Given the results of the Japanese teachers there should be no surprise that Japan did not develop different doctrines
nor planes to use with them. They just stayed with the turnfight mentality. Their tests only showed the suitability
of those pilots to the planes they compared, not what -could- be done with dissimilar planes to the old tried and true
turns-will-give-me-victory Ki-43 and Ki-100. It was left to the Allied pilots to show them how it's done and they did.

Nice quotes Gaston, interesting read, but I agree with others in that IF the slower planes plane always wins, the faster plane is not flown properly.
So this either indicates that the Ki-84's used weren't faster than the Ki-100's used, or that they were improperly flown.

Well, Gaston's conclusions as you have all guessed are VERY incorrect.

The Ki-100 was a bandaid fix that worked out...In truth however it never came close to performing how a Ki-61-II could....Trouble is, they couldn't get engines in them past the very few they made due to production failings as Garret mentions.

The Ki-84 on the army side, and N1K2 & 3 on the navy were on par with allied aircraft and even noted as such by allied testing.......Unfortunately it was too little too late, as by that time they were knocking on the home islands door, and the navy having nothing to do with the army decided to hold back their forces for "the final battle".

The Ki-84 was the ONLY aircraft noted that the U.S. speed demon P-51 would not pursue (was something of an unwritten policy in that it was a waste of effort)....Quite simply though they may have been able to eventually catch them the Ki-84 was so fast, such a good climber, and could manuever so well, that it would take too much time to pursue so they let them go.

Oddly the Ki-84 was nothing more then a Ki-43 on steroids.

Ki-43-1 thru III were fodder by 1943. Ki-61 was fodder by 1943. Ki-61-II never happened. The Ki-100 was fodder since its inception. The Ki-84 had a chance...Just not that late in the game with so few, and so few experienced pilots.

Frankly the round and round baffle them with BS.....We're talking the Ho-103, and suddenly the Ki-100 is better then the Ki-84 (a more powerful Ki-43 ) YET the Ki-43 is better then both.....has become dull.

C'mon....this is tiring and rediculous....and I am taking my own advice and walking away.

K2

Funny, this reminds me of this other thread on AH, where I mentioned that the Merlin P-51 could boost its very low-speed turn rate (around or below 200 MPH) with a special 3-step "trick" that was fairly widely used: Downthrottling the engine, increasing prop pitch and lowering the flaps. I knew of a dozen or so combat report examples, many of which can be found on the "WWII Aircraft Performance" site.

The result was usually a slow gain on some FW-190As, and a faster gain on the Me-109Gs. I think maybe the Me-109G could be equal to a Merlin P-51 doing this if it had MW-50, and surely later FW-190A-8 variants should still be somewhat superior to both at these low speeds, especially with the broad wood prop, but I disgress...

Surprisingly to me, this widely used 3-step P-51 low-speed trick did not fit accepted simulation dogma. Nobody seemed to be even aware of what I was talking about...

I produced a combat report, describing just this:


http://www.spitfireperformance...hanseman-24may44.jpg



What was the reaction to this painfully clear, step-by-step situation reversal? Well...: That P-51 pilot just didn't know what he was doing!... You can't LOWER the power below the turn rate peak to improve the turn rate! The prop pitch doesn't work like that! He did a dumb thing and survived, etc... I tried to reason with them that it was widely taught and used, often with similar successful results, but to no avail...

So now you have dozens of the best Japanese pilots evaluating the slower Ki-100, and finding it inevitably superior in co-altitude, or near co-altitude, fighting to the much faster Ki-84 (April of 1945 testing can only mean the Ki-84 was at its best), and the argument now presented to me is that these experienced, active-service sentai commanders, many of them aces, don't know what they are doing or what they are talking about...

I have tried to let actual combat reality intrude here, and explained that if you know the enemy will usually have a massive altitude advantage, you WILL be flying the slower aircraft, regardless of what it is... And you cannot dive away from them, to zoom above them later, if they can out-dive and out-zoom you at dive speed by a wide margin... Japanese aircrafts are usually inferior-handling at these speeds.

For an on-the-defensive reacting force that is most often climbing from below, it is acceleration, climb and turn rate, and especially the retention of speed in turns or climbing turns, that defines true performance, not the near-irrelevant maximum speed under those circumstances... To which I would add firepower for head-on passes, but not a big plus for most Japanese aircrafts... The FW-190A was an example of a specialized low-speed turn fighter that had this critical firepower advantage, though it was saddled by a poor climb rate.

Note that contrary to mind-numbing simulation dogma, the retention of speed in turns is not linearly linked to the climb rate, as the differences in climb rates between the Ki-100 and Ki-84 are likely not very large, yet the difference of speed retention in turns, and in turning ability, obviously was...

Both the FW-190A-8 at low speeds, and the Merlin P-51 at many speeds, retain speed extremely well in turns, but don't have really good climb rates. The Me-109G has a very good climb rate, but bleeds speed like a pig in turns. This could explain the apparently strange turn-rate inferiority of the fairly fast-climbing Ki-84 to the Ki-100: See the thread on this message board "Flying the real 109E", started with this pilot report:



http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA

Quote: "Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’."

- Note the words: "a STARK contrast". This does not show up on the relative climb rates of these two, and please note it is clearly said this is NOT exclusive to the slats being out... This is also why the ungainly FW-190A out-turns the Me-109G in most variants before MW-50 appeared on the 109.

Of course the Japanese were not stupid, and would use hit-and-run tactics whenever the opportunity of a large altitude advantage presented itself. The problem is, their real combat experience was that this opportunity typically did not happen very often, as their aircrafts and engines were not competitive at very high altitudes, and fuel availability limited the patrols that could create these opportunities. In addition, many of their aircrafts were not very useable in fast dives, including the poor high-speed controls of the Ki-84. So their priorities in combat values reflected their actual combat experiences, which you would do well to assume were more informative than yours...

Gaston

LOL, combat reality!

..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting.

Ok. Good climb and turn rate. How come the Zero wasn't considered a hot ride by 1945 if these two were the priorities?

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting.

...shows what you know....noob...

K2

quote:

Originally posted by LEBillfish:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting.

...shows what you know....noob...

K2

..... Ya just gotta love Ubizoo.

;-]

Where the trolls get fed at all hours day and night....

This thread is even crazier than the other Ki-43 thread.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where the trolls get fed at all hours day and night....

..... and the public is invited to watch!

The FW-190A series was, barring bomber-destroyer versions, specialized in low-speed horizontal turn-fighting, and could fairly easily out-turn a non-MW-50 Me-109G. (It was much inferior to a Zero, but slightly below or equal, in sustained low-speed turns, to a Spitfire Mk IX, more so with the broader prop). Sorry to hear this is news to you, but this was widely known by all sides during the war...

Amusingly enough, it also happened to have truly terrible high-speed elevator response above around 250 MPH IAS, despite very light controls (the aircraft did pitch-up abruptly, but kept going straighter than its pitch attitude, with either a flick-out to one side or a massive G-intensive deceleration: "Take care not to kill speed by sinking" said Eric Brown about pull-outs). It also had a fairly poor ability to sustain speed in high speed turns. High-speed dive pull-out performance was among the worst. Word was, in 8th Air Force circles, that if the high-speed dive pull-out was not started at 8000 ft(!), it would result in a slightly nose-up pancaking Anton...

But, of course, they didn't know what they were talking about, right?

As far as I am aware, besides tests well above 21 000 ft, there is only ONE WWII statement that says the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A at lower altitudes: A Rechlin La-5 evaluation involving a Me-109 with MW-50 against an unknown FW-190A variant at unknown speeds (sustained speeds higher than 250 MPH would favour the Me-109). Rest assured that, without MW-50, there would be ZERO statements to that effect, for the whole of WWII, concerning the Gustav series, especially at less than 250 MPH...

Gunther Rall, speaking of his Me-109F, said HE could out-turn the early FW-190As, but suggested this was not typical by saying "They told us the FW-190A could out-turn it (relating to the F series...)." In other words, a very narrow margin between those two, with a Me-109F that was 900 lbs lighter(!) than the Me-109G, which had only 10% more power but also more drag...

Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it?

And YES, the Me-109 DID bleed speed excessively in low-speed turns, until MW-50 compensated for that. Read detail of Walther Oseau's non-MW-50 G-6AS demise in "Jagdwaffe-Defending the Reich 1944-45": This quote is from an actual witness: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries (Merlin P-51s). Oseau was later shot down near the ground"

Given the current abyssmal knowledge of the FW-190A's character, I'll just leave you with these two links to peruse:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:

-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."

-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"

-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

Not within this thread's main issue mind you, but like the P-51 low-speed "trick", it does show how delusional is the notion that math formulas can tackle the complexities of a real-life object churning air into a spiral...

But don't worry, all of the above is not clear at all, and these people, Jonhson and Rall included, are all nuts or confused anyway... Plus, words don't actually mean what they say: It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" -is you know...

Gaston


PS. To answer Metatron_123's quite valid point, I'll note that the A6M5 was far more fragile than the Ki-43-II/III (no pilot armor or fuel tank protection), and slightly inferior in combat ability to the Ki-43-III, at least until the heavily-armed A6M5c finally appeared. This was a massive improvement for the Zero, precisely in what it needed the most: The firepower density to hit faster opponents in a head-on or high-deflection snapshot, despite the obstacle of wing gun convergence. It then became clearly superior to the Oscar offensively, but was still probably inferior in survivability as the climb and turn rate were now much inferior to a Ki-43-III.

Despite this, the A6M5 Zero was considered hot enough by the Navy to serve as the mainstay fighter until the end of the war, even with the Spring of 1944 availability of the 650 km/h, but slower-climbing, N1K1-J.

I think the A6M5 Zero's ridiculous kill/loss ratio could have been easily helped by protecting the fuel tanks and pilot, and replacing the mixed armament with 5 or 6 medium mgs, as Saburo Sakai suggested... In the same vein, I think it is ridiculous that the Ki-43's fast-firing Ho-103 (800-900 rpm) was not exploited in an unsynchronized wing emplacement, given the 550 rpm it had synchronized...

There, I know better than them now...

G.

quote:

But, of course, they didn't know what they were talking about, right?

No they know what they are talking about. It is people who do not understand the physics, take anecdotes out of context, and erroneously draw generalized conclusion that don't know what they are talking about. This phenomenon is not limited by type, make, or nationality of airplane.

It is not hard to do the math and determine an aircrafts performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

Mix and match; quotes without conditions then given conditions to suit an argument does not transfer authority
to the argument.

Gunther Rall tells that he could out turn the FW. Was he suggesting it wasn't typical when saying he was told
different? Did HE say that? is there anywhere mention of the speeds these events should occur?

quote:

Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it?

Classic re-interpretation. "What Gunther Rall REALLY meant is..."

quote:

And YES, the Me-109 DID bleed speed excessively in low-speed turns, until MW-50 compensated for that. Read detail of Walther Oseau's non-MW-50 G-6AS demise in "Jagdwaffe-Defending the Reich 1944-45": This quote is from an actual witness: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries (Merlin P-51s). Oseau was later shot down near the ground"

The quote doesn't say what speed, doesn't even say that any P-51 out-turned him BEFORE or AFTER he was slowed down.
ALL it says is he kept turning tighter and getting slower than his PLURAL adversaries.

Typical revisionist grab-and-morph quote usage. Do not adjust your TV set, it's beyond the outer limits all over,
one step to Raaaid.

quote:

As far as I am aware, besides tests well above 21 000 ft, there is only ONE WWII statement that says the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A at lower altitudes: A Rechlin La-5 evaluation involving a Me-109 with MW-50 against an unknown FW-190A variant at unknown speeds (sustained speeds higher than 250 MPH would favour the Me-109). Rest assured that, without MW-50, there would be ZERO statements to that effect, for the whole of WWII, concerning the Gustav series, especially at less than 250 MPH...

There are TSAGI tests that put the horizontal turn times at 1000m altitude of the
109F-4 at 19.6-20.5s
109G-2 at 20-21.5s
109G-4 at 21s
190A-4 at 22-23s
190A-5 at 22-23s
190A-8* at 21-22s
190D-9 at 22-23s

*: This Fw 190A-8 only had 2x20mm and a TO weight of 3986kg, 300kg lighter than normal.

and also

quote:

It [the Fw 190A] was much inferior to a Zero, but slightly below or equal, in sustained low-speed turns, to a Spitfire Mk IX, more so with the broader prop

Spitfire Vb at 18.8s
Spitfire IXc at 17.5s
Spitfire IXE at 18.5s

quote:

This Fw 190A-8 only had 2x20mm and a TO weight of 3986kg, 300kg lighter than normal.

It is a fact there is no such thing in the Luftwaffe inventory as an FW-190A8 with only 2 X 20mm MG151's. The vast majority of FW-190F/G's were produced from pre-existing Anton airframes.

Keep in mind too that in any test flight, the performance greatly depends on the skill of the test pilot in the specific aircraft.

That is why insurance companies today base their rates off of a pilots experience "in type".

In the case of the VVS testing, the relative performance mirrors my own mathmatical analysis for relative performance. I would not take the specific numbers for either one as absolutes.

Given the physics of turning flight, I would suspect the margin of error is widest for a human flow test flight.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:
-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."
-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"
-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."
G.

Wow!
At first I thought these are some funny or ironic statements...

Here is the original report, in russian language:
http://www.airpages.ru/dc/docaf.shtml
This report also mentions He-113 and gives recommendations how to fight this unexisting plane.
Keep in mind that these war-time sources contain many errors and wrong conclusions.
This "recommendation for aerial battles" was issued in early 1943, while fw-190 apperad on the russian front in late 1942, so russins didn't have much information about it.
Furthermore russian "recommendations" were notoriously wrong throughout the war.
In a similar document issued in 1941 the recommendation was to fight Bf-109F in vertical, since soviet fighters (Yak-1 and I-16) had better climb rates!!!
So don't thrust every semi-propaganda source .
In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.
Russians were kind of "obsesses" of turn-rates, so every captured plane was tested for turning.
And all these tests confirm that FW-190 is far inferior to bf-109 in turning...

quote:

Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:
-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."
-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"
-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."
G.

Wow!
At first I thought these are some funny or ironic statements...

Here is the original report, in russian language:
http://www.airpages.ru/dc/docaf.shtml
This report also mentions He-113 and gives recommendations how to fight this unexisting plane.
Keep in mind that these war-time sources contain many errors and wrong conclusions.
This "recommendation for aerial battles" was issued in early 1943, while fw-190 apperad on the russian front in late 1942, so russins didn't have much information about it.
Furthermore russian "recommendations" were notoriously wrong throughout the war.
In a similar document issued in 1941 the recommendation was to fight Bf-109F in vertical, since soviet fighters (Yak-1 and I-16) had better climb rates!!!
So don't thrust every semi-propaganda source .
In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.
Russians were kind of "obsesses" of turn-rates, so every captured plane was tested for turning.
And all these tests confirm that FW-190 is far inferior to bf-109 in turning...

..... Nice to hear from you, TM. Hope you are keeping well!