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

Engineman said:

Nothing new about aerodynamics in any of these combat reports.

Eng

Click to expand...

Did I say there was?

But where else have you heard 8th AF pilots say that rolling out of a turn was stupid for the FW-190, twice? (But really 3 times...)

ignore

re

wrathofatlantis said:

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

Click to expand...

and

wrathofatlantis said:

Did I say there was?

But where else have you heard 8th AF pilots say that rolling out of a turn was stupid for the FW-190, twice? (But really 3 times...)

Click to expand...

Wow, 3 whole times.

Did you ever wonder if the reason the surviving Allied pilots very seldom state that they managed to shoot the Fw190 while it was reversing its turn is because they very seldom managed to shoot the Fw190 while it was reversing its turn?

Slower speed = smaller turn radius. Does not equate to faster turn rate.
Faster speed = wider turn radius.
Speed increases with increased throttle. Speed decreases with reduced throttle.
A good pilot does not go into a maneuver fight with throttle firewalled because he will get spat out of the circle.
Pilot reports are very brief, and only record what the pilot remembers of a very high stress experience. They are very self-oriented. Aircraft positions are in relation to the pilot. When I read a pilot say that the Jerry is camped on my tail, I understand it to mean that the enemy has gotten behind my 3-9 axis.
Nobody permanently reduces throttle in a fight.
Just like a race car driver doesn't just stomp on the gas the whole race.

ThomasP said:

ignore

Click to expand...

Yes, the best comment on this very poorly presented thread.

Eng

(Sorry for perhaps it has been explained already)

Some WWII documents are showing precise data (feet) for radii of turn. How were they able to measure that back then?

The P-40 pilots in the Pacific learned that in a high-speed turning fight, they could counter the A6M and KI-43.

The Allied pilots in Europe discovered that getting into a high speed turning fight with an Me262 was a fatal mistake.

Speed is life.

Period.

re

Galahad said:

Some WWII documents are showing precise data (feet) for radii of turn. How were they able to measure that back then?

Click to expand...

During WWII they could not measure turn radii directly in a precise manner, unless they were flown over prepared test courses. Ground observers would use optical devices to manually track the aircraft and measurements of angles would be recorded by the observes along with the time. A camera onboard the aircraft would record the aircrafts speed, bank angle, rate of descent/ascent, etc, alont with the time, and the numbers would be used to calculate the turn radii.

The radii normally mentioned in after action reports would have been the pilots' estimates, while the radii mentioned in test reports (aside from those over the prepared test courses as already mentioned above) would have been pilot's estimates an/or calculated based either on pure theory or back-figured using values of speed, bank angle, whether the aircraft was maintaining level flight or its rate of descent/ascent, etc.

Sometimes during measured testing, and sometimes during actual combat during the 2nd half of the war, the aircraft might have been fitted with a G-meter to provide a more precise value for what otherwise would have to be estimated/calculated using the speed, bank angle, etc.

There were no WWII radars precise enough to measure the relatively small turn radii encountered in aerial combat by the fighters. AFIK there were no radar systems precise enough to measure small-enough 3D movements or even the 2D turn radii directly until the mid-1950s at the earliest (I think).

WrathofAtlantis,

I've been avoiding this conversation due to the amount of typing required to fully speak to your assertions. I have a problem with my left hand dexterity so I have to hunt and peck.

My background is USAF retired, primarily that time was spent as a F-15A/C IP. Currently I fly for a major airline. I spent over an hour on the phone tonight with a fellow fighter pilot and USN Test Pilot. He has time in a T-6 and a Mustang curtesy of the USN. I have tapped into him regarding aerodynamics several times and he has been most informative.

First a little background on fighter fundamentals. The two sides of the road are predominantly rate and radius. A fighter has a best rate (based on weight, altitude, power, and descent angle). A plane has a max allowable G, and a speed associated with it that when a pilot max performs the plane he can do a straight pull and not over stress the plane. This speed is called corner velocity, or in laymans terms "corner". A plane has a max rate (degrees per second) in both instantaneous as well as sustained. Instantaneous occurs with corner, and sustained occurs at a higher speed. Fights if started fast may encompass all of the above, those started slow usually don't transition to a higher speed unless pressure is lifted and or altitude exists below you.

The above information is to be looked at as tools available to the pilot, along with knowledge, skill and luck.

If a pilot enters a fight at too high of a speed he needs to throttle back, pull G, or both to slow his plane. There are times to do both, when either offensive or defensive depending on the set up. I have entered or found myself in many fights at high speed and adjusted my speed as required while maneuvering in relation to the adversary.

If you are defensive and outside your opponents gun range you can extend by pushing the power up, descending, or both (altitude permitting). If approaching or inside your opponents gun range you must react (give him gun solution problems) and you do that by turning hard back into the offender. At longer ranges you will do a hard turn towards him (power up) while descending (maintaining energy or slowly bleeding it). If above corner you can pull as required all the way to max allowable G. If at or below corner and he is closer you can pull to max G (aircraft structural limit or what it can give). This latter is usually down at or near idle and is very abrupt. In the Eagle we would hit the seat pan with the stick. Follow on maneuvers done to keep the offender from getting a gun shot on you.

The above paragraph talks about both power settings and turn circle options. Of note is when the power is up it is to sustain or bleed energy (airspeed) at a slower rate and pulling power makes for a smaller circle but at the expense of speed.

Now on the offensive you attack a guy with you having a great speed advantage. If he doesn't maneuver you can boom and zoom (sets you up for a re-attack). If he does a hard turn into you you can cut across the circle (point at him), take a shot and leave. This is usually done when leaving a fight (low on fuel, weapons, or bombers are out of the threat area). If you decide to turn with him you have to enter his turn circle. You point at the place he was when he started to turn, and when you see a big increase in his line of sight (LOS) you roll into him and accomplish your turn to follow.Even if you both started at the same speed he decelerated first which means over time, should you do exactly the same thing as he did (assuming similar aircraft performance) you will reel him in.

Now established in this fight you find yourself behind him but nose in lag (pointing behind him). If you have an advantage in speed you may be able to generate G that he can't to get your nose far enough in lead to drill him. If you are a good shot, have a supporting fighter in position or plan on leaving you may elect to keep the power up and accept overshoot. If you have the luxury of time, ammo, etc., you will pull the power back only if you can easily get your nose in front of him. This pulling of power is done to decrease the closure rate do to angular closure.

While talking to my Test Pilot friend we talked about the effects of torque/ p-factor on turn performance. Roll opposite the prop rotation will be faster than against. If the prop turns CW from the pilots perspective then turns at high power to the left will be okay, but to the right may require a slight power reduction in order to max perform the plane at min airspeeds. At higher speeds there will be enough stability from the rudder and or fuselage to keep the plane coordinated.

Things that make a plane spin are stall and yaw. No yaw but stall will not cause a spin. Hence the P-38 being able to pull and pull in either turn direction and not spin.

The end result of my conversation confirmed what I thought and that is the only places to pull power to increase turn are when you find yourself above corner and want max rate or a smaller circle (also done to cause closure / give your adversary problems). Or when on the edge of a stall with power up in a right turn. My summation of the quotes you are passing is they are being taken out of context or the pilots did not completely understand the cause and effects of what they were doing. And while you can come up with a number of quotes, realize compared to the number of dogfights there were in WW2 your sample size is small.

Cheers,
Biff

A few notes from "Thompson Trophy Racers" by Roger Huntington 1989.
A test by the NACA in 1934-35 in Miami where they installed recording G meter instruments.
Figures are for the 260hp Rider R-1 flown by Roger Don Rae.

a 180 degree turn taking 10 seconds taken at 1 second intervals
...1.........2.........3...........4..........5..........6..........7..........8..........9
5.2.......3.5......5.2.......6.2......3.9.....-0.3.......4.3....-0.4........3.0

The negative numbers show where the pilot released backwards pressure on the stick to avoid tightening the turn up too much and stalling.
Ground observers say the turn was a tight high bank difficult to improve on. ALL of the pilots who flew the tests showed negative Gs at some point in their graph sheets.
Doing a 5 G turn at 250mph could drop the speed by 40mph and reduce the theoretical radius from 840ft to 600ft.
In Pylon racing there isn't much altitude to trade for speed.
High speed stalls in turns were the major cause of fatalities in the Thompson races.

Again, the figures are just for a 180 degree turn, not several 360s.

wrathofatlantis said:

Adding power during a low-speed turn will increase your tractive power stall speed. The "Science" is just wrong on this.

As I said elsewhere, I think that this is due to the low speed turn airflow curvature (not replicable in a wind tunnel) which, when combined with lowered power, causes a dogleg of air to get trapped between the wing and the prop. Confined air, unlike traffic, ACCELERATES past the confinement point (a basic rule of aerodynamics). Accelerating the air over the wing (from that doglegged airflow) will increase the lift: If you increase the power, then you flatten that dogleg, killing a lot of lift.

With a shorter nose and a fatter cowl, the 190A simply confines the air more, which accelerates it more.

This effect got masked to the all-seeing "Science" by the similar (also drastic, but very momentary) effect of momentum reduction, the "Science" failing to observe the fact that the pilots doing this kept the throttle down permanently.

Because I say the power reduction had permanent lift benefits, that is why it remained lowered throughout multiple consecutive 360s on all fronts with all types (flown by the pilots who knew the effect without understanding the cause).

I am not saying that is 100% what happened to McGuire, but the detailed research below, based on interviewing at length the 2 surviving pilots, does match with the momentum principle being understood by the McGuire, but the actual durable subsequent effect not being understood by him.

What really killed Major Thomas B. McGuire

Thread: What really killed Major Thomas B. McGuire
Quote; "I have been privy to a painstaking investigation into the crash death of McGuire, a brief synopsis of which I received today. Here's an edited excerpt.

"With regard to our continuing investigation into the crash that killed Major Thomas B. McGuire, I thought you might be interested to know that from the evidence we've gathered so far, it appears that the crash was caused by one of the engines failing to respond when McGuire increased his throttle settings when his plane began to shudder as it neared the stall speed. As you probably already know, if an engine on a P-38 were to, for some reason fail or not supply normal power while the plane is at or near the stall speed, then the plane will snap roll to an inverted position as it was reported happened to Major McGuire. 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 [basic momentum idea] 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."



Some have questioned how you would know from outside observation what a pilot is doing with his throttles, but there are very visible clues like a puff of exhaust smoke and the appearance of the propeller disc: I believe they are correct, and that adding power killed him with a bizarre violent inverted stall, not typical of a P-38.

Many WWII pilots, not all, but on all fronts and using all types, fought at 60-70% throttle while turning constantly (see the Erich Brunotte interview on Fw-190D-9 engine management at 1300; https://youtu.be/kOuVqP89058?si=x88oIoUkWXLpoNod "We used 0.9 to 1.2 ATA (on the 190D-9: 1.9 ATA max.) We hardly ever used full power, and not in turning combat").


As to the 190 out-turning exclusively at low speed and low power the Spitfire, that is just a fact, and the "Science" is simply at odds with reality.



-Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943: "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at
a minimum speed."

-Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace) My duel with the Focke-Wulf: "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire
[V] in the tightest of turns. I could not see him, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would
have me in his sights. I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn [but he stayed with me]. It could only be a
question of time."

-James E. Reed 33 rd FG (P-40F, Casablanca): "The FW-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. I understand that
the FW-190 was harder to get away from than the 109."

-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs: "The Hurricane was more maneuverable than the Spit. But
the Focke-Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up, you know."

-Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3: "Never had I seen [Me-109s] stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf
pilots were doing. We lost 8 to their one that day..."

219 kg/m 2 vs 146 kg/m 2

-Audio from the past [E16], Pierre Clostermann (18 kills, 432 RAF missions): At 12:40" And then there are the legends... Aaaah the legends…
Legends are hard to kill. One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or
the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... Why? First and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and
down, and there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire.

View: https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo?si=Co4bBurkhQmxM05r

Click to expand...

WrathOfAtlantis,

I'm curious if you fly and if so what experience you have.

If you scrolled down a little further you would have found this by "Big Crate":

What really killed Major Thomas B. McGuire

« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2002, 02:52:56 PM »

Read my posts "Turning in a 38" before you read this or yall won't understand what I'm talking about. This article is from the same Airpower issue.

There was a exception to this characteristic gentle mushing in a turn. I don't know how many pilots have experienced it, but I have in the P-38G with TWO 160 GALLON auxiliary tanks installed
on the wing center sections.

I'd gone on a flight in one of our P-38s and had flown approximately two hours using gas from the auxiliary tanks. On the way back to the field, two pilots from my flight, flying P-39s tried to pull a surprise bouce of me. After surviving over two years of combat, I naturally saw them coming down on me and broke into them at the proper time, ruining their timing. Then, we turned into each other, meeting headon for the practice combat, but didn't drop the auxiliaries. This was just for fun.

I pulled into a tight vertical turn, then after about half a circle, I felt the 38 stall and begin to mush outward and down. Relaxing the back pressure, I expected the 38 to pick up the turn again. It didn't. Still in an almost vertical bank the elevators became unresponisve and I continued to mush outward and down. Cranking the wheel over, the ailerons took effect and lessened the angle of bank. As soon as the angle of bank changed a few degrees, the elevators took over again and I regained control. It had only stayed unresponisve a few seconds, but in thos few seconds I had lost nearly 500 feet of altitude.

I believe what happened is this - the G forces on the partially
empty tank, forced the gas to the rear of the auxiliary tanks, through the baffles, putting a slight aft center of gravity on the airplane. This caused a slight change in the plane's attitude. The airflow burbled around the tanks and over the wing, blanking out the airflow across the elevators and resulting in a loss of control.
This would probably only happen at a fairly low speed and in a steep turn.

This is my theory only, but there was no mistaking the experience and the sudden loss of altitude. If this had happened at low altitude the aircraft would have mushed into the ground with no way of to stop it, and the results would have been fatal.

I believe this is what happened to Major Thomas B. McGuire over Cebu island on January 7, 1945. McGuire, with 38 confirmed kills, was the second ranking American ace in WW11. At the time his death, he has flown over 240 combat missions and had been in combat for a long time.

This could have happen is drop tanks were near empty and he was at low alts and pulling high Gs. Just some more to chew on

Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=

The reason I posted this in particular is its reference to fuel in the external tanks. Not full fuel but something way less. Fuel sloshes, and it will dramatically effect an airplane more partially full than when completely topped off. The Eagle, which is a dynamically stable airplane, did not like uneven external wing tanks. As little as 300lbs difference between tanks and too hard of a pull on the stick and it would spin. And the plane was extremely spin resistant.

You state this above (I may have deleted it…)

"At worst he should have mushed outward and down. I don't care what you say about the drop tanks, they were nowhere near full. This aircraft will not torque stall, but the researcher speculates on an engine failure because he tries to makes his understanding fit the facts."

No where near full is worse than full. Also, guys didn't fight or train with the tanks on so its handling was not a well known or understood event. Torque stall, or an uncoordinated stall, will cause a spin. Imbalanced fuel tanks will also cause this.

You appear well read and I can see how you get to your conclusion, just realize there is more to it than is written in some articles.

Cheers,
Biff

Trying to haul around into a tight turn carrying two tanks at high speed is going to give you a bad case of inertia. My understanding is that McGuire inadvertently induced a snap-roll and went in inverted about 30 degrees from horizontal.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Trying to haul around into a tight turn carrying two tanks at high speed is going to give you a bad case of inertia. My understanding is that McGuire inadvertently induced a snap-roll and went in inverted about 30 degrees from horizontal.

Click to expand...

An interesting antidote is part of the process of becoming mission qualified in the Eagle was to do a Verification. Basically it was a mission brief, roughly an hour and ten minutes long followed by a very intense question and answer session led by our Wing Commander (Col Speedy Martin). Towards the end of it our Ops Group (OG) commander asked us who Tommy McGuire was, and then how he died. The Eagle community was going through a serious scrub of when to get rid of the tanks and he wanted to make a point. 1992.

Some lessons are applicable even decades later.

BiffF15 said:

An interesting antidote is part of the process of becoming mission qualified in the Eagle was to do a Verification. Basically it was a mission brief, roughly an hour and ten minutes long followed by a very intense question and answer session led by our Wing Commander (Col Speedy Martin). Towards the end of it our Ops Group (OG) commander asked us who Tommy McGuire was, and then how he died. The Eagle community was going through a serious scrub of when to get rid of the tanks and he wanted to make a point. 1992.

Some lessons are applicable even decades later.

Click to expand...

Do you have an opinion on what I've read? Is it in the ballpark?

Thumpalumpacus said:

Do you have an opinion on what I've read? Is it in the ballpark?

Click to expand...

I have read the same, and agree with the authors assessment. There are numerous factors involved, but getting surprised and snatching back on the yoke / stick is a normal occurrence when dogfighting. What's not normal was doing it with two external tanks on, compounding the problem was they were partially full. All the "team" doing research on his accident have done is come up with a "plausible" cause. My thoughts are the guys who maintained and flew them could, with reasonable accuracy, determine what most likely happened.

BiffF15 said:

[...] but getting surprised and snatching back on the yoke / stick is a normal occurrence when dogfighting. What's not normal was doing it with two external tanks on, compounding the problem was they were partially full.

Click to expand...

That's my non-pilot's grasp on it, that when he got caught in a turn-fight he wasn't prepared for, he milked it too much. I hadn't considered the slosh-effect at all, which only adds to the issue.

Ignorant question warning: don't these drop-tanks have baffles to tamp this down? Even our fire-trucks had baffles in our tanks to help cornering performance.

Thumpalumpacus said:

That's my non-pilot's grasp on it, that when he got caught in a turn-fight he wasn't prepared for, he milked it too much. I hadn't considered the slosh-effect at all, which only adds to the issue.

Ignorant question warning: don't these drop-tanks have baffles to tamp this down? Even our fire-trucks had baffles in our tanks to help cornering performance.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the P38 had or how effective they were. The Eagle had two types of drop tanks. The good ones and the ones we used in combat (usually loaded under the wings only) called "nestables". They were able to be assembled by admin folks and usually leaked quite a bit. We would swap them around a bit until you got a good match on each plane (fed fuel at about the same rate to prevent imbalances). The baffles in the nestables were smaller as the tank was expected to be jettisoned and therefore was a less expensive alternative.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Ignorant question warning: don't these drop-tanks have baffles to tamp this down? Even our fire-trucks had baffles in our tanks to help cornering performance.

Click to expand...

Note that on the Yamamoto mission one P-38 had drop tanks that would not release so the pilot (Ray Hines, I think) pulled more G's and ripped them off.

MIflyer said:

Note that on the Yamamoto mission one P-38 had drop tanks that would not release so the pilot (Ray Hines, I think) pulled more G's and ripped them off.
View attachment 828955View attachment 828956View attachment 828957

Click to expand...

Baffles can be seen in fig. 6, 7, and 11.

BiffF15 said:

Baffles can be seen in fig. 6, 7, and 11.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would have guessed they did not have any because it would complicate the manufacturing process considerably and being steel, they couple be much stronger that AL or paper or plastic tanks. But them's baffles, all right.

And besides, they are not supposed to be yankin' and bankin' much with those tanks in place., But them's baffles, all right.

Even my Ercoupe's 8 gal wing tanks have baffles.