreed with me about the prop disc effect but not its intensity, which was "unclear" to him...

And notice what is the biggest of the 3 levers: The lenght of the nose... Now isn't that a coincidence that the FW-190A has a much shorter nose and out-sustain turns lighter aircrafts like the Spitfire and especially the Me-109G?

Is it a coincidence that when the British evaluated the FW-190D-9 they found the handling vastly inferior to a FW-190A (as German pilots already knew and commented on, but still often preferred the much better climb of the D-9 which they felt they sorely needed)?

Also: The Ki-100 vastly outperforms the Ki-61-1 in turns despite being heavier... The La-5 vastly out-performs in turns the LaGG-3 despite being ALSO heavier... (The Ki-100 by the way was tested by the Japanese as so superior in maneuverability to the Ki-84 that one Ki-100 could defeat 3 Ki-84s and repeat the feat by exchanging pilots: Another nail in the coffin of existing maths predicting nose-pulled in-flight turn performance...)

Quote:
"a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly

a) In the report.
b)Whoever said that? At best a possible choice from above them in view of poor high speed handling and better durability. Who cares? Derating does indicate they did not hugely care about high speed performance however...
c) Pronounced aileron snatching described as characteristic: Sorry but the US Navy is all alone on this point at least...

Still waiting for those multiple 360° contest down on the deck, or at least level, slow speed and not too high, where the Spitfire wins versus the FW-190A... Something that looks like this for instance:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

Yup, but you need to read the entire report, take it in context, consider qualifying and contradicting parts of the report, and make an interpretation that has not been skewed by an agenda to prove the FW190 was a superior low speed sustained turn fighter. I admit to being intrigued by the notion, but the evidence does not support it.

That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them.
The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190 and the 190 has greater firepower so would engage the bomber and ground attack aircraft in the Soviet formation while the 109s covered them. Incorrect assumption to attribute this practice supports the theory about 190 turn superiority and incorrect to assume the 109/190 stacked formation was a counter to Soviet fighter sweeps.

De-rating engines on the FW190 was because of overheating and engine life issues, (read comment at beginning of FW190 appraisal in Soviet report about 1 minute at full military power) again an incorrect assumption that this was done to help with sustained turn rates. 109s wee flown derated at various stages of the war as well, until approved for higher boost ratings. It had nothing to do with turn ability, everything to do with engine reliability and service life.

The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII.

Here's a thought, if turn rate is the war winning performance attribute, why even bother designing a 109 or 190, stick with the old biplanes and you win the war?

-Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner"

-Quote, Claidemore: "The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hohoooo... 3500 meter (11.000 ft.) is HIGH altitude... Did you get that? Yes... The non-turning FW-190 is really weezing out at this height.... That REALLY underlines the objectivity of your post...


Quote, Claidemore: "That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them."

------------------------------------------

-Yes, so short-lived was this low altitude tactic that it came back as is during Boddenplatte: Watch the show "Dogfights" dedicated to "Boddenplatte", and you will see the actual US pilots involved narrating the exact same Me-109G/FW-190A interaction on January 1st 1945, right down to the same altitude numbers...

You will also see a P-47D Razorback fairly quickly out-turn in sustained multiple 360° flat left turns a very late Me-109G around a "slagpile", this of couse very close to the deck...

Quote, Claidemore:"The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII."

---------------------------------------------------

-I said it is the bread-and-butter between AIRCRAFTS OF SIMILAR PERFORMANCE...

Read, as I have, all the 700 Merlin P-51 combat reports here:

Mustang Encounter Reports

And the 600+ P-47D combat reports here, as I ALSO have read:

P-47 Encounter Reports

...and you will find 80% + of them are mostly sustained turn fighting, often up to 15 minutes to one side between the P-51 and the Me-109G... You will also find that the turn rate superiority of the P-47D over the Me-109G is crushing, especially to the left and in late 1943 and early 1944 when the Razorback was most common: See the "Dogfight" episode again then and remember the "KG 200: On Special mission" book quote of the Germans evaluating their OWN Me-109G vs the P-47D Razorback : "The P-47D out-turns our Me-109G"

And since your objectivity is obviously so superior to mine, perhaps you could explain to me what 32 kill ace Johnny Johnson meant when he said, with post-war hindsight : "The FW-190 turned better than the Me-109"?:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Perhaps you could also explain to me the proper context of these quotes from another similar Soviet evaluation?:

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190 - World War II Forums

Quote: "The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

"A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

"Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."


Jeez, can you explain to me the proper "context" of all this, point by point, so that your objective viewpoint may enlighten me?

Gaston

 

[claidemore]

Gaston: The Dogfights show isn't exactly prime source for historical research, entertaining though it may be.

11000 ft is not HIGH, 20,000 is HIGH. Did you get that?

Did I say the 190 is a 'non turning' fighter? No, I said it is not a 'superior' turn fighter.

Sure the Luftwaffe repeated tactis throughout the war. Tactics used at the start of WWI were still being used at the end of WWI. That doesn't mean they were good tactics, or that there weren't better ones. People tend to repeat behavior hoping for a different outcome.

Besides, I was not referring to the stacked echelon tactic, but to the Soviet observation of the tendancy of the FW190 to engage in turn fights.

Reading combat reports is one thing, comprehension is another. In the first 10 Mustang reports, 9 claims are from line astern attacks with no evasive manuevering, 4 claims are unclear as to whether the e/a was turning or straight, and 2 were claimed in turning fights. That's a far cry from 80% turning battles. If one was to make a generalization of the combat reports from that period one could say that 80% of the claims were made on e/a that were diving away running for their lives!

I do see turning fights in the P47 encounters, mostly without result, indicating (to me) that the 190 could turn with the P47. AFDU trials support that view.

AFDU trials also support the 190A turning about as good as a P47, Typhoon or Tempest, with the Mustang being slightly better and the Spitfire being much better.

 

[Glider]

This sums up your problem. You have no experience, no training but you firmly believe that you know better than real combat pilots, real trained test pilots and real engineers. As for the 6G factor you have fixed on, why I don't know and frankly don't care.

Quote: "I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Let me put this way: The nose pulls ahead AND above the wing, the elevator, to tilt the nose up, pushes down on the opposite side at the other end of a fairly long tail... Can you explain to me how does this NOT push down harder on the wing if the nose pulls harder against the overall drag? Yes I know the wing keeps up by lifting more as the angle increases, but that doesn't change the fact that more power means more-to-lift (Please don't start that the lift axis is 500 ft. above the aircraft: It is the wings that does the lifting, and one half of the prop disc has to go slower in a turn no matter how you cut it... To make one half of the prop disc go slower than the other half you have to beat ALL the thrust in that "inside turn" half: 00000.5% slower STILL requires beating ALL the thrust there. To lift 100 lbs by one micrometer you have to lift with 100 lbs+ of force, or the weight will not move by one micrometer)

This is long way of saying that the Prop Disk Loads have nothing to do with turning ability. Find me one example from ANY engineering / Aerodynamic manual or book that says it does. Unless of course you know better than all the most learned scholars in this specialised subject.
You have a theory and it might well be an interesting theory, I am not qualified to question it, but you have as far as I can see Nothing to prove that Prop Disk Loads have anything to do with the solution.

My Questions
Quote:
"a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly
Your reply
a) In the report.
b)Whoever said that? At best a possible choice from above them in view of poor high speed handling and better durability. Who cares? Derating does indicate they did not hugely care about high speed performance however...
c) Pronounced aileron snatching described as characteristic: Sorry but the US Navy is all alone on this point at least...

A) Which Report. The one I have says that the engine was derated but also the RAF test establishment didn't know why and uprated it for some of the tests. The report I have didn't say the rating was too high, they said it was lower than expected, big difference
B) YOU DID posting 46 extract is The engines were de-rated because the FW-190A did not handle at all well at speeds above 250 MPH, or at full power (tail sinking in dives and either tail sinking or violently wing snapping in turns:
C) I was asking where did you make the assumption that the aileron was not adjusted correctly. Your reply that the aileron snatching was a characteristic wasn't supported by anything. The report you quoted did say Aileron control is very good at all airspeeds which doesn't indicate any problem with them being adjusted incorrectly.

Still waiting for those multiple 360° contest down on the deck, or at least level, slow speed and not too high, where the Spitfire wins versus the FW-190A... Something that looks like this for instance:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

My question was asking you to support the contention that you made and I quote
Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...
I gave you two links which give you access to over 160 combat reports (and I have others if you wish) and ask you how many of those were Low Speed Turning fights. Then you expect me to be convinced that the One repeat One cherry picked combat report that you can find, proves that they are the bread and butter type of combat.
If you want to improve your case you may want to look at those combat reports, find the ones that are sustained low speed turning combats and add them to your list. However the small matter of the 150 + combats that you leave off the list, might be a little inconvenient.
Dare I suggest that Shaw was a little closer to reality than your ideas.

 

[Colin1]

3,500 metres (11,000ft) is HIGH altitude...

11,000ft would be considered as the lower echelons of medium altitude

 

[riacrato]

If the engines were derated for the purpose of improving low-speed handling, certainly there would be at least one primary source (field report or pilot interview) saying so, no?

 

[The Basket]

Training Fw 190 would have a restraint on them so the throttle cant be fully opened.

Read lots of stuff over the years and read nothing which said the 190 was a good turner...good roller...but not good turner.

Go slow in a 190 and you run into its stall which comes without warning and is quite snappy.

That means you dont go slow turning.

 

[Colin1]

Gaston
I've just picked up on this thread

Can you elucidate further on your theory 'Derating as a Low-speed Handling Enabler'

Thankyou in anticipation

 

[The Basket]

Derating as a low speed handling enabler?

I thought a throttle and.not opening it would have same effect.

 

[Gaston]

Gaston
I've just picked up on this thread

Can you elucidate further on your theory 'Derating as a Low-speed Handling Enabler'

Thankyou in anticipation

-I did not theorize about this as an advantage over downthrottling... It isn't: I just noted that it idicates the Germans did not care about the FW-190A's high-speed handling, and did not consider high speed an essential part of fighting with it to its best relative advantage, which would allow not losing pilots (who are infinitely more valuable and expensive than the airplane). It could very well be it was done to save wear on the engines, but that STILL demonstrates that high speed handling was not something important that reduced the expected rate of loss of the FW-190A in combat...

Note the Me-109G was FASTER at many altitudes than early FW-190A models, yet IT was never de-rated to save wear on the engine, even though early Me-109Gs DID have serious engine reliability issues (which killed Marseille among others)...

The Germans certainly allowed full power rating on later FW-190A models, especially against the 8th Air Force bombers, which forced the FW-190A to fight at high altitudes where it needed all the power it could get owing to its peculiar abruptly deteriorating handling above 21-22 000 ft..

Probably the FW-190A pilots were lectured in class on how it was best used as a low-speed fighter in sustained horizontal turns at medium-low altitudes (downthrottling in sustained turns was not a universally accepted method by the Germans or anyone else [Fin ace Karhila makes a specific reference to that fact: "Most pilot applied maximum power and then turned, I reduced throttle and found I could turn just as well"], and so downthrottling in sustained turns appears entirely to have been a sporadic application of real front-line knowledge, on 3 types at least: FW-190A, P-51D and the Me-109G), but in some cases, according to Robert Johnson, the FW-190A pilots seem to have applied it unusually coarsely: He describes then "cutting out the engine" which seems a bit extreme and ineffective... He suggested this made them easier to shoot down...

This would indicate these FW-190A pilots were aware of the advantages of the prop disc "pull" reduction (since the effect is IMMEDIATE rather than just from the decreased speed itself, whose theoretical effect requires waiting for speed to bleed off: Unrealistic anyway since most of these WWII fighters had a "Corner Speed" so high ["near max. level speed": 1989 SOETP test] they barely ever flew faster than "Corner Speed" except in dives...), but these FW-190A pilots apparently applied downthrottling coarsely and without patience to reduce their short-term UNSUSTAINED turn rate. This of course did not work since downthrottling is a matter of improving SUSTAINED turning (and thus prolonged turns at low speeds), especially the radius of sustained turning compared to the likely slightly more modest reduction in the actual 360° sustained turn time...

Gaston