Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Fighting Wings 3rd Edition uses 4 second turns and a 12 point compass. A single facing change is 30 degrees and each facing change incurs drag decel. The turn circle is determined by airspeed and g-load. The higher the g-load at a given speed the more facings allowed. Decel increases with g-load.
It does not take long for a turning fight to devolve into two planes going around just above stall speed barely pulling any gees.
Alert in the West by Willi Heilmann has FW 190 combat from a Luftwaffe pilot's perspective. From memory it begins in 1944 from around D-day and he later switches to flying 190Ds.
What??Most of those were near the deck and in really flat circles by the time you hear of high circle numbers, but some high numbers were from descending spirals, although with these you usually don't hear of a number of circles but of how much altitude is lost. Yet it is similar since faster circles are wider, so in reality the issue with spirals was being below your opponent, which was bad, and was why the circles were often kept as flat as possible.
P-51s are known to have gone around with 10 degrees or 20 degrees of flaps for at least 10 circles on the deck, so I doubt flaps were a limiting factor.
The concern about "bleeding speed" is amusing because it is treated as if it is something bad... If you read WWII combat accounts, you will see they never really used full power in turns (except some oddballs like the Yaks -and probably the Spitfire, devoid as it was of partial flaps, and having a wider faster radius-. The Yaks did not like turning below 200 mph due to their heavily swept leading edges being devoid of slats: Laggs and Las had less swept leading edges, and had leading edge slats, a huge difference in combat behaviour). Most of the savvy pilots (outside those exceptions) cut the throttle as they did multiple circles, because they had partial flaps that allowed less speed, which in turn got the smaller radius...
Why was it so important to be slower? Because the lower speed got you the smaller radius, which allowed a steady aiming lead without raising the nose, so the smaller radius was EVERYTHING... The Spitfire was one of the rare ones that could raise the nose and aim with the wings rumbling at smaller circles, hence the legend of it turning well by shooting (badly) at smaller circles... It had a 1025 (mk I)-1050 foot minimum radius to most other type's 800-950...
Concerns about bleeding speed in turns are mostly reconstructions from the jet age, I speculate because jets do not benefit from airflow compression between prop and wing, which happens when the prop is heavily loaded for steady periods, and for curves this happens in turns only (steady climbs are generally not curves). This is why the SAAB J 21 was a dog in turns despite a wing area neartly equal to a Ta-152H (22 sq m) and the same engine as a Me-109G with 17 sq m. With power reduced, the Me-109G would likely fly rings around the SAAB...
With "prop/wing compression" turns are surprisingly tolerant of speed loss and low speeds. (I duplicated this in the game by allowing no speed loss or Power Factors if only turns are used in Maneuver Speed: Infinite turning at low speeds, one of the keys of the re-vamp.)
Karhila said the optimal combat turning speed for a Me-109G-6 with gondolas was 160 mph on the deck, so barely 55 mph above stall. One P-47D Razorback pilot claims multiple circles turning at 150 mph on the deck in left turns, despite a very mushy initial turn. In most types no pilot will use full power in multiple low speed circles, as the lower power favoured what I think is the upward airflow bifurcation that increased the prop/wing compression in turns (this created longitudinal tension between wing and prop, which would amount to cancelling some momentum, explaining why the FW-190A pilot had to push on the stick below 220 knots). This is why they kept the throttle down if they knew enough to lower it, which some (but far from all) pilots did.
In a test the Swedes did, they found the Lagg-3 had nearly the same turn time at cruise power than it did at full power: 23 to 24 seconds. This small difference is from the huge reduction in radius at cruise compared to full power.
I actually think the benefits of reduced power went slightly beyond that Swedish test: Karhila said that with reduced power his turn time was "equal" to those using full power, and his radius was then much smaller of course. But he also said that during turns (he faced mostly La-5s), "If the enemy downthrottled in the turn, I downthrottled even more.", which shows the dynamic of a prop turning contest was in reality a contest of slowness.
Which matches an old pilot "proverb" of this prop period: "Dogfighting is a race where the slowest wins."
Among other things, trapping a target (since it could not roll out) into a contest of slowness meant you had a steady target distance at similar speeds. And you often needed that given the weakness of guns at an average 1% hit rate.
What??
Pilots did not prefer anything slow in combat.
I am not sure where you're coming up with these ideas, but if you bleed off your airspeed, you will become a victim.
P-40 pilots learned this the hard way against the K-43 and A6M early on. Their solution was to retain their speed advantage if they entered a turning fight against their adversary.
And *if* slower was better, than WWII would have been fought with S.E.5s and D.VIIs.
What??
Pilots did not prefer anything slow in combat.
I am not sure where you're coming up with these ideas, but if you bleed off your airspeed, you will become a victim.
P-40 pilots learned this the hard way against the K-43 and A6M early on. Their solution was to retain their speed advantage if they entered a turning fight against their adversary.
And *if* slower was better, than WWII would have been fought with S.E.5s and D.VIIs.
Have you ever flown an aircraft?Just understand this: Excess speed practically requires point-blank fire and a straight moving target.
It so happens that despite these restrictions, a significant number of kills were achieved early on. By the end everyone (except the Japanese Navy) turned more.
Maybe not the S.E.5 and D.VII, but definitely the Ki-43 over the Ki-84!!! :
Osprey "Ki-43 aces of WWII" p.50: Sgt. Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace: "I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h). They could not avoid an attack if it came from above, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn (17-18 s. left, 20-21 s. right). I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43 (540 km/h, 13 s. turn either way), as the Ki-84 would have left you in a tight spot if attacked from above by P-51s. Skilled Spitfire [Mk VIII] pilots would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New [Spitfire] pilots would continue to dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight..."
The Zero pilots, on the other hand, were given exactly the same misinformation as you:
-Drachinifeld, YT, "A6M Zero or Hero?" (Interview with Justin Pyke, UCalgary MA in Military and Intelligence History, @CBI_PTO_History) 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics (hit and run) indicated the Zero lacked maneuverability." 59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable." 59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight." 1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not engage in a turning duel." 1:01:42 USN pilot comment (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeros could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails. "
(Meaning TURNING at reduced power. Yes! Which Zeros SHOULD have done, but did NOT...):
"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history
As were misinformed many Me-109 pilots:
"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. " (karhila)
Turning at reduced power to the rescue:
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
"Erich's tactic (Eric Hartmann, probably 150 kills at most) was to strike quickly, getting as close as possible before firing, and then "hit and run", using the Messerschmitt's excellent climbing ability to advantage. Then he would repeat the process, taking advantage of his plane's good acceleration in dive. Unlike Hans Joachim Marseille, Hartmann hardly ever scored multiple victories in a single pass (because straight and unaware, remember?). Bubi generally looked for a high cloud behind which to hide between attacks. His tactics were not unlike those of Manfred von Richthofen, the top scorer of the First World War."Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association
WWI Red Baron tactics, get it?
Speed bad. Yes, speed bad, turn good:
-Iseo Mochizuki (Ki-61 pilot ace, 2009 interview, 90 years old): "In the case of the Hien, you
would make a high speed attack [makes dive and zoom hand gesture]. But then, because [of
the speed] the turn radius became wide, and the enemy pilot [target] could turn inside you.
Because of that [speed] the chances of being shot down was high."
-Notes by QAZ, "Aviation Decisive Battle Weapons" P. 164-165, "Unknown Sword" P. 86-89 (Me-109E-7 vs
Ki-27): Oblt. Losigkeit: "I think the Bf-109 can shoot when the Ki-27 tries [begins] to turn. [However] the Ki-27 often
turns, so I cannot dive on it."
P-51B vs Me-109G-6
"The second Me-109 was maneuvering to get on my tail, and a dogfight developed at 500 ft. (after climbing, from 150 ft. out of attacking a landing Me-109, and this with only a slow gain) At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got to the edge of the [German] airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. [Meaning he was forced to turn multiple consecutive 360s continuously, even when going towards the enemy ground fire!!!] Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field, and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."
spitfireperformance.com/
mustang/combat-reports/339-
hanseman-24may44.jpg
Andf if yout think the P-51 did not turn, here is a circle fight of about 35 continuous minutes of making 90-100 consecutive circles on the deck. You could not roll out onced locked in the 3 G range... I know of at least 3 such instances. (2 of 30 minutes, one 15 minutes.)
View: https://youtu.be/wkaTGSpRuJI?si=Ho1nvC5OxsP6CLxA
AT THE 1:20 MARK "Fortunately, those shells went just behind my tail. I made I think probably 75 to 100 circles. Whether the Mustang was that much better (makes a small pinching gesture) or I was that much better than him, or a combination of both, I was gaining on him."
Can you even imagine how common were 4-10 circles? Hit and run on the other hand is much rarer than sneaking up under the tail, which in turn is much rarer than turning 4 consecutive circles, especially by 1944.
Just accept that your conception of this is the exact opposite of how it really was (and also the exact opposite of jet post war conceptions), and for some reason I am your only chance on Earth of understanding how it really was. Which Earth is NOT flat by the way...
Have you ever flown an aircraft?
I mean an actual, physical, piston-powered airplane, sitting in the left seat?
Why are you shouting?
Eng
How about answering my question.I guess you are saying they haven't?
How about adressing the quotes frontally and one by one for a change?
Or maybe you are one of those who asserts there is no relationship between words, thoughts and reality?
You did not adress the highlighted points. This is why they are highlighted.
Because most of your quotes are not particularly points to address, many are possibly attributable and what is to argue if they are what was said, or not. Whatever happened in dirty dogfights that don't conform to some dogma is not up for discussion, quotes are just quotes.
Overall, Air Combat tactics are well understood and don't need argument, the great difficulty is being able to fly them for real.