Spitfire IX v. FW 190A
- Thread starter Medvedya
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe it was the Bf109F-4 that killed Marseille
--Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point...
Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:
The Me-109: "Its principal characteristic in combat was speed."
SPEED. This for an aircraft usually slower, or no better, in top speed than most of what Clostermann flew at the lower altitudes he usually fought (especially vs the Tempest V!)... Doesn't that alone say much? If a slower top speed fighter turned tightly in combat, rather than using the vertical, would its PRINCIPAL characteristic in combat be speed? Floret anyone?
About the FW-190A in combat: "Later in the war they started using the flaps which allowed it to tighten its turns even further"
So a mention of speed for the Me-109, and immediately a mention of turn performance for the FW-190A... Sabre anyone?
I am still waiting for those supposed out-turning Me-109Gs accounts by Gabreski and co... Or low altitude not previously diving multiple 360° sustained-turning Spitfires for that matter!
Gaston
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Hauptmann Heinz Lange:
I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way
I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Even if that was the case
What is peculiar about a single-stage blower running out of steam at 21,000ft? I'd be astounded if my single-stage blower got me that high before wheezing out on me.
Fw190A performance across the majority of BMW801 models began to deteriorate after 18,000ft.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
A very bizarre post
even in WW2 the plane could in most cases out turn the pilot, pilots used to black out at maximum turn rate.
Test piots dont test a plane to destruction but a piot fighting for his life will, some pilots bent thir planes wings coming out of a dive.
When the FW 190 first appeared around about the Dieppe raid it out performed the current spitfire in every respect except turning according to the pilots who faced it who I think should know more than anyone on this forum. The Mk IX was developed to even the odds with the 190.
PS Closterman started in Spitfires but when flying a tempest feared nothing at all in the Luftwaffe, below 15,000ft he maintained he reigned supreme in 1944/45, at least that was my understanding of "the big show"
claidemore
Senior Airman
Gaston:
Check out this page about banning of 1.42 ATA on the DB605A (109G2).
Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.
As you can see you are incorrect about the Germans never 'de-rating' the 109, and if you read the report you will see that the ban on the use of higher boost was specifically because of engine problems.
Your statement about the Germans not caring about high speed handling and not considering high speed an essential part of fighting, is one of the oddest and most unsubstantiated statements I've seen on these forums.
Germany developed the two fastest late war fighters, the Me262 and Ta152. What would that indicate?
Check out this page about banning of 1.42 ATA on the DB605A (109G2).
Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.
As you can see you are incorrect about the Germans never 'de-rating' the 109, and if you read the report you will see that the ban on the use of higher boost was specifically because of engine problems.
Your statement about the Germans not caring about high speed handling and not considering high speed an essential part of fighting, is one of the oddest and most unsubstantiated statements I've seen on these forums.
Germany developed the two fastest late war fighters, the Me262 and Ta152. What would that indicate?
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I read an account by a mosquito pilot that said the best way to evade a 190 which was quicker at the end of the war was to go into a shallow dive then gently weave, however much the mosquito lost in manouvering at maximum speed the 190 lost more.
Quote, Glider:
"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."
---------------------------------
-Sigh... They quote "a tendency to reverse aileron control near the stall" in left turns... Non-existent in any other FW-190A handling evaluation...
This US Navy test also describes a roll rate "about equal to the Corsair", which so incensed the British RAE test establishment that they sent the US Navy an official "rebuttal" document, available online, which in effect argued conclusively that this could not in any way be true, the FW-190A's peak roll rate being around double that of the Corsair...
This is the only instance in WWII, that I am aware of, of one testing establishment actively and officially contesting the results of another...
It is the true ancestor of all those online arguments...
And please, read ALL 1300 combat reports, including the P-47s, not just the first 10 P-51 reports, to formulate an opinion about turn fighting... I did read most of those Spitfire reports too by the way... And reading all those reports, and much more, is in fact exactly how I changed my mind from a viewpoint identical to yours for decades... It is hard I know, since it took me decades to see the obvious, but you have to give contradicting facts a chance, and you haven't addressed them yet...
Gaston
P.S. Here is the US Navy report:
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/page3.jpg
Very strikingly, an earlier US Navy report with the earlier F6F-3 and F4U variants, against a short-nose FW-190A-4, reads identically almost word-for-word, including the absurd roll rate conclusions, which is not very encouraging for its proponents, given the differences in individual variants present...
Also, I should emphasize again that the ailerons were a critical aspect of the the FW-190A's slow-speed sustained turn-fighting performance, being described by a FW-190A-8 Western Ace as useable in "catching" the stall after a minimal stick release on stall warning, and thus "riding the turn" on deflected ailerons...
He chose for this the longest chord variant of 3 different types of ailerons, and extended that chord further by using field-installed "hinge spacers", creating a gap at the aileron hinge, which improved the low-speed turn performance even further. He also described the broad wood prop as being another significant advantage in low speed sustained turning with the throttle reduced.
He heavily emphasized the use of downthrottling, and popping the flaps, well before the merge, and used the FW-190A-8 in turn-fighting exclusively, facing into attacks if the enemy would not turn.
He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power: It would have been much closer if the P-51D pilot had done what Hanseman did here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
G.
"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."
---------------------------------
-Sigh... They quote "a tendency to reverse aileron control near the stall" in left turns... Non-existent in any other FW-190A handling evaluation...
This US Navy test also describes a roll rate "about equal to the Corsair", which so incensed the British RAE test establishment that they sent the US Navy an official "rebuttal" document, available online, which in effect argued conclusively that this could not in any way be true, the FW-190A's peak roll rate being around double that of the Corsair...
This is the only instance in WWII, that I am aware of, of one testing establishment actively and officially contesting the results of another...
It is the true ancestor of all those online arguments...
And please, read ALL 1300 combat reports, including the P-47s, not just the first 10 P-51 reports, to formulate an opinion about turn fighting... I did read most of those Spitfire reports too by the way... And reading all those reports, and much more, is in fact exactly how I changed my mind from a viewpoint identical to yours for decades... It is hard I know, since it took me decades to see the obvious, but you have to give contradicting facts a chance, and you haven't addressed them yet...
Gaston
P.S. Here is the US Navy report:
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/page3.jpg
Very strikingly, an earlier US Navy report with the earlier F6F-3 and F4U variants, against a short-nose FW-190A-4, reads identically almost word-for-word, including the absurd roll rate conclusions, which is not very encouraging for its proponents, given the differences in individual variants present...
Also, I should emphasize again that the ailerons were a critical aspect of the the FW-190A's slow-speed sustained turn-fighting performance, being described by a FW-190A-8 Western Ace as useable in "catching" the stall after a minimal stick release on stall warning, and thus "riding the turn" on deflected ailerons...
He chose for this the longest chord variant of 3 different types of ailerons, and extended that chord further by using field-installed "hinge spacers", creating a gap at the aileron hinge, which improved the low-speed turn performance even further. He also described the broad wood prop as being another significant advantage in low speed sustained turning with the throttle reduced.
He heavily emphasized the use of downthrottling, and popping the flaps, well before the merge, and used the FW-190A-8 in turn-fighting exclusively, facing into attacks if the enemy would not turn.
He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power: It would have been much closer if the P-51D pilot had done what Hanseman did here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
G.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
duplicate post
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Gaston - I am compelled by profound curiosity to ask whather a.) you have studied aeronautical engineering to the point that you at least understand the theory, can perform simple free body diagrams, and execute the math behind the manuevers while undserstanding the bounday conditions - personally - as in you, and b.) if you have ever had a hand in any aerial manuever other than simulations?
I know the answer to the first by the repeated emasculation of physics with your 'interesting' theories but I have been fooled before.
So, educate me?
I know the answer to the first by the repeated emasculation of physics with your 'interesting' theories but I have been fooled before.
So, educate me?
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Was probably?
He was tailing a P-51, or the P-51 was tailing him?
At what speed did both fighters enter the turn? If the P-51 was on the stall boundary, it implies (to me) that they must have entered at low speed, I doubt they bled it all off in two turns, so I'm not sure how the full-power application applies here.
-It is the FW-190A's HANDLING that deteriorates in a peculiar way above 21 000 ft, and not the BMW 801 engine performance that was peculiar, though it did do less well there than some of the others... Same with the P-38 at about the same altitude... P-38s could not fight real well above 20 000 ft., and despite superior high-altitude turbochargers, they waited for enemy fighters to come down to their level, but the severe dive Mach limitation at high altitude also no doubt also played a role there...
One thing should be emphasized is that performance deteriorations, particularly in handling, are not LINEAR with speed, power, weight OR altitude... Another reason why precise math predictions of those things has to be backed by actual tests...
Gaston
-They had to start at around or below 250 MPH, since the FW-190A would not use full power and had flaps deployed, and the FW-190A only turned well below 250 MPH (see P-47D test of an A-5)... The P-51D would be likely coming in a bit faster, and the FW-190A-8 REVERSED the tailing position in two turns, though I still find that hard to believe, and think it could have been say, 2.75 X 360°...
I do believe this is a real account, given all the details about the ailerons and such, but the original thread, started by a relative of the FW-190A pilot who relayed questions and comments, was deleted years ago by the Aces High site owner... Didn't fit dogma you see...
Gaston
Glider
Captain
Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.
PO J Stewart 30th July 1942
I stall turned to attack the rear two Fw190, They broke and turned with me but I could easily out turn them and got several bursts at the rear one.
S/Ldr Watkins 19th August 1942
A FW 190 dived down to my height and swept around behind me, I easily turned inside the enemy aircraft and fired a short burst at 45 degree deflection
Flt Lt Manak 5th September 1942
One of them got onto my tail I avoided him by a left hand climbing turn
S/Ldr T Gaze 11th October 1942
Whilst the left one turned, I easily out turned him and fired a long burst.
Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point.
While you are at it I did look at your combat report links and can only assume that either:-
a) you sent the wrong links or
b) my reading is very very poor.
I say this as your assertion that 80% of the combat reports invovled long slow turning battles is totally wrong. I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports support your comment I will apologise, note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this.
Yes I do know what Clostermann said about the Me109. 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.
This was in the link that I gave you and you can check it out for yourself. He most certainly wasn't saying that you are better off turning with an Me109, or that the Me109 was any good at high speed.
As for the turn of the Tempest. The combat report has some meaning
FO Ness 29 September 1944
We then had a turning match lasting four minutes at tree top level, I found that I was able to hold him in the turns in the course of which I was able to fire three short bursts.
So here we have a low altitude sustained turning match with a Fw 190 which after 4 minutes would have been at slow speed. Had he been up against an Me109 the Tempest would almost certainly have lost as per the warning by Clostermann, but against the FW he was able to better it in the turn, in a Tempest a fighter not known for its agility.
Again this was in the link that I gave you and you can check it for yourself.
As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109, examples for the Spitfire are common, some listed above and I did give you a link with a number of combat reports which you can check for yourself.
As for the statement that sustained turning combats were the bread an butter of air combat, this I firmly believe to be incorrect and that the links you gave support my contention.
I repeat my offer made above
I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. Note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information.
I await your reply with interest.
Last edited:
-They could NOT "out turn" the pilot in sustained turns, since sustaining the speed in those turns allows barely 3.2 Gs or thereabouts...
You have to remember that, in WWII speak, an unspecified "out-turn" quote is nearly always a reference to SUSTAINED turns, and that the UNSUSTAINED turns today's simmers obsess about was usually then spoken of as a "radius" of turn... But sometimes merely as a "tighter turn", as in "a tighter radius".
This is where all the confusion comes in when those implicated use the terms interchangeably... Hence the quote from Heinz Lange:
"I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a TIGHTER horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well."
Note that despite "a tighter turn" by the Me-109G, he STILL thinks that the FW-190A is more maneuverable, and it is obviously of turns that he is talking about here...
Do you really think a much heavier aircraft like the FW-190A can do more abrupt unsustained turn maneuvers than a Me-109G? It is clear he means that if you can master the FW-190A's stall you can SUSTAIN faster turn rates in the long run, but the Me-109G will turn tighter radiuses in the short run...
Yes the Me-109G and the Spitfires obviously can carve a tighter UNSUSTAINED RADIUS of turn than a FW-190A,..
The reason why sustained turns are more important in real-life, is that the real-life guns were so much weaker in impact (compared to computer games), and the target so unsteady and mobile, that shortly gaining would only gain you one or two hits: In real life you had to "pepper" for quite a while to really ensure a kill...
Note that when boom and zooming, a centralized armament was a big advantage to keep the peppering going for a while over a wide range of diminishing distances... Hence the P-38 and the Me-109G are among the most prominents WWII users of the "floret" step-forward stroke... (While the P-47D sure does a LOT of turn-fighting...)
Gaston
drgondog
Major
Gaston - you are a breath of fresh air...
No sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, or described as long sustained horizontal turns at low/medium altitudes... Again, find an account similar to the Johnny Johnson account... The Spitfire CAN greatly out-turn the FW-190A in short unsustained turns, at altitudes above 20-21 000 ft or at speeds above 250 MPH...
In your second example the FW-190A "dived down" to attack... NOT low-speed...
For all I know all these combats could have occurred above 20 000 ft... One of them is at 27 000 ft if I remember well, as it is not the first time I see these...
Gaston
-Quote: "Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.
Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Please refer to everything I have posted so far, particularly the Russian front-line evaluation quote:
-"The Fw-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" (and is more maneuverable on the horizontal than the Me-109)
-Johnny Johnson "The Fw-190A turns better than the Me-109"
-Heinz lange:"The FW-190A could do just about as well"
So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...
The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...
Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...
The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines, but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)
Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!
Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?
Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?
P-47 Encounter Reports
Maybe you have never said that because you know nothing of the relative turn performance of the P-47D vs the Me-109G?
Let's listen to what the German themselves said of an underpowered captured P-47D needle-tip prop in "On Special missions: KG 200":
"The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G". No speed, no altitude, nothing specified: Again the ususal sustained turn quote: Assume ALL altitudes, ALL speeds, but don't include into that the notion of downthrottling a Me-109G down to 160 MPH, which Karhila suggest is optimal...
A few routine reports; "http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-mudge-1dec43.jpg"
Note the THREE orbits...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg
Pretty clear...
Gaston
- Status
