PDA

View Full Version : Dispatches from planet reality: FW-190A vs Spitfires vs Me-109G...



Gaston444
06-29-2010, 01:35 AM
Hello everyone!

Some interesting new quotes have come to my attention on the issue of Spitfires, Me-109Gs and the FW-190A's horizontal turning abilities...

I'll begin by summing up WWII pilot evaluations that are on the side of spotlessly clean mathematical minds so far:

So on "our" side we can count: Two US Navy FW-190A flight tests (A-4 and A-5), Eric Brown and his "curious dogfighting" assertion (despite his own rather disheartening admonishment to go easy on pulling the stick so as not "to kill speed by sinking"...), and last but not least: Some German test pilot saying that the La-5's turn rate is "above the FW-190A but below the Me-109G (w/MW-50)"

So the startlingly mathematically correct conclusions, of these massively experienced FW-190A killers, is that the FW-190A is a fighter that maneuvers well at high-speed and should use its handling in vertical maneuvers...

But then you have to deal with all these mathematically incompetent rubes that obviously, at the time, needed to be sent back to school for some refresher courses on how reality will always exactly correspond to what our calculations tell us in advance it will be: I named Front-line fighter pilots...

First in line of these lost souls: These front-line fighter pilots in Italy, trying to masquerade as real-deal state-side test pilots, only to clearly demonstrate they are out of their depth:

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

What do they tell us in this? That the FW-190A out-maneuvers the P-47D in horizontal turns by a wide margin, but only at speeds below 250 MPH... Then, to add insult to injury, they tell us the P-47D has a "decidedly better angle of dive pull-out", meaning the FW-190A has generally inferior high speed maneuverability in the vertical AND the horizontal...

Well, don't fight the P-47D at high speed then, and anyways the P-47D sucks at low speeds anyway, so everything is in order... OK, but then look at these mathematically incompetent German pilots, who throw at us ridiculous generalisations without telling us the speed, altitude, bank angle, fuel level, engine rpm, air humidity, of the test, which their absurdly incomplete statement would absolutely need in order to mean anything as actual advice in the heat of battlè:

"The P-47D (needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"

Mathematically, this can only mean here that this could only occur at high speed, thus unsustainable, with specific air density and fuel loads conditions for it to be true... In those days, saying out-turning without qualification usually meant sustained turns: Look how quickly you can put your foot in your mouth when you know nothing of the math involved... These guys, I swear... What do Krauts know about Me-109s anyway?

But then, there is the Soviets: These guys are the worst, I tell you: Will you just look at this garbage?!?:

http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...an-combat-fw190.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html)

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

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

-"By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."


Will you just look at this pile of stinking non-mathematical garbage? Jesus, the P-47's test pilots were absolute geniuses compared to these guys... No wonder the Soviet Union is no more... And then look at the other cherries from these fruitcakes:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Look at the nuggets produced by these blockheads:

-"LaGG-3 fighter is a heavy and sluggish plane with poor acceleration.(...) LaGG-3 is more maneuverable than the Me-109 in horizontal fights and it causes some pilots to commit to turning fights. LaGG-3 in a turning fight will bleed off speed very rapidly however and since it accelerates so poorly, it will have difficulty switching to vertical."

-So it is heavy and sluggish but not enough NOT to beat the Me-109G in turns???

And then how does the lightweight Yak-7 perform against the heavier FW-190A?:

-"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn."

But then, they still say they had more success against the FW-190A than against the Me-109... Because the FW-190A couldn't climb... Where was Kettenhunde when they needed him, for Pete's sake!?:

-"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109. FW-190s have never been observed to try to climb away from our fighters. It is due to it’s climb rate being inferior to our fighters and the Me-109G6."


And then the cream of the crop: "FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

Two years later, during Boddenplatte, the Germans were STILL "interacting" their two fighter types in the EXACT same way: See the "Boddenplatte" (Jan 1st 1945) episode of the show "Dogfight" for this brilliant example of successfully NOT adding 2+2 for years on end... Clearly math was not their strong point...

And now for the NEW nonsensical stuff: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

Look at these clumsy Soviets again, concerning a captured FW-190A-4: "They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good horizontal handling in all speed ranges,"

"All the speed ranges" means, apparently, better above 250 MPH than the 6 inch longer-nosed A-5, but when incompetence piles on top of incompetence, who knows? Don't these folks KNOW about the FW-190A's GREAT vertical handling?!? Sheeesh, do we have to explain EVERYTHING to these people!?!

And now, new stuff again(!), the Brit contingent joins the party... As if we weren't deep enough in an abyss of muck already... Never mind their pathetic RAE test that would have you believe a P-51B with FULL drop tanks massively out-turns the Me-109G (but the same P-51B is then only barely equal to the FW-190A, even without those drop tanks!), now look at the ramblings of this poor confused squadron leader...:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 28): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

BECAUSE THEY WERE IDIOTS WHO DIDN'T KNOW THEIR MATHS... That's why...

The final result of that fight was 8 to 1 in favor of the FW-190As, which, probably, this poor confused soul would have us believe, means that it sort of resembled the fight described by this other confused math-challenged ne'er do well, who you can bet didn't hand in his math homework the way he should have when he was a kid...:

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

Thank Goodness real-life simulation players are now here to sort out all the confusion created by these well-meaning, but math-illiterate, front-line fighter pilots, who obviously couldn't even be counted on to know when they were being gained on in a turn or not... Who could blame them? The education system has made great strides since their days, and it is us who reaped the fruits of this great opening of our minds...

Gaston

Gaston444
06-29-2010, 01:35 AM
Hello everyone!

Some interesting new quotes have come to my attention on the issue of Spitfires, Me-109Gs and the FW-190A's horizontal turning abilities...

I'll begin by summing up WWII pilot evaluations that are on the side of spotlessly clean mathematical minds so far:

So on "our" side we can count: Two US Navy FW-190A flight tests (A-4 and A-5), Eric Brown and his "curious dogfighting" assertion (despite his own rather disheartening admonishment to go easy on pulling the stick so as not "to kill speed by sinking"...), and last but not least: Some German test pilot saying that the La-5's turn rate is "above the FW-190A but below the Me-109G (w/MW-50)"

So the startlingly mathematically correct conclusions, of these massively experienced FW-190A killers, is that the FW-190A is a fighter that maneuvers well at high-speed and should use its handling in vertical maneuvers...

But then you have to deal with all these mathematically incompetent rubes that obviously, at the time, needed to be sent back to school for some refresher courses on how reality will always exactly correspond to what our calculations tell us in advance it will be: I named Front-line fighter pilots...

First in line of these lost souls: These front-line fighter pilots in Italy, trying to masquerade as real-deal state-side test pilots, only to clearly demonstrate they are out of their depth:

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

What do they tell us in this? That the FW-190A out-maneuvers the P-47D in horizontal turns by a wide margin, but only at speeds below 250 MPH... Then, to add insult to injury, they tell us the P-47D has a "decidedly better angle of dive pull-out", meaning the FW-190A has generally inferior high speed maneuverability in the vertical AND the horizontal...

Well, don't fight the P-47D at high speed then, and anyways the P-47D sucks at low speeds anyway, so everything is in order... OK, but then look at these mathematically incompetent German pilots, who throw at us ridiculous generalisations without telling us the speed, altitude, bank angle, fuel level, engine rpm, air humidity, of the test, which their absurdly incomplete statement would absolutely need in order to mean anything as actual advice in the heat of battlè:

"The P-47D (needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"

Mathematically, this can only mean here that this could only occur at high speed, thus unsustainable, with specific air density and fuel loads conditions for it to be true... In those days, saying out-turning without qualification usually meant sustained turns: Look how quickly you can put your foot in your mouth when you know nothing of the math involved... These guys, I swear... What do Krauts know about Me-109s anyway?

But then, there is the Soviets: These guys are the worst, I tell you: Will you just look at this garbage?!?:

http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...an-combat-fw190.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html)

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

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

-"By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."


Will you just look at this pile of stinking non-mathematical garbage? Jesus, the P-47's test pilots were absolute geniuses compared to these guys... No wonder the Soviet Union is no more... And then look at the other cherries from these fruitcakes:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Look at the nuggets produced by these blockheads:

-"LaGG-3 fighter is a heavy and sluggish plane with poor acceleration.(...) LaGG-3 is more maneuverable than the Me-109 in horizontal fights and it causes some pilots to commit to turning fights. LaGG-3 in a turning fight will bleed off speed very rapidly however and since it accelerates so poorly, it will have difficulty switching to vertical."

-So it is heavy and sluggish but not enough NOT to beat the Me-109G in turns???

And then how does the lightweight Yak-7 perform against the heavier FW-190A?:

-"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn."

But then, they still say they had more success against the FW-190A than against the Me-109... Because the FW-190A couldn't climb... Where was Kettenhunde when they needed him, for Pete's sake!?:

-"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109. FW-190s have never been observed to try to climb away from our fighters. It is due to it’s climb rate being inferior to our fighters and the Me-109G6."


And then the cream of the crop: "FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

Two years later, during Boddenplatte, the Germans were STILL "interacting" their two fighter types in the EXACT same way: See the "Boddenplatte" (Jan 1st 1945) episode of the show "Dogfight" for this brilliant example of successfully NOT adding 2+2 for years on end... Clearly math was not their strong point...

And now for the NEW nonsensical stuff: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

Look at these clumsy Soviets again, concerning a captured FW-190A-4: "They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good horizontal handling in all speed ranges,"

"All the speed ranges" means, apparently, better above 250 MPH than the 6 inch longer-nosed A-5, but when incompetence piles on top of incompetence, who knows? Don't these folks KNOW about the FW-190A's GREAT vertical handling?!? Sheeesh, do we have to explain EVERYTHING to these people!?!

And now, new stuff again(!), the Brit contingent joins the party... As if we weren't deep enough in an abyss of muck already... Never mind their pathetic RAE test that would have you believe a P-51B with FULL drop tanks massively out-turns the Me-109G (but the same P-51B is then only barely equal to the FW-190A, even without those drop tanks!), now look at the ramblings of this poor confused squadron leader...:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 28): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

BECAUSE THEY WERE IDIOTS WHO DIDN'T KNOW THEIR MATHS... That's why...

The final result of that fight was 8 to 1 in favor of the FW-190As, which, probably, this poor confused soul would have us believe, means that it sort of resembled the fight described by this other confused math-challenged ne'er do well, who you can bet didn't hand in his math homework the way he should have when he was a kid...:

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

Thank Goodness real-life simulation players are now here to sort out all the confusion created by these well-meaning, but math-illiterate, front-line fighter pilots, who obviously couldn't even be counted on to know when they were being gained on in a turn or not... Who could blame them? The education system has made great strides since their days, and it is us who reaped the fruits of this great opening of our minds...

Gaston

Gaston444
06-29-2010, 02:20 AM
Some famous, obviously mathematically misguided quotes, I thought would be fun to add:

-Gunther Rall: "The Me-109 was a floret(straight), the FW-190A a sabre(curved)"

-Pierre Closterman (discussing both types side-by-side in "Le Grand Cirque"): "The principal characteristic of the Me-109 was speed."

And my favourite:

-Herman Goering (On the FW-190): "I don't call it my deadly little horsefly for nothing."

Horseflies being well-known for their vertical see-saw trajectories... At least Goering DID study his math...

Gaston

Airmail109
06-29-2010, 03:00 AM
2004 called, it wants it's luftwhiners back.

M_Gunz
06-29-2010, 03:33 AM
SSDD... DFTT

thefruitbat
06-29-2010, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
2004 called, it wants it's luftwhiners back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AndyJWest
06-29-2010, 07:55 AM
How anyone who thinks that endlessly-repeated hogwash about 'stress-risers', 'compound levers' and propellers moving backwards in a turn can claim to be from 'planet reality' I've no idea. Not worth debating further...

Xiolablu3
06-29-2010, 01:52 PM
Oh my god....

Urufu_Shinjiro
06-29-2010, 02:22 PM
Please do not spam the forum with threads on subjects that have already been debated heavily in other threads. Either keep in in that thread or let it go.