PDA

View Full Version : FW190 as a TnB fighter - Anyone 'Care to Dare'



K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 02:44 PM
OK.. the usual 'in'doctrine for the FW190 as discussed nausiatingly, as an energy fighter...
My question - has anybody tried to use it as a TnB fighter, that is.. NOT USING IT AS AN ENERGY FIGHTER.

I ask this as I wonder if I'm the only D-icky that can do this successfully - surely there must be others that question the 'doctrine'???

Let's try to keep the energy out of this as far as possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Your ideas .. POVs

AFJ_rsm
07-22-2009, 02:51 PM
Yes.

SILVERFISH1992
07-22-2009, 02:54 PM
Shot down 6 average corsairs in a FW-190 A-4.

All TnB.

P.S.how do you like my sig?

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 02:54 PM
my pov is that you can TnB with anyplane.
Some are just better designed for it.

PS: combat flaps

Trefle
07-22-2009, 03:00 PM
IMHO "turn and burn " tactics also requires good energy management during manoeuvers , often it's not only about who turn the tightest who wins (ex : Yak vs 109 fights at low alt , low-medium speed ) .

I prefer the distinction between "low-to-medium speed " dogfight and "high speed " type of engagement , it's clearer to my mind .

I never tried seriously to dogfight with the 190 at low-to-medium speed cause i always thought the aircraft was not built to fight like this , but it would be interesting to watch a track where one does this succesfully

The average acceleration below 400km/h of the 190A coupled with high stall speed and rather long turn time probably does not make it easier though

danjama
07-22-2009, 03:04 PM
Theres many planes the 190 can turn with and kill.

Trefle
07-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Theres many planes the 190 can turn with and kill.

At low-to-medium speed you mean ?

Well , 190A (not talking about Dora ) can keep up with a few like P-47 , P-38 , but 190 bleeds a lot of energy in these kind of low-medium speed dogfight IMHO .

The majority of historical opponents of the 190 will outturn it at low-to-medium speed as far as i know (Yaks , La's, Spits , P-39, P-40 , P-51's with less than 50% , Tempest etc.).

At high speed it's a different story , 190 is one of the best at this

DKoor
07-22-2009, 03:26 PM
FW is agile than... namely, the B-17 and B-24.
Sometimes also a P-51D.

Why it is that this FW-190 turning and burning (at any speed) goes wrong and user unhappy as a rule, I wonder?

Not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

For any kind of maneuver you can find many contemporary fighters that will do it better than FW, by better means that they will lose less energy thru those maneuvers. It's all about energy.

If you fly non maneuverable brick such is FW-190 you better don't execute much combat maneuvers that aren't called combat dive and combat climb, sometimes maybe a roll or two, or you will have a tough surviving time vs practically everything.

It is a good thing that FW was somewhat stable gun platform and that it has ridiculous firepower... because that and speed solely are factors good enough to propel it to cult status among many guys who never really liked that fighter before, but now thru playing the game smartly realized that they can kill and survive with it more efficiently than in some other, more maneuverable fighters.
Fighters which almost as a rule lack either speed or guns or both... which brings us to essence here.

Any plane in this game that has speed and firepower will excel over others stat wise.

So all you stat *****s pay attention.

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 03:28 PM
Trefle's coming to the critical point of the FW... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
At really low speeds, the FW can out-roll anything, and therefore literally outturn all.
It's closest rival is only the Yak-3..

Do you see where I'm going with the TnB.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Trefle
07-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Ok i get it mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's true it rolls fast but.. it's stalls fast as well during turns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TBH i'd be interested if you have a track online to illustrate your point , for instance against a Lavochkin or Spitfire at low speed

Personally , everytime i was caught in a slow fight in a 190 Anton , i have been punished quite fast (except against the AI offline , but online humans capitalized on this quickly ). Only times i used slow speed cissors by playing on my better rollrate is when i was in desperate situations

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Why it is that this FW-190 turning and burning (at any speed) goes wrong and user unhappy as a rule, I wonder?

They don't know how to fly it


Originally posted by DKoor:
For any kind of maneuver you can find many contemporary fighters that will do it better than FW, by better means that they will lose less energy thru those maneuvers. It's all about energy.

afraid not...


Originally posted by DKoor:
If you fly non maneuverable brick such is FW-190 you better don't execute much combat maneuvers that aren't called combat dive and combat climb, sometimes maybe a roll or two, or you will have a tough surviving time vs practically everything.

That's the problem with 'in'doctrine


Originally posted by DKoor:
It is a good thing that FW was somewhat stable gun platform and that it has ridiculous firepower... because that and speed solely are factors good enough to propel it to cult status among many guys who never really liked that fighter before, but now thru playing the game smartly realized that they can kill and survive with it more efficiently than in some others more maneuverable fighters.

This is quoting the majority of FW 'pilots' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 03:40 PM
to give another example, you can use a lag displacement roll against a spit or la-7 which is a beautiful way to crunch a better 'turning' fighter with a superior 'roll' fighter.

It lines up two firing solutions, once in the beginning of the turn and another at the end.
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220029im.jpg

DKoor
07-22-2009, 03:44 PM
So we are now inventing the hot water all over again, ain't we Freddie? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Waiting for tracks.

Fights vs noobs and alike do not count, of course.

...and we are in for some serious laugh, I tell you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif .

na85
07-22-2009, 03:47 PM
Freddie do you have any tracks? I'm a decent Yak pilot, if I catch you on HL tonight I'll send you a pager and you can practice whupping my ***.

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
TBH i'd be interested if you have a track online to illustrate your point , for instance against a Lavochkin ..

LA5 movie actually.. but should I bring up these old 'stones'.. Basic description
LA5 has the advantage in height, attacks, I avoid by reducing my energy.. height. Attacks again from advantage, but this time I pull heavy Gs to fly 'inline rolls' with him - plus engine management to get the first hit, second hit, a couple of moves and then the LA5 explodes from my shells.

No energy fighting at all but purely positioning dogfighting.. and I've done it many a time with Yak-3's ect...

I've only come across one person who could fly a P51.. and he was from Spain.. I cannot remember his AKA, but this guy could push that plane beyond the edge... needless to say I got him in the end... only just http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
07-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
to give another example, you can use a lag displacement roll against a spit or la-7 which is a beautiful way to crunch a better 'turning' fighter with a superior 'roll' fighter.

It lines up two firing solutions, once in the beginning of the turn and another at the end.
http://www.tpub.com/content/av...222/P-12220029im.jpg (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220029im.jpg)
What you posted Bill is a good common situation where FW starts with energy/speed advantage, starts on enemy tail...

What I gathered from this thread so far is that new ideology arises here which is radically different from everything we know about the air warfare in Europe so far.

That being... if you have a superior rate of roll, you will win by "mixing it up" with enemy fighter. Not by engaging the enemy from superior position but by mixing it up on equal terms.

That WW1 kind of thing...

What leaders of the ideology seems to forget is that their mechanical gawd has an acceleration of a pregnant turtle and just about such low/med speed agility and that it wastes energy thru maneuvers like a pro.

But hey, they are welcomed to "roll" a new invention.

Anyway... the real question is... when do we get our share of laugh (tracks)?

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 04:05 PM
OK pick on me is it....
Tracks and vids... These are all online - play catchup if you can

All Full Real - Do this if you can(16MB movie - FW at end) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SnapIt.avi)

2x Yak3 online kill (40MB movie) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/ALittleBitOfThis.avi)

Do I have to do this.. old Ntrk (v4.08)
Low Level/Speed FW190 destruction (1.7MB ) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SomeHLServer.zip)

Come on people.. put some brain cells together http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

DKoor
07-22-2009, 04:29 PM
No offense mate... but I laughed.

I watched your NTRK SomeHLserver track, it was a good kill, to cite the Ai. But you don't seriously expect that someone can relate that track to what you are talking about here.

All it can be seen on the track is you waiting for someone to fly in front of your cannons while LA-5 waxes your tail and fly away leaving you to the philosopher in P-39 who is contemplating whether he should try to do a formation flying with you or something else.

Seriously Freddie this is just another of those cases when we all cry if you eventually say I really meant that it could work. And we more or less laugh if you say I was just joking. A nice joke is always welcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 04:34 PM
DKoor... really!!
You're obviously more of an amateur than what I thought.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Trefle
07-22-2009, 04:40 PM
I watched the track too . Obviously it was a good kill mate , you tricked him well with your manoeuvers with flaps deployed and very low speed . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But TBH , what i gather from this track is two things :

One is that your tactic can work if your piloting skills are vastly superior to your opponent because the La-5 could have shot you down about 3 times and the P-39 did not manage to maintain his energy advantage nor manage a firing solution against a target lower and slower than him .

The other is that this tactic relies on luck too much , because flying near stall speed at low alt like this is being extremely vulnerable , especially since the 190 is like a truck at low speed , with poor acceleration and high stall speed .

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 04:43 PM
Bill:
in that diagram instead of rolling over 360, I would rather pull vertical, with max (speed allowed) flaps, returning down in combat flaps..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
07-22-2009, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
I watched the track too . Obviously it was a good kill mate , you tricked him well with your manoeuvers with flaps deployed and very low speed . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
...
One is that your tactic can work if your piloting skills are vastly superior to your opponent because the La-5 could have shot you down about 3 times and the P-39 did not manage to maintain his energy advantage nor manage a firing solution against a target lower and slower than him .
...

No... Trefle you got it all wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Freddie just hits the brake and he flew right by!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Sz83qFFwJP4/SMaTOnwb1tI/AAAAAAAACpg/J3M7OU3eJbI/s400/topgun2.jpg

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
..the La-5 could have shot you down about 3 times
I agree here.. but he/she didn't.. it was a busy Sky


Originally posted by Trefle:
.. and the P-39 did not manage to maintain his energy advantage nor manage a firing solution against a target lower and slower than him .
Maybe I prevented him from maintaining the ad or firing solution. If you noticed his badge (=69.GIAP=) They don't come as amateurs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Trefle:
The other is that this tactic relies on luck too much , because flying near stall speed at low alt like this is being extremely vulnerable , especially since the 190 is like a truck at low speed , with poor acceleration and high stall speed .
You should question the 'doctrine' about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Freddie just hits the brake and he flew right by!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif there you go.. DKoor.. you're getting the idea..
BUT... it's more subtle than that.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Bill:
in that diagram instead of rolling over 360, I would rather pull vertical, with max (speed allowed) flaps, returning down in combat flaps..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Assuming i had the energy, that's what i would opt for as well. I seldom fly the 190, but in a P-47 using a combination of lag displacement, yo yos, and immelmans, i can double, or triple up my firing solutions on a tighter turning plane.

These tactics (including those in your SomeHLServer track) probably still fall in the category of energy fighting.

I just don't think energy fighting ever excluded the use of turn and burn tactics.
In a way, an effective pilot will use what ever is in his plane's capability to win. even if it means deploying landing flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Traditionally, turn and burn meant you turn in ever tighter circles, so that your opponent lost the energy advantage, and/or you were able to turn long enough to reverse the situation. You could effectively go from being chased to now following your opponent in a turn.
The tactic was simple....turn and turn tighter until you are on his tail....shoot guns....next...

You put a 190 into a traditional TnB situation, they would lose very quickly. They just aren't able to turn as tight as other planes better suited for those tactics.

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 05:40 PM
It's all a matter of timing.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif no matter what the nay-sayers say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Which is... from many moons (or posts) ago..my point from the very beginning - say .. in 2001
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
(Broken English ) "I here laugh"

Trefle
07-22-2009, 05:40 PM
IMHO , the point is not only that the 190 wouldn't turn as tight Bill .

It is also the fact that the 190 will not sustain the necessary speed during sustained tight turns against a lighter , better turner and better accelerating plane , as the 190 bleeds a lot of energy when manoeuvering near stall speed .

The better turner will be able to keep a higher speed whilst turning tight and will outturn the 190 on the long run , the more the turn lasts , the worse position the 190 will be in .
You never make sustained flat turn in combat , you turn while slightly climbing or shallow diving depending the situation .

A 190 will bleed speed considerably at low speed below 300km/h in these kind of sustained turns while slightly climbing , and will not have enough acceleration to keep up with his opponent , especially in the vertical , 190 is too heavy for this , Kurt Tank didn't design the Fw-190 for low speed fighting , on the other hand , most opponents of the 190 like Yaks , La's or Sptifires were designed to be competent at this task .

Personally , i don't see the point of not fighting on your aircraft strengths , which are speed and high speed manoeuvrability for the 190

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I just don't think energy fighting ever excluded the use of turn and burn tactics.
In a way, an effective pilot will use what ever is in his plane's capability to win. even if it means deploying landing flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You put a 190 into a traditional TnB situation, they would lose very quickly. They just aren't able to turn as tight as other planes better suited for those tactics.
So you don't mind if I put the FW into a tight turn that might stall a spit, and most definitley stall everything else .. except maybe a Zero.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
IMHO , Kurt Tank didn't design the Fw-190 for low speed fighting
Nor did he envisage somebody to be able to do this, even in a flight sim...

Makes you think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 06:12 PM
SO TO ULTIMATELY FINALISE..

NO MATTER WHAT AIRCRAFT YOU TAKE OFF IN....

ARE YOU WILLING TO DISCOVER THE LIMITS OF THE AEROPLANE or are you chicken!!!!!!

Qluck
Qluck
Qluck
Qluck!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 06:14 PM
hmm...

well....
\

hmmmm



I sure would like to see a 190 in a sustained turn with a spitfire at the same speeds.


i'm trying really hard to not post the report comparing the 190A to an F6F, and an F4U for the eighth time already this week.

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I sure would like to see a 190 in a sustained turn with a spitfire at the same speeds.
Turn a bit .. flip it, hard rudder, oppo rudder, pull hard elevator, oppo rudder and nuke the spit..
Why you have prob.. is beyond me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 06:23 PM
i have no problem with it, just call me a 'believe it when i see it' type.

I haven't seen that in a 190, yet


if you wanna get on HL. real quick and demonstrate id be happy to host

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 06:34 PM
Ya mean Ya not satisfied... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Okey dokey.. my stick is putt since 3 months ago , but I can handle it.....
I'll advertise when I'm ready....

Trefle
07-22-2009, 06:37 PM
Cool can i join ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

would be fun to meet you online and watch how it goes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Bunch of masochists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
OK I've just passed the 1000 ml limit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Wildnoob
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
mister Freddie you are absurdly inspired today. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Trefle
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Bunch of masochists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
nah just curious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
mister Freddie you are absurdly inspired today. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Tell me more..
I'M AM THE INVINCIBLE ...'FREDDIE' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 07:06 PM
i wasnt really looking for a competition, i wanted to see if you could follow a spitfire with a 190, or even a corsair. and if you can, how its done..


=)

na85
07-22-2009, 07:08 PM
Show up and learn? Although spits aren't really tnb fighters.

If this materializes I'll be there.

SILVERFISH1992
07-22-2009, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Shot down 6 average corsairs in a FW-190 A-4.

All TnB.

<span class="ev_code_RED">P.S.how do you like my sig?</span>

Gammelpreusse
07-22-2009, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Shot down 6 average corsairs in a FW-190 A-4.

All TnB.

<span class="ev_code_RED">P.S.how do you like my sig?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Silver, this forum is not for ego stroking...

ok, maybe it is, but try to be a bit more subtle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zxwings
07-22-2009, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:

Do I have to do this.. old Ntrk (v4.08)
Low Level/Speed FW190 destruction (1.7MB ) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SomeHLServer.zip)

Freddie I have a question about it. How did you control your view movements in this track? For instance, I noticed that your POV could jump directly to a certain direction and then stay there. Did you do it using the in-game Snap View Mode, or using an additional software?

Thanks!

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by zxwings:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:

Do I have to do this.. old Ntrk (v4.08)
Low Level/Speed FW190 destruction (1.7MB ) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SomeHLServer.zip)

Freddie I have a question about it. How did you control your view movements in this track? For instance, I noticed that your POV could jump directly to a certain direction and then stay there. Did you do it using the in-game Snap View Mode, or using an additional software?

Thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh.. that silly little thumb switch.. but i'll get back to this when i'm a leetle bit more 'with it'.
But everything else is SA.. dah brain thing...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Anyway sleepies time... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JuHa-
07-23-2009, 10:13 AM
I sometimes do the following (stupidish) manouver:

After the initial dive to the target who makes a tight (f.ex.) left turn, instead of going straight away, I just go to the lag pursuit and keep on turning with all that FW190 has. Keeping care, of course, that I'm unseeable to him. As FW bleeds speed very quickly, I don't get far away, and if the target then rolls back to level and scans a moment or two where I went - I can get a shooting opportunity from the side.

This isn't 100% secure way, as it easily goes wrong and you find the target at your close six. But at least it's a little unpredictable, as usually FW drivers just climb/dive away after the first (missed) pass.

Jaws2002
07-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
All TnB.

<span class="ev_code_RED">P.S.how do you like my sig?</span>

"F-35 can't turn, can't climb, can't run"

'It was like clubbing baby seals"

The RAND report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


And the answer to the original question:
Yes.

Gadje
07-24-2009, 06:18 AM
While the OP has the right to start a post to blow smoke up his own 'jacksy'(again!). I would like to post a warning to anyone new to this game that doing Freddies maneuvers will most often result in you quickly getting shot by anyone other than the inexperienced or the AI.

As an experienced pilot I would call this stuff the equivalent of the 'Ali shuffle': it might look flash but does nothing if your opponent keeps his eye on your now exposed chin.
And I hope you can see how exposed his chin is in these tracks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Overshoots, however you try to do them, be it snap stalls, horizontal scissors, opposite rudder maneuvers, all are desperate measures when you're in it. If you can run, run.

Overshoots can work if your lucky to be fighting over aggressive newbies and you might shoot a few down if your good but are nothing to be proud of. You messed up to get there in the first place.
Worth practicing? yes, but practice more not to get into that situation would be my advice.

He can't outturn an experienced Spit pilot in a 190 either....more smoke!
I'll happily join the growing queue to have him show me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But won't be holding my breath.

Sorry Freddie but all your 'Nudge,nudge,wink,wink... secret handshake.... roll up your trousers when your initiated in the secret fellowship' smokescreen gets on my t*ts and does nothing to help newbies and frankly does the opposite.

There is good info about in other posts about good tactics and maneuvers explained.
This stuff is fluff.

S!

DKoor
07-24-2009, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Show up and learn? Although spits aren't really tnb fighters.

If this materializes I'll be there. Can I join to play as static camera? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

RegRag1977
07-24-2009, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Gadje:
While the OP has the right to start a post to blow smoke up his own 'jacksy'(again!). I would like to post a warning to anyone new to this game that doing Freddies maneuvers will most often result in you quickly getting shot[...]

As an experienced pilot I would call this stuff the equivalent of the 'Ali shuffle': it might look flash but does nothing if your opponent keeps his eye on your now exposed chin.
And I hope you can see how exposed his chin is in these tracks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Overshoots, however you try to do them, be it snap stalls, horizontal scissors, opposite rudder maneuvers, all are desperate measures when you're in it. If you can run, run.</span>

You messed up to get there in the first place.
Worth practicing? yes, but practice more not to get into that situation would be my advice.

S!

+1

I cannot agree more, you just can't use luck as a viable fighting tactic!

SlickStick
07-24-2009, 09:15 AM
LOL! This is the thread that just keeps on giving.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Originally posted by Jaws2002:
And the answer to the original question:
Yes.

Until you come up against a smart pilot who laughs at the maneuvers mentioned in this thread so far. (Like that UBIZoo co-op a few months back, eh?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Sure it can be done, but as Gadje states, mostly against inexperienced pilots.

I got quite a laugh from the tracks as well. Let's just say, if the pilots he was against were even half decent, he would have been dead 3 times over. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Jeez, even after months away, this forum is still a cess pool of egomaniacs and flooding fountains of misinformation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

K_Freddie
07-24-2009, 09:52 AM
Ah! Man..I had a big headache the next morning...phew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

With regard to those 'desperate measures'..call them what you will, but they work, even against the most experienced pilots.
Essentially it turns disadvantage into advantage, making the FW a dangerous a/c even when it's in your sights http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You can practise running all you want to, but at some stage you will get bounced badly - then what are you going to do ?.. You cannot run, nor can you TnB because you haven't practised it in a FW at all... Ctrl^E works well here.

Nope... If I was in charge of a FW squadron.. they'd be practising TnB more than BnZ.. It's extra 'ammo' that can keep you 'alive' when necessary.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh and about ego's.. of course we all have them.. otherwise we wouldn't be here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

na85
07-24-2009, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
OK pick on me is it....
Tracks and vids... These are all online - play catchup if you can

All Full Real - Do this if you can(16MB movie - FW at end) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SnapIt.avi)

2x Yak3 online kill (40MB movie) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/ALittleBitOfThis.avi)

Do I have to do this.. old Ntrk (v4.08)
Low Level/Speed FW190 destruction (1.7MB ) (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SomeHLServer.zip)

Come on people.. put some brain cells together http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hey Freddie what server did you record "a little bit of this" on?

K_Freddie
07-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Hey Freddie what server did you record "a little bit of this" on?
This one 196.4.79.55:21000
The Ntrk is ADW.
Other movie is mainly the local with other bits thrown in

It's our local one where the pings are low enough (for us that is) for decent gameplay.
Otherwise we sit with a 250mS minimum ping on the international stuff

DKoor
07-24-2009, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Jeez, even after months away, this forum is still a cess pool of egomaniacs and flooding fountains of misinformation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif +1

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/gangjoke.gif

na85
07-24-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Jeez, even after months away, this forum is still a cess pool of egomaniacs and flooding fountains of misinformation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif +1

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/gangjoke.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you think he's an egomaniac for trying to find new ways to employ his favorite aircraft? I applaud his efforts, at least he's challenging the status quo.

It'd be like a dedicated P-47 pilot who decides to stop patrolling the moon and actually come down and fight.

DKoor
07-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Jeez, even after months away, this forum is still a cess pool of egomaniacs and flooding fountains of misinformation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif +1

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/gangjoke.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you think he's an egomaniac for trying to find new ways to employ his favorite aircraft? I applaud his efforts, at least he's challenging the status quo.

It'd be like a dedicated P-47 pilot who decides to stop patrolling the moon and actually come down and fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know what you are saying but some things that have been said here are just good night fairy tales.

You cannot blame anyone for trying to correct that.

I think if we ask anyone from this forum they will say that they have some favorite airplane.

Just not many of them state that the valid way to employ their fav fighter in combat is to outturn the zero, outzoom the P-51, outdive the P-47, outgun the FW, outrun the Me-262 etc.

I'd even swallow some attractive exaggeration of user's fav fighter strong points and/or belittling its weak points... we all know that can be seen on forum all the time. Heck I did it too.

But this... seriously, I thought it was a joke at first.

Out turning a Spitfire in FW? Come on man, you cannot write a serious thread this way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

M_Gunz
07-24-2009, 03:34 PM
Angles for energy. As long as you have the smash and the opponent is slow enough to not be able to pull many G's
then you can out turn, out zoom, etc. Of course that doesn't work when the enemy is behind since he won't be
catching up let alone run past you and it can't work if you deliberately get slower than the enemy since then
you have no smash to burn.

If someone plays this in front of you then barrel to the side and well above the idiot. Let him blow his speed
and then drop on him like a ton of bricks to teach his numb @$$ a lesson he'll probably miss.

BillSwagger
07-24-2009, 03:54 PM
I don't fly with the intention of putting myself in that situation especially if i have the energy. No one tells themselves "i have more energy than my enemy that's chasing me,...hmm.. i better slow down so he flies past me..."

then i would think its a stupid idea.

Its not full proof and has its flaws but if I'm already slow, and there is no room to dive away then i am forced to make people over shoot. i dont see why its a bad idea considering I'm gonna get hit anyway.

In this situation, i've found i die much quicker if i extend forward and try to gain speed than if i slow up, and try to force an overshoot.

A lot of people wanna criticize or make comments on how an experienced pilot would....bla blahhh blahhh...
but the truth is it works quite often no matter what people say or think.
I've proved it can work, even against experienced pilots and then i get an earful of other excuses.

Actually i think people could do a better job with their excuses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
07-24-2009, 04:30 PM
Robert Johnson in a P-47 while playing one-upsmanship with a Spitire pilot used his roll rate to to gain separation
(a lead) while keeping the better turning plane off his tail. In general the lower wingloaded plane won't roll as
quickly from the start.

Instead of hitting the brakes he used his advantage in roll rate, especially starting the roll which you won't see
on a roll rate chart (which is sustained performance) to get away.

In an interview he told one reporter that when a German got on his tail he would pull up into a hard climbing spiral.
They couldn't follow. Remember that to get on his tail you'd have to be moving faster than him. The hard climbing
spiral burns E and the faster plane going up will have more E to burn which puts him up faster and higher but also a
wider spiral. What Johnson said was that a smart German would just keep flying straight. Also consider that the P-47
is very good at pulling up, very good at transition but please be aware that raising height takes more energy per weight
and there is no magic in having a heavier plane in the zoom. A heavier pendulum does not swing higher than it was
released from. Power to weight generally does not favor the P-47. Do the math before taking off on the intuition.

While he did slow down, he did so in a way that stored some of the lost speed into height and he used his roll to keep
out of the enemy's line of fire. The extra height means he could dive to gain speed back on need.

Another good jink tactic is to barrel roll. You lose some speed while being very hard to hit and you can exit the
barrel in a direction that would cost a lot more energy if you tried to turn even halfway as quickly. If the better
turning enemy tries to follow then he will probably exit later than you and in a worse position. Do that enough
times and you will have enough separation and very likely build up a higher speed to play another move with.

Vertical scissors or just roller coastering is better than brakes. You hit the brakes and if that doesn't work,
you're well and truly forked. Use the vertical or something like the roll and jink and you can build on it.
It's up to you, do you manage your energy or do you throw it away?

hirosangels
07-24-2009, 04:47 PM
ahh so thats that energy stuff, thanks mgunz

(waiting for amazon to deliver the shaw method)



http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3484


Big video (as in many mb)

http://www.veoh.com/browse/vid...ch/v6281031w3P5P5bN# (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6281031w3P5P5bN#)


arrgh must stop, you . . .

are . . . .

making . . . me

switch . . .

fighters ...

BillSwagger
07-24-2009, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A heavier pendulum does not swing higher than it was
released from.



A heavier pendulum does carry higher than a lighter pendulum, right??

and what if that heavier pendulum has a paddle prop attached to it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
07-24-2009, 05:59 PM
Only if the light one is very light compared to its cross section in the direction of swing.
Two pendulums made as lead balls swinging on wire much thinner and lighter than the balls swing the same.
But over many swings the heavier one will show to have less drag per weight given a reasonable "light" pendulum.
Aircraft don't differ so much as elephants or cannonballs from balloons.

The difference generally shows up in more than one way. In a very long dive that goes -past- level max speed the
higher weight to drag plane usually has the higher terminal speed. Early in the dive though the higher thrust to
weight plane will accelerate quicker. Note thrust to weight instead of power to weight here, thrust is dependent
on speed moment to moment and gets smaller with increased speed though the faster plane will have positive thrust
longer than the slower one. There is a shifting dynamic at work in a dive, the start conditions are critical.
Add in the effects of altitude on engine power of the planes, who does how well is not always going to be the same.

Galileo dropped differing balls from the top of the Tower of Pisa to disprove the old heavier falls faster convention
and what he did there and in other experiments (the inclined planes studies) still holds today.

Lastly there are things not always mentioned in pilot accounts. What was the separation of Plane A and Plane B at
the start, both angular and distance. Did either plane start by rolling over and split-essing and how did the roll
rates from 0 to 180 of the two compare?

For a plane moving at 50% or more faster than its 1 G stall speed, what is the greatest force at the pilot's command?
It's not thrust. That's maybe the least force he has. It's not gravity even though that dwarfs the thrust.
It's instantaneous lift. At twice 1 G stall speed the pilot can command 4 G's through lift. So if he rolls over and
pulls back he has thrust plus gravity plus lift to slingshot his plane downward and even 1/2 second lead puts him
well ahead of the pursuit.

Orient the lift and even a little will move the plane out of the line of fire as long as you have that much to spare.
That's why I'd rather have extra speed before extra height though losing height can tighten a turn well beyond what
can be sustained in level flight. Energy for Angles, it's like cheating when the other pilot has a TnB mentality.

M_Gunz
07-24-2009, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by hirosangels:
(waiting for amazon to deliver the shaw method)

Picked mine up at a mall bookstore in 1998 for $35. Money well spent!
One thing; be sure to read the forward. It contains instructions on using the text including the caveat that there
are and will be exceptions to the lessons provided.
Also keep in mind that most all of it is written for the type of plane on the cover, ie JET fighters. Even though
many anecdotes are shown from prop fighter days, it is not primarily a prop fighter book. Many of the lessons do
apply to prop fighters but taking all the diagrams, etc, to the "it must be this way" extremes does not work. Jets
have constant thrust where power increases with speed while props have constant power where thrust decreases with
speed. What works with one does not always work with the other, but energy is energy and the basics apply.
There's also a lot spent on use of modern missiles that just does not apply to WWII air combat.

What I wish I had a copy of (might in a really old archive) is the contents of Bullethead's Airwarrior Training Pages.
They were like a condensed version of Fighter Combat (Shaw) that you could read and absorb in a day though training
to put it together, more like months. If anyone knows him then maybe he can be convinced to put them back up, it is
really good material even if the word dweeb is used dozens of times.

Gaston444
07-24-2009, 07:34 PM
Dkoor said:"Out turning a Spitfire in FW? Come on man, you cannot write a serious thread this way"

Oh yeah? See this real-life account at sustained low speeds;

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)

Well ok, NOT a Spitfire MkIX, but fairly close... I don't know about the IL-2 game's FW-190A, but it is said to be similar in general outlook to the AHWiki's FW-190A description, which is to say that it is the near OPPOSITE of what the real FW-190A was like in real-life... See the following comments from people who actually faced the real FW-190A in real battles;

Quote; "The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight (than the Me-109)"

"The FW-190 does not like vertical combat"

"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at minimum speed"

This is from an evaluation of MONTHS of combat with early FW-190As (later models, especially the A-8, accentuated these low-speed:good/high-speed:bad handling characteristics);

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

Real-life FW-190A pilots always describe using low-speed turn-fighting exclusively, or at least in preference to anything else, making the FW-190A quite "stereotyped", at least compared to the 109... Note in the above link the poor handling of the 190A at high speeds... Contrast this with these quotes from this thread:

Quote: "the 190 bleeds a lot of energy when manoeuvering near stall speed .

Quote: "You put a 190 into a traditional TnB situation, they would lose very quickly. They just aren't able to turn as tight as other planes better suited for those tactics."

Quote: "I know what you are saying but some things that have been said here are just good night fairy tales."

-Maybe regarding the in-game 190A, but NOT pertaining to the real thing...

Quote; "i'm trying really hard to not post the report comparing the 190A to an F6F, and an F4U for the eighth time already this week."

Bill "SpyderHawk" Swagger

That test's results were contested DURING wartime, by the British Farnborough test establishment, regarding the roll rate evaluation being totally inaccurate(there is an actual wartime document of this rebuttal)... The aileron authority was a CRITICAL aspect of the 190A's low speed turn superiority (catching the wing drop), so most of the low-speed handling comments in this test are of absolutely no value...

Also, the F4U/F6F were probably better low-speed turn-fighters than the P-51 and P-47, so that has to be taken into account for low speeds comparisons...

Furthermore, this FW-190G had been fully dismantled, and never worked properly after being reassembled... This was commented on as a bad mistake at the time...

Now, consider these P-47D and Merlin P-51 encounter reports: I have read them all, and they clearly show that the P-47D always out-turns the Me-109G at most combat speeds, and this much easier than the Merlin P-51, and yet it does not usually out-turn the FW-190A at lower speeds. Things get increasingly worse for the Jug as the bubbletop P-47D becomes more common in late '44...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)

Plus consider this German evaluation of a captured P-47D Razorback; "The P-47D out-turns the Bf 109G"
From "On Special Missions: Kg 200"

I would add some caveats for low-speed climbing spirals to the right, but I disgress...

Now consider, in light of the above, the following: This very enlightening test of a FW-190A-5 against a needle-prop P-47D Razorback:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg


And, again, this very widely correlated Russian evaluation; "The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight(than the Me-109)"

From this, and from my readings of the 1200+ P-51 and P-47 combat reports on Mike William's site, it all makes perfect sense, and all the pieces fall together, IF YOU DROP THE FALSE NOTION THAT THE FW-190A IS NOT A SPECIALIZED LOW-SPEED TURN FIGHTER. I estimate the general(allowing some nose-down attitude)sustained turn-rate hierachy to be roughly as follows:

Below 200-250 MPH IAS: #1.FW-190A-8 #2.(distant) Me-109G-6 w or w/o gondolas #3.(close)Paddle-blade P-47D Razorback #4.(close)P-51D (but can keep higher speeds in a wider turn, and thus can afford short stalls to point inside the turn)

250-350 MPH IAS: #1. Paddle-blade P-47D Razorback #2. (very close if to right)Me-109G-6 w/o gondolas #3. (close)P-51D #4. (closer if to left) FW-190A-8 #5. (close or maybe #4 if to right)Me-109G-6 with gondolas.

350-400 MPH IAS: #1. P-51D #2. (close if to left)P-47D Razorback #3. (more distant if to left)Me-109G-6 #4. (closer if to left)FW-190A-8

400-450 MPH IAS: #1. Me-109G(tail heavy trim) #2. (very close)P-47D #3. (very close)P-51D(fabric elevators, could be #1 with metal: March-April '45) #4. (very close if to left only)FW-190A-8

This a rough guide, but it does indicate how low speed turn performance does not correlate with high speed turn performance. See this link to see why the P-51 is the worst turning of the 4 at most medium speeds (I think it compensated in wartime by being able to keep a much higher speed in a wider circle, despite having in theory poor acceleration):

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)


As for the FW-190A, I think the Japanese were so impressed with its low-speed turn ability that this could be the reason Nakajima tampered with the Mitsubishi Zero Model 52's tail design, and made all 5000 of theirs with an 8" shorter tail, and a shorter chord on all tail surfaces. See my article on these findings, including photos and drawings, in the August 2009 issue of "Model Aircraft Monthly". Here's one wartime photo to illustrate: http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml...5_aslitolineup_c.jpg (http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/a6m5_aslitolineup_c.jpg)

If the late Zero was modified to look more like a FW-190A (it does look a lot more FW-190-like than the Mitsubishi model 52: see my 1/48th modified builds in future MAM issues...), it does put things into perspective for those who consider the Zero the ultimate WWII dogfighting reference...

Just give the FW-190A credit where it's due, and forget this utter nonsense about it being a great high speed fighter, and worse at slow speeds than a 109G... Nobody who faced them in battle agrees with this picture.


Gaston.

Gadje
07-24-2009, 08:19 PM
......and the moonlandings were all staged in Hollywood.

Where are the chartmonkeys when you at last need them?

BillSwagger
07-24-2009, 08:56 PM
wow Gaston, thats a lot of good information and i know you put a lot of time into the post but I still must disagree about the 190s turning ability.

The pilot accounts are great but they never detail performance to the same extent as an actual test does.


: gaston44
That test's results were contested DURING wartime, by the British Farnborough test establishment, regarding the roll rate evaluation being totally inaccurate

I agree in part about the roll rate aileron evaluation, but you fail to convince me that has anything to do with when the plane drops its wing in a tight turn with an F4U or F6F.

I still give the comparison a lot of weight because the 190 was dropping its wing in turns when it attempted to follow the F4U and the F6f. It couldn't do it...period....however that report makes note of how easy it was to recover a dropping wing, in the 190. It still was not able to follow in the turn.

The other information you posted was very useful knowledge but there is nothing there that makes me think the 190 is a superior turn fighter.
In the Johnny Johnson account, the Spit V was not able to keep with the 190 in a turn because it didn't have the horsepower. The SpitIX changed that....and is evident at the end of that page, and the next page is ....where??



and lastly....
Zero vs 190 in a turn fight.

who would win???


My moneys on the Zero.

M_Gunz
07-24-2009, 09:52 PM
1G clean stall speed of any FWs please?
1G clean stall speed of planes it is supposed to out turn at low speed please?

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 05:36 AM
Of course I agree the Zero Model 52 out-turns at both low and high speeds the FW-190A.

I would not argue the Spit IX does not out-turn the FW-190A-8 at slow speeds either, but this time, unlike with the Zero, I think the margin is not as great as people think. It is possible that a Spit IX with +25 lbs will have a significant edge over a four-cannon 190A-8 with a narrow-blade prop.

However if you make this a two-cannon A-8 with a wide-blade prop, even the +25lbs Spit IX might take some time to overtake at low speeds. The late P-38L at 64" MAP is a bit unclear to me, but would be worse than the +25lbs Spitfire IX at low speeds. It would be better at high speeds. (The Spit IX pilot could not pull the stick top back more than 3/4 inch above 300 MPH without stalling, but would then "stall" or "mush" beautifully with full three-axis control, allowing the nose to be pointed accurately inside the turn. This was at some cost in speed: useful offensively, less so defensively, and a typical Spitfire high-speed turn feature...)

An actual FW-190A-8 Western Front ace, that defeated at low speed a tailing P-51D Mustang in two 360° turns to the right, said clearly he never accepted high speed combat, and would prefer to that just forcing a series of head-to-heads. He mentionned using the broadest of three aileron types as crucial to catching the stall, and also that the broad-blade prop was equally crucial to low-speed turning.

He said: "I never feared any other aircraft type in my FW-190A-8". Yet he used it EXCLUSIVELY as a low-speed turn-fighter.

You will of course find a few anecdotes or contrarian opinions, but overall you rarely see such a uniformly preponderant view that one type had such a well-defined, even stereotyped, low-speed performance, as well as a uniquely poor high-speed character...

How many people, in these boards and elsewhere, have expressed puzzlement that the majority of U.S. pilots, and U.S. intelligence evaluations, say as a matter of course that the FW-190A out-turns the Me-109G? At the time this was not a subject of debate. There was no confusion then about this issue except at high altitudes(above 20K), where the much lower 190A turn performance was noted, and the Me-109G remained a necessary complement to provide "high cover", when Luftwaffe ressources were allowed to be used in this way. (This was severely curtailed by the disastrous "bombers-only" order of May '44.)

I agree it IS counter-intuitive that the FW-190A-8 out-turns the Me-109G-6 at low speeds and altitudes, but note this does not remain true at speeds above 250 MPH, where the 190A's turn worsens considerably more than a clean 109G-6...

However, in prolonged turns at the limit, and close to the ground, speeds will always decay into a lower-speed area, where the FW-190A will gradually gain the upper hand. This is why the "blanket" statement is legitimately considered true, but is not so in an absolute way.

As for the F4U/F6F Navy evaluation, I initially tought it strange that this test pegged the F6F and the F4U as similar in low-speed turn rates, both gaining one 360° in 3 X 360° over the re-assembled 190A-5.

However I have looked at another F6F and F4U evaluation, the one vs the Zero 52, and it turns out, to my surprise, that they also perform exactly the same, both losing 360° in 3.5 X 360° against the Zero 52.

So at least the Navy test's relative low-speed turn performance of the F6F and F4U is credible, but not consistent with vague generalities I had heard that the Hellcat turned better... Including this recent 1989 test:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)


If we correlate and add the 103°/360 gain of the Zero and the 120°/360 loss of the FW-190A-5 in the Navy tests, then the Zero 52 gains about 223° in one 360° of turn against the FW-190A-5: Or it takes about 583° of Zero turn to get a 360° gain. This is a bit low for the Japanese to have been impressed by the same FW-190A-5 version... Yet it is very clear that they WERE impressed.

Against the P-47D-30(probably not as good as the Razorback) the same Zero gains about 360° in 540°.

Against the P-51D, the result is a little better than the P-47D-30: 360° in 1.6 X 360°. Or about 576°.

Against a P-38J-25 the result is a 360° Zero gain in 2 X 360°, or 720°.

Against both the F4U and F6F, the result is a 360° Zero gain in 3.5 X 360°. Or 1260° vs 540-570° for the Bubbletop P-47D and P-51D respectively...

So this would indicate both the F6F and F4U have far more low-speed Turn performance than the Army fighters. So versus the Zero 52: U.S. Navy 1260°, U.S. Army 540-570°, and FW-190A-5 583°.

If we are to take the FW-190A-8 ace's words at face value, he gained 360° in 720° against a P-51D.(The American pilot pushed his plane close enough to get a "warning")

So that would peg the broad-blade A-8 at 1140° vs 1260° for the F6F/F4U combo: Much more acceptable, and clearly the FW-190A-5 was probably quite a bit higher than 583° vs the Zero 52... Since the A-8 was considered such a big advance, it is possible that the difference between the two was large, but I doubt it was a near doubling...

I also think a Paddle-blade Razorback P-47D would do much better than the 540° of a Bubbletop, and is probably closer or even slightly above the 720° P-38J value. These earlier paddle-blade P-47Ds were a very close match to the FW-190A-5s and A-6s in sustained turns, so 700-800° is about where I think the Navy's 190A-5 should have been.

The performance of Navy planes seems remarkable to me. A Japanese ace said only the F6F would tangle with them, but by the looks of it the F4U could do it too... US Army late fighters are visibly much less maneuverable... I had never really examined closely the Navy types comparatively...

I guess you learn something new everyday...

The U.S. Navy test of the 190A-5 indicate "a tendency to reverse aileron control and stall without warning". This is quite at odds with the 190A-8 ace's recollection of "catching" the stall with the ailerons, so it does seem to me this Navy 190A-5's low-speed performance is odd and questionable.

Do WWII US Navy planes out-turn US Army planes by such a large amount? In low-speed turning I suppose it is possible, and it would be interesting to find correlating data elsewhere... In "America's Hundred Thousand", I don't remember the F6F/F4Us enjoying such a huge advantage in the turn rate figures, though I do remember that the Wildcat did...

It must be remembered that at the time many of these figures were in fact calculated, and this was occasionally considered to be just as good as real tests, and was thus not mentionned(Consider TAIC Japanese data, for instance)... This must be where the faster Me-109G turn times compared to the FW-190A come from, and without an actual flight test date, I think this confidence in maths has led a lot of simulations down the wrong path. I remember the "America's Hundred Thousand" turn data seemed calculated to me, as did some of the acceleration figures.

While there is only one comparison flight test that fully supports my suspicions about the FW-190A's character in turns;
(http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg ), I think it happens to be a better-detailed test, with more information and a better test aircraft than other FW-190A comparative tests. I think it offers a clear performance comparison that is more in line with the vast majority of anecdotes and combat reports that were so puzzling to me before I read it.

This is the first test that made me understand that the peak turn rate of some aircrafts, like the P-47D, was less descending, or peaked later, after 250 MPH IAS than usually claimed, giving a bigger relative turn advantage with speed than is usually assumed. Note that, in the above linked 1989 Warbird flight tests, these seasoned test pilots were surprised to find that: "The peak turn rate is very close to the maximum level speed". It does correlate well with a WWII US pilot axiom: "IF the Kraut is fast his turn will be wide". Wide that is, compared to a US fighter...

It also correlates with tactics Western Front German officers would teach to newly arrived, and experienced, fighter pilots from the Eastern front: "Never use the vertical against the Americans, always use the turn".

So Western Front vertical maneuvering (other than plain diving), for both the FW-190A and the Me-109G, and this is confirmed by combat reports, is mostly a computer simulation phenomenon, not a reflection of actual tactics...


Gaston


P.S. I much appreciated the comment by BillSwagger about the efforts I put into a post he disagreed with, as people rarely do that...

G.

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 05:48 AM
Sorry, I messed-up the P-47D-11 vs FW-190A-5 link.

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

Gaston.

FatCat_99
07-25-2009, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
Dkoor said:"Out turning a Spitfire in FW? Come on man, you cannot write a serious thread this way"

Oh yeah? See this real-life account at sustained low speeds;

That story doesn't describe real-life account at sustained low speeds.

It just tells what anybody already knew, that at high speeds FW could turn with Spit under certain circumstances. And SpitV vs an early FW is worst case scenario for Spit.

In case of Bf109G6 and FW190A8 you can forget outturnig Bf109 at low speeds, G6 have better power loading and wing loading.

Get yourself a book on aerodynamics and one about fighter tactics and learn, it's hard to take you seriously when you can't understand what you read in real life stories.

Or even better, if you are not Josf than find him and discuss this with him, both of you will enjoy.

BTW now is good opportunity for Mig/Sabre EM chart, we didn't see this one for a long time.

FC

M_Gunz
07-25-2009, 06:48 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

He's up to 5 whole posts here and casts like an old hand!

Kettenhunde
07-25-2009, 06:50 AM
BTW now is good opportunity for Mig/Sabre EM chart, we didn't see this one for a long time.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

K_Freddie
07-25-2009, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

He's up to 5 whole posts here and casts like an old hand!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
His analysis and relating so many documents doesn't sound like a 'new hand'...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
07-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
......., and would prefer to that just forcing a series of head-to-heads.

Yet he used it EXCLUSIVELY as a low-speed turn-fighter.


I find these claims to contradict each other.

Although, when fighting a P-51, it was probably common place to drag them lower and slower where it was more difficult and dangerous to push your plane, as far as a P-51 is concerned.

Pilots accounts tell a good tail, but other than statistical proof, (like rounds spent, and kills achieved) they really don't provide a decent context for comparing aircraft.






So at least the Navy test's relative low-speed turn performance of the F6F and F4U is credible, but not consistent with vague generalities I had heard that the Hellcat turned better....



That perception might also come from the way the planes bleed energy and accelerate after a series of turns, as oppose to when they are evaluated through one extended turn.







Against the P-47D-30(probably not as good as the Razorback)............

I also think a Paddle-blade Razorback P-47D would do much better than the 540° of a bubble top.......



How did you come to the idea that a bubble top P-47 might not turn as well as the earlier P-47D-11?

I don't disagree, i just need more information before i can come to my own conclusions about what you are saying.

DKoor
07-25-2009, 11:18 AM
tl; dr

JtD
07-25-2009, 12:00 PM
The paddle prop of the later P-47 improved low speed performance at the expense of high speed performance. Most easy to note are an increase in climb rate and a decrease in top speed.

I'd also like to point out that in the witness document with the SpitV tangling an early Fw-190 the only mention of turn is "vertical turn".

K_Freddie
07-25-2009, 02:06 PM
That Johnson extract.. which must have been the early FW, which is known (hindsight) to be superior to the SpitV...

Note that he talks about the vertical turns.. Now a lot of people are saying the FW is also no good in the vertical.. There it is in black and white.

Also note that he does a move (vertical dive)not suited for the spit and against the FW, and it worked.. there again, it is in black and white.

While its ok to do the standard tactics suited to each plane type.. doing the unusual (or unexpected) is what gives you the edge - hence the topic heading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BillSwagger
07-25-2009, 02:24 PM
That account also bares no merit to what the FW190 pilot actually did in attempting to stay with the Spitfire.

Johnson lost site of him in the turn as he began to grey out. For all we know the FW did a yo yo and fell back into position behind him.

This is why this kind of comparison is too speculative.


If the account was more like,

"i had him in the turn, but as i began to gain on him, he pulled ever tighter and slower. In my attempt to follow i slowed and after attempting the turn it was certain that i could not catch him. In fact, he would be on my tail, if i continued."

There are no accounts between a 190 and a spitfire that even come close to this description, that i've seen.

Manu-6S
07-25-2009, 04:38 PM
If we have a plane who turns without altitude variation then we have TnB... otherwise it's always energy fighting (displacement roll, high/low yoyo, bnz).

Personally I try to never use a TnB tactic... never.

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 05:25 PM
Quote -"I'd also like to point out that in the witness document with the Spit V tangling an early Fw-190 the only mention of turn is "vertical turn".

A "vertical turn" in those pre-energy days means a turn at near 90° bank angle. I doubt this is debatable...

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)

The quote is; "Then we both turned hard to the left and whirled around in what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle.
With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns. I was greying out. [Note he doesn't say BLACKING out...] Where was this german, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me- in another COUPLE of (360°) turns he would have me in his sights... I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech- it could only be a question of time..."

While I'll concede the early Spifire Mk IX can turn nearly as tight as the Mk V, and this at a much higher sustained speed, beating out the early 190As even at low altitudes (but probably less so the late A-8s, at least not without +25 lbs), I think the notion that the above refers to a HIGH speed turn is simply being in denial...

On top of that the Spit V is being flown by one of the greatest Spitfire aces ever, and there is nothing in his account that suggest anything other than sustained low-speed turns... (A dead giveaway is that it starts at a very low altitude, conclusively elliminating the variable of a steep downward spiral...)

It confirms to me that British tests of the 190A were too timid in low speed turns (probably influenced by the same prejudice that has affected everyone post-war, including me), and that the low-speed turn advantage of the Spitfire V was in fact vaporware...

If the FW-190A used the "see-saw" tactic, as described unconvincingly by Eric Brown (given the caveats he gives about "not killing speed by sinking"), then this was only an emergency solution to the Spit Mk IX problem, it being the only Western European fighter to contest successfully the 190A's low-speed turning "forte"...

I think the see-saw became obsolete as better 190A models came in service, and the opposition became more and more American. From the A-5 onward, I think the high-speed elevator response of the 190A became worse, making the "see-saw" even less practical, and unheard of in 1200 P-51/P-47 combat reports I have read, except occasionally with the 109G... Let's just quote again the Russian experience(sigh); "The FW-190 does not like vertical maneuvers"

That the Bubbletop P-47D turns much worse than the Razorback is just an impression from reading those reports: I looked at the date and the range of the P-47D's serial number to evaluate the issue.

In general, the following observations jump out;

-In late '43 and early '44 the P-47D easily out-turns the Me-109G in almost all circumstances, including, at the extreme, low-altitude slow-speed sustained spiral climbs to left against what is in one case a gondola G-6 and I assume in the other case also:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...cdermott-25may44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...8-luckey-19may44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19may44.jpg)

Note; "We had no difficulty turning and climbing with them"

and the highly significant speed of 140 MPH IAS at the end of three consecutive climbing 360° turns.

The date is May '44, so a Paddle Razorback most likely.

Another highly significant battle; two prolonged downward spiral against the SAME German, in OPPOSITE directions, with much more height lost, and a greater peril for the needle-prop(pre-Jan '44) Razorback when turning to the right. This is one of the rare P-47D/Me-109G battles that lasts a long time (Usually against the 109G, the P-47D wins the turning contest outright, at any altitude, and forces the German into a dive), this being especially true for the Razorback, and it shows that save perhaps for low-speed climbing spirals to the right(non-existent in 1200 reports), the Me-109G can only compete with the Razorback in turns to the right, if at all. It still loses here, as the P-47D apparently suddenly gains the upper hand in the lower, thicker air (could be an issue of the German not trimming tail-heavy in the denser air?):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...wilkinson-1dec43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-wilkinson-1dec43.jpg)

Another example of P-47 Razorback sustained turn superiority over the 109G:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../56-mudge-1dec43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-mudge-1dec43.jpg)

Note that Dec '43 means no paddle-blade, and the altitude is no more than 20-22k.

An interesting combat here shows at 22k the the lesser superiority of the P-47D in right turns, against a gondola 109G:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...truluck-27sept43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-truluck-27sept43.jpg)

More typical; http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-covelle-19may44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg)


Now contrast this with the late Bubbletop P-47D's performance against a late'44 FW-190A-8:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...onebrake-19dec44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bonebrake-19dec44.jpg)

Note by the way the superior P-47 zoom, used here to escape...

Another December '44 quote I could not find went like this: "I saw three P-47s turning on the deck with one lone 190, and getting nowhere fast..."

A similar late '44 example here shows a FW-190A turning at low altitude with 3 P-47s, and was about to "turn into" one before a higher one came to the rescue:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...truluck-27sept43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-truluck-27sept43.jpg)

I do pick the clearest examples, but I assure you the general impression is fairly consistent with few exceptions: -The 109G is quickly defeated by the P-47D in most turning battles.

-The early '44 FW-190A is fairly even with the early '44 Paddle-blade Razorback(a touch better slow, worse fast), but gets significantly better later in '44.(I split it 50/50 to the P-47 getting worse and the 190A getting better, and this might explain the Bubbletop P-47D-30 being slightly inferior to the P-51 in the Zero comparison tests. I think the 1000 pounds of extra weight, and maybe the loss of a large flat spine area, could play a big role)

-The P-51 is very evenly matched in turns by the 109G, IF the 109G can spiral down to compensate for its inferior turn speed retention. The P-51 then sits on the outside of the turn interminably, until winning on the deck. Down on the deck, the P-51D is only starting to get gained on very late in '44, when newer 109 models appear... If so, things resume going on forever, but a shot of flaps or stalling can get the P-51 some lead. Below 200 MPH, the P-51D has such good acceleration it can sometimes maintain flaps down for quite awhile.

I fully understand how counter-intuitive is the FW-190A's low-speed turn superiority: I myself have been in denial for decades, and dilligently dismissed all contemporary accounts as "high speed", or simply confused... But I have recently felt a lot better giving up trying to understand it: It was the way it was, and I have no more clue
than you do...

Gaston

R_Target
07-25-2009, 06:16 PM
Do WWII US Navy planes out-turn US Army planes by such a large amount? In low-speed turning I suppose it is possible, and it would be interesting to find correlating data elsewhere... In "America's Hundred Thousand", I don't remember the F6F/F4Us enjoying such a huge advantage in the turn rate figures, though I do remember that the Wildcat did...

It looks that way. USN planes were considered poor turners in relation to A6M or Ki-43, but do well in relation to others. Here's what Dean had to say:

http://i32.tinypic.com/20ib8lf.jpg

The Corsair data appears anomalous to me, as it doesn't agree well with other testing.

na85
07-25-2009, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:

A "vertical turn" in those pre-energy days means a turn at near 90° bank angle. I doubt this is debatable...

Would you care to revise your bass-ackwards statement?

If you bank 90 degrees to one side and pull back on the stick, that is a horizontal turn, not vertical.

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 09:18 PM
Let me re-iterate this:

He says they both turned to the LEFT in an ever-decreasing(and thus continuous)circle.

Does turning to the LEFT sound like a vertical loop to you?

He meant by a vertical turn that his WINGS were vertical: A maximum-rate turn that was at slow enough a speed to only grey him out..

It is a detailed description, and if there was a transition to a vertical loop, he certainly would have described such a peculiar and colorful move... AND he would have called it a loop, NOT a turn...

It's Ok, I was in denial about this for more than ten years, despite the deluge of quirky anecdotes triggering my denial mode every now and then...

I'm a recovering "The FW-190A-is-an-energy-fighterholic" you could say...

Gaston

Tully__
07-25-2009, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

A "vertical turn" in those pre-energy days means a turn at near 90° bank angle. I doubt this is debatable...

Would you care to revise your bass-ackwards statement?

If you bank 90 degrees to one side and pull back on the stick, that is a horizontal turn, not vertical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was a time when what we now call a "knife edge turn" was referred to by some as a "wings vertical turn" or sometimes just "vertical turn", see the bit I've made bold in the Gaston's quote.

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 10:10 PM
Thanks for the details, Tully.

BTW, also thanks to RTarget for posting the turn rate data of "America's Hundred Thousand".

Much appreciated!

Gaston.

Gaston444
07-25-2009, 10:31 PM
Looking at the turn data posted by RTarget, I failed to notice that the F4U-1d was rated dead last!

How can this correlate to its turn-rate similitude with the F6F, observed in actual tests; BOTH doing over, or nearly, twice as well as most US army aircrafts against the same Zero 52 type?

Either this is an issue of the flaps having a huge influence on the F4U-1d's turn rate, or this is another instance of a heavy aircraft beating the calculated data...

Is this another heavyweight maligned by math?

Gaston.

JtD
07-26-2009, 12:34 AM
The Corsair data appears anomalous to me, as it doesn't agree well with other testing.

This is a very funny comparison. The whole turning index is nothing but weight divided by wing area and maximum lift coefficient. And only God and Dean know why the F4U has such a low lift coefficient. It has the same wing profile as the F6F and I've seen lift coefficients of up to 2.4 for the F4U. I think he's been using apples and oranges.

At any rate, this is instantaneous turn rate.

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 12:41 AM
Minimum turn radius is set by your stall speed and how many G's you can sustain is between power and drag in the turn.
You look at the ranking of those planes in Deans' chart and the lowest 3G stall is the best turner.

So what's the stall of the different FW's? And at what loading? Then look the same up for P-51's and loading you
should find that the P-51's vary hugely due to how filled the fuselage tank is even without wing tanks.

BillSwagger
07-26-2009, 12:45 AM
Actually the last sentence on that page explains why, (a spoiler on the right wing, to prevent an uneven stall problem)and it seems erroneous to use such a low coefficient, but they did anyway.

I find tests like these revealing, but even though a Wildcat is ranked number one for turn, who would prefer to fly that plane against the late war regime?

JtD
07-26-2009, 02:26 AM
If I had to take off from a CVE I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 02:47 AM
Stationary CVE?

JtD
07-26-2009, 03:04 AM
CVEs are stationary even at flank speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zxwings
07-26-2009, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
In general, the following observations jump out;

-In late '43 and early '44 the P-47D easily out-turns the Me-109G in almost all circumstances...

That's hard to believe. Perhaps many rookie pilots in the Luftwaffe during the final part of WWII contributed to generating those observations.

Gaston444
07-26-2009, 01:10 PM
Besides the hundreds of combat reports I have read, the German themselves tested a captured Razorback and came to the general conclusion that it out-turned the Me-109G: "On Special Missions: KG 200"

This borne out by hundreds of combat reports (and more convincingly so than for the P-51!):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)



They did not say the same for the P-51B, and found the stall much more dangerous (same source)...

They still found the Mustang's speed much more impressive, mind you, but I think their P-47 was running at sub-standard power, as they describe the speed as slower than their fighters...

Furthermore, these recent 1989 tests of 4 american fighters, pegged the P-51D as much less controllable in turns than the Bubbletop P-47D, but roughly equal in turn performance. (Combat accounts seem to indicate the Razorback is a significantly better turner than the Bubbletop)

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com.../topic,261798.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html)


The early/mid FW-190A is widely reported to out-turn the 109G, and is described by Gunther Rall as very closely competitive with the 109F! This is how it compares with a Razorback Needle-prop P-47:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

So to make a very rough, medium-slow speed, sustained turn performance hierarchy:

#1-FW-190A-8 very close at least with F6F #2-FW-190A-5 very close with Paddle-blade Razorback #3-Me-109G-10/K-4 #4-Me-109G-6 very close with P-51D and Bubbletop P-47D.

Sorry for the repeated links and points, but it is worth pointing out that with the exception of a few questionable FW-190A tests by foreign pilots on captured machines, the above ranking allows a mass of combat accounts, tests and anecdotes to fall into place.


There are two anomalies with the 1989 tests. One, I think they did not compare closely the ability to sustain a higher speed in maximum-rate turns at lower speeds, where the P-51D could have fared better than its turning circle diameter indicates.

Second, they have the FG-1 pegged as similar to the Bubbletop P-47 and P-51D, but not in the same class as the Hellcat, which is not in line with two agreeing wartime tests that peg the F6F and F4U as very similar. This is certainly a contradiction, as Wartime tests have both Navy types far ahead of their Army counterparts. (The P-38J was, as expected, about halfway closer to the Navy types, and I think at very low speeds, below 200 MPH, it could have been even closer.)

Of course you can choose to go with the math alone, which is what simulations in large part do, then tweaking the results with real-life observations. The problem occurs when real-life observations are in total contradiction with the math, which forces the game designer to choose: It's either all one or all the other... Unfortunately, the number of actual side-by-side tests that could have settled the issues, with captured aircrafts in good shape, and with pilots having the flying hours in them to get very familiar, is extremely small. So far it seems, the math was chosen as more "scientific" than real-life accounts to plug the gaps...

I don't know if this is because of an over-emphasis on maths in the education system or what, but for myself, I will just stick with large numbers of real-life accounts.

Gaston

P.S. There was a question here about the pilot account of the FW-190A-8 choosing a series of head-to-heads rather than accepting high speed combat. This was questionned as being contradictory to the argument of good low-speed turn performance for the FW-190A.

It isn't: if you are going to stick adamantly to low speed turning combat, and the enemy is going to stick adamantly to hit-and-run at high speed, then the only solution for the low-speed fighter is to face into the attack with a series of head-to-heads. It is the only answer of the old turnfighting doctrine against the newer hit-and-run tactics.

The FW-190A fighter was the only WWII fighter to combine high strenght, high firepower with excellent low-speed turn: It was the most competitive representant of the old dogfighting doctrine...

Note that the A6M5 Zero, assuming the 8" shorter Nakajima tail was a FW-190A imitation, yet again imitated the FW-190A by increasing its firepower at the cost of both speed and some of its over-abundant maneuverability: The purpose was clearly to be more competitive in head-to-heads.

Since the Americans would not play, it was the correct evolution for the Zero.

G.

BillSwagger
07-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
(Combat accounts seem to indicate the Razorback is a significantly better turner than the Bubbletop)


This is still difficult to substantiate off of combat encounter reports alone, although it might be true.

The only difference in performance that i've read between the classic Razorback, and the Bubble tops is/was an increase in drag from the bubble canopy, causing a decrease in top speed of about 5mph.

...and a decrease in the tail's lateral stability, which might make a pilot more apprehensive about pushing the bird closer to the edge of the envelope.

This is why later variants included a dorsal fin, but i'm not sure that it made much difference in a stall. It might have allowed for a more stable gun platform.

JtD
07-26-2009, 02:37 PM
Gaston, no matter how often you reiterate and no matter how often you quote various accounts and tests:

It is physically not possible that the Fw was a good turnfighter. It is obvious from the rather high stall speed that there was not that much lift available and it is obvious from the mediocre climb rate that there wasn't much excess thrust available at low speeds, and both are factors which are essential for a good low speed turn fighter.

As for your arguments, I'm sure there are hundreds of accounts stating the opposite, but I won't bother to bring them here. If I have to decide between physics and opinions, I go with physics. Opinions are like armpits anyway, everybody has them and all smell. Physics are nice, precise and clean.

robtek1957
07-26-2009, 03:17 PM
@JtD

wasnīt it physically "proven" that a bumble-bee canīt fly?

Xiolablu3
07-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Report from JG 11 on 29th [October 1944] on mock air battle between Fw 190A-9 and Bf 109 AS/MW 50.

A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte.

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn.

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns.

robtek1957
07-26-2009, 03:33 PM
@Xiolablu3
when i read that report i understand that the 190 couldnīt have been aware of the climbing 109īs or the would have used the 2000!m to bounce them with a boomīn zoom attack.
So the 109īs, as the better climber, gets the extra energy (+200m) and bounces the still unaware 190īs.
In the second attack it is still 4 vs 2 so noone can tell if the defensive turns have been made with the optimum turn-rate for the actual attacker or offensive to the other pair.
I think that doesnīt prove anything.

Gaston444
07-26-2009, 03:38 PM
Well, besides the one Navy captured test that may be questionable, and is against superior-turning Navy aircrafts anyway, I can't think of much corroborating evidence for your point of view.

If there are masses of anecdotes and tests that show, for instance, that the 109F or G easily out-turns the 190A at low altitudes, in sustained low-speed turns, I would be very curious to see them.

German test and pilot opinion was massively to the contrary, as were 8th Air Force pilots when asked about it (the source of much amusing puzzlements on these boards), and as for the extensive Russian experience, let me post its conclusions again:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

The vague and somewhat cautiously-worded British tests never actually say the 109G out-turns the FW-190A... ever.

In fact, the only instance I can ever remember of the 109G decisively out-turning the 190A was a late '44 german test pitting the 109G-14AS against the FW-190A-9.... Above 220000 ft!

I suspect they were trying to figure out if they could afford to get rid of producing two types of fighters, and build only the 190... They found out the 109G-14AS was so superior up there they couldn't do it...

Other than this paltry example, I await eagerly the mountain of test or anecdotal evidence that the world conforms to mathematics by being flat...

Nobody's stopping you...

Gaston.

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by robtek1957:
@JtD

wasnīt it physically "proven" that a bumble-bee canīt fly?

No it was not. One engineer could not tell a biologist how a bee is able to fly and so grew an urban legend.
calculations scribbled on the back of a napkin by some not trained in aerodynamics or having knowledge of scale
effects on air does not constitute proof of any kind but is the delight of idiots for decades since.

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 06:15 PM
If I want to play the anecdotes game then the 109 could outturn the Spitfire which can outturn the 109, therefore the
mighty Bf-109 can outturn itself. Same goes with P-51 and 109, each is better turner than the other. Same goes for
100's of cases of many others. It is a waste of time playing the cherry-pick game especially with a 'believer'.

The tightest radius a plane can turn at any Gs is set by its stall speed at that many Gs. That is physical fact.
Show the 1G power on stall speed and the stall speed at higher Gs is mathematically predictable by bank angle.

Please show the 1 G power on clean and dirty stall for the 190s being lower than for the others, specify loading.

Or please show accounts, anecdotes or stories that tell the loading of both planes, the pilots skills of both, the
starting speed of both, the atitudes and all other relevant details before claiming the account, etc, as worthy
of being called useful evidence. Otherwise you are just jerking away at nothing much.

DKoor
07-26-2009, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If I want to play the anecdotes game then the 109 could outturn the Spitfire which can outturn the 109, therefore the
mighty Bf-109 can outturn itself. Same goes with P-51 and 109, each is better turner than the other. Same goes for
100's of cases of many others. It is a waste of time playing the cherry-pick game especially with a 'believer'.

The tightest radius a plane can turn at any Gs is set by its stall speed at that many Gs. That is physical fact.
Show the 1G power on stall speed and the stall speed at higher Gs is mathematically predictable by bank angle.

Please show the 1 G power on clean and dirty stall for the 190s being lower than for the others, specify loading.

Or please show accounts, anecdotes or stories that tell the loading of both planes, the pilots skills of both, the
starting speed of both, the atitudes and all other relevant details before claiming the account, etc, as worthy
of being called useful evidence. Otherwise you are just jerking away at nothing much.
You think trying reason is gonna work? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 08:00 PM
Only for those who can handle it and haven't made up their minds.
There has been and is a camp in the community that seem to think that FM by anecdote is the way to go.
Every scrap of text becomes rhetoric to ratchet each plane to a new high or low, state of the debate kind of thing.

BillSwagger
07-26-2009, 08:30 PM
When i see a mathematical / scientific test that concludes a P-47D can turn better than an F4U-1D, then i tend to look towards the pilots accounts.

Mathematics can usually narrow down specific comparisons, but studies limited strictly to math and set methods can also fail to identify other factors that can sway or cause very misleading results.

So long as the study is aware of these extraneous factors, and can make adjustments to account for them, then I would give them much more validity than a pilots encounter report.

M_Gunz
07-26-2009, 08:44 PM
What extraneous factors do you mean? How is that worse than a pilot who doesn't know the real speed, condition and pilot of the
other plane in an account that tells even less than he knew?

What a plane is capable of under controlled conditions including loading is one thing. What Joe Blow is capable of doing in the
same plane is another. It's like gas mileage in a car, what is reported possible and what you or some leadfoot gets.

BillSwagger
07-26-2009, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What extraneous factors do you mean?
That would depend on the tests. I also agree with you, but I'm not willing to completely disregard a pilots opinion.

To site an easy, and ready example, the test that concluded the f4u-1d turned worse than a P-47D, also mentions the fact that the F4U had a spoiler on the right wing to help with a stall problem. This interfered with the lift coefficient, yet they still included the F4U in the back of the list, when any pilot can tell you an F4U will out turn a P-47.

Combat reports are always speculative, but you can find statistical information from them, like rounds spent, and kills achieved.
It also depends on what you are trying to draw from them. Getting accurate turn data from an encounter report is nearly impossible. If a pilot can give a detailed account of closing in on an enemy plane in level flight and in a series of turns, and we have 1000 more accounts that say almost the exact same thing, then i think a reasonable conclusion can be made about turn speeds and overall quickness of the two planes involved.
Usually, but not always, this is easily verified with a test.
The problem with pilots accounts, and ****ty tests, is that the reader can often find other explanations for whats occurring even if what's being depicted is what actually occurred.

Is the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter.... nope. Did German pilots learn to use the plane well at low speeds.....maybe.

robtek1957
07-26-2009, 11:05 PM
I think that the math- and physics-fetishists donīt take to account is the feel af a plane.
It might be possible that a pilot is so assured from the handling of his plane that he is able to bring it very quick to its limits and hold it there, while an other pilot is insecure because of his planes handling and isnīt able to use its better handling to the limit.
Confidence in a plane doesnīt show on a scale but might tip it.
And by the way, not beeing agreed with doesnīt give the right to use derogatory language!!!

K_Freddie
07-26-2009, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by robtek1957:
I think that the math- and physics-fetishists donīt take to account is the feel af a plane.
It might be possible that a pilot is so assured from the handling of his plane that he is able to bring it very quick to its limits and hold it there, while an other pilot is insecure because of his planes handling and isnīt able to use its better handling to the limit.
Confidence in a plane doesnīt show on a scale but might tip it.

Bingo!... This is why I think it's good to try a bit of TnB on any plane, even a TB3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

With a bit of practise you get more confident of your planes (and your) abilities. It teaches you the finer points of any plane you fly, not just the FW. If anything, in it's class, the FW is the easiest to fly in TnB because it's so damm stable or the controls are so responsive in slow flight.

One might complain that it's not RL, but this is only a game and you'd be learning the finer points of the FM - as you would in RL 'FM's'.

It's not saying that you must throw all other tactics out the window, but it's good to have an answer for any situtation you find yourself in.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
07-26-2009, 11:58 PM
Stall speeds are in the region of 160km/h with flaps down and 200km/h clean.

Gaston444
07-27-2009, 12:54 AM
What is really needed, and would bolster the point of view of the naysayers, is ONE pilot-based account of the Me-109F/G/K out-turning the FW-190A at low altitudes and medium/low speeds.

The altitude issue elliminates the late war 109G-14AS vs 190A-9 test that is the only quote I ever heard going in this direction... The altitude was apparently 33K! I could have predicted those results without the test...

The only other such quote I ever heard was from Gunther Rall, who said, about the time when the 190A was being introduced: "We were told by Rechlin that this new fighter would out-turn our Me-109F, and this was generally true, however (a sly smile is mentioned here), I could out-turn it."

So we have here a "general" and accepted truth, regarding a machine that is in its very early stages, probably they were FW-190A-1 or A-2s, and that even these machines would more often than not beat the well-refined Me-109F, but that this highly experienced pilot could exploit the older fighter fully enough to stay ahead of it and eventually beat it.

It sounds to me the 109F at medium/slow speeds could out-turn the early 190A-1/2s, but barely, and that the AVERAGE pilot would turn tighter... in the 190! It could be Rall used climb or the oblique.

I'm sure the naysayers will point out now that the later 190As were heavier and thus worse, completely ignoring the fact that the 190A's low-speed turning performance benefitted immensely from the extra power, until the leap of the A-8 which represented a major jump forward in maneuverability compared to all earlier variants, in the words of its pilots.

As for the exact loadings, pilot experience, temperature, humidity etc... I'll tell you, the 109G is ALWAYS having a bad day in medium/low speed sustained turns against the FW-190A...

I know the denial mechanism very well myself:

The plain Me-109G-6 has always been my favourite aircraft of all, and I have been cursing at these doggarned Nazi pilots myself for well over a decade now... Jeeeze, what are you gonna do with these guys, who keep telling me what I don't what to hear?

To alleviate this intractable annoyance, I'll tell you this: Well above 250-300 MPH IAS, even at medium-low altitude, a clean 109G-6 that is trimmed tail-heavy, so that at 300 MPH the pilot has to push forward on the stick to avoid climbing, will out-turn any FW-190A at these same speeds, and it will continue to do so if the downward spiral is steep enough to keep the speed well above 300 MPH. At these speeds, the 109G-6 is competitive or better than the best the Merlin P-51 can do, but the 109G-6's engine cannot keep the Merlin Mustang from gaining on the cold lag side when down on the deck.

To see how poorly the 190A does at high speeds, or, in other words, an account of how poorly the FW-190A turns against even the P-51D, see this:

http://www.spitfireperformance...0-murrell-2dec44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg)

Note the many interesting details, and the high 400 MPH right from the start:"He invariably snapped out of control every time he really tightened up his turn" "I turned inside him without any trouble".

Note that the battle takes place from 20000ft to 10000ft(plenty of speed!)and the sentence: "He rolled, looped, snapped, and tried to out-turn my P-51". Meaning that this was not a single continuous turn for 10000ft, but that the 190A had to use his superior roll reverse and split-s to keep surviving this long at this speed...

Note the "elongated loop", the VERY significant 400 MPH speed at the end, and, my favourite, right after the loose loop with surprisingly little pull-up ("seemed straightened-out a little going up"): "I think he must have blacked-out right then and I scored many hits"

So despite the loose loop with little pull-up, there was enough abrupt "sinking" deceleration to black-out the pilot... Now doesn't that sound like the mysterious non-P-47-like "tendency to black-out the pilot" mentionned here?:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg


This is due to a tendency at high speed to abruptly pitch-up: Causing either a brief G-intensive mush or snapping stall in turns, and in pull-outs a much longer G-intensive sinking that is very hard on the pilot because; 1- of the suddenly broad surface presented and, 2- of the longer G duration that is due to the continuous symmetrical pull of gravity without the "relief" of snapping-out. Hence, "a tendency to black-out the pilot" The Russian evaluation linked in this thread many times, says that from a dive of 4500 ft at 45°, the amount of sinking after nose-level IS A FURTHER 620 ft!:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

Surprisingly enough, there is such a thing as "bad" Gs... These are deceleration "mushing" Gs that do not change the trajectory as much as they should and instead bleed large amounts of speed.

This does not mean that Kurt Tank did not pull 7Gs at high speed with very light stick forces, but I doubt the duration was long before one of those Gs is wasted in a pitch-up deceleration-mush towards the outside of the turn, and then he is only making a 6G-like actual circle, while bleeding speed, roughly, as though he was making a 9G turn... This is what the "tendency to black-out the pilot" is.

So these are the needed, and real, anecdotal circumstances in which the FW-190A turns poorly. Unfortunately, none of them confirm the "good fast, bad slow" fictional FW-190A that is so accepted today.

In a way the simmers do the exact mistake Oseau did by choosing the 109G over the 190A: He out-turned Mustangs in a single downward spiral for 15-20Ks in his G6AS. A witness: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries. Oseau was probably shot down near the ground"

Reacting to this battle, Leo Schuhmacher of II./JG 1 said:"Several times I had said to Oseau that the Fw-190 was better than the Bf 109, but being an old 109 pilot, he preferred it."

My guess is that, just like simmers today, he could not believe that an aircraft carrying four times as many cannons could be a better turn-fighter than one that carried just one with less ammo.

I'm going to call this Antondenialitis, fortunately considerably less fatal today than it was back then!

Note I still like the 109G, it has some good points. But I see it as a specialized fighter for high cover in small numbers, and the bombers-only order of May '44 robbed it of some of its usefulness.

Now find me ONE German pilot who says the Me-109G will out-turn the FW-190A below 21000 ft in medium/low speed sustained turns...

Me, I got tired of blaming it all on these darned Nazis...

Gaston.

M_Gunz
07-27-2009, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Stall speeds are in the region of 160km/h with flaps down and 200km/h clean.

Thanks JtD!

109G-6 Black Six clean stalled at 155 kph which is the number I believe that Rechlin gives. Of course at Rechlin they
did test German warplanes thoroughly and those test results are what the sims that are being called wrong use.

Every one of these planes has a highest sustainable Gs turn at a given speed for the smallest radius at those Gs.
Some planes will be able to sustain more Gs and some will have the smaller radius at given Gs. This also goes with
flaps, slower and tighter. It also changes with loading of the plane. Even at less Gs a much smaller radius will
generally circle quicker and always turn tighter.

Throw in pilot differences and start speed differences that are not known or told and the outcome proves nothing.

Of course the Rechlin test pilots may have been rank amateurs who could not fly German planes properly in which
case would you like to buy a nice tall tower in Paris I can give you a 'title' for?

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 02:59 AM
At take off weight an FW-190A8 Type I fighter stalls at a Vs1 of 174.84kph EAS to match Focke Wulf data.

That is 108mph EAS with Focke Wulf data and 125mph ??AS according to JtD's source.

Is that 125mph ??AS a game measurement?

1.3 Vref with gear down and landing flaps puts us at a Vs2 of 138kph EAS or 86mph EAS.

FatCat_99
07-27-2009, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by robtek1957:
I think that the math- and physics-fetishists donīt take to account is the feel af a plane.
It might be possible that a pilot is so assured from the handling of his plane that he is able to bring it very quick to its limits and hold it there, while an other pilot is insecure because of his planes handling and isnīt able to use its better handling to the limit.
Confidence in a plane doesnīt show on a scale but might tip it.

You are mixing apples and oranges here, turning ability is one quality and ease of handling is another.

Nobody here deny possibility that some FW pilots could turn with their opponents but if all planes are flown on their limits FW can't match sustained level turn of Spits or Bf109.

That's physically impossible. We are not talking about some new and unproven theories here, these theories are proven and practically tested numerous times.

And in your bumble bee example you are forgetting the fact that when scientist find out that theories doesn't match reality they don't try to convince everybody that reality is wrong, they change and improve theories and they have explanation how and why bumble bee can fly.

Johnson story has got nothing to do with sustained level turns at low altitudes. There are couple of clear giveaway why is that high speed instantaneous turn fight.

1.Than we both turned hard to the left and whirled round on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever <span class="ev_code_RED">decreasing circle.</span>
It can't be both,sustained turn and decreasing circle
2.With wide open throttles I held Spit in the tightest of vertical turns. I was <span class="ev_code_RED">graying out</span> .
Only at high G's which are unsustainable for WWII fighters

3. I plunged into a near vertical dive
He still had enough alt for dive so it certainly had enough alt for couple of high speed diving turns before that

4.I pulled into another steep turn
Right after vertical dive this can only be instantaneous turn, how can somebody consider this low speed sustained turn is unknown to me.

Not in Johnson story but in Rechelin test of La5FN there is comparison between La5,Bf109 and FW190.
<span class="ev_code_RED">The times for a full circle are better than those of the 8-190 at ground level and worse than those of the 8-109.</span>

There are couple of Russian tests too with Bf109 and FW190, in all of them 109 turns better.

As far as game is concerned all FW pilots should learn to turn and fly their plane at low speeds, without that they will be boring one trick ponies who spend whole evenings waiting for single bounce on unsuspecting enemy.

FC

M_Gunz
07-27-2009, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
At take off weight an FW-190A8 Type I fighter stalls at a Vs1 of 174.84kph EAS to match Focke Wulf data.

That is 108mph EAS with Focke Wulf data and 125mph ??AS according to JtD's source.

Is that 125mph ??AS a game measurement?

1.3 Vref with gear down and landing flaps puts us at a Vs2 of 138kph EAS or 86mph EAS.

It's still going to turn wider at the same Gs as a 109G-6 and it's not going to be able to turn at all at speeds
the same 109G-6 can turn however slightly. It can even fly at speeds the 109G-6 can turn however slightly!

LOL! Yup, the FWs are just natural slow turning fighters! ROFLMAO!

Maybe JtD's is carrying external fuel or a bomb?

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 06:06 AM
The V-speeds of the Bf-109G6 occur at a lower velocity than those of the Focke Wulf..


It's still going to turn wider at the same Gs as a 109G-6 and it's not going to be able to turn at all at speeds


At the same angle of bank and velocity, both aircraft will make exactly the same turn. The Focke Wulf will be going faster in the air because its V-speeds are faster. The faster aircraft will turn the larger radius as radius is a function of velocity squared.

That is not the whole picture though, it is more complicated and you cannot make blanket statements that under all circumstances the Bf-109 will outturn an FW-190.

Just like we see in the Johnson anecdote, all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn. Both aircraft simply trades altitude for turn ability and the two combatants begin to spiral down.


Crumpp says:
You can do the math and see the FW-190 can sustain a high load factor than most Spitfire variants at speed. In that sense, I agree the FW190 could sustained level turn with a Spitfire and have a higher turn rate than the Spitfire. Your Johnson anecdote illustrates this well. It does not prove that the FW-190 had superior sustained level turn rate throughout the envelope. In that fight, Johnson realizes that the turn rate of the FW-190 will overtake him and we seen no proof the fight reaches speeds the Spitfire is superior.


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...531095577#7531095577 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1931093377?r=7531095577#7531095577)

There are portions of the envelope were the Bf-109 can sustain a higher load factor just as there are portions the FW-190 can sustain a higher load factor.

I don't know how that compares to your game.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 06:40 AM
That's physically impossible. We are not talking about some new and unproven theories here, these theories are proven and practically tested numerous times.

I think players would get more enjoyment and less frustration if they understood the physics.

M_Gunz
07-27-2009, 08:12 AM
What blanket statements? I was careful as to conditions. But then you cut the end off that one line....

JtD
07-27-2009, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Maybe JtD's is carrying external fuel or a bomb?

Kettenhundes numbers are calculated, mine are an average of several numbers of several variants I found in various sources, German, British and Soviet. They are IAS. The original data varies about 15-20 km/h, but it's good to know that Kettenhunde can calculate this accurately to a one hundredth of a km/h! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
07-27-2009, 08:35 AM
What is really needed, and would bolster the point of view of the naysayers, is ONE pilot-based account of the Me-109F/G/K out-turning the FW-190A at low altitudes and medium/low speeds.



Originally written by Rechlin Testing Facility:

...The times for a full circle are better than those of the Fw-190 at ground level and worse than those of the Bf-109...

German tests comparing a La-5FN to a 109 and a 190. 109 turns better, 190 worse.

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Kettenhunde can calculate this accurately to a one hundredth of a km/h!

Please grow up, JtD. I would appreciate it if you could quit being so emotionally invested in a game.

Anybody that knows how to do the math properly can calculate it. In this case I used Focke Wulf's listed stall speed and cross referenced it with the airfoil data and wing design.

If learn the correct way to do things then it won't be such a mystery to you and you wouldn’t make such statements as I quoted.


What blanket statements?

I never said you made a blanket statement and my post agrees with your statement. I quoted you only because I was addressing your post.

Why so defensive?

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-27-2009, 11:36 AM
Significant digits, Kettenhunde. It just made me laugh to see this. Sorry.

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 11:52 AM
Significant digits,

Sorry but you have never even heard that term until I used it.

See you have to recognize what the "significant" part means. 125mph to 108 mph is a 15% error over the published data. That is far outside of good agreement and those "significant digits"

Publish data for speeds according to Focke Wulf GmbH standards are within 3%. That means our significant digits range from ~111 to 105mph.

Did you make that number up? Did you find that number in by testing your game out? Is that 200kph IAS, CAS, TAS, or JtD AS's?

It may not be wrong; you just may not know what you’re looking at. Why won't you just answer my original question as to where it came from?

The question was not an attack on you or the data. It was just a question.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-27-2009, 12:08 PM
To quote another forum member "Whatever". I can't take your ?r?? at the moment, so have it your way.

M_Gunz
07-27-2009, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Maybe JtD's is carrying external fuel or a bomb?

(snip) mine are an average of several numbers of several variants I found in various sources, German, British and Soviet. They are IAS. The original data varies about 15-20 km/h, (snip) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, an average and IAS, I'm glad you cleared that up! IAS means more to me because that's what I see in game and
that's about what I expect to use anyway.

JtD
07-27-2009, 01:06 PM
I'd like to add that the lowest clean stall speed number I found is 177 km/h, which means that the figures vary not only by 15-20, but by 30 km/h. All things considered, 200 seems a bit high, so the figures should be discounted. 180 seems to be more reasonable. I didn't think this through this morning and just gave a rough average.

The flaps down speeds are more consistent within 10 km/h, the average slightly below 160km/h.

SterlingX
07-27-2009, 02:39 PM
The 190s have a 360 deg sustained turn time of about 23 sec, which you could reduce to about 20 sec if you start playing with flaps, throttle and or best turn speeds. This is still more than the 19 sec you get with the G6 without even trying.
And that says it all.

DKoor
07-27-2009, 02:43 PM
You guys worked me up...

So now I have to test some rate of turns...

I only wonder about the most efficient way to do it (to be at least comparative) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .

SterlingX
07-27-2009, 03:56 PM
QMB, pacific islands, 25% fuel, sea level. Time it with reference to the sight passing over a ship or an island after a full circle - the numbers from my previous post are from there, that's the easiest way.

Gaston444
07-27-2009, 04:33 PM
Quote-
"Not in Johnson story but in Rechelin test of La5FN there is comparison between La5,Bf109 and FW190.
The times for a full circle are better than those of the 8-190 at ground level and worse than those of the 8-109."


That is true, and I have seen the full report of these tests.

I should have remembered these tests better, because that was the ONE quote I hung on to for a long time to pin my hopes that the FW-190A did not turn better than the Me-109G at low speeds...

It is an interesting quote, but it doesn't specify the speed or if it is sustained, and, VERY importantly, I remember that the 109 in question was tested with MW-50. The specific FW-190A type is not mentionned. MW-50 was NOT as common as is assumed in late-war 109s... It COULD make the 109G possibly equal in low speed turns to a narrow-blade four-cannon 190A-8, and possibly better than any earlier 190A variant...

Also, I have in detail explained in my previous post that the clean Me-109G-6 out-turns the FW-190A-8 at any speeds ABOVE a fairly low 250 MPH IAS, as detailed in the P-47D test's "break point", where the FW-190A's turn performance suddenly starts to drop into a near-black hole:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

One of the important things to learn from this FW-190A/P-47 test, an issue I have yet to see addressed in any way by simmers in general, is that the deterioration of the FW-190's turn rate is NON-LINEAR.

There is no math formula that will predict this sudden loss of turn-rate performance of the FW-190A. Note in the above test there is no speed mentionned where the two aircraft are said to be equal. The drop-off is too abrupt. Below 250 MPH the FW-190A is MUCH better (but probably would have been closer to equal if the test Razorback had been fitted with a paddle-blade prop), above 250 MPH the FW-190A is MUCH inferior. This could be called a break point, and there are no aerodynamic formulas for those: it is much harsher than the usually gentle drop-off past the peak turn rate point in the usual simmer turn rate chart... I will use the 109G manual as an example here if you'll bear with me:

The Me-109G-6 has a similar sustained turn break-point, detailed in the 109G-6 pilot's manual:

180° at 400 km/h; 13 seconds.

100° at 450 km/h; 14 seconds.

Now these are fairly low rates of turn that are obviously sustained, because they only amount to somewhere under 4Gs to over 2Gs.

It is my impression that this is meant as a general warning about the turn rate as a whole, because the turn durations here are so short, and so may not be intended to be strictly about the sustained turn rate.

I think in those days not a huge distinction was made between the two: they merged in battle, but the sustained turn rate was often used as the benchmark value for turn performance.

Now such a LARGE "break point" in such a small speed difference can only be, in some part at least, caused by an abrupt change in trim pitch, not just caused by reduced engine power. Does such an abrupt pitch change exist at these speeds in the 109's aerodynamics?

Mark Hanna, and others, mention that at 300MPH, the 109G suddenly pitches "nose-down", requiring a pull on the stick to correct. It is easy to catch, but surprising, according to pilots. The problem is that the change here occurs a good 50 MPH above the Wartime 109G-6 pilot manual's "turn-rate warning" break point. What could account for this discrepancy?

I think this could be due to the 109G-6's pilot's manual considering the installation of gondolas as "standard". On at least a period of the G-6's production, the wing guns were ALWAYS installed, and always had to be removed in the field.

Surprisingly, it seems, from a Gunther Rall and a Finnish ace combat anecdotes, that the gondolas affect the 109G's handling much more at high speed than at low speeds, where the effects of the gondola weight appear negligible. The Finnish ace defeated twice in low-speed turning two P-51s with a gondola G-6 (the turning and stall characteristics of the two aircrafts leave little doubt they were indeed P-51s...). Rall mentions a noticeable difference in the initial response to the turn at high speed, and also to the pull-out near or at dive speeds.

The "clean" G-6 thus has comparatively reasonably good handling at higher speeds, despite what the manual says about the presumed more pessimistic loading configuration.

All this to say that if the La-5 ground-level comparison turn test was a single 360° turn at a modest 300 MPH start speed, with a CLEAN Me-109G, then it is easy to see why the FW-190A was considered the worst turner. Add fairly rare MW-50 power on top of that, well...

A single statement should put to rest any idea that the FW-190A-8 will be out-turned at low speeds by a Me-109G-6, this from the 190A-8 Western Front ace who had flown BOTH: "With the broad-blade prop, from level, or in dives and in turns, the initial acceleration of the FW-190A-8 was much greater than that of the Me-109G-6".

I would say that at worse the 190A-8 with a narrow-blade prop was still equal or slightly better in acceleration than the G-6, and it may still have had a narrow low-speed turning edge because of what I think could be inherently slicker aerodynamics properties during turns.

Note in the Oseau witness account that from 20K to the deck the 109G-6AS loses more speed in turns than the P-51D: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries." Jagdwaffe vol.5 section 3, p.202.

If you would pit a '43 1.42 ATA four-cannon narrow-blade 190A-6 against a clean late '44 109G-14 with MW-50, I would say a fairly significant low-speed/low-alt. turning edge is credible for the 109G... For all we know, this could be exactly what Rechlin did, since they don't even specify the variants they compared... Note that MW-50 was not as widely used in 109s, after the Summer of '44, as is often assumed.

There are Russian accounts of the FW-190A being poor at accelerating, but those most likely concern its ability to climb. For some reason, and if all 109G accounts such as the Oseau account are to be believed, the acceleration is not a uniform factor in all situations for all aircrafts.

In the Johnson account the initial big fight started at 10 000ft., then fleeing the scene alone he spots a lone 190 "over the town". Checking his six, he triggers the German's response into a head-on merge turning into an "ever decreasing circle", meaning, speed was being LOST. It was the "tightest of vertical turns", and yet, he ONLY initially greyed-out. You don't really think that above 350MPH the Spifire can't black-out its pilot do you?

AFTER greying-out, the 90° bank circles diminished with the speed, certainly to no more than 300 MPH to be generous...

Now note that the "vertical" wing angle EXCLUDES a steep diving spiral, and otherwise it is very clear he makes no mention of either of them going down in any significant way, otherwise it would not look like a circle at all, but like a spiral, and he says a circle, period.

And then the kicker: "In another couple of (360°) turns, and he would have me in his sights"

And then, "I asked the Spitfire for ALL she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech, IT COULD ONLY BE A QUESTION OF TIME."

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)

I concede the Rechlin quote is a point in favor of the naysayers, but neither the speed nor the specific sub-types are mentionned, except for the VERY SIGNIFICANT use of MW-50 on the 109G, if my memory is correct... I explained many times how poor the 190A's turn is at higher speeds... I would like to see if the Russian tests specify the speed and sub-types also, if they are the source of these contradicting 360° turn times...

So far ONE single vague sentence against a deluge of test quotes, evaluations and combat reports that make each of my posts look elephantine in comparison...

As for the J.Johnson combat account, I think the denial mode is patently obvious... I diagnose acute case of Antondenialitis...

Gaston.

DKoor
07-27-2009, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by SterlingX:
QMB, pacific islands, 25% fuel, sea level. Time it with reference to the sight passing over a ship or an island after a full circle - the numbers from my previous post are from there, that's the easiest way. Thanks!

The_Gorey
07-27-2009, 04:58 PM
who cares which planes are good for TnB.

put me in a so called TnB plane.. and the last thing you'll see me doing is prolonged TnB. that is best left for the time when you have no options. if you have options.. dont throw them out the window by getting involved in a food fight.

now dont get me wrong.. im not saying dont ever turn. not by a long shot. but if turning is your only move, your going to die no matter what you are flying.

my 2 cents.

carry on with your regular scheduled arguments.

Gaston444
07-27-2009, 06:59 PM
In actual combat pilots tended to fight to their aircraft's strenght.

The point of all this is that the FW-190A has such peculiar handling characteristics, one should in most cases actually avoid using higher speeds. This was not so true for the 109...

One FW-190A pilot describes a melee of twenty plus aircrafts over a U.S. airfield during Boddenplatte.

Another 190A pilot described a similar scene over the Ardennes offensive in Dec '44.

Both said the exact same thing, one advising a painter for a representation of a limited run print of the Ardennes air battle scene: He had the painter start over the painting, because the FW-190A had its wings almost level during an air battle.

He said: "The wings were never level in a fight with the 190A: We turned all the time: It was the only way to survive..."

Pretty compelling...

Gaston.

M_Gunz
07-27-2009, 09:20 PM
LOF-ing-L! Jah those 190's really cleaned up on that Bodenplatte raid! LMAO!

300 mph start speed instantaneous turns bleeding speed all the way, that's how to decide low speed turn ability!
Whooo-hoooo! ANYTHING that can be taken and used, gets used!

How come if the FW is easy for the average pilot to fly that the Allied test pilots couldn't get nearly not
just the full performance from it but actually did extremely badly if it was so great for low speed turns?
One time it is one way and another it is the opposite? Or is the hunt for the impossible FW just inconsistent?

Now The point of all this is that the FW-190A has such peculiar handling characteristics, one should in
most cases actually avoid using higher speeds. This was not so true for the 109...

Are you so confused or are you just trying to get easy targets online?

Kettenhunde
07-27-2009, 09:35 PM
Gaston444,

The FW-190A is not an airplane designed for low speed turning engagements.

I don't know what else needs to be said.

All the anecdotal evidence you have gathered simply illustrates the fact all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn. It illustrates why low speed sustained turning ability does not have the same level of importance from fighter designers that other characteristics such as speed are given.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gaston444
07-27-2009, 10:08 PM
RAF quote: "Above 420 MPH the Me-109 can perform quite tight turns"

P-51D pilot quote(vs Me-109G-6): "We were locked in a dive at nearly 500 MPH, pulling as hard as we could. To my surprise he pulled out of it first..."

Supposedly, a tail heavy trim 109G could make 6G pull-outs without the pilot touching the stick...

Russian quote for a FW-190A 4500 ft dive at 45°, after levelling out "The FW-190A will drop another 620 ft"

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

Compare THIS P-51D 400 MPH quote to the one above:

http://www.spitfireperformance...0-murrell-2dec44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg)

The 109G had a fairly low top dive speed, 50-80 MPH less than the 190A which could do 580 MPH. But within what dive speed it had, its tail-heavy trim and elevator response had much more effect than the 190's...

There's what you THINK you know, then there's what you actually know...

Gaston

JtD
07-28-2009, 01:06 PM
Are you so confused or are you just trying to get easy targets online?


Ah, now I understand all this! It didn't even occur to me, but I guess you're right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gaston444
07-28-2009, 03:45 PM
Oh, I understand perfectly you know...

Me too I pinned my hopes on that one Reichlin La-5 test sentence for years...

I guess I did not remember this sentence because it seemed to me more and more that MW-50 was not so common in the 109G or even the K. Very often the G-14 was written in the pilot's flight log as a G-6, because MW-50 was not in use (as demonstrated in Hartmann's log among others)... MW-50 was troublesome, would destroy the 109's engine in prolonged climbs and dives, and reduced engine life while increasing maintenance. Even more critically, it required in most 109s the use of the C-3 fuel, for which the FW-190A had a necessity and thus a priority... It was no panacea, and was not predominant in 109 units by a long shot...

The La-5 test does indicate MW-50 made a big difference to the 109's turn rate, which is indeed a good thing to know, and something that I probably underestimated. I still doubt the turn-rate margin is in any way large compared with a late broad-blade 190A-8 at lower speeds, especially if the A-8 is equipped with only two cannons...

There is however something called the weight of evidence, and if this one sentence with no speed or variant details is good enough for you, feel free to indulge your denial...

Meanwhile, a pilot who flew both the 190A-8 AND the 109G-6 said the initial level acceleration was MUCH greater in the A-8 than in the G-6, at least if the broad-blade wood prop was installed on the Anton...

So keep working on those calculations, because there's something wrong with them...

Now if you will excuse me, I will have to change my keyboard for typing and linking all the evidence that disagrees with you...

Gaston.

DKoor
07-28-2009, 03:57 PM
One thing I don't understand is why people are dragging German tests of VVS aircraft like Soviets did not have the tests for their aircraft.
Why would anyone want to use wartime tests from the opposite side.
It just looks completely senseless.

Even Wikipedia has German test on VVS LA-5FN aircraft http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/hammer.gif .

M_Gunz
07-28-2009, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
Meanwhile, a pilot who flew both the 190A-8 AND the 109G-6 said the initial level acceleration was MUCH greater in the A-8 than in the G-6, at least if the broad-blade wood prop was installed on the Anton...

Oh well that says everything about low speed turn ability right there! I don't know how we could all be so blind!
Hey I can make you a really good deal on a used country, as-is cash only, cheap!

JtD
07-29-2009, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
One thing I don't understand is why people are dragging German tests of VVS aircraft like Soviets did not have the tests for their aircraft.
Why would anyone want to use wartime tests from the opposite side.
It just looks completely senseless.

Even Wikipedia has German test on VVS LA-5FN aircraft.

You can't trust those communists... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

K_Freddie
07-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Maybe gaston444 means that with the paddle blade prop one can get more thrust (acceleration), which would also be good for low speed flying, as you'd be able to hang on by the prop a bit longer, or if needs be, climb at a steeper angle from low speed.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
07-29-2009, 03:23 AM
Will that paddle prop change the critical AOA or loading of the wings?

K_Freddie
07-29-2009, 04:46 AM
Nope - but it'll allow you to stay 'there' much longer, without falling into the stall zone. This can be a critical element of low speed (or high AoA) flying.

BillSwagger
07-29-2009, 04:59 AM
this is hypothetical, or did 190s have paddle props at some point?

M_Gunz
07-29-2009, 05:17 AM
What do you call low speed? You are also only looking at the parts that support what you want to see.

Higher AOA and higher wing loading require more thrust. And you multiply the load by the Gs you pull.
The more load, the wider the turn for any speed. And there's a minimum speed you have to go to hold
altitude which if you don't have to then neither does the other guy which is why we usually measure the
same horizontal turns for making comparisons.

Most of these WWII fighters could sustain 3 to less than 4 Gs in horizontal turns. 10% more power does
not get 10% more Gs by any means. If one plane can sustain 3 Gs at lower speed than the other that can
sustain 3.5 Gs you still have the slower plane running at a smaller radius and the faster plane running
around in front of the slower one. If the slower plane also has a lower stall speed then he can run at
3 Gs slower than the other one can possibly do at 3 Gs. Sustained turns ran at less than twice stall,
somewhere up around 360 kph for a faster plane at 3.5 Gs. You could bleed some of that but then you
would no longer be able to turn anywhere near so hard without losing altitude.

Go check out the biplanes and see what kinds of speeds and Gs they turned horizontally at, what they do
turn inside of easily and then come say that you don't notice any trend.

Low speed turn fights became obsolete in WWII. Speed ruled. The 190 was not designed as a turn fighter,
that is a total joke. It was made to out-speed and out-maneuver the opposition but not in horizontal
turns. Shooting noobs and idiots down does not count as proof that it was.

I love it when people challenge working science and technology over the internet on computers.

M_Gunz
07-29-2009, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
this is hypothetical, or did 190s have paddle props at some point?

Yes they did.

K_Freddie
07-29-2009, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I love it when people challenge working science and technology over the internet on computers.
It's funny that there is always an argument between the pen-pushers, calculator finger-poking theoretical scientists and a person who has the experience.
One swears blindy that you cannot do it because the calculations say so... and the other says that he's just done it.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Saburo_0
07-29-2009, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Shot down 6 average corsairs in a FW-190 A-4.

All TnB.

<span class="ev_code_RED">P.S.how do you like my sig?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROFLMAO
Silver, this forum is not for ego stroking...

ok, maybe it is, but try to be a bit more subtle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

K_Freddie
07-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Shot down 6 average corsairs in a FW-190 A-4.
All TnB.

You're making me look bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif, but then again.. I am bad !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I take it that this is offline ?
Corsairs are fairly easy, as they also tend to suffer from the same 'problems' as FW. But in good hands it's a devil.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
07-29-2009, 04:32 PM
You've actually done it proved that the FW is a good low speed turning fighter or actually done it suckered noobs?
Once again, what do you call low speed?

Kettenhunde
07-29-2009, 08:56 PM
this is hypothetical, or did 190s have paddle props at some point?


The FW-190A series had 5 different propeller designs over the course of its lifecycle.

We have two different ones restored for "White 1".

All the best,

Crumpp

K_Freddie
07-30-2009, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You've actually done it proved that the FW is a good low speed turning fighter or actually done it suckered noobs?
'Suckered' all, noobs or 'experten'. As I'm sure you know, one only employs certain tactics at the right time.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Once again, what do you call low speed?
Around 240-300kph (the last time I looked) depending on how much flaps one applies, but at times there's no need to apply flaps on the lower speeds.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Edt: I'm lying.. Had a look at some past stuff.. Make the speed anywhere from 150-200kph.
Very twitchy, but once you get the controls 'locked'.. it works nicely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif