The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...

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

Some basics on the physics of turning:

First of all it helps to look at a so-called doghouse chart (See figure below) with turn rate on the y-axis, and speed on the x-axis. Propeller planes all exhibit the arched back type marked "Baseline aircraft" in the figure below. And from this we can conclude that there is actually an optimum speed for the best sustained turn rate (apex of curve).

So if you're going fast, then pulling hard and going to the maximum g-load the aircraft can take will not only give you a good instantaneous turn rate, but as an added bonus slow you down quicker to the speed for optimum turn rate at the apex of the curve.

Now some pilots may have been quoted as having said that reducing power helps turn rate, but how that should be interpreted is that in order to get to the speed for best turn rate as fast as possible, they reduced power. So taking such a statement to mean that reducing power as such increases turn rate is simply wrong. However, if you are going faster than speed for best turn rate and already at maximum g-load and can pull no harder, then of course lowering your power as well will get you to the apex quicker.

But once at the apex (speed for best turn rate), you should then unload g's and ADD as much power as you can to maintain this speed, not DECREASE it, just as explained in the chart below showing the dot-dashed line.

I hope this helps to dispel some of the erroneous ideas about turning being brought forward in this thread.

 
Last edited:

They were wary of "fast" like the death plague that it was:



-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."




That is not quite the claim I make. I do claim the rate stayed essentially very close to the best sustained rate, if not slightly better, but mostly I claim that it is the radius that massively decreased. And radius mattered more. If you do not understand the superiority of radius over rate, you do not understand WWII air combat.

"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. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight [he faced mostly Lavochkins, and was possibly unfamiliar with "bubbletop" Yak-9s]. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. . 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed. (160 mph)"
- Kyösti Karhila


His disagreement with fellow pilots shows the basics are not mastered by the "Science" behind their training... And this on a very fundamental issue.
He never mentions increasing power.


Note also that 160 mph on a G-6 with gondolas (below) is barely 60 mph above stall, and is thus well below the middle range "peak " of a doghouse chart. Since he does not mention indicated (and he fought at very low altitudes), it means he does mean TAS and not "indicated".

As reference, that minimal speed to reach a 6G "peak" on the P-51D's pilot manual matches the "normal" centered doghouse curve and states 6 G minimum speed at 255 MPH TAS no flaps, 240 MPH with flaps.

The reason the manual arrived at these (proven false) values is the minimal speed to reach 6 Gs was tested on dive pull-outs (easier to do), which unloads the props, falsifying the conclusions.

And in 1989, the P-51D's pilot manual was absolutely proven to be wrong:

The Society of Experimental Test Pilots

When the SETP (Society of Experimental Test Pilots) tried to find the minimal speed to reach 6 Gs in 1989, they used truly horizontal turns at a moderately high level of power (METO) at 10 000 feet: The top speed at that altitude with that power was about 330 mph.

Truly horizontal turns keep the prop highly loaded, changing the deflection between wing and prop that I say affects lift.

"The Corner Speed (minimum speed to touch 6G) was found to be very close to the maximum level speed, indicating a high rate of energy loss when turning at the (6G) limit."

In other words, it handled very poorly, leading to the conclusion: "An interceptor-type aircraft with limited turning ability."

The minimum 6 G speed was found when spiraling nose down, to be 279 mph TAS. On a level it was "very close" to 330 mph.

So the minimum speed to reach 6Gs increases when the prop is more heavily loaded by turning more horizontally.

If the pilot manual cannot give reliable information, what else do you think is wrong with the "Science"?



Holtzauge said:
However, if you are going faster than speed for best turn rate and already at maximum g-load and can pull no harder, then of course lowering your power as well will get you to the apex quicker.
Click to expand...


How can you be faster than the "speed for best turn rate" after multiple consecutive 360s?:

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. following an attack on a landing Me-109) 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. Everytime [sic] I got to the edge of the [German] airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. [Meaning was forced to turn multiple consecutive 360s continuously, even when going towards the enemy ground fire] Gradually [over these multiple 360s, not just one] I worked the Me-109G away from the field, and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."




Holtzauge said:
But once at the apex (speed for best turn rate), you should then unload g's and ADD as much power as you can to maintain this speed, not DECREASE it, just as explained in the chart below showing the dot-dashed line.
Click to expand...

They rarely added power. Because, as the SETP found out, the handling becomes garbage. Does Karhila mention adding power? Oh, but wait, there is someone who did add power (with zero risk of torque roll):

"The two surviving witnesses stated that McGuire had reduced throttle in order to make a tighter turn to gain the angle on the Japanese plane [the basic momentum reduction idea that is true and that everyone understands, but is the tree hiding the forest] that was attacking Weaver, and that he increased throttle as the plane shuddered near the stall speed, and at that point, the plane instantly rolled inverted and crashed."
What really killed Major Thomas B. McGuire

Interesting what knowing what to look for allows you to see... This is the difference between knowledge and merely piling mounds of information: Information is just answers, but knowledge is asking the right questions.
 
re
wrathofatlantis said:
The reason the manual arrived at these (proven false) values is the minimal speed to reach 6 Gs was tested on dive pull-outs (easier to do), which unloads the props, falsifying the conclusions.
Click to expand...

This statement is incorrect.

1. Prior to WWII aircraft were not ususlly tested using G-meters (aka accelerometers), and though various organizations such as the RAE, RLM, and NACA sometimes used them in testing, it was still not common during the late-1930s. The accelerometers used by the aircraft industry prior to WWII were mostly of the mechanical spring type.

Beginning just before WWII, various other types of electro-mechanical gauges - some using piezo-electric crystal systems - began to be used for flight tests and ultimate G-load testing of the airframe structure. Such testing was still sporadic as it took time for the 'new fangled' methods to become common (even though the piezo-electric mechanism suitable for G-load measurement had been invented in the early-1920s).

The pre-WWII and most war-time testing was done using the mechanical spring instrument method, sometimes using a camera to record the changing G-loads (along with the time, IAS, and altitude) in various flight maneuvers, and sometimes using a mechanical spring maximum-movement indicator to record only the maximum G-load encountered in a given maneuver or over the entire test period. The latter method was used (with or with-out a camera) in situations where the pilot could not monitor the G-meter and make a written or spoken (over the radio or to a voice recorder) report of the reading from the G-meter.

Beginning in the second half of 1942 the British performed tests in actual combat on various aircraft, using the mechanical spring maximum-movement method. After each flight the maximum G-load experienced by the pilot would be recorded and the G-meter reset. This method only recorded the highest instantaneous G experienced on each flight regardless of the maneuver in which it occurred.

In flight testing (and sometimes in combat during the late-war period) it was sometimes desirable to measure the steady-state/sustained and/or dynamic G-load(s) the aircraft was capable of - in which case either the pilot recorded the readings from the G-meter over a period of time during the maneuver(s), or a camera was used to film the entire period with the film being used to coordinate the G-loads experienced with synchronized clocks (in either testing or combat the one onboard the aircraft being filmed by the same camera used for the G-meter, and also one on the ground during flight testing) in order to know at what point in the maneuver(s) the G-load occurred.

Note that specific to the P-51 - as time passed both of the above methods were used in the testing - including tests involving level turns - with first use of the piezo-electric method in late-1943.
 
Last edited:
Please don't take this the wrong way W wrathofatlantis , but I'm beginning to get the impression that you are not very comfortable with comparing charts and number, but seem to prefer anectodal evidence.

And anecdotal evidence is fine, but to begin with you have to get rid of the so-called outliers like, Leykauf's and Clostermann's and the famous Candelaria turn etc. As a sideline, when I asked the Swedish aviator Mikael Carlson about some strange quotes I'd seen about flying WW1 airplanes, he just rolled his eyes and said "pilots like to tell stories". So when it comes to pilot quotes, your milage may vary. Secondly, you have to interpret what they are saying in the right way, and not start off by having some preconceived ideas and then try to fit the narratives to your theory. This is especially true if you have cherry-picked just a few quotes that support your theory. And to put it bluntly, I think that's exactly what you're doing.

However, the science of flight mechanics is quite mature and calculating turn times and turn radiuses can be done with a high degree of confidence if you know things like Clmax, wingloading, powerloading and span.

And since you are rather focused on turn radiuses and seem uninterested in discussing turn rates, I will focus on that. But even so, it's still a fact that adding more power gets you the smallest turn radius: This is because the higher you can get the left part of the doghouse chart, the smaller the radius will also be. And while I did not shown it in the figure I posted before since it's a so-called second order effect, adding more power actually also nudges the left part of the doghouse chart slightly upwards to the left. But this is a minor effect. But it's still there and reducing power is not the way to go.

And since you seem to be fond of the Fw-190, I will take the Fw-190 A8 as an example:

The below numbers are calculated with my C++ simulation program, but calculating with pen and paper will yield the same results, i.e. that the smallest radius is achieved just below the speed for best turn rate and with all the power you can manage:

Fw-190 A8 at 1.32 ata power, Rmin=337 m at 282 km/h IAS. (Best turn rate, i.e. the apex of doghouse chart is at 289 km/h). And at 1.42 ata power, Rmin=330 m at 295 km/h IAS. (Best turn rate at 335 km/h).

Now others who do simulations may get slight different numbers for the Fw-190 A8, but this does not matter because while calculation methods and assumptions may be somewhat different, the above relationship will hold true in any simulator worth its salt: Adding more power is always better since it allows you to pull yourself around with a smaller radius simply by brute force.

And if we now throw the Spitfire into the mix, it's apex is to the left and higher than the Fw-190's, i.e. it has both a higher turn rate and a smaller turn radius and hell will freeze over before a Fw-190 out-turns a Spitfire assuming there are equally skilled pilots at the controls.


Late edit: Just realized that I missed saying that the Fw-190 A8 simulation numbers are for an altitude of 500 m.
 
Last edited:
Hi Holtzauge,

Your comments are well presented. As you realise, the real world of air-to-air gun combat with WW2 type fighters is not won by simply flying circles at low speed or power.
An interesting note to your comment about the Spitfire and Fw 190 A comparison is to remember that the great handling Spitfire Mk V was shot to pieces by the new Fw 190 and it took the large increase of power in the Merlin 60 Series engines for the Spitfire Mk IX to counter the Fw.
Although air combat is a complex mixture, generally the fighter that is fastest, without having any serious other weakness, can dominate the fight.

Eng
 

Absolutely: I even think that was what the first RAF Spitfire Mk V pilots said when Fighter Command tried to cheer them up by saying that they could always out-turn the "Fokkers": "Turning never won any battles"

But my reply was more directed to W wrathofatlantis since he seems to think that the Fw-190 out-turned even the Spitfire. And for sure: as the war progressed pilots were clamoring for roll- and not turn rate.
 
Last edited:

The bottom line is the 1989 SETP tests got different values than in the manuals: 240-255 mph TAS in the manual depending on the flap position, while the SETP could not get lower than 276 MPH TAS on downward spirals, and got near or over 310 mph TAS on horizontal turns.

The phenomenon was never recognised: That phenomenon is trapped airflow between the wing and prop, combined with the well-known aerodynamic principle that a local constriction accelerates the airflow. This deflection is probably caused by an air curvature being deep enough combined with a prop power low enough to allow the sudden bifurcation over the wing. Add power and that bifurcation is flattened, destroying massive amounts of lift. It really is not that complicated...

Lowering power increased the wing's lift: That explains the entire shape of WWII air combat, and the universal avoidance of the higher power settings (except on Yaks whose deeply swept wings leading edges probably did not "trap" the air as much, probably with a similar effect from the extra-thin Spitfire wings.)

The effect was so extreme on the FW-190A that Eric Brown describes it in this kind of hypocritical understated way:

"Duels in the Sky", Eric M. Brown, Naval Institute Press, 1988: "It (change in pitch trim) could easily be gauged in turns. The FW-190 had a tendency to tighten up in a turn. Above [355 km/h], backward stick pressure was required." (Author quote)

Which means the GAIN IN LIFT because of reduced power on the FW-190A was so extreme you had to push on the stick to keep the nose down.

Eric Brown refuses to state that much, but it absolutely is implied: A FW-190A-4 flown to its true limits at reduced power had the pilot pushing on the stick during the turn.

Does it not become clearer why they added the 6 inch on the A-5 now?


Again: No WWII test pilot that I am aware of emphasised the critical importance of maintaining reduced throttle to increase lift in turning combat, which meant they failed to understand the basic dynamics in play.

You can see some of that dynamic in Finnish test of a captured LaGG-3: Note that no mention of speed is made, only of power level, because THAT was the significant variable, not the speed:


-FiAF LaGG-3 Series 35 tests (17.2.'43 and 1.2.'43 Pyhajarvi ice base):

-360 turn, 6000m, at full power (2600 rpm): 26 sec. : Radius: 467 m.

-360 turn 6000m, at cruise power (2200 rpm): 27 sec. : Radius 415 m.

-180 turn 2000m, at full power (2600 rpm): 11.8 sec.

-180 turn 2000m, at cruise power (2200 rpm): 11.7 sec.

There is virtually no difference in turn time, but a huge difference in radius, on the order of 52 meters: I think that the wing leading edges being swept considerably reduced the effect which I claim exists, which I think was significantly greater on less swept types...
 
Last edited:

The origin of that quote "Turning does not win battles" is Alan Deere, who also said about the VERY SAME air battle:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away.--- Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day..."

That is how "turning does not win battles.": When you are in a Spitfire facing FW-190As.
From the very same man you quoted, about the very same air battle.


That is what I call a quote backfiring.


You see how selective historical quotes are? And this is not your fault.

Galland is always quoted as "I want a squadron of Spitfires."

But NEVER: "The Spitfire is great for aerobatics (probably meaning vertical maneuvers) but ridiculous as a fighter."

And please, don't tell me the 190s "stayed" by doing loops...:

-Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45: P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt possessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight."
P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane."

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet", from US Army Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

"-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."

Is someone beginning to see a pattern here?
 
Last edited:


You dismiss Clostermann (RAF mission record), Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace), All Russian front evaluations, 8th AF comments: "more difficulty is encountered in out-turning FW-190s than BF-109s."

AND Mediterranean US pilot opinions:

On November 11th, 1942, Lt. (later Capt.) James E. Reed of the 33rd Fighter Group was piloting one of the 77 P-40Fs that was catapulted off the carrier 'Chenango,' a converted Great Lakes oil tanker, for a landing at an airport at Port Lyautey, 90 miles north of Casablanca,

Lt. Reed ultimately completed 83 missions flying P-40s.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to correspond with Capt. Reed via telephone, snail mail, and email. In one of my emails, I asked about how the P-40F and L (which he also flew) compared to both the Me-109 and Fw-190. Here is Capt. Reed's emailed reply:

"Regarding performance against the Me-109 and FW-190. The 190 was tough to out-turn. I could out-turn the 109, but it was hard to do. I, at times, had to drop a few degrees of flaps and slow down to out-turn it. On one mission dropping the flaps was not enough so I had to drop my landing gear to slow down enough to out-turn the Me-109 and get away from his fire. I think dropping the flaps and landing gear probably saved my life. I never had a one-on-one with the FW-190 so am not sure what I could do with it. I understand that it was harder to get away from than the Me-109."

So the general consensus floating around Mediterranean squadrons was that the 190 was harder to out-turn than the 109, but this third front is also making things up as a whole?

I can only think of the T-shirt I saw recently:

There are two kinds of people in the world:

1-Those that can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
 
Sorry W wrathofatlantis , but there is no new phenomena that has not yet been "recognized" in aerodynamics in which air is "trapped" between the wing and prop and that reducing power improves the wings lift. Again: Lowering power does NOT increase the lift but rather to the contrary: Power on stall speed is much higher lower than power off stall speed for all propeller planes.

So Clmax is much higher with power on than power off. For example on the Spitfire power off Clmax is 1.36 and power on it is 1.89. And these tests were done with a trailing pitot system and are as accurate as you can get them (Documented in RAE RM 2349 from 1941).

But this is going nowhere so this will be my last post here. I know it sounds a bit "von oben" to say so, but my honest advice to you is to study up on some basic aerodynamics and flight mechanics. If you do that then you will see that there is no magic surrounding the Fw-190A model and that it's just as limited by science and physics as all other WW2 aircraft.

Edit: Wrong text in original post.
 
Last edited:


The airflow is not a continuous curvature with a turn-drag loaded prop during stalls. (sigh)
 
Greyman said:
I sure am.
Click to expand...

Yes, these hundreds of people with first hand combat experience are all conspiring against reality.

By the way, do you want to see how the "conclusion" of the mock combat you supplied fares in the real world?:


Combat of a P-38G against a Me-109G:

Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944

"Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn [meaning 90 degree bank] and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using manoeuvre flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight."


Meanwhile, another bunch of conspirators:

Russian experience with Spitfire Mk Vs and IXs:

"Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40: Première citation : "Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

[Translation: "In the first few days the Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, since it was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."]

A general statement...


And the Yak vs P-38J incident

"After coming across limited sources on the incident that happened on the 7th of November, 1944, all I discovered was a report from the headquarters of 866 IAP. In this report, it states that at 12:50pm 12 American planes( P-38 Lightning) attacked a Russian Infantry that were traveling west from Nish. Four of the American planes started an attack on the Russians while the rest of them kept watch at 1500 meters. After several rounds were fired, the Russian artillery shot down one of the American P-38 planes. At 1:00pm, 2 YAK-9 planes took off. At 1:05pm, 6 more YAK-9 planes followed and then at 1:10pm 2 YAK-3 planes also followed. A dog fight broke out between the countries ending with 2 YAK-9 planes being taken down by the Americans and one more by friendly artillery fire. Russian planes and antiaircraft artillery shut down 5 Lightning planes. The P-38 displayed an impeccable ability to maintain horizontal and were able to quickly manoeuvres onto the tail of YAK-9 planes because they had a much shorter radius of banking [turn-in?]. The YAK-9 had better ability to withstand vertical manoeuvres."
 
Hey wrathofatlantis,

For the most part we understand what you profess to be the phenomena re your claimed performance for the various aircraft - but those of us who are reasonably well educated in aerodynamics and/or physics disagree with what you are saying.

In maneuvering combat the primary advantage the Fw190 had over the Spitfire (and pretty much every other aircraft it ran up against) is roll rate - both sustained and entry. The roll rate was high enough that during testing both the US and UK stated that any Allied aircraft would snap its wings off if it rolled that quickly (in effect the normal roll rate of the Fw180 was equal to or greater than what the US and UK classified as a snap roll - something forbidden in nearly all the Allied pilot's notes or through other instruction such as TOs).

The roll rate of the Fw190 was high enough that the pursuing Spitfire could not follow the Fw190 in a reversal of turn (eg 180° roll from a turn to the left into a turn to the right), or any other significant change of turn direction (eg a half roll and dive). Since the Spitfire would always lag behind the Fw190 in the change of direction the Fw190 could always enter a turn sooner than the Spitfire. This means that (everything else being equal and providing that the Fw190 pilot was aware of the Spitfire closing in on his tail) the Spitfire could not follow the Fw190 for more than a few seconds. The opposite was true if the Fw190 was on the tail of the Spitfire, though not to the same degree, and the Spitfire could evade the Fw190 if the two aircraft remained in a tight turning match along enough - with the Spitfire eventually gaining a shooting position after multiple turns. On the other hand, at lower speeds when the Spitfire was able to out-turn the Fw190 and if the Spitfire had enough energy, it could shake the Fw190 in a climbing turn due to the Fw190 stalling out and snap-rolling outwards from the turn. The above maneuver results are mentioned by both the British and German pilots repeatedly though-out the war (as well as in Allied flight tests)

Perhaps most importantly, if the Fw190 was in a tail chase position and the Spitfire began the roll into the turn, the Fw190 could often roll into the turn with the Spitfire, and far enough behind the Spitfire that it could cut across the circle to gain a lead pursuit on the Spitfire - thereby gaining lead for shooting. Again, this was mentioned by both Allied and German pilots.

The Fw190 needed no undiscovered phenomena of physics, a phenomena you claim was not understood by the physicists or aeronautical engineers of the time (or apparently today for that matter), in order be the threat that it was.

If you have not already done so, try graphing it out on paper. Do not worry about the exact values for the turn rates of the Spitfire and Fw190, or the exact roll rates - a couple of °/sec + or - will only prolong the time required for the aircraft to either gain a shooting position or to escape one. Use simple numbers like a roll-rate of 90°/sec for the Spitfire and 180°/sec for the Fw190, and a speed of 170 mph (250 ft/sec) which is close to the corner velocity/best turn rate for both. Start the Fw190 out just-out-of/just-inside-of gun range (say 1000-1500 ft) and directly behind the Spitfire on the same heading (ie 0° deflection). Assume the turn rates are 25°/sec for the Spitfire and 20°/sec for the Fw190 (again don't worry about the exact historical figures for now). Calculate the basic turn radius based on the speed of 250 ft/sec and the respective rates-of-turn, and use a convenient map scale (maybe something like 250 or 500 ft per square, hex, or inch. After going through the mapping out process of the turning reversal and subsequent position of the trailing Fw190 with the numbers above, try starting out at different trailing distances. Depending on the starting trail distance, you will find that the Fw190 will almost always be able to gain a lead pursuit position on the spitfire and subsequently at least a low angle deflection shot.

After you are done mapping out the above, reverse the positions - with the Spitfire in the trail position - and do it all again. You will find that despite the Spitfire having a 25% greater rate-of-turn at corner velocity, the Fw190 will be able to repeatedly reverse the turn without giving the Spitfire anything more than a fleeting/crossing shot. Keep in mind that the above maneuver plotting is is happening in a flat 2D plane - imagine how much more difficult it would be in 3D space where the Fw190 might roll only 150° instead of 180° and pull up into a slight climbing turn, then roll another 180° a couple of seconds later into a descending turn in the opposite direction. At that point the Spitfire might as well disengage and try to extend away and either leave the fight or attempt to re-engage.

Just a suggestion. I know that I find such mapping exercises useful in understanding the subject.
 
Last edited:

The roll rate made little difference in combat. and actually using it was the exact worse thing a pilot could do, as the advantage of multiple consecutive circles is precisely that it trapped the target for long target times, which was the reason turning at low speed became dominant by 1944: It not only broke diving or non-circle-sharing attacks, it trapped targets in the circle...

Cutting, or shooting, across the circle is what the Spitfire actually did do with its better stall control, going nose up, wings rumbling at smaller German circles. Guns typically needed longer target times than what this supplied, so it is hard to say how often the illusion of "out-turning" in this way paid off.

Those where it did not did not come back, so you have to keep this survivor bias in mind, which is exactly what Clostermann points out.

Rolling out of a low speed turn (very rarely scissors did happen at much higher speeds, but extremely rarely) was the most basic mistake a WWII fighter pilot could make, and it is the only error I have ever seen that consistently got the opposing pilot to call his victim "stupid". For some reason, the Germans were especially prone to this error. perhaps because they thought the FW-190 gave them an edge?

It seems a lot of WWII fighter pilot wisdom got lost in the post War jet era: I made this model base entirely dedicated to this issue:


"Never reverse your turn."

-Maj. Robert Elder, 24 March 1945 (P-51D): "With this top cover to encourage me, I managed to out-turn another FW-190, and, just as I was about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed his turn (they are stupid that way) and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got strikes all over the plane and he caught fire in the air and crashed."

-Capt. Glendon V. Davis, March 8 1944 (P-51B): "I turned into him and he (lone FW-190A) swung around, almost getting on the tail of Lt. Smith, following me. I called to him to put down flaps and turn with him, as I had 20 degrees myself. We went around five or six times with the issue very much in doubt. I could not quite get enough deflection to nail him, though I was firing short bursts trying to get him to roll out, which he was too smart to do."

Osprey "VIII Fighter Command at War, -Long Reach-", P. 31 (On the tactical significance of using the roll rate in combat, Lt. Col. H. C. Craig):

"Once a turn is started in an engagement, it is of the most importance, and safety, to remember to never reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed the turn."

Here are the originals for Davis and Elders: Note that in both cases it is FW-190As that are in question, one being called "stupid" for rolling out, the other being "too smart" to roll out.

This is such a fundamental rule that I have never seen any other action being associated with insulting your opponent so readily.

The Russians also noted the German lack of patience with prolonged circle fighting... Which they attributed to a "lack of ability to withstand tense turning battles..."





For some reason it is only in official Encounter Reports that actual front line pilots will speak of this, never in interviews.

Do not underestimate the level of research it took to weed this out. It seems to be, like using partial throttle in turns, one of those things that was so basic and so instinctive it never got articulated as a principle, probably because it went against everything they were taught.

Just accept the fact that we are dealing with lost knowledge.
 
re

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

1. The advantage to the Fw190 of its extremely high roll rate is that it allowed the Fw190 to avoid turning for long periods of time before getting a shot, and it allowed the Fw190 to break away from the fight almost at will - which is the opposite of what you say in the quote above.

2. The low speed turning and sustained turning fight was somewhat dominant at the start of the war, it became less dominant as the war continued.

Most shoot downs occurred with very little maneuver involved, through-out the war, due to poor situational awareness. Often the shootee did not know even know there was someone on his tail until the tracers went past him (or his aircraft was hit).

As the war progressed, the US and UK training programs increasingly stressed the need to avoid sustained turning fights if possible, but to work with their aircraft's strong points - which sometimes included being able to out-turn the Fw190 if they had to get into an extended maneuver fight. The reason turning fights became more dominant in some cases as the war progressed is that - for the Germans - it became more and more difficult to evade when they were increasingly outnumbered and/or could not avoid the Allied aircraft even when they returned to base.

If you read enough of the after action reports you will find that somewhere around 50-60% of the aircraft shot down did not know they were being shot at until they were hit. Another 20-30% were not aware of the aircraft on their tail until shortly before they were shot at - maybe 30 seconds or so. The other 20% managed to enter a longer maneuver fight with the enemy aircraft that eventually shot them down.
 
Last edited:

Nothing new about aerodynamics in any of these combat reports.

Eng
 

Perhaps given the research you have demonstrated, a bit of a learning attitude should be in line?

And I don't care if you are the chief designer of the SR-71, the 8th AF pilots above have explained to you what they thought of the use of the roll rate on the FW-190A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
M
German Test Pilot Evaluation of an F4U-1A
Replies
14
Views
1K
yosimitesam
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
1K
EAIAnalog
Menu
Log in
Register