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

[GrauGeist]

 

[Engineman]

Hi Wrath,

Thank you for quoting my post #32, again.

Eng

 

[Snautzer01]

I want to put a penny in

So right turning and getting slowed down yes?

Because that a turn fight.

Now. Either you shot the other slow one or didnt.
But.
You is slowww. Burned of your energy.
One thing in ww2 you did not want on any front is that. Being slow ~ low energy. Because you will be dead.

That i think a good reason how ever good your plane is in turning, if it can not get its energy up .. you dead.
Its not ww1. Its number 2 with vicious guns and cannons. In every nations fighter. Potent guns

The slow are the near future dead.

 

[ThomasP]

re

What does the science say about pushing on the stick permanently in low speed turns? Since he describes it as a "trim issue" whose 220 knot border is detectable only in turns and only below 220 knots, it cannot be temporary as long as you are turning below that speed.

It can still be and is temporary - how much excess power you have and/or how much kinetic energy the aircraft currently has will determine how long the turn can be sustained - either temporarily (while trading speed and/or altitude) or sustained (in the sense of not losing altitude and keeping the same turning circle radius/G-load while maintaining speed). If trading speed for turn rate the need for 'easing up' or 'pushing' forward on the stick will lessen until you need to start pulling on the stick again. In effect there will be a speed range in which the need to 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will occur, but below and above that speed range you will have to pull. The only aircraft that can still be pushing forward on the stick when approaching stall are relatively low AR deltas and aircraft that use canards instead of conventional elevators for their main AOA control - the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 Flanker 'riding on their tails' at AOAs of +70° are examples of the 2 situations respectively.

In other words, as you lose speed in a turn, you will no longer be able to sustain the turn and your AOA will gradually decrease until you have to start pulling on the stick again. Do you think the Fw190 pilot had to 'push' on the stick when pulling 1.1G at 90 knots IAS? Based on your statement in the quote above, since 90 knots is less than 220 knots the pilot would have to still be 'pushing' on the stick. How about 1.2G at 94 knots IAS, or 1.3G at 98 knots IAS . . . ? What about at stall (1.0G at 85 knots IAS)? . . . that is less than 220 knots is it not? . . . would the Fw190 pilot still have to 'push' on the stick?

As has been mentioned in the "The Zero's Maneuverability", when the center of lift moves forward and back the need to pull and/or 'ease up' or 'push' on the stick will change.

When an aircraft is trimmed for level flight, the center of lift will be in an airframe specific relation to the same airframes CoG, and there will be little or no stick force needed to maintain level flight. Entering a turn will change the center of lift to one degree or another (depending on the airframe) and may require a change in trim in order to maintain the turn with little or no stick force. If the airframe is of the type where the center of lift moves forward when entering a turn - and you do not trim the airframe for turning flight - you will need to either 'ease up' on the stick or 'push' on the stick to keep the airframe from continuing to tighten in the turn. NOTE that 'pushing' on the stick in this instance does (necessarily) mean that you have to move the stick forward of the neutral position - it just means that you have to resist the backward movement of the stick due to aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces. As already mentioned in the other thread, this is the same phenomena that occurs on some airframes when pulling out of a dive - it is just happening when you are pulling Gs in the horizontal instead of the vertical.

Moving the discussion to another thread (or forum) will not change the "science" (ie physics).

 

[wrathofatlantis]

I want to put a penny in

So right turning and getting slowed down yes?

Because that a turn fight.

Now. Either you shot the other slow one or didnt.
But.
You is slowww. Burned of your energy.
One thing in ww2 you did not want on any front is that. Being slow ~ low energy. Because you will be dead.

That i think a good reason how ever good your plane is in turning, if it can not get its energy up .. you dead.
Its not ww1. Its number 2 with vicious guns and cannons. In every nations fighter. Potent guns

The slow are the near future dead.

Question: Do you understand why this dogfight with a P-51 ace went on for 90 consecutive level or near level circles for over 30 minutes?

Do you think that ace pilot, or his opponent, did not understand what they were doing?


View: https://youtu.be/wkaTGSpRuJI?si=BBna6cWcPTWo5j0I

This is puzzling only to people who have no understanding of WWII prop fighters. Which is just about everybody I'm afraid.

 

[GrauGeist]

What's puzzling, is how someone who's never flown an aircraft, let alone studied how an airplane actually functions, believes and promotes impossible physics.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

I mean an actual, physical, piston-powered airplane, sitting in the left seat?

Why are you addressing me? Address them. One by one...


-Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943 (US Army translation of one year of Russian front-wide observations): "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at
a minimum speed."

-Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace, 36 kills) My duel with the Focke-Wulf: (FW-190A-4 vs full wing Spit V) "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire
[V] in the tightest of turns. We were on the opposite sides of an ever diminishing circle. 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]. In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights. 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 [the Kraut: 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): "Aaaah the legends…
Legends are hard to kill (you don't say!). 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 dropped below 220 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."


I get it. This is a post-modern world where words don't actually mean anything.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

What's puzzling, is how someone who's never flown an aircraft, let alone studied how an airplane actually functions, believes and promotes impossible physics.

Which means you don't understand basic physics, in particular the difference between Energy and Force. You see, the world actually has unyielding shapes, and those shapes influence the Energy outcomes.

Do you actually think Force-Energy outcomes are never above 1:1?

It's what they desperately try to convey to you with those pulley lifting weights in tech museums, showing how when you multiply the pulleys the weight becomes lighter to pull up...

This applies in an infinity of different ways, not just with pulleys.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yep...

There is a pount where fantasy has it's limits versus reality.

At this point, your "argument" is full of shit, but by all means, please carry on - it's rather entertaining.

 

[PAT303]

What's puzzling, is how someone who's never flown an aircraft, let alone studied how an airplane actually functions, believes and promotes impossible physics.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/10cocmm/is_the_red_tails_maneuver_possible/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

P51 pilots spit on the laws of physics.

 

[SaparotRob]

Yep...



View attachment 808419

There is a pount where fantasy has it's limits versus reality.

At this point, your "argument" is full of shit, but by all means, please carry on - it's rather entertaining.

Didn't Vejtasa get two of those?

 

[Snautzer01]

Didn't Vejtasa get two of those?

No he was forced out.

 

[GrauGeist]

Didn't Vejtasa get two of those?

No, but I understand that Leppla got one.

 

[Greg Boeser]

What am I missing here? It seems that our OP is arguing that the Fw 190 can out-turn anything.
Now I'm no physicist, but I can read, and I just don't see how an aircraft with a higher stall speed can maintain a turn fight with an aircraft with a lower stall speed. Since stall speed dictates the minimum speed you can maintain controlled flight, if you are pulling Gs your stall speed increases. The more Gs you pull, the higher the stall speed. Adding power decreases your stall speed a little, but does the Fw 190 have enough power to overcome its higher wing loading compared to other fighters?

 

[GrauGeist]

What am I missing here? It seems that our OP is arguing that the Fw 190 can out-turn anything.
Now I'm no physicist, but I can read, and I just don't see how an aircraft with a higher stall speed can maintain a turn fight with an aircraft with a lower stall speed. Since stall speed dictates the minimum speed you can maintain controlled flight, if you are pulling Gs your stall speed increases. The more Gs you pull, the higher the stall speed. Adding power decreases your stall speed a little, but does the Fw 190 have enough power to overcome its higher wing loading compared to other fighters?

At lower altitudes, the Fw190A was a beast.
Early on, only the Typhoon was able to engage the 190 on it's own terms.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

What am I missing here? It seems that our OP is arguing that the Fw 190 can out-turn anything.
Now I'm no physicist, but I can read, and I just don't see how an aircraft with a higher stall speed can maintain a turn fight with an aircraft with a lower stall speed. Since stall speed dictates the minimum speed you can maintain controlled flight, if you are pulling Gs your stall speed increases. The more Gs you pull, the higher the stall speed. Adding power decreases your stall speed a little, but does the Fw 190 have enough power to overcome its higher wing loading compared to other fighters?

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."

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.

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

 

[Greyman]

I must apologize to forum veterans for posting this for the 92nd time, but the subject does continually resurface ...

The following is a 'manoeuvrability anecdote' that I feel can help put all 'manoeuvrability anecdotes' in perspective.
.

---

From (then Flight Lieutenant) Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr), shortly before Dieppe.

At Duxford one day a US Army Captain arrived unexpectedly with a P-38. Like the other Air Corps pilots, he had no battle experience and asked if he could get somebody to dogfight with him in a Spitfire IXb. Flight Lieutenant Clive, implying that he was in charge, said he would be glad to cooperate. He would fly the Spitfire himself. We were all a witness to the P-38 outmanoeuvre Clive, even turning inside him. When they landed, Clive came into Dispersal sweating profusely and stated the P-38 could outmanoeuvre the IXb. The Captain asked if he could have that in writing to show his Commanding Officer.

'Certainly,' said Clive, 'I'll have it ready for you by lunchtime.'​

Now, imagine if the story ended here, as it easily could have. Think of how us internet nerds would pour over this controlled, seemingly decisive 'combat'. How those that have some strange, personal investment in the performance of seventy-year old aircraft would either swoon or gnash their teeth at the outcome of this impromptu contest. It would have been 'ammunition' on forums and bulletin boards (2025 edit: and these days, YouTube videos) for decades.

However, it doesn't end there. Godefroy continues ...

I was convinced this was wrong, and pleaded with Campbell-Orr to let me fly against him before issuing any report. The Captain supported me in my request, and off we went. I was able to show that there was no way he could come anywhere near me in the Spitfire. To demonstrate the turning ability, I let him get on my tail. In two complete circles from this position, I was able to get in firing position behind him. The Captain was not a bit upset, he had come to learn the truth. I told him I thought a good pilot in a 109F would give him a lot of trouble.​

Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get completely opposite results. Something to keep in mind next time you're reading anecdotes on things like turn performance.

---

.
Now, I'm not saying you or anyone else should throw out all anecdotes not drawn from a testing/scientific setting, they're wonderful for adding to the great mosaic of our understanding of those men and machines.

But it's important to try to take them all in. It seems to me that you're starting from a conclusion you favour and working backwards, selectively sampling to support that conclusion. If you were to start a second collection that included anecdotes (and test establishment papers) that suggest the opposite of what you're claiming -- how much larger would that collection be?

A hint from someone who's read his fair share of WWII aviation books: substantially larger.

 

[GrauGeist]

Quite often, a discussion about Axis fighter (enter any type) versus Allied fighter (enter any type) ends up with long lists of stats, charts/graphs, quotes and the occasional shouting down.

However, if you park a Bf109G-2 next to a Spitfire Mk IXb on the ramp and wait to see what happens, it'll be a long wait.
Without a pilot, these machines are inert.
It is the pilot that makes these machines do what they do and a veteran pilot does not follow stats or charts when they are in combat. They fly to survive and will often push their machines to the edge of that aircraft's design.

And even then, these veterans don't always win.

 

[Holtzauge]

Absolutely: The pilot is of course central. The best example I can think of is the German ace Erwin Leykauf who said that he had no problems out-turning Spitfires in his Bf 109. However, irrespective of this quote, I would still say that that the majority of pilot accounts and science says that the Spitfire Mk I turned better than the Bf 109E.

So even if the pilot is important, I would also say that so are charts and graphs since they can give us an idea about what the aircraft as such is capable off. Then what the pilot manages to do with that will of course vary depending on skill level.

But if we take two pilots of equal skill, my money would still be on the Spitfire versus the Bf 109, just as it would be for the scenario where a Fw-190A faces a later model Spitfire irrespective of what Pierre Clostermann says.

I maintain a website about military aircraft performance, and on it I have a sub-page that touches exactly on this point: If the pilot is so central, then why bother looking at performance charts at all?

Hopefully what I wrote there makes sense, but if not then I'm open to suggestions on what to improve.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

I must apologize to forum veterans for posting this for the 92nd time, but the subject does continually resurface ...

The following is a 'manoeuvrability anecdote' that I feel can help put all 'manoeuvrability anecdotes' in perspective.
.

---

From (then Flight Lieutenant) Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr), shortly before Dieppe.

At Duxford one day a US Army Captain arrived unexpectedly with a P-38. Like the other Air Corps pilots, he had no battle experience and asked if he could get somebody to dogfight with him in a Spitfire IXb. Flight Lieutenant Clive, implying that he was in charge, said he would be glad to cooperate. He would fly the Spitfire himself. We were all a witness to the P-38 outmanoeuvre Clive, even turning inside him. When they landed, Clive came into Dispersal sweating profusely and stated the P-38 could outmanoeuvre the IXb. The Captain asked if he could have that in writing to show his Commanding Officer.

'Certainly,' said Clive, 'I'll have it ready for you by lunchtime.'​

Now, imagine if the story ended here, as it easily could have. Think of how us internet nerds would pour over this controlled, seemingly decisive 'combat'. How those that have some strange, personal investment in the performance of seventy-year old aircraft would either swoon or gnash their teeth at the outcome of this impromptu contest. It would have been 'ammunition' on forums and bulletin boards (2025 edit: and these days, YouTube videos) for decades.

However, it doesn't end there. Godefroy continues ...

I was convinced this was wrong, and pleaded with Campbell-Orr to let me fly against him before issuing any report. The Captain supported me in my request, and off we went. I was able to show that there was no way he could come anywhere near me in the Spitfire. To demonstrate the turning ability, I let him get on my tail. In two complete circles from this position, I was able to get in firing position behind him. The Captain was not a bit upset, he had come to learn the truth. I told him I thought a good pilot in a 109F would give him a lot of trouble.​

Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get completely opposite results. Something to keep in mind next time you're reading anecdotes on things like turn performance.

---

.
Now, I'm not saying you or anyone else should throw out all anecdotes not drawn from a testing/scientific setting, they're wonderful for adding to the great mosaic of our understanding of those men and machines.

But it's important to try to take them all in. It seems to me that you're starting from a conclusion you favour and working backwards, selectively sampling to support that conclusion. If you were to start a second collection that included anecdotes (and test establishment papers) that suggest the opposite of what you're claiming -- how much larger would that collection be?

A hint from someone who's read his fair share of WWII aviation books: substantially larger.

You don't seem to grasp the huge qualitative difference between my quotes and your example:

1-Your example is about mock fighting.

2-The pilots involved have at least one rookie with zero combat experience (the P-38 pilot), the Spitfire pilot Hugh Godefroy had 9 kills.

The qualitative superiority of my examples:

1-Johnny J. Johnson 36 kills, plus an actual combat account, which is probably meant as illustrative, given the hindsight of its immediate post-war narration, 1946 (He picked THAT one among his entire 36 kill experience).

2-Pierre Clostermann, 18 kills, RAF mission record holder, presenter of wartime technical conferences on German aircrafts to an audience of his fellow combat pilots, these being created by watching and editing hundreds of gun camera films (the result projected during his conferences) , INCLUDING CAPTURED GERMAN GUN CAMERA FILMS.

Strengthening his quote further, his quote is a post-War general statement of what he observed during his gun camera editing (films whose lessons he describes in the video as being very similar and very repetitive among hundreds), as well as adding to this his unmatched combat experience (RAF mission record at 432 if memory serves).

In addition, you don't seem to grasp the significance of my previous post: Lowering the throttle by 30 to 40%, permanently, during multiple consecutive 360 turns is fundamental to understanding WWII turn performance. This is to the point that without this, there is no way to understand the subject of WWII air to air combat at all. Erich Brunotte, on his late war D-9, even states he never went outside 50-60% power during combat... Can you imagine the significance of this? For him combat was down-throttling... He explicitly states that for him there was no such thing as using full power during combat...

All we know is that some pilots lowered it, and some did not, as Karhila describes (another 32 kill ace). Some simply did not fly their aircrafts in combat enough to gain the knowledge that you needed to cut power to gain turn dominance. It went randomly by feel and instinct on all fronts across all types, because the theoretical physics of tractive behaviour is incorrect, as demonstrated by the McGuire example (which I am fairly sure probably solves the mystery).

This means the comparative turn performance can only be estimated by an aggregate of thousands of accounts. Which I have been doing for 30 years. These quotes are chosen out of thousands because I concluded they are the most representative.

The fact that I know about the importance of permanent down-throttling during turns, and that no one else is talking about it, simply means I have read more about this than anyone, and this is not unlikely, since I have been collecting quotes for 30 years in view of a board game design. I'll repeat: If you don't know about permanent down-throttling during prolonged low-speed turns (as well as the tactical dominance of prolonged low speed turns), you don't understand WWII air to air fighter combat. And apparently, it so happens that this includes everyone.

In addition, the conclusion of your example is wrong: Not only did the P-38 out-turn the Me-109G (or F, only a slight difference), it could do so with two 500 pounds attached on pylons, the bombs made so little difference. And the Me-109G absolutely out-turned below 220 mph a Spitfire Mk IX, and even possibly a Mk V (though not by much). Yes the Spitfire did out-turn these types above 250 mph (and easily at all altitudes above 25 000 ft.), but not after two circles killed the extra speed. Clostermann is the only WWII pilot to ever make that low-speed/high-speed distinction for the Spitfire, which I had long deduced from the hundreds of accounts I read. Yes, his quote is the best of them all (aside Johnson and Weir), but there are thousands of others hinting at the same thing, and none of them are mock combat.

Oh, and the P-38J also easily out-turned Yak-9s (18-20 sec 360), to the point that the Yak-9 had to resort to vertical loops where it proved superior to the P-38... This is from a ground observation by an experienced Russian pilot of this low altitude real combat... (2-4 against the Soviets if memory serves)

Test pilots doing mock combats are a terrible source of information: Only front-line pilots used permanent down-throttling in turns, and there is no way to know how many, or in what proportion. That so few talk about cutting power is really strange, but when asked, at least by 1944 experience, the Erich Brunotte answer is what you get, so it was not that rare, at least in the later parts of the War (which is what you would expect from knowledge that is only spread through direct experience). If test pilots doing mock combat did not cut the throttle during prolonged turns, what exactly is the value of their opinion?