Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[Milosh]

Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.

Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13.

The Germans had a habit of saying they were shot down by Spitfires instead of an lesser a/c. The P-51 was considered a better a/c than the P-38 by the Germans.

.................................

I would suggest you read 'The Long Reach'.

In it, P-47 pilots tell of doing yo-yo turns to stay with 109s in a turn. It also says in a horizontal turn engagement not to turn more than a half turn with the EA.

Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

 

[Glider]

Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

Very Selective. My personal favourite is where he states that because a Hurricane has a smaller turn radius than an early Spitfire. It follows that as a result, this apparently proves:-

a) beyond any doubt that a P47 can turn inside a Spitfire.
b) It also proves beyond any doubt that the Spitfire is obviously hopelessly incapable of matching sustained turns against a Fw.

I admit that these two leaps of logic are beyond me.

Any inconvenient things such as flight tests by test establishments that say otherwise are disposed of by simply saying ' but formal tests are so capricious and unreliable across types it is the only thing that makes sense'.

I will now leave it and let independent readers make their own minds up.

 

[Gaston]

Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03

"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

-Gee wiz... If the above isn't even "interesting", it's pretty hopeless...

I get the distinct impression somebody out there doesn't get it...

I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...

Gaston

 

[Jabberwocky]

Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):

I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...

Gaston

The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:

"At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive. "

 

[Jabberwocky]

Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.

Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.

RAF testing with a clipped wing Spitfire Mk V showed that the aircraft had a 40% smaller sustained turn radius than the FW 190A4 at 20,000 ft.

Soviet testing of a LF MK IX (again with clipped wings) shows a 45% smaller sustained turn radius than a FW 190 A5, this time at 1000 m (3,300 ft).

Soviet turn time testing shows that the FW-190 did a sustained circle in 22-23 seconds at 1000 m, worse than any other fighter they test, bar the P-47D and the Mustang.

Testing by four air forces: RAF, USN, Luftwaffe and VVS all indicate that the FW 190 is not a turn fighter.

What is it that you believe makes the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter?

Is it the very high stall speed (125-130 mph)?
The very high wing loading?
The tendency to go into snap stalls at low speed?
The tendency to reverse aileron control at low speed?

 

[claidemore]

The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble.

Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn.

The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035.

Jabberwocky? Could you provide a link to the Soviet turn tests?

Claidemore

 

[Glider]

This might be of interest. The voice over by a Tempest pilot makes it clear that the Fw would nearly always try to escape by diving.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

 

[drgondog]

Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn.

The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035.

Jabberwocky? Could you provide a link to the Soviet turn tests?

Claidemore

Claidmore - as you know, decelerating while in a high g sustained turn, reduces energy and leads to a descending spiral - and opponent has all the advantages. You are not confused - but somebody is.

 

[Gaston]

Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.

Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13.

The Germans had a habit of saying they were shot down by Spitfires instead of an lesser a/c. The P-51 was considered a better a/c than the P-38 by the Germans.

.................................

I would suggest you read 'The Long Reach'.

In it, P-47 pilots tell of doing yo-yo turns to stay with 109s in a turn. It also says in a horizontal turn engagement not to turn more than a half turn with the EA.


Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

And you are not?!?


Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the actual wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang...

It is true the two can be easily confused...

Anyway if the footage is clear, then did you know they stupidly put the P-38's gun camera in the nose near the guns, which when firing obscured everything by vibration and smoke? If when firing the image is clear, then you'll know the footage comes from a P-51...

The guncam footage must be online somewhere...

As for the P-47 yo-yo quote, how about backing up this general pilot opinion with an actual combat account? Then we would know if he was turning to the RIGHT or to the LEFT, as you'll note I ALWAYS make the distinction...

If you find me ONE combat account of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT, in SUSTAINED multiple 360° horizontal turns, a P-47D prior to January 1944, I'll concede defeat for the P-47D (not the 190 of course). How's that?

I have about 250-400 of those combats going completely the other way, including down to 4 consecutive 360° climbing spirals down to 140 MPH at 5000 ft.(Admittedly against a likely Gondola Me-109G, but still...).

I know, I know, it's all about the levitating powers of the pilot you know...

Read those 600 reports and get back to us with your super-turning Me-109Gs combat accounts...

Like this one for instance...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg



If you had read even one tenth of the 600 P-47D combat reports on Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance", you would realize how absurd is your notion of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT a late 1943/early 1944 Razorback in sustained turns, or even ANY P-47 for that matter... There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used). Read the combat reports and see for yourself: The only aircraft putting the P-47D in trouble in sustained turns is the FW-190A... And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...

But of course, according to you, the Hurricane pilot doesn't know what he is talking about when he says the FW-190A "kept coming" when the Spitfire and Me-109 could not...

And Johnny Johnson...

And the combined Russian frontline experience...

And British RAE tests, since YOU like formal tests...

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.

Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.

RAF testing with a clipped wing Spitfire Mk V showed that the aircraft had a 40% smaller sustained turn radius than the FW 190A4 at 20,000 ft.

Soviet testing of a LF MK IX (again with clipped wings) shows a 45% smaller sustained turn radius than a FW 190 A5, this time at 1000 m (3,300 ft).

Soviet turn time testing shows that the FW-190 did a sustained circle in 22-23 seconds at 1000 m, worse than any other fighter they test, bar the P-47D and the Mustang.

Testing by four air forces: RAF, USN, Luftwaffe and VVS all indicate that the FW 190 is not a turn fighter.

What is it that you believe makes the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter?

Is it the very high stall speed (125-130 mph)?
The very high wing loading?
The tendency to go into snap stalls at low speed?
The tendency to reverse aileron control at low speed?

I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...

I keep saying this over and over, and people still get it wrong....

RAF tests of the Me-109G vs P-51B vs FW-190A (Source: Le Fana de l'Aviation Hors Serie #38, p.102):

"Turn Rate P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is vastly superior to the Me-109G.

Turn Rate P-51B vs FW-190A: Not much to choose between them.

Turn rate P-51B with FULL UNDERWING DROP TANKS:

P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is still vastly superior to the Me-109G.

P-51B vs FW-190A: Still roughly equal."

Page 102, check it out, but it is translated in French...

Now I think the combat report evidence of 700 P-51 combat reports on the Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site is somewhat different.... The unfamiliar aircrafts in the RAF test here are both underestimated, as you would expect:

Combat evidence (700 reports): The Me-109G can be roughly equal to the Merlin P-51 in sustained low-speed turns, usually mainly on the deck, especially vs the P-51D, but is almost always slightly inferior in all other circumstances... Even on the deck, the Me-109G is inferior in sustained turns if the Merlin P-51 uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method (but this only if the Me-109G stays itself at full power??)...

FW-190A is often "lost" by P-51, but the P-51D can out-turn it at low speeds only if it uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method in sustained turns.

There is only one case in the 700 reports of low-speed out-turning by the P-51 of the FW-190A, and the P-51 in that case uses this "downthrottling" method, all three elements of it, continuously over two and a half 360°s... (After a very long dive speed might still have been above 250 MPH on the third 360°, but it does seem the P-51 is unusually competitive when downthrotllted over several 360°s. Note the FW-190A was also recommended to be downthrottled by one of its pilots, who always used his FW-190A-8 like this in combat, and used horizontal turns only... "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8" he said. And indeed he described gaining 360° on a TAILING P-51D, turning flat on the deck, in TWO consecutive 360° turns, and shooting it down. This incredible rate of gain of 180° per 360° turn was made possible by the use of downthrottling, flaps, the broader wood prop, and most of all the use of the widest chord of 3 aileron types offered, widened further in the field by the use of field-mounted hinge "spacers" to enhance further the low-speed turn rate, this of course at the expense of the high speed roll rate... Of course the P-51D in this case did not downthrottle...)

At high speeds (above 250 MPH) in descending combat, the Merlin P-51 is vastly superior in all maneuvers except roll to the FW-190A, and the FW-190A cannot sustain turns to one side without snapping out or mushing, and is forced to constantly shift turn direction as often as possible as it dives.... The FW-190A also blacks out its pilots even in "elongated curve" looping maneuvers... (Suggesting harsh nose-up tail down deceleration)

As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were not done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...

These are tests done for wind tunnel evaluation procedures, they were intended to calibrate wind tunnel test results; They have nothing to do with actual test comparisons and were never intended to be used as such by anyone...

Furthermore, many of the numbered results could be calculated extrapolations... The fact that these results were never used in VVS pilot training (Quite unlike my "Russian Experience" evaluation with "FW-190A turns better horizontally than Me-109, and inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed", which originates from the front-line combat pilots themselves, with the intention of informing their fellow combat pilots...).

This information on the background of the TsAGI tests was relayed by another poster on this site (I will link his quote). There are other issues of aircraft unfamiliarity as well, plaguing all these formal tests, and barring seeing the original documents, I saw one Russian-language site quoting the TsAGI turns times for the FW-190A-4 as 19-23 seconds (?), one second below the Me-109G-2 or F for the 19 seconds side of the quote...

Like all formal tests, TsAGI tests are more misleading than the near-perfectly coherent picture of a large number of combat reports and front-line observations...

Gaston

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...)

Oh, and are you really sure Karhila's 160 MPH "optimal" sustained turning speed can be at full power? Tsk-Tsk...

G.

 

[Gaston]

The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:

"At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive. "

Funny, the report says the Spit Mk V had trouble staying at altitude while matching turns at 30 000 ft., and the Spitfire Mk IX had no trouble keeping altitude.

Yet there is still little to chose between the two aircrafts in the sustained turn rate, despite the HUGE difference in power and climb rate at that height...

At 15 000 ft. did the Spitfire Mk V have trouble maintaining height while matching the horizontal turn rate of the Spitfire Mk IX? Apparently not...

Yet, were the two equal in horsepower at 15 000 ft?

Yes I will concede, on the Spitfire, an increase of 400 horsepower (25%) will compensate for an increase in weight from 6700 lbs to 7400 lbs (10%)...

So an increase of 15% in the power-to-weight ratio yielded 0% of increase in the sustained turn rate... Even at extreme altitudes, with a two-stage supercharger optimized for high altitudes that likely increased the 30 000 ft. power-to-weight ratio by 30%, still a 0% increase resulted in the sustained turn rate...

It would seem the power-to-weight ratio has little relationship to the sustained turn rate performance...

Which is exactly why we have Hurricane pilots telling us the Spifire couldn't sustain turns with them, while the FW-190A could...

How about a quote of the Me-109G out-sustaining turns with something?

A P-47D Razorback to the left for instance... ...

Gaston

 

[Njaco]

Just a reminder not to let this get any louder in here.

Don't know if this will help the conversation but this is from Dr. Alfred Price's book, "Fw-190 At War".

The first capturd Fw 190 was tested by the Air Fighting Detachment Unit at Duxford in July/August 1942 and this is what they reported. An Fw 190A-3 was used.

 

[Milosh]

Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the actual wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang...

It is true the two can be easily confused...

Anyway if the footage is clear, then did you know they stupidly put the P-38's gun camera in the nose near the guns, which when firing obscured everything by vibration and smoke? If when firing the image is clear, then you'll know the footage comes from a P-51...

The guncam footage must be online somewhere...

What color is the tail band of this 109 Gaston?

Do you see any gun smoke in this video Gaston?
Do you see any vibration in this video Gaston?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8J5-bhgdPc

The 434th FS flew P-38s.

P-38J May 1944 to 27 Sep. 1944
P-51D 13 Sep. 1944 to Sep. 1945

Also the gun camera was in the lower portion of the nose cap and the guns were above.

 

[claidemore]

Quote from Gaston:

And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...

Quote from AFDU trial on P47-C (yeah I know it's not a D)

25. Manoeuvrability – The good aileron control gives the P-47 an excellent rate of roll even at high speeds, and during mock combats it was considered to roll as well as, if not better than the Spitfire at about 30,000 feet. At lower altitudes there is nothing to choose between them. The rate of turn of the Spitfire is naturally superior to the heavier P-47 and in turning circles it was found that after four turns the Spitfire could get on the P-47's tail and remain there with a chance of shooting with correct deflection....

As far as the Spit vs FW 190 goes, here are some quotes from AFDU Tactical Trials of Spitfire XIV:
Comparing to Spitfire Mk IX:

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Comparing to FW190 : Turning Circle

41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

 

[drgondog]

I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...

As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were not done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...

That comment is simply not true. All test results analyzed by competent engineers first normalize the data to STP. The Soviets were extremely competent engineers.

These are tests done for wind tunnel evaluation procedures, they were intended to calibrate wind tunnel test results; They have nothing to do with actual test comparisons and were never intended to be used as such by anyone...

Wind tunnel tests are about predicting behavior for level flight and developing Drag and Lift and Moment data. Flight tests are all about determining what 'reality' brings to the table.

This information on the background of the TsAGI tests was relayed by another poster on this site (I will link his quote). There are other issues of aircraft unfamiliarity as well, plaguing all these formal tests, and barring seeing the original documents, I saw one Russian-language site quoting the TsAGI turns times for the FW-190A-4 as 19-23 seconds (?), one second below the Me-109G-2 or F for the 19 seconds side of the quote...

Like all formal tests, TsAGI tests are more misleading than the near-perfectly coherent picture of a large number of combat reports and front-line observations...

Pilot skill and a/c condition are the plague of flight test results for manuevering..
Gaston

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...)

Oh, and are you really sure Karhila's 160 MPH "optimal" sustained turning speed can be at full power? Tsk-Tsk...

G.

The Mustang best turn rate at highest CLmax and load factor, lowest turn radius is ~159mph... at full power at SL.

What you do not know is that to achieve the best sustained turn rate you have to increase the local AoA to the near stall point to keep the bird in the air for the bank angle attained. Your engine must be pulling as hard as it can to overcome the enormous induced drag for that condition.

Once there, if you pull power, you either reduce the bank angle to reduce the load factor or you descend into a spiral turn - or you stall out trying to maintain the bank angle.

PS - nobody in a dogfight has his eyes on his instruments so being able to state 'constant altitude turn' is absurd. The guy in trail is focused on the guy in front, the guy in front is trying everything necessary with stick and rudder and throttle to change the circumstances - he ain't looking at his instruments either.

Most Encounter reports in which a turn is involved is one where the shooter starts shooting at say 300 yards, the target turns one way or the other or dives, the trailer has a lot of room to cut inside and get deflection even in the case where the target tries to turn and dive... game over if he can shoot.

The encounter reports are submitted by the winner based on his recollection of a fight that occurred hours or days before.

 

[Glider]

If I can add to Claidemore's posting these test results were supported by the combat reports I posted on Posting 96.

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.

So we have the test reports being supported by pilots combat reports that the Spitfire can easily turn inside a Fw190.

Against this we have a report from a Hurricane Pilot. Now lets think about his for a moment.
a) Did this pilot ever fly a Spitfire in combat? I don't know but the probability is that he didn't. Most Hurricane Squadrons were either posted overseas or converted to Typhoons. His comment makes sense if he was flying Typhoons against Fw 190, as there was little in it so the tactical situation and skill of the pilots involved would have a major influence on the result.
b) If he was only a Hurricane Pilot did he fly combat against Fw 190? Possibly as a Hurrie Bomber which adds another factor to the debate. The RAF knew that the Spit V was clearly outclassed by the Fw 190 and would not knowingly send Hurricane fighters against the Fw 190, as their chances of success were very slim, at best.

 

[Glider]

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...) G.

Gaston

I don't have any combat reports about Me109's turning tighter than other fighters but then again:-
a) As the Me109 would have won the battle the loser is unlikely to have been around to write the report.
b) I did post previously the advice given to his Pilots by Clostermann (someone you were keen to quote when you thought it suited you). I repeat it here in case you have forgotten it
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 straight climb and start all over again.
I think its safe to assume that he wouldn't have kept reminding his pilots of this advice without good reason.

Finally as you are talking about still waiting for things. I remind you (again) that my offer is still open re analysing the ten combat reports either side of one of your choice to see how common a sustained turning combat was.
I have no preference of aircraft type, Spitfire, Tempest, P51 or P47. The choice is all yours.
I was going to let this lie but you keep repeating this type of comment recently saying:-
There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used).

So all I am asking you to do is support this clearly incorrect statement.

I await your reply with interest.

 

[DonL]

Some hints and thoughts.

The Fw 190A and Bf 109G were often compared by the LW in Rechlin.
There were some hints between the line. And the guys at Rechlin were not lying in their own jacket.

The Bf 109 was a true energy fighter, which was a real bitch to fly.The strenghts of the Bf 109 were in the vertical not in the horizontal, The FW 190 were much more easy for rookies and the FW 190 was built to fly high speed with easy controls. The Bf 109 was much harder to control at high speed.
The general comparation was, that the Bf 109 had much more acceleration, could climb better and turn tighter at low speeds with the slats. At high speeds the FW 190 had the edge, cause of the much easier controls. At a dive the FW 190 was faster and much easier to control. But with an very experienced Pilot the Bf 109 G was the better fighter, cause of the much better weight to power ratio (acceleration), and at the horizontal the Bf 109G could turn much tighter than an FW 190.
But that was said very often between the line's, the Bf 109 was in need of a very experienced pilot to bring out it's good's. The FW 190 was much much easier to fly for rookies and much easier to control at high speed.
No german fighter was an horizontal fighter (crossing at high speed at the horizontal), all had their good's at vertical maneuver, climb, dive, and acceleration.

Edit:
Erich Hartmann could bring down 4 USSAF Mustangs in 10 min. with an very classic boom and zoom (from high altitude with the much bettter position) tactic and later on, could turn tighter than 7 Mustangs (the Mustangs played it fair). That's shows in real life, what an ordinary Bf 109 G6 ( without MW50 and GM1) could manage to do, whith an outstanding Pilot.. After that it was more a standof, cause of the high respect from all sides.

 

[Gaston]

If I can add to Claidemore's posting these test results were supported by the combat reports I posted on Posting 96.

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.

So we have the test reports being supported by pilots combat reports that the Spitfire can easily turn inside a Fw190.

Against this we have a report from a Hurricane Pilot. Now lets think about his for a moment.
a) Did this pilot ever fly a Spitfire in combat? I don't know but the probability is that he didn't. Most Hurricane Squadrons were either posted overseas or converted to Typhoons. His comment makes sense if he was flying Typhoons against Fw 190, as there was little in it so the tactical situation and skill of the pilots involved would have a major influence on the result.
b) If he was only a Hurricane Pilot did he fly combat against Fw 190? Possibly as a Hurrie Bomber which adds another factor to the debate. The RAF knew that the Spit V was clearly outclassed by the Fw 190 and would not knowingly send Hurricane fighters against the Fw 190, as their chances of success were very slim, at best.

Less slim than the Spitfire V and its lack of superior Mk IX climb rate, and thus boom and zoom ability on the vertical... (The only way the Mk IX will gain an edge over the Mk V, as we have seen in the British test: Remember that math-noxious conclusion about turn rates, with 15% more power-to-weight ratio(!) on the Mk IX side?... +15% in power-to-weight = +0% in turn rate)

After all, we all agree the Hurricane DID out-turn the Spitfire in sustained turns, do we not? Thus they likely did better vs the FW-190A than a Mk V at least....

The whole reason the myth of superior Spitfire turn rate got established, it seems clear to me now, is because of the Spitfire's superior turn RADIUS...

It is also clear to me the mistake in procedure test pilots do is to consider a dogfight won when they get a sight picture and hold it for a few seconds... This allows clearly silly and outrageous statements like "The Spitfire V out-turns the FW-190A" to be pervasive in such tests...

The problem is that the gun hit rate in actual combat is around 2% (Luftwaffe study), and this is what changes a large part of the picture...

A very long burst of 50 rounds per gun: around 5 seconds of continuous firing throughout a full quater circle continuously(!), will yield from a tailing Spitfire a likely TWO 20 mm impacts and about FOUR 7.7mm bullet holes...

If the pilot is lucky... Now he will be firing about one eight of a circle every full circle if he is not wasteful, so ONE 20 mm hit and TWO 7.7 mm bullet holes for every full 360° circle while in tailing position...

This follows the number of circle it took to get in position... (Hopefully against the FW-190A not more than one and half turns, or it's likely a lost cause...)

So all the successful Spitfire "out-turning" combats are those that gained a firing position quickly (within a 360° turn and a half at most, and not from a head-on merge. You'll note above one example of a FW-190A actually tailing and being reversed, and of course the FW-190A was diving into the tailing position... Tailing FW-190As being reversed (always very quickly) by Spitfires are always going at a pretty high speed IE: See P-47D comparative test comments for speeds above 250 MPH: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg...) and also the Spitfires had the additional good luck to score fatal hits within the first 50-100 shots of a single burst... All of this you'll note is (what a coincidence!) exactly what all the examples thrown at me here show... No multiple consecutive 360° turns in sight...

What would be more indicative is a head-on merge at co-altitude and moderate speed with at least no previous diving... Like this for instance!: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

The trouble is that more commonly, if the start situation is more even and as a face-to-face merge, as described in the Johnny Johnson encounter (rather than the Spitfire starting from somewhere behind already) then the time to gain plus the time to hit and destroy is often enough to evolve into the second or third 360°, by which time things start to get hopeless for the Spitfire (unless maybe it is a Mk IX which can make steep climbs out of the turn to shift the fight to the vertical, as it did in tests against the Mk V).

This is I think exactly why there is all this confusion on this issue...: Turn contests by test pilots do not involve actual shooting and hitting until smoke and fire comes out, so the turn contest is limited to gaining an approximate sight picture and calling it a win...

What is striking in this bias is that if we understand the bias of unsustained turn radius vs prolonged turn rate, all the test pilot conclusions vs front line comments make perfect sense: Test pilots note superficially the shorter turn radius, and combat pilot note (with guns firing which also slows down the aircraft noticeably in sustained turns) the prolonged turn sustainability...

In unsustained turn radius, the hierarchy is exactly what intuition would expect:

Spitfire Mk IX, Me-109G, P-51D, P-47D, FW-190A...

In sustained turns, to left at least, the real-life picture is completely different:

FW-190A, P-47D, Spitfire Mk IX, P-51D, Me-109G

This, plus the utter confusion over what full power does to the sustained turn rate (if you don't downthrottle throughout the successive 360° turns), when this power pulls from the nose as opposed to pushing from the tail, makes the overall "corrected" picture very coherent, right down to the shorter-nosed types having generally an edge in sustained turns, though maybe not exclusively for that reason alone...

More coherent than the pathetic notion of the Me-109G out-turning the Razorback P-47 to left for instance... (Let's have combat examples of THAT... Lol!)

Anyway, I don't know in how many different ways I can explain the same thing over and over...

Gaston

P.S. As for the Hurricane pilot being an inexperienced doofus, let's just say I don't buy it... After all, why do the Russians combat pilots "consensus experience" say: "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed"?!?

They, and Johnny Johnson, and many others, are all out to lunch, right?

Gaston

 

[Glider]

So in the end you believe that a Hurricane stands a better chance against a Fw190 than a Spit V. Priceless, simply priceless.