PDA

View Full Version : Soviet FW-190A combat evaluation and the He-100 issue...PART 3



blairgowrie
03-22-2010, 04:12 PM
Continued from Part 2: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...661061448#3661061448 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=3661061448#3661061448)

blairgowrie
03-22-2010, 04:12 PM
Continued from Part 2: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...661061448#3661061448 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=3661061448#3661061448)

na85
03-22-2010, 04:14 PM
May I ask what the criteria are for starting a new part? Is it 25-ish pages?

blairgowrie
03-22-2010, 04:24 PM
The guideline that has been established is 20 pages. Anything over that can cause connection lag. I let this run over 20 pages for three reasons:
1. I was asleep at the switch.
2. I thought it may be closed for personal insults.
3. Natural death.

I was wrong on two accounts.

na85
03-22-2010, 04:27 PM
No big deal, just curious

TheGrunch
03-22-2010, 05:00 PM
Oh well, may as well continue.
Can I point out that you still have no idea of the initial speed and altitude differences of the aircraft, what the 190 pilot did in between the start of the turn and Johnson spotting him again (a yo-yo would be a good move), what Johnson meant by "graying out" (entirely speculation on your part).
I'd also point out that being on "opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever-decreasing circle" does not dictate that this circle was made parallel to the horizon, that we know nothing of Johnson's 1 vs. 1 piloting skill, and that the fact that he pulled into "the tightest of shuddering vertical turns" rather suggests that he wasn't making a sustained maneuver at all.
David Hume's views on humans as believable witnesses to miracles come to mind. Just because someone sees something happen once doesn't mean that they saw *everything* that happened. And just because they wrote an account of it doesn't mean that you know *exactly* what they meant.
Any historian has to take account of the ambiguities in the written accounts they read.
You cannot resolve ambiguities by ignoring the possibility that they don't support your views.
And I have to say that I'm just as baffled as Andy about your reference to a wholly irrelevant Descartes quote. If we were all skeptical of our own existences then perhaps that would be a relevant phrase to calm our minds.
Anyway, if anyone should be quoting Descartes it should be me, given that I'm telling you to take a more strictly empirical approach to the text, again.

jameson2010
03-22-2010, 05:54 PM
Ok, Round three...

Link to Rechlin test (11 December 1941)between bf109f4 and Fw190a2:
http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeu.../index.php?id=23&L=1 (http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1)
It's in German, lol! A translation of sorts is given below the photocopy.
Relevent bit to this discussion (possibly?) is on page 4, section d).

Photographs of all of the British report (11 July 1942) of tests of captured FW190's @ ww2aircraft.net. You will have to register to see it. Great site BTW.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/for...90-papers-22545.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw190-papers-22545.html)


Original of Gaston444's Page 1, post number 1, "Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190" from Tactical and Technical Trends published November 4, 1943, (Did anyone read it? Basically how to counter the fw190 in a turning fight flying an La5), here:
http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...an-combat-fw190.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html)

Companion piece to above, Soviet fighter Tactics against Me109 and Fw190, taken from a book published in 1943, (the only credit given, I assume it was a Russian book):
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

La5 Pilot's Handbook, English translation. States stall speed of La5,:
http://www.mission4today.com/i...Base&op=show&kid=507 (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=507)
Again you will have to register to view, but you should all be already if you fly IL2.

Good luck!

TS_Sancho
03-22-2010, 06:19 PM
Good stuff Jameson. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Feathered_IV
03-22-2010, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
The guideline that has been established is 20 pages. Anything over that can cause connection lag. I let this run over 20 pages for three reasons:
1. I was asleep at the switch.
2. I thought it may be closed for personal insults.
3. Natural death.

I was wrong on two accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it be possible to create a separate sub-forum for these sort of threads? That way they could be grouped more easily and avoid bunging up the main area. Not sure what you'd call such a new forum though. The Usual Suspects perhaps?

na85
03-22-2010, 06:54 PM
Troll Central

TS_Sancho
03-22-2010, 06:58 PM
"And now for something completely different"?

M_Gunz
03-22-2010, 07:20 PM
How to make Virtual Snake Oil:

Take a story with a few drops of true information and squeeze a half-liter of "juice" from it.
Then tell people they should buy it and like it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

irR4tiOn4L
03-22-2010, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How do you stay level doing "vertical turns" in a plane that cannot maintain more than
about 3 Gs in level turns without losing height?

"Something about this picture is wrong."

Yeah well chew harder then turn the picture right-side up and look again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who claimed the planes maintained altitude?

Chew with your mouth closed and what comes out might be more palatable
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jameson2010:
Ok, Round three...

Link to Rechlin test (11 December 1941)between bf109f4 and Fw190a2:
http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeu.../index.php?id=23&L=1 (http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1)
It's in German, lol! A translation of sorts is given below the photocopy.
Relevent bit to this discussion (possibly?) is on page 4, section d).

Photographs of all of the British report (11 July 1942) of tests of captured FW190's @ ww2aircraft.net. You will have to register to see it. Great site BTW.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/for...90-papers-22545.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw190-papers-22545.html)


Original of Gaston444's Page 1, post number 1, "Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190" from Tactical and Technical Trends published November 4, 1943, (Did anyone read it? Basically how to counter the fw190 in a turning fight flying an La5), here:
http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...an-combat-fw190.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html)

Companion piece to above, Soviet fighter Tactics against Me109 and Fw190, taken from a book published in 1943, (the only credit given, I assume it was a Russian book):
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

La5 Pilot's Handbook, English translation. States stall speed of La5,:
http://www.mission4today.com/i...Base&op=show&kid=507 (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=507)
Again you will have to register to view, but you should all be already if you fly IL2.

Good luck! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thankyou very much Jameson!

I will see if i can find the relevant quote in the translation

AndyJWest
03-22-2010, 08:45 PM
IrR4tiOn4L, can I ask if you understand Gaston's physics? I'm not asking if you agree with it, but does it make any sense at all to you? If, as I suspect, you don't understand it any more than the rest of us, we can ignore his 'evidence' except where he provides proper sources, and engage in a serious debate. On the other hand, if you do understand it, can you explain it for the rest of us? I think frustration with having to deal with his gobbledy**** is one reason this thread has got so heated. If we can eliminate his input from the debate, we might get somewhere.

irR4tiOn4L
03-22-2010, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
IrR4tiOn4L, can I ask if you understand Gaston's physics? I'm not asking if you agree with it, but does it make any sense at all to you? If, as I suspect, you don't understand it any more than the rest of us, we can ignore his 'evidence' except where he provides proper sources, and engage in a serious debate. On the other hand, if you do understand it, can you explain it for the rest of us? I think frustration with having to deal with his gobbledy**** is one reason this thread has got so heated. If we can eliminate his input from the debate, we might get somewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaston refuses to use physics. He names concepts that Kettenhunde very skillfully points out the limitations of, so i guess Kettenhunde understands him (at least partially), but i dont. All i really try and do is focus the discussion as best i understand Gaston's concepts so that they can be rebutted, or their merit exposed by the more knowledgeable, like Kettenhunde.

So far, none of his points have had much merit (sorry Gaston).

As far as im concerned there is nothing more than a few errant pilot accounts at discussion here, and a possible misquote, ie empirical evidence, not physics. But to make that case wed need a lot more empirical accounts that agree with these quotes, which they dont.

So these errant pilot accounts are interesting on their own, and in particular im discussing the Rechlin one and whether it was misquoted, but really have no bearing on the original topic.

M_Gunz
03-22-2010, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How do you stay level doing "vertical turns" in a plane that cannot maintain more than
about 3 Gs in level turns without losing height?

"Something about this picture is wrong."

Yeah well chew harder then turn the picture right-side up and look again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who claimed the planes maintained altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you forgot how this started and what it's about? Or you think I have?
And it _was_ you who posted that the FW in the sim "doesn't add up"?

Who claimed the planes maintained altitude?

That would be the part where someone has been trying to prove the FW is a better turning plane
in all conditions except recently at high altitude and posted the article as the latest of a
series of lame attempts to push the point.

But of course if the turning fight in that story is not level turning then the story is not good
for the use as explained. No biggie, the other accounts he pushes are not good for his purposes
either!

Trolls and Dung Beetles must be related. Both roll the same stuff into little balls.

AndyJWest
03-22-2010, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">these errant pilot accounts are interesting on their own </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't describe them as 'errant', but subjective. To quote what TheGrunch wrote earlier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">David Hume's views on humans as believable witnesses to miracles come to mind. Just because someone sees something happen once doesn't mean that they saw *everything* that happened. And just because they wrote an account of it doesn't mean that you know *exactly* what they meant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a major difficulty with historical debates. In the heat of battle, a pilot probably sees a great deal more than he later recalls, and any recollection is then filtered through what he expects to have seen. If someone suggests say that Johnson's description account of an encounter with a Fw 190 was 'wrong' from the point of view of known physics, this would not be the same as saying that Johnson was lying, or even 'mistaken' in his description, but merely that it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to describe such events with the degree of precision and objectivity required to assess their validity by external standards. In the case of Johnson's encounter, I don't think there is sufficient detail to assess 'what actually happened' anyway: he could be 100% correct, describing several different, mutually incompatable scenarios.

na85
03-22-2010, 10:20 PM
This thread was 1000x more interesting when we were discussing aircraft performance and design.

Jabo14
03-22-2010, 11:12 PM
The test!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...e65w&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w&feature=related)




.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jabo14
03-22-2010, 11:26 PM
Turn Time 23s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

_______________________________

Incorrect fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Generic tests pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


Plane in bad shape http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


Tests ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
_________________________

WTE_Galway
03-22-2010, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">these errant pilot accounts are interesting on their own </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't describe them as 'errant', but subjective. To quote what TheGrunch wrote earlier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">David Hume's views on humans as believable witnesses to miracles come to mind. Just because someone sees something happen once doesn't mean that they saw *everything* that happened. And just because they wrote an account of it doesn't mean that you know *exactly* what they meant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a major difficulty with historical debates. In the heat of battle, a pilot probably sees a great deal more than he later recalls, and any recollection is then filtered through what he expects to have seen. If someone suggests say that Johnson's description account of an encounter with a Fw 190 was 'wrong' from the point of view of known physics, this would not be the same as saying that Johnson was lying, or even 'mistaken' in his description, but merely that it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to describe such events with the degree of precision and objectivity required to assess their validity by external standards. In the case of Johnson's encounter, I don't think there is sufficient detail to assess 'what actually happened' anyway: he could be 100% correct, describing several different, mutually incompatable scenarios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


lol .. that kind of reminds me of an explanation of why both the 109 and Spitfire pilots from BoB often felt they could out-turn their opposition .. it went along the lines of " .. well the guys that did not out turn the opposition didn't survive to pass on their impression of the matter "

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 12:20 AM
It's the pilot, not the plane.

irR4tiOn4L
03-23-2010, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How do you stay level doing "vertical turns" in a plane that cannot maintain more than
about 3 Gs in level turns without losing height?

"Something about this picture is wrong."

Yeah well chew harder then turn the picture right-side up and look again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who claimed the planes maintained altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you forgot how this started and what it's about? Or you think I have?
And it _was_ you who posted that the FW in the sim "doesn't add up"?

Who claimed the planes maintained altitude?

That would be the part where someone has been trying to prove the FW is a better turning plane
in all conditions except recently at high altitude and posted the article as the latest of a
series of lame attempts to push the point.

But of course if the turning fight in that story is not level turning then the story is not good
for the use as explained. No biggie, the other accounts he pushes are not good for his purposes
either!

Trolls and Dung Beetles must be related. Both roll the same stuff into little balls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think i claimed those things, you are wrong. Try quoting me to see why.

Also, were not discussing the FW 190 in IL2. Do you want to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">these errant pilot accounts are interesting on their own </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't describe them as 'errant', but subjective. To quote what TheGrunch wrote earlier </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The video quote of the Rechlin report is downright errant.

Its also been said many times why pilot reports differ. What is lacking is anyone saying otherwise

Daisan1981
03-23-2010, 04:45 AM
http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm

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

AndyJWest
03-23-2010, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daisan1981:
http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think this debate has moved beyond a level where unreferenced tables on websites are going to tell us much.

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How do you stay level doing "vertical turns" in a plane that cannot maintain more than
about 3 Gs in level turns without losing height?

"Something about this picture is wrong."

Yeah well chew harder then turn the picture right-side up and look again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who claimed the planes maintained altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you forgot how this started and what it's about? Or you think I have?
And it _was_ you who posted that the FW in the sim "doesn't add up"?

Who claimed the planes maintained altitude?

That would be the part where someone has been trying to prove the FW is a better turning plane
in all conditions except recently at high altitude and posted the article as the latest of a
series of lame attempts to push the point.

But of course if the turning fight in that story is not level turning then the story is not good
for the use as explained. No biggie, the other accounts he pushes are not good for his purposes
either!

Trolls and Dung Beetles must be related. Both roll the same stuff into little balls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you think i claimed those things, you are wrong. Try quoting me to see why.

Also, were not discussing the FW 190 in IL2. Do you want to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are good at missing the point or just evading to acknowledge any. The person who made those
claims in a number of threads now (never waste good trollbait?) is Gaston.

That would be under the part: Maybe you forgot how this started and what it's about?

You didn't start the thread and you don't seem to know more than half of what it's about.
Because if you did then you'd know who and what I was referring to. It can't ALL be about YOU.

irR4tiOn4L
03-23-2010, 08:04 AM
Well to be fair, you did post that right under one of my posts, and it was similar to a sentence i used when i posted the rechlin video. I mistook that as intended to me. Lets just drop this quarrel. Especially because given we essentially agree were just looking like fools

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 10:15 AM
NP

Kettenhunde
03-23-2010, 10:16 AM
The stall speed of the La-5 series, Yak series, and FW-190 is almost identical. The lift limited performance is very close on those aircraft.

It is no wonder FW-190 pilots offered sustained turning fights.

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-23-2010, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
The guideline that has been established is 20 pages. Anything over that can cause connection lag. I let this run over 20 pages for three reasons:
1. I was asleep at the switch.
2. I thought it may be closed for personal insults.
3. Natural death.

I was wrong on two accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it be possible to create a separate sub-forum for these sort of threads? That way they could be grouped more easily and avoid bunging up the main area. Not sure what you'd call such a new forum though. The Usual Suspects perhaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ubizoo Chart Monkey Habitat?

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 03:47 PM
Do we get tire swings?

na85
03-23-2010, 05:09 PM
Can we fling our own poo at each other?

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 05:41 PM
Still?

btw, na85, check your PMs and email. nice prezzy for you.

na85
03-23-2010, 05:43 PM
will do

Gaston444
03-23-2010, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jabo14:
Turn Time 23s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

_______________________________

Incorrect fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Generic tests pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


Plane in bad shape http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


Tests ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
_________________________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>




-You forget to mention that these tests are likely run at full power in turns (typical test pilot nonsense), so the peak sustained turn performance of 23 sec is likely too high a figure, and not in the correct hierarchy vs other types...

Note in the supplied links above that "The La-5 will gain on the Me-109 in 3-4 turns" while "turning combat with the FW-190 will last quite some time"

Actual quotes:

"In a turning fight La-5 will get on Me-109’s tail after three or four circles."


And then this gem:

"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. 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."


-So let me get this straight, your "superior turning" Me-109 is used here for "boom and zoom", while the "boom and zoom" FW-190 is used here at LOWER altitude "to attempt to close in on us", and then they "commit" to turning fights that "will last quite a long time", while the "superior turning" Me-109 is beaten in 3-4 turns by the La-5...

Hmmmm... Those LUFWAFFE tactics couldn't possibly mean THEY tought the Me-109 was better used Boom and Zooming while the FW-190 was better used "to close in"?

By the way, doesn't that remind you of the FW-190 being a curved "Sabre" while the Me-109 was a straight "Floret"?

So here is another different source, and it shows, again, Luftwaffe tactics to have been the radical opposite of radically ill-informed simmer opinion...

But surely the Soviets didn't know what they were saying, and it's ALL out of context...

Take it from me: the US Navy knew a lot more about FW-190 combat and tactics than the Soviets did!

After all, the extreme sophistication of the arguments against me is very impressive: Heavy is baaad. Light is goood...

But, based on their EXTENSIVE FW-190 combat experience, the US Navy went for it too, so take heart in not being alone: Its always good to have highly knowledgeable friends...

Gaston

AndyJWest
03-23-2010, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You forget to mention that these tests are likely run at full power in turns (typical test pilot nonsense) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now you are more of an expert than the test pilots, Gaston? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

arthursmedley
03-23-2010, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

Lets just drop this quarrel. Especially because given we essentially agree were just looking like fools </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At last! Something useful emerges from this astonishing thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TheGrunch
03-23-2010, 07:52 PM
Oh dear Gaston, did you forget to mention the section of that same report where it said "Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better."
Or perhaps: "Captured FW-190 pilots are familiar with specifics of all our planes, and consider Yak-1, Yak-9 and La-5 to be superior to theirs. It must be however pointed out that FW-190 have not been fighting on our front for too long and thus their tactics are still being developed. They are more than likely to change drastically very soon.

Yak-1, Yak-7 and La-5 fighting an FW-190 have all the factors necessary to win. Our fighters are almost as fast as the FW-190, turn and climb better and have formidable firepower."

Kettenhunde
03-23-2010, 08:05 PM
I am sure everyone has read the German tactical trials of both the Italian aircraft and the Russian La-5FN.

AndyJWest
03-23-2010, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Oh dear Gaston, did you forget to mention the section of that same report where it said "Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better."
Or perhaps: "Captured FW-190 pilots are familiar with specifics of all our planes, and consider Yak-1, Yak-9 and La-5 to be superior to theirs. It must be however pointed out that FW-190 have not been fighting on our front for too long and thus their tactics are still being developed. They are more than likely to change drastically very soon.

Yak-1, Yak-7 and La-5 fighting an FW-190 have all the factors necessary to win. Our fighters are almost as fast as the FW-190, turn and climb better and have formidable firepower." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oops. A careless oversight, I assume.

Actually, I'd take the 'formidable firepower' with a pinch of salt, but again this is subjective assessment. Not necessarily propaganda, but not necessarily 'true' either. In any case, exact data was neither available, nor likely to remain valid for long if it had been. In this context, precision was a peacetime luxury, and 'near enough' wasn't just 'good enough' but the best objective to aim for, given limited time and resources.

Still, since Gaston doesn't think that test pilots knew how to test performance, the whole question is moot - we have no data!

Jabo14
03-23-2010, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

The US Navy knew a lot more about FW-190 combat and tactics than the Soviets ¿?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Luftwaffe pilot maybe have 1000 to 2500, or more Hours in FW 190

Test pilot maybe have 60-80 Hours in FW 190 ¿?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



Gaston



They
don't understand

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I go to read Red Star / Black Cross


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jabo14
03-23-2010, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jabo14:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

The US Navy knew a lot more about FW-190 combat and tactics than the Soviets ¿?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Luftwaffe pilot maybe have 1000 to 2500, or more Hours in FW 190

Test pilot maybe have 60-80 Hours in FW 190 ¿?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



Gaston



They
don't understand

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I go to read Red Star / Black Cross


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz
03-23-2010, 09:23 PM
From John Denker:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3.2 Examples of Unscientific Thinking

You should avoid using fallacious arguments, and you should object loudly if somebody tries to use them on you. Common examples of unscientific thinking include:

* Elementary logic errors, such as circular reasoning, non sequitur, and many others.
* The fallacy of OTBE (i.e. Other Things Being Equal). Any expression – or any thought – that depends on OTBE is risky, because often you don’t know which other things are being held equal. For details on this, see reference 11.
* Improperly weighted voting. (A thousand pieces of weak evidence should not outweigh one piece of strong evidence, as discussed in reference 12.)
* Selecting the data. (It is not right to select tendentious anecdotes from a mass of data. See section 9.3.)
* Other misuses of probability.
* Argument from no evidence, as discussed in reference 13.
* Proof by bold assertion. (It’s OK to assert something, so long as you don’t pretend to have proved anything thereby.)
* Dropping or mistaking the provisos and limitations of a rule, as discussed in section 3.3.
* Appeal to authority, as discussed in reference 12.
* Ad hominem arguments.
* Et cetera.

3.3 The Provisos are Part of the Rule

As mentioned in item 3 and item 10, most rules have limitations on the accuracy and/or their range of validity. You should neither over-react nor under-react to these limitations.

Consider the contrast: Equation 1 is very different from equation 2:

x = y provided a, b, and c (1)



x = y (2)

which means x = y in all generality.

It is a common mistake to mislearn, misremember, or misunderstand the provisos, and thereby to overestimate the range of validity of such a rule.

There are several ways such mistakes can come about. I’ve seen cases where the textbook soft-pedals the provisos “in the interest of simplicity” (at the expense of correctness). I’ve seen even more cases where the text and the teacher emphasize the restrictions in equation 1, yet some students gloss over the provisos and therefore learn the wrong thing, namely equation 2.

Another possibility is that we don’t fully know the provisos. A good example concerns the Wiedemann-Franz law. There are good theoretical reasons to expect it to be true, and experiments have shown it to be reliably true over a very wide range of conditions. That was the whole story until the discovery of superconductivity. The Wiedemann-Franz law does not apply to superconductors, and you will get spectacularly wrong predictions if you try to apply it to superconductors. My point is that before the discovery of superconductivity – which was a complete surprise – there was no way anyone could have had the slightest idea that there was any such limitation to the Wiedemann-Franz law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1 Argument from No Evidence

It is a notorious fallacy to think that the lack of evidence for some notion is evidence for some competing notion. This has been recognized since antiquity that this is a fallacy. It goes by many names, including argument from no evidence, the false dilemma, and argumentum ad ignorantiam (literally, “argument from ignorance”).

Here are some illustrative examples. The first two are slightly contrived, but only slightly so, and the others are distressingly common.

One morning Salvatio caught a Theba pisana and later that day he caught an Isurus oxyrinchus. His neighbor Simplicio heard about this, and concluded that both must have been caught using the same technique. He argued that the process of catching things was covered by Newton’s laws, which must apply equally in both cases. And since Simplicio didn’t see any reason why the two cases should be different, he decided they were the same. Simplicio was, alas, unware that Theba pisana is a garden snail, while Isurus oxyrinchus is a shark. Salvatio caught one with his bare hands as it slithered across the walkway, and he caught the other using a big hook and heavy tackle. It’s true that Simplicio didn’t know why the two cases were different, but that’s just because he had no clue about what was going on in either case.

The fallacy is equally fallacious in the other direction:

One morning Salvatio caught a Hyla crucifer and later that day he caught a spring peeper (a small frog). His neighbor Simplicio heard about this, and concluded that they must have been caught using completely different techniques. He argued that he had no reason to believe the two things were the same, so they must be different. “I don’t believe in coincidences”, he said. Well, it turns out that a Hyla crucifer is nothing more or less than a spring peeper. Simplicio had no reason to believe the two were the same, but that’s just because he had no clue about what was going on in either case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

irR4tiOn4L
03-23-2010, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The stall speed of the La-5 series, Yak series, and FW-190 is almost identical. The lift limited performance is very close on those aircraft.

It is no wonder FW-190 pilots offered sustained turning fights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am sure everyone has read the German tactical trials of both the Italian aircraft and the Russian La-5FN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please elaborate Kettenhunde. Was the 109 less suited to sustained turn fights with these aircraft?

deepo_HP
03-24-2010, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Please elaborate Kettenhunde. Was the 109 less suited to sustained turn fights with these aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>not that i want to answer for kettenhunde, but i don't see that he mentioned the Bf-109 anywhere.

it seems to me, that kettenhunde refers to the opening post of part 1 of this thread, which is about the russian recommendations how to fight the FW-190.
gaston draw several conclusions from the article, based on interpretations of quotes which weren't even to be found in that article.
(like 'FW-190 has better horizontal maneuverability than Bf-109' - which is a line only gaston could see)

irR4tiOn4L
03-24-2010, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Please elaborate Kettenhunde. Was the 109 less suited to sustained turn fights with these aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>not that i want to answer for kettenhunde, but i don't see that he mentioned the Bf-109 anywhere.

it seems to me, that kettenhunde refers to the opening post of part 1 of this thread, which is about the russian recommendations how to fight the FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wanted to ask him to spell it out a bit more because of course he omitted the 109 and i didnt understand his point. Is he trying to say that a 109 wouldnt want to enter a turn fight with these aircraft whereas a 190 would, or just that the German fighers were both competitive with them in a turn fight? I wouldve thought it wasnt a good idea to enter a turn fight with an La5 or Yak in a 190?

deepo_HP
03-24-2010, 01:38 AM
i think i have to leave the details to kettenhunde...
however, it relates to what gaston misquoted in the mentioned article of his opening post (sry, i added some while you posted your reply already).

it is also possible that kettenhunde refers to parts of the articles in the links of page 2, part 3 (this part) of the discussion - without drawing any conclusions by comparing what is not compared in the text.

as i said, probably just my insufficient understanding.

irR4tiOn4L
03-24-2010, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i think i have to leave the details to kettenhunde...
however, it relates to what gaston misquoted in the mentioned article of his opening post (sry, i added some while you posted your reply already).

it is also possible that kettenhunde refers to parts of the articles in the links of page 2, part 3 (this part) of the discussion - without drawing any conclusions by comparing what is not compared in the text.

as i said, probably just my insufficient understanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i see. I also saw what Gaston wrote but i couldnt tell whether Kettenhunde agreed or not. It all seemed a little strange - 109 booming and zooming while the 190's dogfight?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
03-24-2010, 02:36 AM
We have had links here to accounts from Russian Aces like (hope I spell right) Khozedub. One interview
was very clear about escorting in Yaks and how the LW would attack, always from above one at a time so
another could hopefully clear an escort off the tail of the first, and always with enough advantage to
play it pretty safe. But they come in fast and with such higher speed you don't want to turn fight.
You zoom past the escorts, use your ammo on the bombers, and then zoom back up. If I was dishonest it
would be easy to clip pieces out here and there and paint a very different picture.

There was another who described engine controls of different P-39's and IIRC a P-40 as well. He did
not like the single lever system that was introduced in the P-39Q series. I think that the interviewers
did good work to get so much detail from those men and still it is best for impressions only.

When you don't know who is in the other plane or how that machine is running and don't say in an
interview what would take a book to tell fully, it's not going to equal one good controlled test.

BillSwagger
03-24-2010, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Luftwaffe pilot maybe have 1000 to 2500, or more Hours in FW 190

Test pilot maybe have 60-80 Hours in FW 190 ¿?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And historians say that experienced pilots were thinned out as the war continued.
You here stories about Aces and their great triumphs, but that is far from the majority. I still think that notion has
less to do with plane performance.
A test pilot may lack the tactical prowess of an experienced combat pilot but to say they could not learn the ins and outs
of one particular aircraft with in 100 hours of flying is a bit short sighted.
Also, given the fact that test pilots accrue several thousand hours flying several different aircraft, they
probably would have a better idea of how various aircraft compare in terms of handling and performance. This does not make
them skilled at shooting, or bombing and avoiding tactical pitfalls in the process. That is something that comes with hours
of combat experience.

This argument of the 109 vs 190 is a bit tired, seeing as the 109 is not all that maneuverable at speeds above 250mph IAS in the first place, its no surprise to me the 190, by design, can turn better.
I also know that sustained turns don't take into account a turn that bleeds speed, but turns tighter in the process. At higher speeds, perhaps stick forces are heavier in the 109 which makes turning in a 190 easier and more efficient.
There is plenty to suggest the 109 was more capable at lower speeds than the 190, aside from the physical aspects, wing loading, power/weight etc.

In the end, an aircraft is designed to turn at a specific speed and that will not always be the same for the two planes you are comparing.


Bill

na85
03-24-2010, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am sure everyone has read the German tactical trials of both the Italian aircraft and the Russian La-5FN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't. Can you link please?

R_Target
03-24-2010, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Take it from me: the US Navy knew a lot more about FW-190 combat and tactics than the Soviets did!

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only you are saying that. The USN did have extensive experience fighting actual low-speed turn fighters though. Really, I think the lady that answered the telephones at Pax River understood more about airplanes than you.

Of course, we'll all have to eat our words when the Nobel Committee recognizes you for your pioneering work in mathless physics.

M_Gunz
03-24-2010, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
This argument of the 109 vs 190 is a bit tired, seeing as the 109 is not all that maneuverable at speeds above 250mph IAS in the first place, its no surprise to me the 190, by design, can turn better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see Bill that if you don't mean "turn better under all conditions including low speed and altitude" but
only write the first two words then it leaves your words open to misinterpretation as an example of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
3.3 The Provisos are Part of the Rule

As mentioned in item 3 and item 10, most rules have limitations on the accuracy and/or their range of validity. You should neither over-react nor under-react to these limitations.

Consider the contrast: Equation 1 is very different from equation 2:

x = y provided a, b, and c (1)

x = y (2)

which means x = y in all generality.

It is a common mistake to mislearn, misremember, or misunderstand the provisos, and thereby to overestimate the range of validity of such a rule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here you write what shows me you do NOT mean "under all conditions" and do know the provision about speed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the end, an aircraft is designed to turn at a specific speed and that will not always be the same for the two planes you are comparing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But your average snip and clip troll does not connect what you wrote later with what you wrote first.
In fact we've had a troll or two that couldn't connect the last half a sentence with the start of the same!

You wouldn't walk through the woods without taking some care would you? Well, this is just another such kind
of place with holes in the ground, fallen logs to trip over and the occasional malignant life form waiting.

M_Gunz
03-24-2010, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Of course, we'll all have to eat our words when the Nobel Committee recognizes you for your pioneering work in mathless physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you've gone and spoiled the surprise. What am I going to do with all these party hats?

Gaston444
03-24-2010, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i think i have to leave the details to kettenhunde...
however, it relates to what gaston misquoted in the mentioned article of his opening post (sry, i added some while you posted your reply already).

it is also possible that kettenhunde refers to parts of the articles in the links of page 2, part 3 (this part) of the discussion - without drawing any conclusions by comparing what is not compared in the text.

as i said, probably just my insufficient understanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i see. I also saw what Gaston wrote but i couldnt tell whether Kettenhunde agreed or not. It all seemed a little strange - 109 booming and zooming while the 190's dogfight?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


-Geee, what could POSSIBLY be the meaning of that to an objective person?

As far as to how the FW-190 matches up to lightweight Soviet types, I don't remember making any claims about that: I find it impressive that the 190 matched the Yak-7 in left turns, since the Yak-7 was a training aircraft that was put into fighter production because its turn performance and handling were surprisingly good... The FW-190As are however referred to HERE as "invitably offering turning combat at a minimum speed", this in the context of being "quite different" from the Me-109...

http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-eu...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

Other nice quotes:

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

-But what do they know? They're up against the opinion of SIMMERS for Pete's sake!

"If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

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

-More fruitful than HORIZONTAL maneuvers apparently, AND specific to the FW-190... NEVER heard the tactic of vertical maneuvers mentionned as a good idea by the Soviets against the Me-109...


"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). 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)."

-WOW, that's clear evidence of great high-speed handling right there...



Hey, what about some official 360 TURN TIMES where the FW-190A-4 OUT-TURNS THE BF-109G-2 for a change?:


http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm

BF-109F-4: 20.5 seconds

BF-109G-2/r6 (with 20 mm gondolas): 23 seconds

BF-109G-2: 21 seconds.

FW-190A-4: 19-23 seconds. (Note the FW-190A-8 would have done worse at full power given the 6" longer nose and greater power, so an actual Western Front 190A-8 ace said he downthrottled well before the merge even occurred...)

Lagg-3: 19 seconds

La-5F: 19-20 seconds (This clearly demonstrates the La-5F here was turning at full power, the extra power vs lagg-3 cancelling the short-nose leverage advantage apparently...)

Yak-1: 21 seconds

Yak-9: 17 seconds (strange, as it was not known as the lightweight of the Yak series)

I don't know why the FW-190A has a large 19-23 sec. range like this (pilot skill issues?), but I do know the left-side turn preference usually attributed to it by the Russians and others was actually reversed, at low speeds only, when the flaps where deployed (they are correct about the left-side preference with flaps up): See E. Brown's flight report, and the complete change in the side of the wing drop with flaps down... According to an actual FW-190A-8 pilot, the use of flaps at low speed was critical, and downthrottling and dropping the flaps was done even before combat was entered, and he reversed a tailing P-51D in 3X 360° turns at low speed to the RIGHT...

Closterman mentions in "Le Grand Cirque" that FW-190As started to use flaps later in the war to "turn a little tighter". Oh, and you'll NEVER guess how he compares the Me-109 and the FW-190A... Here is a memorable comparison sentence: "The main characteristic of the Me-109 (in a comparison to the FW-190) is its use of speed..."

Quote, iR4tiOn4L (again, but worth it): "Ah, i see. I also saw what Gaston wrote but i couldnt tell whether Kettenhunde agreed or not. It all seemed a little strange - 109 booming and zooming while the 190's dogfight?!"

-Again, Actual OBSERVED Luftwaffe tactics: What could possibly be the conclusion of this, especially since high firepower is more a benefit in a "Boom and Zoom" high-speed overtake than it is in steady co-equal speed turn-fighting?

I was always struck Closterman NEVER mentions that the Me-109 out-turns the FW-190A, but details improvements to the FW-190A's turn tactics by the use of a "new" flap setting while turning, while citing the Me-109's use of speed as a primary characteristic...

Just WHERE are all those turn-fighting Me-109s hiding? Well... Karhila did mention a best sustained turn speed of 160 MPH... AND, what do you know, heavy use of downthrottling to gain the edge in sustained turns...

But we all know the physics of leverage don't apply to flight, right?

Nice to know I am not the only one around here to smell the roses...

Gaston

Gaston444
03-24-2010, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Take it from me: the US Navy knew a lot more about FW-190 combat and tactics than the Soviets did!

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only you are saying that. The USN did have extensive experience fighting actual low-speed turn fighters though. Really, I think the lady that answered the telephones at Pax River understood more about airplanes than you.

Of course, we'll all have to eat our words when the Nobel Committee recognizes you for your pioneering work in mathless physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-And how many FW-190As did the US Navy shoot down compared to the Russians?

Gaston

TS_Sancho
03-24-2010, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
-But what do they know? They're up against the opinion of SIMMERS for Pete's sake!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the simmers in the crowd have been quiet for awhile now, most of the people you are arguing with are pilots and engineers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Nice to know I am not the only one around here to smell the roses...

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you know that Olfactory hallucinations are occasionally a symptom of a brain tumor?

I'd get that looked into...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jameson2010
03-24-2010, 05:04 PM
Fw190g3 test report 26 May 1944 conducted at Wright Field by Major G. E. Lundquist.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...rg/fw190/eb-104.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html)

Section H makes interesting reading...

AndyJWest
03-24-2010, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey, what about some official 360 TURN TIMES where the FW-190A-4 OUT-TURNS THE BF-109G-2 for a change?:


http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm

BF-109F-4: 20.5 seconds

BF-109G-2/r6 (with 20 mm gondolas): 23 seconds

BF-109G-2: 21 seconds.

FW-190A-4: 19-23 seconds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Official turn times?" I wasn't aware that the VVS had websites during WW II. How exactly is this data official?

Other that when equipped with gondolas (doh!) the 109G-2 turn speed in your source is the same as the 190. Or do you think you can ignore such concepts as an average when it suits you? (even you can do the maths for that, I'd hope)

R_Target
03-24-2010, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
-And how many FW-190As did the US Navy shoot down compared to the Russians?

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None. So what? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that combat engagements are not controlled conditions and do not yield reliable data? How many Fw-190s did the Soviets say they shot down? How many did they actually shoot down?

R_Target
03-24-2010, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Now you've gone and spoiled the surprise. What am I going to do with all these party hats? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Save those hats. We'll have to have a "Best Fighter of WWII" thread before this place shuts down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

BillSwagger
03-24-2010, 06:52 PM
i have yet to see the actual report, but it seems the soviets were quite extensive in their testing of various aircraft.

I think they even tested planes ability to turn from a shallow dive, or from top level speed into the tightest possible turn, unstained and the time it took to do a 360.

You have to think there is more than a bit of legitimacy to these numbers, afterall look who one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I know, i know, there are a variety of reasons for the war ending the way it did, but to make an analogy, i don't see an army of a nation telling its soldiers the range of their enemy's gun is 2000 yards, when in fact its really 3000 yards.

It is how they (the pilots) know if to go vertical or horizontal in a dogfight.
I doubt they would instruct their pilots to use vertical maneuvers against a plane that was superior to theirs in the vertical. Indeed, some people have a concept of how a particular plane flew based on a simulator, which is why having a discussion of this caliber on ubi always seems to go down the same route.

M_Gunz
03-24-2010, 07:02 PM
Mustang one teh war?

BillSwagger
03-24-2010, 07:16 PM
Its funny you ask, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I think its great that we can debate these kind of things half heartedly but i have to think many of those events that define our perceptions today happened so long ago that its difficult to separate the BS from the propaganda, grandpas war stories, and over 60 years of eroded historical knowledge.

I've thumbed through combat books that give statistics from different fighter groups, and i don't have a ready example, so i'll use a fictional pilot combat record:

P-40 1 kill
P-47 2 kills 4 on ground
P-51 7 kills 3 damaged

Which tends to tell you how big of a difference the Mustang must've been for some pilots.


Bill

Kettenhunde
03-24-2010, 07:30 PM
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5928/la5g1.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/la5g1.jpg/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5268/la5g2.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/la5g2.jpg/)

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1730/la5g3.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/la5g3.jpg/)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7039/la5g4.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/la5g4.jpg/)

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1691/la5fnlerche.jpg (http://img22.imageshack.us/i/la5fnlerche.jpg/)

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6671/la5fnlerche2.jpg (http://img710.imageshack.us/i/la5fnlerche2.jpg/)

Kettenhunde
03-24-2010, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hey, what about some official 360 TURN TIMES where the FW-190A-4 OUT-TURNS THE BF-109G-2 for a change?: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The VVS did not test for steady altitude sustained turn times. They used what was termed a "combat turn". We call it a chandelle today and you must perform one when you get a commercial rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A Chandelle is a steep climbing turn in an aircraft. It is designed to not only gain altitude but also alter direction. The change of direction can vary from 90 to 180 degrees. A pilot does not have to tolerate a significant amount of g forces to complete the maneuver. It is a maneuver also designed to conserve energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.ehow.com/how_209883...rform-chandelle.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_2098832_perform-chandelle.html)

TheGrunch
03-24-2010, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The VVS did not test for steady altitude sustained turn times. They used what was termed a "combat turn". We call it a chandelle today and you must perform one when you get a commercial rating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you know what the methodology was for those tests?

Kettenhunde
03-24-2010, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you know what the methodology was for those tests? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the same chandelle we use to today. A chandelle is a maximum performance turn that is very much a test of pilot skill. According to the La-5 POH, a standard combat turn is entered at 500kph and exited at 250kph.

This table shows the altitude gain in the turn:

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fighters.shtml

TheGrunch
03-24-2010, 09:31 PM
That's an interesting site, thanks!

irR4tiOn4L
03-25-2010, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Mustang one teh war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pfftt, please. Everyone knows it was 0.50 Calls that won the war!

Have you seen what they do to Tigers?

Be sure!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
document </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately i cannot read German. What does that say?

M_Gunz
03-25-2010, 12:49 AM
We've had over 20 pages because a pilot wrote about bouncing 50 cals off road surface to
penetrate under the "Tiger Tank" he strafed and of course blew it up.

Maybe a Tiger, maybe not "but he was there!" which means he saw and knew perfectly.
And there's no chance the drivers' hatch or any other was open either, he didn't say that.

irR4tiOn4L
03-25-2010, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
We've had over 20 pages because a pilot wrote about bouncing 50 cals off road surface to
penetrate under the "Tiger Tank" he strafed and of course blew it up.

Maybe a Tiger, maybe not "but he was there!" which means he saw and knew perfectly.
And there's no chance the drivers' hatch or any other was open either, he didn't say that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol you have truly no idea how long that argument has been going. Since the very first time i joined some 4 or 5 years ago this has been a source of much hilarity for the less emotionally invested on these forums - the super power of 0.50 calls!

Of course it was not so funny for those who opposed Mustangs with bullets that can tear up tanks, but then such is the way of the forums.

What little i can remember, it was concluded there was simply no way that bullets could penetrate the underside of a Tiger, even 0.50 calls. The angle was too improbable, and would likely bounce off the underside too, and then theres the question of whether theyd penetrate at all.

Most concluded that it was things like tracks being damaged or fuel cannisters being set on fire that led to pilots making claims for Tiger 'kills' with P47's and mustangs.

Maybe you were there in that discussion? I dont know, it was a long time ago

Daisan1981
03-25-2010, 05:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4806/captureda4.png

<span class="ev_code_WHITE">- 3min. 49cek. Large scratch on the left wing</span>

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

Most concluded that it was things like tracks being damaged or fuel cannisters being set on fire that led to pilots making claims for Tiger 'kills' with P47's and mustangs.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It leads to myth vs legend discussions similar to this one, but then you hear or read of combat tactics utilized by pilots when strafing tanks and it might lead you to lean more towards fact than fiction.

When an element descended on a tank column, first thing they did is dive bomb to get rid of the extra weight, and then they lined up single file on the column and did a strafing run down the column line in very close succession with each plane right after the other. (usually 4 to 10 planes)
Its obvious to me the tactics were effective, however forum dwellers would like to spin it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> unknown forum user:

tiger rear uper engine armor is only 25mm thick

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tige...eme_Tiger1.png

and .50 cal ammo penetration is about 23 mm and when many bullets fall in same direction can penetrate tiger plate falling one by one

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/i...g/50_ammo.html

and after all tiger engine cooling system wasn't armored as though as it could not be penetrated by .50 cal and in cause of overheat engine will stop(tiger immobilized)

http://germandressdaggers.com/Panzer...er%20plans.jpg

on uper view behind turret there are on two grilles on left and right and under them are radiators which can be damaged by .50 cal bullets and as I stated tiger would be immobilized in cause of overheat

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Bill

M_Gunz
03-25-2010, 11:57 AM
If you hit 25mm homogenous rolled armor plate (not the strongest) squarely from 100 yards or less
with a .50 it should penetrate. Hitting at a low angle after bouncing off stone with all the energy
loss that entails -- from a distance long enough your plane doesn't ram the target or ground....
is it guessing to say no way it's going to penetrate let alone penetrate and kill/destroy inside?

I only gave that recurring discussion as an example of how strongly pilots accounts are held onto
in the face of all else.

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 12:43 PM
All we have are pilot accounts or statements in those situations which can tell a great deal of detail, but we aren't asking how fast the P-47 needs to dive or if how much it sank on pull out. We are asking if 50 caliber bullets killed tiger tanks?
My view is it doesn't matter much if the bullets penetrate armor or not, if several hundred bullets hit a tank its bound to jar something loose, be it a fuel line, welded joints, or even the wheels. The end result is the same. Tank is immobilized.

Getting a pilot to talk about a planes turning ability in combat is going to be less concrete unless you are talking to a pilot who has had the opportunity to fly both aircraft for a sufficient amount of time. There is some statistical value to pilot combat reports, but there is a tendency to cherry pick in these type of debates. If out of 100 combat reports you start to see a lot of the same types of results or descriptions then some commonalities can be formed, but you can't pick one or two and make it the basis for your argument.

Also we talk about performance envelopes of various aircraft like they are that much different, but i have to think there is not much to discern from, plane A, that has an 18 second turn time to, plane B, that has a 20 second turn time, or at least not enough to make a difference in combat where plane B is chasing plane A. You can say perhaps one plane rides the prop to help gain in turn performance, but we are really only looking at a marginal increase for a brief period of time. A plane doesn't go from a 20 second turn time to a 17 second turn time because the pilot is super ultra expert at riding its prop.


Bill

TS_Sancho
03-25-2010, 02:27 PM
If you factor individual aircrafts performance with piloting ability you could easily see a 3 second difference in turn time performance.

Kettenhunde has stated that performance variation of +/- 10% in aircraft production is considered acceptable which by itself allows a 2 second difference in a 20 second predicted turn.

Take an airframe that has been in front line combat for a length of time and subject to rudimentary maintenance and compare it with a factory fresh example, make an allowance for differences in pilot skill etc.

From my perspective it's easy to see why there are such large disparities between different performance reports from similar aircraft types.

P.S.... Please lets not start the .50 cal killing Tiger tank debate again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

M_Gunz
03-25-2010, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
All we have are pilot accounts or statements in those situations which can tell a great deal of detail, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have yet to see one that tells more than it leaves out. A few details well explained.. maybe.
Readers filling in what they think.. there you have the great detail and some may be true.

There were German tanks fit with smoke projectors and anti-close-assault devices that could also
obscure the tank with smoke from their grenade blasts. Any of that used by the tank crew could
easily be mistaken from air as 'tank destroyed'.

50 cals might break a track or find an open hatch but it's not something you count on or use up
ammo on the small chance is it? Maybe you do but those bullets are better used on lighter targets.

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
50 cals might break a track or find an open hatch but it's not something you count on or use up
ammo on the small chance is it? Maybe you do but those bullets are better used on lighter targets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree not the most efficient use of the weapon but it still did the job. In the context of the ground support and ground pounder roll, Allied air patrols essentially shut down the roads during the day. i'm sure they shot at anything that moved, even if it were a donkey. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On another forum someone also mentioned that dropping bombs near or on tanks is enough to rattle them apart to the extent where fuels leak and you all you'd need to do is ignite it with API. If not from the bombs dropped by a P-47, then the battle zone itself was full of mortor fire and anti-tank rounds that could easily cause the same problems although not completely incapacitate the tank.

This is kind of going off subject, so i'll leave it alone.


Bill

thefruitbat
03-25-2010, 05:23 PM
its like godwins law, only a ubi varient.

any thread that runs for 50+ pages will inevitably turn to 50's killed tigers, lol.

to funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

I've thumbed through combat books that give statistics from different fighter groups, and i don't have a ready example, so i'll use a fictional pilot combat record:

P-40 1 kill
P-47 2 kills 4 on ground
P-51 7 kills 3 damaged

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This article touches on what i said earlier.

air combat victories 15th Air force MTO, April 1943 - May 1945

P-40 victories 144 (kill ratio 6/1)
P-47 victories 173 (kill ratio 8.2/1)
P-51 victories 268 (kill ratio 8.1/1)
(these include probable kills and unknown losses)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14.../325th-Fighter-Group (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14919665/325th-Fighter-Group)

irR4tiOn4L
03-25-2010, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
its like godwins law, only a ubi varient.

any thread that runs for 50+ pages will inevitably turn to 50's killed tigers, lol.

to funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too funny, i agree!

I especially fondly remember the comments that would start up as the argument had got heated for a long time, with jokesters talking about 'people reliving their glorious victories in the battles of the obscure graphs' and other such downright hilarity!

M_Gunz
03-25-2010, 10:14 PM
Here is the thread with links to VVS pilot accounts/interviews. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3431087335)

Add: the OP has links to one series, later on are links to others like Lend-Lease Airforce -- this link is to the English translations (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/)

na85
03-25-2010, 10:36 PM
We're almost at 60 pages... guess we should start talking about the fifty cals.

Gaston! I heard that everyone's perception of the .50 cal is wrong, and that there are some ambiguous pilot accounts to prove it! Get on this!

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 11:07 PM
Hey, i don't think much has changed since the 50 calibers taking a wing off the 190 thread.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Bill

irR4tiOn4L
03-26-2010, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
We're almost at 60 pages... guess we should start talking about the fifty cals.

Gaston! I heard that everyone's perception of the .50 cal is wrong, and that there are some ambiguous pilot accounts to prove it! Get on this! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obscure graph! I want an obscure graph!

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 10:30 AM
Don't forget that the maths proves you wrong, and me right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So we have many pro's and con's about the FW190's turning ability in combat, which makes all arguments about this really silly.

Some pilots knew how to handle their planes better to get the upper hand. I vaguely remember that Closterman story, where the FW pilot was using and elliptical yoyo turn to outturn the Spit.

So there you have it - FW190 can out turn Spit.. bit of a bugger for all the maths, charts and other theories.. don't you think
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

By the same token those Allied pilots could do the same.. but I'd imagine Closterman was no 'newbie', so that particular FW guy obviously knew his business.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
So there you have it - FW190 can out turn Spit.. bit of a bugger for all the maths, charts and other theories.. don't you think
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're taking credit for...what exactly? The FW-190 certainly can't out-turn the Spit in a sustained low-speed level turning competition, can it? That's what Gaston is trying to argue.
Most aircraft of a similar level of performance can outmanoeuvre a slower, level-turning opponent with a yo-yo. As I pointed out earlier. So what did you say that was so wise and illuminating that everyone else missed? Because I don't remember you making any sensible contribution to this discussion.

jameson2010
03-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Came across this, a documentary about fw190 design and operation, interesting footage of the prototype and Gunther talking briefly on various points.
Wings of Luftwaffe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6peei4ZmK7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...T9P8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX7-oOdT9P8&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35NO0i5KqY8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtehxD414ac&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...fo&NR=1&feature=fvwp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h8FYYDjjfo&NR=1&feature=fvwp)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbmZadI3j8&NR=1

This documentary about air war on eastern front:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...I7hk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JCsrjDI7hk&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy8za2vNrt4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldj95kicqM4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...dCd8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo-jm94dCd8&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RE2Ib3veU&NR=1

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 12:11 PM
Thanks jameson!

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 01:21 PM
AS mentioned before.. with maths and modelling under controlled conditions.... Fine, you might be able to get close to reality.

But as usual in RL (Reading Parts 1,2..etc) we all know that a DF is far from the maths, charts bits and pieces. Guidelines = Yes. But nitty gritty = No

This is where I think Gaston is going, but most are getting stuck on insignificant details, instead of seeing the big picture.

I'll wait for the 'next wave' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Errr.. Ahemmm!! Were we not condemming youtube references a few posts back http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 01:30 PM
I don't think that's where Gaston is going at all. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the big picture, thank you very much. Gaston is clearly trying to argue that the FW-190 is a good low-speed flat-turn fighter via a load of convoluted made-up physics (nothing to do with what you and I might call 'sensible tactics' for example of using a high yo-yo or a lag displacement roll to outmanoeuvre a turning fighter) and that the majority of Second World War aerial combat was in turning battles. That's got nothing to do with the big picture, it's just Gaston's weird fantasy.
More important than Gaston's weird theories to this entire discussion are factors that he has not mentioned at all like pilot experience, fatigue and variations in aircraft performance due to differences in the quality of individual aircraft. With an emphasis on pilot-related factors.
If Gaston was capable of 'seeing the big picture' he would NOT produce theories that hinge entirely upon single pilot anecdotes. That's basically the definition of tunnel-vision.

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
... NOT produce theories that hinge entirely upon single pilot anecdotes. That's basically the definition of tunnel-vision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which incidently has been the same story of many here.
And unless you actually have all these a/c on hand (as they were in WW2 DFs) You cannot prove any different http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
And unless you actually have all these a/c on hand (as they were in WW2) You cannot prove any different http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tru dat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We'll have to wait until White 1 flies, eh?

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 01:40 PM
I always dream of a time machine, where I can steal a FW190 from a WW2 airfield.. and 'bring it home'.
My next project.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 01:53 PM
"So, son, who are you, why are you wearing those strange clothes and how did you come to be in a German POW camp? I can't give you an AA battery, they're military property! What? What other kind of AA battery is there?!"

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 02:41 PM
I was thinking of the problem of talking german.. I'm very fimiliar with the FW190 (IL2 + some other a/c) controls..

"I say.. excuse me while I borrow this plane old chap.. You lost the war anyway, but all I want to do is prove to the guys on the UBI forum, is that the FW190 can outturn a Spitfire - Ja???"

Think the guard on duty will have a sense of humor!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 02:57 PM
Hmm, I wouldn't think so, not in 1943/44. And you wouldn't want one from '45. Not a good vintage.

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Hmm, I wouldn't think so, not in 1943/44. And you wouldn't want one from '45. Not a good vintage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hopefully a Red One would 'taste' better than a White One ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Edt: Actually can you pass on the link for White One
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 03:36 PM
Yup! (http://www.white1foundation.org/)

irR4tiOn4L
03-26-2010, 10:38 PM
Hold on - the Yo yo turn;

http://www.studio-erebus.com/redbaron/chapter2.html
"Yo-Yo turns come in two varieties: low and high. The basic principal for both turns is the same, just slightly differing application is necessary depending on which you wish to perform. The purpose of a Yo-Yo turn is to cut through the middle of a circle you are turning in. The best example is if you were chasing an opponent, using the banking turn, but could not catch up with his tail to get in a shot; a Yo-Yo turn might be very appropriate.

In general the Low Yo-Yo should be used when you are flying very slowly, or have lost most of your energy. The LYY is done by cutting your throttle, and dropping your nose inside the circle you were turning. When you drop your nose, you may for a short moment view your enemy you were chasing. You should increase your throttle after your nose drops, and utilize that increased throttle as well as the energy you gained by dropping your nose to climb back up and keep turning after him. After executing this turn a few times you should have brought yourself within the range necessary to make a shot.
The High Yo-Yo is similar in concept to the Low Yo-Yo, just slightly different application. It is better used when you are circling at a high speed, and can not seem to catch up to the opponent. The HYY is done by noseing up, and then falling back over, and towards your opponent. You might best assist the falling back towards him by cutting the throttle slightly"


Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance?

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, that's because it was so easy to over-rev the engines of First World War aircraft, so you'd throttle back to lower revs before the dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or very likely blip the engine, in some of the more famous rotary-engined aircraft.

AndyJWest
03-26-2010, 10:47 PM
The first sentence in the article irR4tiOn4L cites:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This section of the guide will cover some of the more widely used flight maneuvers in online Red Baron </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly an authoritative guide to air combat manoeuvring in WW II. Having said that though, the description of the basic principles of yo-yos seems sound. I fail to see however, unless an aircraft is close to over-revving before it starts the yo-yo, why it would need to throttle back - this seems to merely waste a chance to get on your enemy's tail sooner.

EDIT (twice!)---
TheGrunch beat me to it...
(Sorry Grunch, somehow wrote 'Gaston' when I meant you. Doh!)

TheGrunch
03-26-2010, 10:59 PM
Well, it means you can let the engine run wild for a few seconds (probably at most) while you're potentially shooting. Less to think about when you could be making a kill, I guess.

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Hold on - the Yo yo turn;

http://www.studio-erebus.com/redbaron/chapter2.html
"Yo-Yo turns come in two varieties: low and high. The basic principal for both turns is the same, just slightly differing application is necessary depending on which you wish to perform. The purpose of a Yo-Yo turn is to cut through the middle of a circle you are turning in. The best example is if you were chasing an opponent, using the banking turn, but could not catch up with his tail to get in a shot; a Yo-Yo turn might be very appropriate.

In general the Low Yo-Yo should be used when you are flying very slowly, or have lost most of your energy. The LYY is done by cutting your throttle, and dropping your nose inside the circle you were turning. When you drop your nose, you may for a short moment view your enemy you were chasing. You should increase your throttle after your nose drops, and utilize that increased throttle as well as the energy you gained by dropping your nose to climb back up and keep turning after him. After executing this turn a few times you should have brought yourself within the range necessary to make a shot.
The High Yo-Yo is similar in concept to the Low Yo-Yo, just slightly different application. It is better used when you are circling at a high speed, and can not seem to catch up to the opponent. The HYY is done by noseing up, and then falling back over, and towards your opponent. You might best assist the falling back towards him by cutting the throttle slightly"


Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You only reduce throttle for short periods in those maneuvers and in RB it's not that big a help.

irR4tiOn4L
03-27-2010, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Hold on - the Yo yo turn;

http://www.studio-erebus.com/redbaron/chapter2.html
"Yo-Yo turns come in two varieties: low and high. The basic principal for both turns is the same, just slightly differing application is necessary depending on which you wish to perform. The purpose of a Yo-Yo turn is to cut through the middle of a circle you are turning in. The best example is if you were chasing an opponent, using the banking turn, but could not catch up with his tail to get in a shot; a Yo-Yo turn might be very appropriate.

In general the Low Yo-Yo should be used when you are flying very slowly, or have lost most of your energy. The LYY is done by cutting your throttle, and dropping your nose inside the circle you were turning. When you drop your nose, you may for a short moment view your enemy you were chasing. You should increase your throttle after your nose drops, and utilize that increased throttle as well as the energy you gained by dropping your nose to climb back up and keep turning after him. After executing this turn a few times you should have brought yourself within the range necessary to make a shot.
The High Yo-Yo is similar in concept to the Low Yo-Yo, just slightly different application. It is better used when you are circling at a high speed, and can not seem to catch up to the opponent. The HYY is done by noseing up, and then falling back over, and towards your opponent. You might best assist the falling back towards him by cutting the throttle slightly"


Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You only reduce throttle for short periods in those maneuvers and in RB it's not that big a help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes only short periods and as that describes - its just the first link i pulled up on google, does anyone have a better link to how to do a yo yo turn?

Anyway my point is - what if the pilots described a yo yo as 'downthrottling' - although they meant only very temporarily - but Gaston misunderstood this to mean sustained lowering of the throttle?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, that's because it was so easy to over-rev the engines of First World War aircraft, so you'd throttle back to lower revs before the dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or very likely blip the engine, in some of the more famous rotary-engined aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how do you do a yo yo turn in WWII era aircraft? Does it still work?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
The first sentence in the article irR4tiOn4L cites:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This section of the guide will cover some of the more widely used flight maneuvers in online Red Baron </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly an authoritative guide to air combat manoeuvring in WW II. Having said that though, the description of the basic principles of yo-yos seems sound. I fail to see however, unless an aircraft is close to over-revving before it starts the yo-yo, why it would need to throttle back - this seems to merely waste a chance to get on your enemy's tail sooner.

EDIT ---
Gaston beat me to it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its just the first link i found. Nothing sinister, ive actually never heard of a yo yo turn before.

It only occured to me when i googled out of curiosity this 'yo yo' turn that TheGrunch was mentioning

Kettenhunde
03-27-2010, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So how do you do a yo yo turn in WWII era aircraft? Does it still work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wouldn't take the advice of a 15 year old game to fly an airplane.

irR4tiOn4L
03-27-2010, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So how do you do a yo yo turn in WWII era aircraft? Does it still work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wouldn't take the advice of a 15 year old game to fly an airplane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In relation to what? The downthrottling component?

The maneouvre is clearly valid, even in WWII aircraft - its more of a vertical maneouvre, or an 'out of plane' maneouvre.
http://books.google.com.au/boo...0yo%20combat&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hBxBdKr0beYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=yo+yo+combat&source=bl&ots=9qds4FlMMd&sig=BkXtZkHvMkWuf6TCEDMPEGq27CQ&hl=en&ei=nzquS5HXKsuLkAWZsL3BDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yo%20yo%20combat&f=false)

But no mention of throttling down. I will see if throttling down is mentioned by pilots when performing the yo yo

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 11:21 AM
This should be very simple. You cut power at speed with a fixed prop or CSP prop set to maintain RPM
and your prop becomes draggy. It is up front on the AC which is a free body that will swing about its
own CoG and you push it off to one side. Hello? Does the word weather-vane make any sense?

It is a way to -start- a turn only. It does rob some speed but if you are going down and get the power
back up as soon as your turn establishes then no real loss there.

With WWI AC that had rotary engines where the whole engine and not just the prop turned, it was a fight
to turn in one direction and a trick in the other so this was a bigger help than with non-rotaries.

Starting a turn, not sustaining it.

We do the same when cornering motorcycles for not terribly different reasons.

irR4tiOn4L
03-27-2010, 11:28 AM
A yoyo turn does not work better by virtue of downthrottling - it is a vertical maneouvre
http://www.musketeers.org/?page_id=93

Was throttling down helpful in a yoyo? I dont know. Im trying to find out.

EDIT - the IL2 manual suggests reducing throttle in a low yo yo so as not to 'gain too much speed' But im none the wiser on whether throttling down is a part of a yo yo

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 11:46 AM
It depends on which account you refer to what kind of mistake he's made. Or perhaps you could say
that he's made mistakes in interpreting -everything he can find with any mention of throttling down
as support and twisting it further-.
In at least one account we are looking at relative plane and pilot differences that he gives zero
credit for. That may be true for all, it's hard to say when the account does not.

Certainly the use of the vertical is not always described yet I've read through one Russian account
of how 109s were described as turning while swooping up and down and nearly impossible to predict
where they would go next or when they would be in line to fire on you.
When you see that it is important to remember that is a tactic to preserve speed advantage and not
the definition of any certain plane or type of plane. It works better with some planes especially
against some others but difference in speed is the main criteria of use, not what is flown, that
only makes it a little easier or harder which may change how long you might have. Pilot differences
and whether or not or just the target counters make the much bigger difference than what planes
(leaving out jets on afterburner here) are involved once the situation is established. In getting
to that point and how much speed difference you might have, that is what having the faster plane
is for, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EDIT - the IL2 manual suggests reducing throttle in a low yo yo so as not to 'gain too much speed' But im none the wiser on whether throttling down is a part of a yo yo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on your speed difference. You can have too much. How high you want to yoyo?

Kettenhunde
03-27-2010, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In relation to what? The downthrottling component? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was referring to the down throttling.

M_Gunz raises a good point. In a fixed pitch propeller the engine is much more sensitive to air load and rpm rise. You have to watch the tach more closely than the manifold pressure gauge on a CSP.

On a CSP the air load has to bottom the stops before the manifold pressure will rise significantly so it has a wider tolerance for velocity changes.

TS_Sancho
03-27-2010, 01:12 PM
How many of you guys actually dogfight in the game?

Depending on your entry speed reducing your throttle will improve your cornering time and in the right situation put you exactly where you want to be.

Regardless of the maneuver, throttle management is critical to maintaining your best cornering speed. Zooming around b@lls to the wall is a rookie mistake, most of you should know that by now.

My two cents....

AndyJWest
03-27-2010, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regardless of the maneuver, throttle management is critical to maintaining your best cornering speed. Zooming around b@lls to the wall is a rookie mistake, most of you should know that by now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is a properly executed high yo-yo allows you to both conserve e and turn tight if you are above best sustained-turn speed ('cornering speed' seems to mean different things to different people). Rather than downthrottling to reduce speed, you are climbing to achieve the same effect, so can convert height back to speed later. Properly executed, you may also get some benefit from being able to roll into the turn while out of horizontal. I think I learned to yo-yo early on flying IL-2, and only later found out what it was called.

A low yo-yo is essentially a one-off manoeuvre in most circumstances, in my experience.

BillSwagger
03-27-2010, 03:23 PM
Sort of as an after thought, we've been mainly focusing on the turning abilities after reading some articles including this one:

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

But now I wonder if the 109 was the stronger plane in the vertical.

As suggested the La-5 was a superior plane in the vertical to the 190, but vertical maneuvers were avoided against 109s, so my logic tells me the 109 was better in the vertical of the three aircraft.

To make a better distinction, however, speed plays an important roll in the vertical, where maybe because the 109s were often higher and attacking from such positions that their subsequent zoom climbs would be much more effective. The article also mentions how crucial it is for the La-5 to match the speed of the Fw190 so it can retain a vertical advantage.


Bill

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 08:51 PM
Strong in the vertical depends mostly if not totally on your relative speed to the enemy.

na85
03-27-2010, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Strong in the vertical depends mostly if not totally on your relative speed to the enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno, I think T/W ratio is pretty important.

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 10:13 PM
If you don't start co-E then even a Spit V can bounce a FW that is going slower and yoyo his six.

While few of these planes are greatly better than another the tactical situation can be so even
to more than completely reverse advantages for a period of time.

Of course if the same Spit V doesn't succeed in his bounce and possible followup, he is in trouble
since running away is not a good option.

Oh and T/W is highly dependent on speed, especially with prop fighters. Generally the faster planes
don't have it, the pilots substitute inertia and higher V-speed.

Gaston444
03-28-2010, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

The High Yo-Yo is similar in concept to the Low Yo-Yo, just slightly different application. It is better used when you are circling at a high speed, and can not seem to catch up to the opponent. The HYY is done by noseing up, and then falling back over, and towards your opponent. You might best assist the falling back towards him by cutting the throttle slightly"


Could it be that this is Gaston's 'downthrottling' - and the answer to the puzzle? That Gaston's pilot accounts, who say they benefitted from 'downthrottling', were performing yo yo turns to get a bead on less skilled opponents, and Gaston misunderstood this as sustained performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-No yoyo here (near ground level turning):

http://www.spitfireperformance...hanseman-24may44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg)

Quote: "Gradually I worked (by using multiple on-the-deck 360°s) the Me-109 away from the airfield, and commenced to turn inside him as I decreased throttle settings"

Altitude? 500 ft... Not a lot of room for fictional yo-yos, now is there? Karhila makes no mention of yo-yoing either, when he said he preferred turn-fighting his Me-109G-6 at around 160 MPH, after much throttling-down, and contrasting his style to that of pilots who "added power THEN turned: I did the opposite and turned just as well"...


I'm sorry but why use your imagination rather than just stick to what is written?

-Johnny Johnson makes no mention of a "diving turn", or of a yo-yoing FW-190A... He DOES mention being at "full throttle", and I NEVER said the Spit could not match or gain in low-speed turning vs a FW-190A...

-The "Russian experience" quoted above says: "FW-190 has a better horizontal maneuverability than the Me-109"

-Johnny Johnson, post-war, said "The FW-190 turned better than the Me-109": http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)

-"Russian experience" says: "The FW-190 does not like vertical maneuvers" and "will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed"

-German tactics show a preference for the FW-190A as a turn fighter and the Me-109 as a boom and zoomer:

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

The Russians do say they find the Me-109 a tougher opponent in most cicumstances, but they make continually numerous references to its superior climb rate and even its superior acceleration in dives. Look instead for Me-109s yo-yoing while you are at it...

Quote:

"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."

-Soviet 360° Turn times for the FW-190A-4 ranges from 19-23 seconds (left-right discrepancy?). Soviet documents posted here reveal a one second improvement for the FW-190A-5 due to the center of gravity, and thus the wing's center of lift, being moved forward: So maybe 18-22 sec. Me-109F: 20.5 seconds. Clean Me-109G-2: 22 seconds.

-8th Air Force pilots as a group all say the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109 (ask any of their aces). As do the British AFDU tests. Soviet and British combat pilots agree, except for a few dissenting Soviet pilots.

Against all that (not exhaustive) compilation: US navy tests of the FW-190 vs US Navy types, and the lone German La-5 evaluation. To call that "balanced" is pathetic...

Oh, and a "floret" IS straight while a "sabre" IS curved... What did Rall intend to clarify when he said that?

It could'nt POSSIBLY be related to how they "interacted" in the Soviet observations above, now could it?

Why prop up fictions by adding unstated "facts"?... As a rule of thumb, unstated things are better taken as "not there"...

Gaston

AndyJWest
03-28-2010, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Soviet documents posted here reveal a one second improvement for the FW-190A-5 due to the center of gravity, and thus the wing's center of lift, being moved forward: So maybe 18-22 sec. Me-109F: 20.5 seconds. Clean Me-109G-2: 22 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'and thus'? Drivel. If you want to increase instantaneous pitch response (at the expense of lateral stability), you move the CoG backwards. Basic physics. In terms of sustained turn, for practical purposes provided there are no stability issues, I don't think CoG position would make any noticeable difference, though if someone with actual knowledge of aerodynamics would care to correct me, I'd be interested to hear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Why prop up fictions by adding unstated "facts"?... As a rule of thumb, unstated things are better taken as "not there"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stop doing it then, Gaston.

jameson2010
03-28-2010, 06:42 AM
Fw190g3 test report 26 May 1944 conducted at Wright Field by Major G. E. Lundquist, section H as no one seems to have read it.

H. Maneuverability and Aerobatics

The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.

Eric Brown flying fw190 @
http://findarticles.com/p/arti..._200010/ai_n8925541/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200010/ai_n8925541/)

from this:

It could do incredible aileron turns that would have torn the wings off a 109, and the ailerons maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400mph (645km/h) before becoming heavy.

The elevators proved to be moderately heavy at all speeds, particularly at above 350mph (565km/h), when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction with regard to pullout from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch that was evident at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change of trim happened was around 220mph (355km/h), and it could easily be gauged in turns. Below that speed, the Fw 190 had a tendency to tighten up in a turn, but above 220mph, some backward stick pressure was required to hold the turn. Thus, in combat, the pilot had to be aware that if he dived on the enemy to get enough speed to follow him into a steep turn, he had to ensure that he didn't lighten his initial pull force by using the trimmer. As speed fell off in the turn, he would have a sudden reversal of stick force that could tighten the turn so much that the plane would depart dramatically into a spin. Most of the early Fw 190 pilots were, however, too well-trained to lose their cool to that extent in battle.

My conclusions are that you could turn fight in an fw190 if you were aware of the above and were well trained and experienced enough to remember it in combat.

The 190 was able to change direction faster than other aircraft due to it's high roll rate and thus able to begin to turn quicker as well. But any kind of sustained turn getting near 90 degrees or more just burnt speed.

The Soviet reports cited show that the Germans were very confident in their own abilities and aircraft and that the Russians were tactically inept, and had little combat experience. They had to be told to use their foot, i.e. the rudder, when fighting at stall speeds. I believe they were always told to fly with "the ball in the middle".

Gaston turn fighting could be done but why would you risk your life to do it, as Hartmann said dogfighting was for fools. Use the 190's high speed and awesome firepower, go in, kill and get the hell out. Which is exactly what every 190 and 109 pilot would do and did if he could! Turning fights "were offered" when it was imperative to destroy bombers or at least get them to turn around and go home, your troops died on the ground if this was not done.

In game the 190's behaviour appears to be similar to what I've read about it apart from (I shoudn't be saying this!) a lack of acceleration. That's another thread!

Gun cam footage Fw190 v La5. poster states v Yak9? (short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...NDcw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYANZMKNDcw&feature=related)

No turning here!

Kettenhunde
03-28-2010, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My conclusions are that you could turn fight in an fw190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which is exactly what the physics concludes. Remember, all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity make exactly the same turn.

The FW-190's sustained turn performance occurs at a faster velocity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+18) and an FW-190A8 at 1.58ata are about equal in sustained turn rate around the FW-190's best load factor velocity. That means the Spitfire must give up altitude or airspeed in order to win a turn fight if the engagement was neutral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...241097248#1241097248 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=1241097248#1241097248)

irR4tiOn4L
03-28-2010, 07:47 AM
On a different note, IL2 has often been forwarded here as remarkably accurate

An article caught my eye, however, pointing out the failings of both FSX and Xplane from a pilot who also sims.
http://www.simpilotnet.com/ind...=view&id=20&Itemid=9 (http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9)

Its quite interesting but really begs the question - how does IL2 fare then? If the physics of things such as stalls are fairly simple to represent, as both Kettenhunde and the author of that article suggest, then why are they being misrepresented? Does IL2 avoid these pitfalls, making it more realistic than FSX and Xplane?

Theres another thread here where someone tried FSX addon FW 190's - but i could not get a response on how they felt compared to IL2. Would be interesting

BillSwagger
03-28-2010, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
On a different note, IL2 has often been forwarded here as remarkably accurate

Its quite interesting but really begs the question - how does IL2 fare then? If the physics of things such as stalls are fairly simple to represent, as both Kettenhunde and the author of that article suggest, then why are they being misrepresented? Does IL2 avoid these pitfalls, making it more realistic than FSX and Xplane?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Il2 does a great job for the age this sim is. Its also more of a combat flight simulator which is what i find so surprising about its level of detail in the flight modeling. The article didn't really cover bank angles, which i know increases the stall speed. I'm not sure how well that is modeled in the game, but for most of the other parts covered I'd say its above par.


Bill

AndyJWest
03-28-2010, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The article didn't really cover bank angles, which i know reduces the stall speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume that is a typo BillSwagger. Stall speed will generally increase with bank angle in a coordinated turn (though strictly speaking it is AOA that causes a stall, not lack of speed).

M_Gunz
03-29-2010, 11:37 PM
Exactly right. The more you bank, the more percentage of your lift force you are directing away
from holding your plane up and into pulling your plane into the turn, so you need more total
lift to stay up. There are only two ways to do that. 1) pull more AOA (stick back) which only
works up to stall AOA. 2) go faster, which works until you run out of power or make enough Gs
to overload the pilot or the plane.

Running at the stall... you can run at stall at 1.1 Gs if you go slow enough and make huge slow
turns but still you will be going faster than Vs. Any higher G stall (accelerated stall) has to
be made at higher speed than any lesser G stall.

However your tightest and fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at less than
stall AOA even though your speed is higher at maximum Gs -- and full power makes the tightest
and fastest turn you can make at those less than maximum Gs.

BillSwagger
03-30-2010, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The article didn't really cover bank angles, which i know reduces the stall speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume that is a typo BillSwagger. Stall speed will generally increase with bank angle in a coordinated turn (though strictly speaking it is AOA that causes a stall, not lack of speed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah thats what i meant.

From what i can tell this seems to be modeled to some degree but i've never flown a plane so i'm not sure how real it is. If you bank at near stall speeds the plane does begin to fall and many times i've put a plane into a spin at lower airspeeds but it seems to be more related to the AoA than the actual bank angle.

I only know about the bank angles because someone posted a hellcat film which described several accidents that occurred because the pilot lost speed turning at a steep bank angle putting it into a spin.


Bill

na85
03-30-2010, 02:20 AM
It's definitely modeled. You notice the difference between using the rudder vs the ailerons to correct bank angle at extremely low speeds and high angles of attack

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
From what i can tell this seems to be modeled to some degree but i've never flown a plane so i'm not sure how real it is. If you bank at near stall speeds the plane does begin to fall and many times i've put a plane into a spin at lower airspeeds but it seems to be more related to the AoA than the actual bank angle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, it is pulling more than critical AOA that stalls the plane, though it's possible to avoid spinning.
Stall and spin are not the same. Spin happens when you are in stall and your flight becomes uncoordinated.

The more Gs you pull, the more lift you need to keep altitude. How you get that lift is up to you. You can
pull back right up to the edge of stall and then your only option is more speed. At stall AOA it always takes
more speed to pull more Gs. Turn Gs effectively make the plane heavier. Is that easy enough?

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
It's definitely modeled. You notice the difference between using the rudder vs the ailerons to correct bank angle at extremely low speeds and high angles of attack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, IL2 even models AOA of each wing and possibly each wing by parts (fly with damage is different).
You can go into stall and spin just by rolling hard at the wrong times.

As far as I can tell, the IL2 FM is more than most people here would care to discuss except to voice
uninformed doubts they are neither able to check or understand. Why I say that is because simpler
things get ignored or labeled as 'theory only'. If only theory then how to judge the more complex FM?
Oh yeah, "I read a book/saw a show and I know what each word means, *thus*...".

AndyJWest
03-30-2010, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Spin happens when you are in stall and your flight becomes uncoordinated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's actually the other way round, M_G, though in practice it makes little difference. You generally spin because uncoordinated flight causes one wing to stall before the other. Theoretically, you should even be able to stall in a tight coordinated turn as geometry dictates that the inner wing is at a slightly higher AoA. I'm not sure this is really significant though, and is complicated by factors like dihedral angle, washout, helical prop flow (which I don't think IL-2 models) etc. In a fully developed flat spin, both wings are stalled, and the AoA on the inner wing may be even approaching 90 degrees, judging from by video I've seen of real aircraft spinning and making smoke. Try this in IL-2 with wingtip smoke on (or better, the mod smoke effects) to see what I mean, though the AoA isn't quite as extreme. Pretty impressive though, and I think it is an indication of how well IL-2 models reality.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 05:03 AM
I don't think think I wrote anything different there. The thing is that you can ride a stall
if you keep the flight well enough coordinated. Stall does not automatically equal spin.

Do you know of any other way to go from flight to spin without a stall that gets or starts
uncoordinated?

AndyJWest
03-30-2010, 06:30 AM
As I said, it is a minor point, and I may have misunderstood what you meant anyway. The point I was trying to make is that in uncoordinated flight, any stall is more likely to result in a spin, though other factors may affect how significant this is.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 08:00 AM
Oh yeah, it's not really first one -then- the other but when you got both you got trouble.
At least it is as far as I know.

How do you feel about this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However your tightest and fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at less than
stall AOA even though your speed is higher at maximum Gs -- and full power makes the tightest
and fastest turn you can make at those less than maximum Gs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However your tightest and fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at less than stall AOA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Change that to:

However your fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at stall speed AOA.

Your best rate of turn occurs at the intersection of thrust limited performance and lift limited performance. Lift limited by definition is at CLmax. Stall speed also occurs at CLmax. Stall speed is the minimum speed the airplane can fly while not yet stalled. CLmax flight is defined as the highest coefficient of lift the wing can achieve while still in flight.

Minimum radius of turn, maximum rate of turn, and best load factor do not always occur at the same point. It depends on the airplane.

thefruitbat
03-30-2010, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My conclusions are that you could turn fight in an fw190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which is exactly what the physics concludes. Remember, all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity make exactly the same turn.

The FW-190's sustained turn performance occurs at a faster velocity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+18) and an FW-190A8 at 1.58ata are about equal in sustained turn rate around the FW-190's best load factor velocity. That means the Spitfire must give up altitude or airspeed in order to win a turn fight if the engagement was neutral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...241097248#1241097248 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2891026238?r=1241097248#1241097248) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if i'm wrong, but,

Doesn't that quote also imply, that since the sustained turns are about equal at the Fw's best load velocity which is not the spits, that although the spit must give up altitude or airspeed to win at that velocity, if it dosen't the best the FW can do is draw as there sustained turn rates are about equal, and if the fw190 changes its velocity the spit will win....

not my ideal situation for a turnfight...

Jumoschwanz
03-30-2010, 01:33 PM
I am glad this thread is so much fun for those who have kept it going. I read the original start of it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/2221055328/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2221055328/p/1)

Gaston444 is simply a novice who did not know what he was talking about. The soviet evaluation he pointed out matches the FW190A in IL246 and in the U.S. Navy tests very well.

I have seen La-5 pilots online do exactly what the soviets talked about when fighting the FW, as have I when flying the La5 against it, a really good and experience IL2 pilot would.

And the FW190A will outmaneuver the 109G easily at all times except for at low speeds.

Only a total novice like Gaston would make such a delusional and ignorant post about the 190a in IL2, and only birds of the same feather would keep such a piece of trash going for pages and weeks......

AndyJWest
03-30-2010, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only a total novice like Gaston would make such a delusional and ignorant post about the 190a in IL2, and only birds of the same feather would keep such a piece of trash going for pages and weeks...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And only a troll would make such comments without bothering to read what the rest of us have actually been discussing. If you don't like the Ubi forums, don't bother to read them.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correct me if i'm wrong, but,

not my ideal situation for a turnfight... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Because of the physics, a very small advantage in speed translates into a large gain in zoom climb performance. At its best turn rate, it would take the Spitfire ~22 seconds to advance 180 degrees through the turning circle and the Spitfire must slow down to ~65KEAS &lt;120KPH&gt; slower speed than the Focke Wulf to achieve that turn rate.

It is a horrible situation for the Focke Wulf if the pilot tries to slow down and tail chase the Spitfire at the Spitfires best turn speed. The Focke Wulf cannot exceed the same sustained performance at the same velocity. The Focke Wulf will find itself with a Spitfire on it's tail.

It is a horrible situation for the Spitfire if the Focke Wulf stays at its best load factor and then converts that speed to altitude in a zoom climb when the Spitfire gains in the tail chase. The Spitfire cannot exceed the same sustained performance at the same velocity. The Spitfire will find itself with a Focke Wulf overhead and out of reach.

That is exactly why we see that "curious form of dog fighting" Cpt Eric Brown describes where neither airplane can gain advantage on the other.

These are middle of the curve performance points. That means the velocity they occur remain the same and are independent of thrust improvements.

TS_Sancho
03-30-2010, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:

Only a total novice like Gaston would make such a delusional and ignorant post about the 190a in IL2, and only birds of the same feather would keep such a piece of trash going for pages and weeks...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didnt your mother ever tell you that if you dont have anything nice to say.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However your tightest and fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at less than stall AOA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Change that to:

However your fastest turn occurs below the maximum Gs you can pull at stall speed AOA.

Your best rate of turn occurs at the intersection of thrust limited performance and lift limited performance. Lift limited by definition is at CLmax. Stall speed also occurs at CLmax. Stall speed is the minimum speed the airplane can fly while not yet stalled. CLmax flight is defined as the highest coefficient of lift the wing can achieve while still in flight.

Minimum radius of turn, maximum rate of turn, and best load factor do not always occur at the same point. It depends on the airplane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here, I'll add parenthesis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However your tightest and fastest turn occurs below (the maximum Gs you can pull at less than stall AOA) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

then note it says the same thing without references to CLmax.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:

Only a total novice like Gaston would make such a delusional and ignorant post about the 190a in IL2, and only birds of the same feather would keep such a piece of trash going for pages and weeks...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You say that you -read- the original thread and can't tell the world of difference between Gaston and the clear
majority of the other posters? Or recognize the many pages that were not in response to Gaston? Because if you
did actually read the posts and not just skim here and there to come up with your own fluff and vain impression
of what was written then hey you really need to work on those reading skills, especially comprehension.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">then note it says the same thing without references to CLmax. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds good. Just remember that while many WWII fighters have best rate and minimum radius stacked at the same velocity by design, not all airplanes do.

thefruitbat
03-30-2010, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correct me if i'm wrong, but,

not my ideal situation for a turnfight... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Because of the physics, a very small advantage in speed translates into a large gain in zoom climb performance. At its best turn rate, it would take the Spitfire ~22 seconds to advance 180 degrees through the turning circle and the Spitfire must slow down to ~65KEAS &lt;120KPH&gt; slower speed than the Focke Wulf to achieve that turn rate.

It is a horrible situation for the Focke Wulf if the pilot tries to slow down and tail chase the Spitfire at the Spitfires best turn speed. The Focke Wulf cannot exceed the same sustained performance at the same velocity. The Focke Wulf will find itself with a Spitfire on it's tail.

It is a horrible situation for the Spitfire if the Focke Wulf stays at its best load factor and then converts that speed to altitude in a zoom climb when the Spitfire gains in the tail chase. The Spitfire cannot exceed the same sustained performance at the same velocity. The Spitfire will find itself with a Focke Wulf overhead and out of reach.

That is exactly why we see that "curious form of dog fighting" Cpt Eric Brown describes where neither airplane can gain advantage on the other.

These are middle of the curve performance points. That means the velocity they occur remain the same and are independent of thrust improvements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in your example the spit is going the same speed as the FW and matching its sustained turn, yes it has to slow down to turn better than the FW but why would it?, I know i wouldn't, because then the fw would be able to use its zoom climb. I would high yo-yo, and cut the corner that way, and maintaing e.

If the Fw gets into that situation, its only sensible option is to extend, and shallow climb away, which it can do, NOT turnfight.

If it goes for the zoom climb, because its speed is still the same as the spits, its xmas come early, for the spit, i love it when people do that in front of me online.

I just don't see how that original qoute implies that the FW can turnfight with the spit, if anything it says the oposite to me. Energy fight yes, turnfight no.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes it has to slow down to turn better than the FW but why would it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfires minimum power required point occurs at a slower velocity than the Focke Wulf's. It does not have enough power available to out turn the Focke Wulf at that velocity.

The velocity best performance occurs is different and that effects the relative performance.

Understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just don't see how that original qoute implies that the FW can turnfight with the spit, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The performance trend occurs because of the sustained turning abilities of the aircraft.

That is why the Merlin Spitfire series and a FW-190A series are equal opponents in a neutral engagement.

It is not a turn fight in the sense of a tailchase gun solution being achieved.

It is a turn fight in that the sustained turning ability of the aircraft determines the advantages for both aircraft.

Jumoschwanz
03-30-2010, 05:23 PM
TS_Sancho "Didnt your mother ever tell you that if you dont have anything nice to say..."

My mother did say that! But fortunately I have the gift of independent thought..

AndyJWest "And only a troll would make such comments without bothering to read what the rest of us have actually been discussing. If you don't like the Ubi forums, don't bother to read them."

M_Gunz "You say that you -read- the original thread and can't tell the world of difference between Gaston and the clear
majority of the other posters? "

Uh, could you two please tell me where I ever said: 1. "I do not like Ubi forums, 2. I read the original thread"(I said I read the thread start, please learn how to read huh?

With your ability to generate "facts" from nothing, you two should get jobs at Fox News.......

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Fw gets into that situation, its only sensible option is to extend, and shallow climb away, which it can do, NOT turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In a real airplane it is very easy to hold an exact speed and establish a level sustained turn. Simply pull the nose around the horizon until the speed drops where you want and then relax pressure. It wants to fly and you can control airspeed precisely. Which is convenient as all of your performance is listed in terms of a V-speed.

In the real airplane, you just have to maintain the ~235KEAS Focke Wulf recommended and you can turn with Spitfire all day long in a neutral engagement. The only way the Spitfire can win that turn fight is to slow down to its best turn speed in order to achieve a superior rate.

Looking out the cockpit of the Focke Wulf, when the Spitfire has slowed down enough to start gaining a recognizable rate advantage in the circle, you can zoom to safety.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4989/dogfightj.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/i/dogfightj.jpg/)

Here is the point in your IL2 Compare:

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5418/curiousformoffighting.jpg (http://img190.imageshack.us/i/curiousformoffighting.jpg/)

The Focke Wulf cannot turn at the slower speeds of the Spitfire and the Spitfire cannot zoom to the Focke Wulfs height. It becomes an eyeball to eyeball dgofight with each aircraft only being able to get difficult high deflection shots at the other.

AndyJWest
03-30-2010, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
TS_Sancho "Didnt your mother ever tell you that if you dont have anything nice to say..."

My mother did say that! But fortunately I have the gift of independent thought..

AndyJWest "And only a troll would make such comments without bothering to read what the rest of us have actually been discussing. If you don't like the Ubi forums, don't bother to read them."

M_Gunz "You say that you -read- the original thread and can't tell the world of difference between Gaston and the clear
majority of the other posters? "

Uh, could you two please tell me where I ever said: 1. "I do not like Ubi forums, 2. I read the original thread"(I said I read the thread start, please learn how to read huh?

With your ability to generate "facts" from nothing, you two should get jobs at Fox News....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. As I said, you commented on the contents of this thread without reading it, as you have now stated twice. Or does this not constitute a 'fact'? Just what do you think you are contributing to the thread? (or this forum for that matter?)

And as for your 'gift of independent thought', we all have one of those, but most of us try to do something constructive with it.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
TS_Sancho "Didnt your mother ever tell you that if you dont have anything nice to say..."

My mother did say that! But fortunately I have the gift of independent thought..

AndyJWest "And only a troll would make such comments without bothering to read what the rest of us have actually been discussing. If you don't like the Ubi forums, don't bother to read them."

M_Gunz "You say that you -read- the original thread and can't tell the world of difference between Gaston and the clear
majority of the other posters? "

Uh, could you two please tell me where I ever said: 1. "I do not like Ubi forums, 2. I read the original thread"(I said I read the thread start, please learn how to read huh?

With your ability to generate "facts" from nothing, you two should get jobs at Fox News....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With your ability to call people birds of a feather with Gaston there was never any facts from nothing.

Perhaps it is -you- who are like Gaston in your ability to ignore what was written, even what YOU wrote.
Own up, you f___ed up.

Added:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Uh, could you two please tell me where I ever said: 1. "I do not like Ubi forums, 2. I read the original thread"(I said I read the thread start, please learn how to read huh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh so you passed your judgment on how little basis then, oh Great One?

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes it has to slow down to turn better than the FW but why would it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfires minimum power required point occurs at a slower velocity than the Focke Wulf's. It does not have enough power available to out turn the Focke Wulf at that velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need when he can slow down even a little and turn inside the FW. If he is in front and the FW
continues to turn then the FW will pass the Spit on the outside and be shot. If he is behind then
the FW will still be target for a longer shot.

FW should not engage in any prolonged flat turning contest with a Spitfire and use other tactics.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">then note it says the same thing without references to CLmax. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds good. Just remember that while many WWII fighters have best rate and minimum radius stacked at the same velocity by design, not all airplanes do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it depends on the shape of the thrust curve where it intersects the lift curve.

I graphed it differently using Gs (y-axis) at speed (x-axis) and saw what I should have guessed before then.
I showed that if the plane has more than tiny power above that needed to fly at Vs (stall at the lift limit)
for the altitude that it can follow the lift limit up to some point where it no longer has the power to do so
and then the curve of the plane in Gs it can pull at speed (and alt) bends away from the lift limit but still
rises. There is no discontinuous point in that curve though. It was positive-slope at the last place where it
was on the lift limit and maintains a steadily decreasing slope from departure of the lift limit curve onward.
This means a curve, not a point where two curves intersect.

Hope I used proper terms here and do not cause confusion.

Jumo please note there is nothing Gaston-like here and once again we discuss what Gaston does not.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Looking out the cockpit of the Focke Wulf, when the Spitfire has slowed down enough to start gaining a recognizable rate advantage in the circle, you can zoom to safety. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That works though I'd never try the turn as much as 90 degrees without going vertical in the first place,
at least if I didn't start at that 235kts or less in the first place. It gives up speed needlessly to slow
down to make that best flat turn, which I'd much rather hang on to.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No need when he can slow down even a little and turn inside the FW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he wants to win the fight before reaching retirement he cannot.

It only takes a very little speed difference to translate into a large zoom climb difference.

You know that.

TheGrunch
03-30-2010, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Because of the physics, a very small advantage in speed translates into a large gain in zoom climb performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How large?

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 09:59 PM
If the FW pilot stays on the flat then he should be retiring pretty soon if the Spit pilot
is not a poor shot.

Yes, I know about the difference in zoom. The slowed down Spit will not be able to follow.
He may be able to get his nose up though, especially if the speed difference is small and
he is observant though the Spit must be behind the FW to make that work. FW behind and
above then the poor Spitfire pilot has few options except to become slower or lower or
just lose more quickly.

All in all, I'd rather have the FW. With planes like that one I do not turn even 90 degrees
on flat and once I get up to speed a target even 30 degrees off the nose has me finding
other ways to skin the cat.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This means a curve, not a point where two curves intersect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Correct, it translate into a velocity instead of the intersection of two points. It is harder to find the precise lift limit in an accelerated turn. Usually you find it when the airplane stalls. It is not like a stall in level flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That works though I'd never try the turn as much as 90 degrees without going vertical in the first place, at least if I didn't start at that 235kts or less in the first place. It gives up speed needlessly to slow down to make that best flat turn, which I'd much rather hang on to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. The designs developed that "curious form of dogfighting" from a neutral position because of the sustained performance of each aircraft. It was not because one aircraft required an advantaged position or could not dogfight with the other.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Because of the physics, a very small advantage in speed translates into a large gain in zoom climb performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How large? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the same or similar planes, by the difference in the squares of the speeds.
Differences in the planes make some change, but linear not by squares.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How large? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a quick parametric study on the effect of speed to get an idea.


Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 9000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 1000lbs
Drag in lbs = 500

Zoom climb from 300mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

300mph = 441fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs – 500lbs – 6364lbs = 5864lbs

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (441^2 – 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 3476.18 ft

3476.18 ft * sin 45 = 2458 ft

Zoom climb from 305mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

305mph = 448fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs – 500lbs – 6364lbs = 5864lbs

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (448^2 – 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 3624.5 ft

3624.5 ft * sin 45 =2563 ft

A 5mph speed increase equals a 105 ft gain.

Zoom climb from 375mph or a ~65KEAS difference to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

375mph = 551fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs – 500lbs – 6364lbs = 5864lbs

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (551^2 – 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 6077 ft

6077 ft * sin 45 = 4297 ft

An 1839 ft difference due to velocity.

TheGrunch
03-30-2010, 10:34 PM
Ah, cool. Pretty big difference then, thanks for that. Doesn't that kind of ignore the differences in the power/weight ratio, coefficient of drag, etc. of the aircraft, though? How much of an effect do you think those could have overall? Probably not enough to put the two within guns range, in that example, I'm sure. But even if we assume the aircrafts' characteristics are irrelevant, the Spitfire wouldn't have had to slow down by the whole 65KEAS to start gaining the FW.
If we go back to Il-2 Compare and look at the intersection of the fan plots, we can see that the Spitfire would only have to slow down by 50kph/27kts TAS to gain 1 degree per second of advantage. Sure, it would have taken a long time if he slowed by just 13kts instead to get approximately half a degree per second of turning advantage, but after two or three minutes he might gain an advantage, and still be within guns range after the zoom. That is a long time to commit yourself to the rather vulnerable situation of having a turning battle with one opponent, but that doesn't mean it never happened.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">50kph/27kts TAS to gain 1 degree per second </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


27kts would produce a large advantage. The aircraft differences will effect the specific results but not the overall trend.

The FW could always go level or drop the nose a tad to gain speed before the zoom.

The result is the same outcome with the Spitfire and the Focke Wulf restricted to high deflection snapshots.

TheGrunch
03-30-2010, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
27kts would produce a large advantage. The aircraft differences will effect the specific results but not the overall trend.

The FW could always go level or drop the nose a tad to gain speed before the zoom.

The result is the same outcome with the Spitfire and the Focke Wulf restricted to high deflection snapshots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's about 829ft/253m using your calculation above for a 27kt speed difference. That's not huge in Hispano Mk II terms. I'm sure the Spitfire could also level out or drop the nose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gaston444
03-31-2010, 12:32 AM
The US Navy tests do not agree with the "Russian Experience" evaluation.

The US Navy tests basically say, "this is a high speed interceptor that should avoid horizontal turn maneuvers and lower speeds..."

The "Russian experience"? -"Will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed"
-"does not like vertical maneuvers"
-"Better horizontal maneuver than the Me-109"
-"pulling out of a dive will fall another 220 m after a nose level attitude"
-"Keep speeds as high as possible against the FW-190A"

The E. Brown quote is interesting but ignores the FW190A's terrible high speed elevator performance, outlined in this P-47D comparison (The P-47 not being a maneuver champ (supposedly), you would expect an aircraft that is supposedly great at high speed (the FW-190A) to be at least marginally competitive: Not at all...:

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

Quote: "(3) Turning and handling in excess of 250 MPH: The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible, and alternating the turns right to left. THE P-47 EASILY OUT-TURNED THE FW-190 at 10 .000 ft. and had to throttle back to keep from over-running the FW-190. The FW-190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to black-out the pilot..."

Note heavy vibrations at some speeds were common on the FW-190, and this particular FW-190 was direct from capture, still at the front, and was noted as being in an exceptional condition for a captured aircraft. Note also these are NOT test pilots doing the testing here, but front-line combat pilot... This is an exceptional test in every way...

Quote: "(2) Turning and handling below 250 MPH: Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the airplanes to accelerate, and the ability of the FW-190 to hang on its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident. The FW-190 was able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favourable position.

-It should be noted here that "accelerate" here should mean that the "change to a more favourable position" was obtained through a SMALLER RADIUS, thus an "acceleration" of the observable TURN RATE, not of actual raw speed... The "hang on its propeller and turn INSIDE" reference underlines this, and engine acceleration alone would never qualify as "sudden" during a turn... It is only a TIGHTENING of the turn radius that could be "sudden".

Otherwise it would not make sense that "Turns were made so rapidly that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the airplanes to accelerate": This was put there to clarify that this is NOT was was happening...

This test also points out: "The P-47 had a decidedly better angle of dive pull-out"

It should be noted that any flat turn contest between a P-47D and a Me-109G usually means the Me-109 will be dinner in a matter of 2-4 turns... Rall did not call it a straight "floret" for nothing... If the Me-109G is downthrottled, or steeply spiralling down, that is another matter.

The most interesting thing about this US captured test (by front-line COMBAT pilots) is that it shows just what a baseless fantasy is the idea of great FW-190A handling above 250 MPH: The poor thing shows it has just no hope of being in any way competitive (borne out by ALL combat accounts)... And it does perform great in below 250 MPH handling, JUST AS THE "RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE" COMBAT ASSESMENTS SAYS... In other words, all COMBAT pilot agree with one another, but TEST pilots do not agree with them or themselves: British RAE test pilots have the FW-190 as far superior to the Me-109G in sustained turns (as is a P-51B with full drop tanks too, supposedly...)...

YES, the FW-190A IS a higher-speed combat fighter than the Spitfire in sustained low-speed turns below 250 MPH: The downthrottled FW-190A is probably at its tightest sustained rate at around 200-220 MPH, while the late Spitfires are likely capable of gaining turn rate from downthrottling all the way down to 160-180 MPH, as the Me-109G's sustained peak is at around 160 MPH according to ace Karhila...

But try to pit a FW-190A against any Spitfire ABOVE 250 MPH, and the Spitfire will likely win easily, and against the P-51D it will be quite hopeless: RAE 1944 test: Spitfire Mk XIV at 400 MPH, minimum radius: 625 yds
P-51D: 450 yds...

Gaston













Rall called it a curved "sabre", as opposed to the Me-109 being a straight

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
But even if we assume the aircrafts' characteristics are irrelevant, the Spitfire wouldn't have had to slow down by the whole 65KEAS to start gaining the FW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All he has to do is pull another 1/2 G, which he can't maintain but will bring his nose around far quicker than
a degree or so per second before he slows down to sustained speed at the new G-load. Or at least that's all he
has to do if he is the pursuit and not the target.

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
The US Navy tests do not agree with the "Russian Experience" evaluation.

The US Navy tests basically say, "this is a high speed interceptor that should avoid horizontal turn maneuvers and lower speeds..."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with most of what your saying here, i would just make a few distinctions that you haven't really mentioned with the tests.

One thing i find odd about the Navy test of the 190 is that it was compared to F4Us and F6F, which fought in the Pacific. These planes were going up against better "turning" planes than the 190 but maybe they wanted to see where the F4U stood for possible deployment in the ETO.
I also find it somewhat contradictory that although the F4U could pull a tighter radius, that they still concluded the best tactics would be hit and run, from a position of altitude.

As for the Fw190 vs P-47 comparison, its not really clear, but is that not the one that compared a P-47D-4 to a Fw190-G3? That is the only test i've ever heard of that compared those two aircraft. The G-3 was actually given ballasts to mimic that of an A-5, very similar to the British tests, but not the same plane. It was also run at full rated boost.

What i'm trying to figure out from these tests is if the 190 was met with heavier stick forces that would prevent it from turning tighter at higher speeds. The Navy test does make mention of this.

Its one thing to set up two planes, fly them to 350mph and make a turn at that speed and see who can turn better, but in combat the pilot isn't going to sit at 350mph he's going to turn tighter to pull lead or avoid a shot. I guess what i'm asking is if the 190 couldn't pull a tighter turn at that speed because it was met with heavier stick forces that prevented it, which would mean down throttling would be necessary to turn tighter.

The Russian observations don't really make this distinction with speed it just says that the La-5 pilot need to be prepared for a horizontal engagement since the 190 is likely to avoid a vertical fight with the La-5. It also says that it would take the skillful use of trim tabs, which leads me to believe it was not an easy turn for the La-5 to match or lead. Trims are usually mentioned when stick forces are high, so my guess is its likely the La-5 could manage a turn with the 190 at higher speeds. There is probably no mention of speed because the 190 and La-5 were probably very similar in turns at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The US Navy tests do not agree with the "Russian Experience" evaluation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They aren't really making the same observations thats for sure. But with the information offered with the three tests i think you can begin to see some commonalities with the regard to the 190.

* turning at a tighter radius was met with heavier stick forces at higher speeds
* turning tighter at higher speeds may have involved down throttling
* the 190 avoided vertical fights (dive/climb) when at a disadvantage



Bill

TheGrunch
03-31-2010, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
The E. Brown quote is interesting but ignores the FW190A's terrible high speed elevator performance, outlined in this P-47D comparison (
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's interesting, but it's still the only test that says that, and combat pilots are generally only experienced in a limited number of aircraft. Adjusting to flying new aircraft quickly on a day-to-day basis is not part of their job description. Test pilots have their jobs for a reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
-It should be noted here that "accelerate" here should mean that the "change to a more favourable position" was obtained through a SMALLER RADIUS, thus an "acceleration" of the observable TURN RATE, not of actual raw speed... The "hang on its propeller and turn INSIDE" reference underlines this, and engine acceleration alone would never qualify as "sudden" during a turn... It is only a TIGHTENING of the turn radius that could be "sudden".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rate beats radius, Gaston. Sounds like they're referring to the aircraft's better acceleration allowing the pilot to slacken off and quickly regain best turn speed. The interesting part is the "ability to hang on its propeller and turn inside the P-47". That's another quote that says yo-yo to me. The methodology of the lower speed turning test is not explored and if a combat pilot performed the test it would not be surprising if he explored other maneuvers than just the flat turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
It should be noted that any flat turn contest between a P-47D and a Me-109G usually means the Me-109 will be dinner in a matter of 2-4 turns... Rall did not call it a straight "floret" for nothing... If the Me-109G is downthrottled, or steeply spiralling down, that is another matter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The game agrees with you on that, assuming the P-47 pilot keeps his speed nice and high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444
The downthrottled FW-190A is probably at its tightest sustained rate at around 200-220 MPH,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nearly every combat aircraft employed as a front line fighter after 1942 fits into this category.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444
But try to pit a FW-190A against any Spitfire ABOVE 250 MPH, and the Spitfire will likely win easily
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That rather depends on which Spitfire and which 190A you're talking about. Late IXs and XIVs, maybe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444
Rall called it a curved "sabre", as opposed to the Me-109 being a straight "floret" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do wish you would stop bandying about this horrible analogy. It could refer to weapons fit. The foil is a thin fencing sword descending from the civilian small-sword that George Silver despised for its lack of lethality, saying that many duels ended in both combatants being run through several times, and the sabre is very much more deadly, capable of inflicting deep wounds very quickly.
Many cavalry sabres were not curved, in fact German military sabres in PARTICULAR were usually straight. Assuming that Rall wore a military uniform that incorporated a sabre (he initially joined the German army) it would likely have been a straight sabre that he wore.
Did you ever think that the sabre would likely have been seen by Rall as traditionally a cavalry weapon? The sabre was mainly a cavalry weapon for almost all of its lineage in actual military use, right up to the First World War. That would peg the 190 very much as a hit-and-run fighter and the 109 as a stay-and-fence-until-someone-falls fighter.
Alternatively it could refer to the technique of sport fencing where the sabre much more heavily emphasises the fast and simple attack where the foil emphasises feints and ripostes.
In addition, the sport fencing sabre is not curved.
It can just mean *so* many things and there is nothing gained from trying to interpret it in anything more than the most superficial way.
Sorry, rant over. It really is the most meaningless and ambiguous analogy, though.

Kettenhunde
03-31-2010, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's about 829ft/253m using your calculation above for a 27kt speed difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grunch,

That is only the horizontal separation at the end of the zoom and the situation is not static.

The timeliness are not the same, the zoom takes less time than the horizontal turn to complete. If the Spitfire conserves speed by reducing his turn rate and zooms at the end of the turn, the FW190 reaches zoom altitude and just about has time to turn onto the Spitfire tail!

In order for the Spitfire to achieve a practical turn rate to reverse in time, he must sacrifice his speed. In doing so he greatly reduces his zoom ability however.

So it is huge in terms of a practical ability to dogfight the Spitfire on equal terms. That is the 825ft above the maximum the slower airplane can achieve.

thefruitbat
03-31-2010, 05:39 AM
why do you keep asummung that the spitfire will just keep turning in the horrizontal and play the optimun game for the FW????

It does not need to slow down in the horizontal, thats not its only option. It just hi yoyo's, sacrificing its speed for height, allowing it to turn sharper, and then translate its height advantage back into speed.

The spitfire is not constrained to the horizontal plane, just like the FW.

Of coures it suits you to assume that the spitfire pilot is an idiot, and the fw190 pilot an expert, in which case i agree with what you've said.

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 07:30 AM
Here are IL2 Compare Diagrams from Ultr@Pack 2.0N

In UP 2.0 there are many new slots planes like SPitfires, 109 and Fw 19 with new corrected FM and performance:


Spit MKVB +12 lbs vs Fw 190 A-3 1.42Ata 2700 RPM

http://i48.tinypic.com/2rz9ohl.jpg

and new Spitfire IX F Merlin 61 ( early) vs A-3

http://i49.tinypic.com/2uysrut.jpg


Look at turn rates.

Spitfires has the adventage at slowier speed but Fw 190 is better at high speed. Instenous turn rate is very good in Fw 190 due to better roll rate and high speed hanling but sustained turn rate is better for Spitfires.

Also high speed turn rate is better for Fw 190 then 109 due to the same reason.

Also all new Fw 190 in UP 2.0 have corrected acceleation and zoom climb. Now Fw 190 A accelerate in take off quite similar to SPitfire or 109 and has much better acceleration in dives.

Stock Fw 190 A series have cuted acceleartion values for not known reason. ( political and marketing?)

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 08:03 AM
Yes, that FW-190A-3 ROC certainly looks 'corrected'.

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Stock Fw 190 A series have cuted acceleartion values for not known reason. ( political and marketing?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its nice to see some of these corrections but i don't think the stock sim was too far off, especially considering how the other planes perform in relation to another. You might pick apart the Yak numbers and also find it doesn't perform as indicated on a flight test done some 60 years ago on out dated instruments. I hate to bring this up here, but i just spent a couple hours flying the stock game online and there is a considerable difference in how every plane performs. It just seems like in UP most every plane climbs like a 109 and dives like a P-47. The high yo yo is sort of common place no matter what plane you use because of this. In short, there is a lot performance information Il2 compare doesn't really cover. I'm all for the accuracy, and it is a lot of fun, but parts seem excessive to me and its not with any one particular aircraft. I can't really say, hey i think your 190 model is too strong in the vertical, when most planes in Up are optimistic in the vertical.
To some extent it is less simulation, and i know you guys are constantly working on it and for the most part I enjoy it. I just wasn't aware of how different the stock sim was from the Up version.


Bill

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 08:25 AM
Speaking about relative climb performacne between Fw 190 and Spitfires there is need some more deep look ( i study it a lot comparing historical charts and data for both planes)

Firstly RAF was tested Faber A-3 at 1.35 Ata 2450 RMP (derated) vs Spitfire MArk VB +9lbs (nomian power) - so at these setting A-3 has overall better climb rate then VB.

Look at IL2 Compare Diagram.

100% power line is for:

A-3 - 1.3 Ata 2400 RPM
VB- 9 lbs

So if you take 100% power line for VB +9 lbs and make new one line for 1.35 Ata 2450 RPM for A-3 ( it would be the line between 100% and 110%) you will note that at these setting A-3 would have climb rate better then Spit VB at all height.

That is confirmed by RL data and test.

Now when we compare 110 % power lines which mean :

- Spit V - +12lbs (emergency)
- A-3 - 1.42 Ata 2700 RPM (emergency)

It mean that at War Emergency Power Spitfies has some adventage in climb but only 1,5 - 4km where superchager of A-3 has the weaker efficenty and SPitfire has the best efficenty. In others alt levels A-3 is better then Spit - also at high alts is much better in speed and climbs.

So generally A-3 is much faster then Spit and have better climb at nomial power. New Fw 190 also accelerate much better and have very good zoom climb ( not like stock one brick).

These casue that Spit MKB have not many chance with Fw 190 - the only its chance it medium alts in dogfight if Fw 190 will decide to turn fight with it. Still Fw 190 could always make oturun and outdive Spit with easy. Pair of Fw 190 not give any chance here for pair of Spits MK VB. Improvent zoom climbs also make real difference here.

Thats it look.

thefruitbat
03-31-2010, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Stock Fw 190 A series have cuted acceleartion values for not known reason. ( political and marketing?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its nice to see some of these corrections but i don't think the stock sim was too far off, especially considering how the other planes perform in relation to another. You might pick apart the Yak numbers and also find it doesn't perform as indicated on a flight test done some 60 years ago on out dated instruments. I hate to bring this up here, but i just spent a couple hours flying the stock game online and there is a considerable difference in how every plane performs. It just seems like in UP most every plane climbs like a 109 and dives like a P-47. The high yo yo is sort of common place no matter what plane you use because of this. In short, there is a lot performance information Il2 compare doesn't really cover. I'm all for the accuracy, and it is a lot of fun, but parts seem excessive to me and its not with any one particular aircraft. I can't really say, hey i think your 190 model is too strong in the vertical, when most planes in Up are optimistic in the vertical.
To some extent it is less simulation, and i know you guys are constantly working on it and for the most part I enjoy it. I just wasn't aware of how different the stock sim was from the Up version.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

all stock planes in UP perform exactly the same as in stock 4.09. one word, plecebo.

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Stock Fw 190 A series have cuted acceleartion values for not known reason. ( political and marketing?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its nice to see some of these corrections but i don't think the stock sim was too far off, especially considering how the other planes perform in relation to another. You might pick apart the Yak numbers and also find it doesn't perform as indicated on a flight test done some 60 years ago on out dated instruments. I hate to bring this up here, but i just spent a couple hours flying the stock game online and there is a considerable difference in how every plane performs. It just seems like in UP most every plane climbs like a 109 and dives like a P-47. The high yo yo is sort of common place no matter what plane you use because of this. In short, there is a lot performance information Il2 compare doesn't really cover. I'm all for the accuracy, and it is a lot of fun, but parts seem excessive to me and its not with any one particular aircraft. I can't really say, hey i think your 190 model is too strong in the vertical, when most planes in Up are optimistic in the vertical.
To some extent it is less simulation, and i know you guys are constantly working on it and for the most part I enjoy it. I just wasn't aware of how different the stock sim was from the Up version.


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you dont know and see some facts.

Do you know that IRL Fw 190 A-3 or A-4 have near the same take off distance like Spitfire Mark IX? Also acceleation was similar in both planes - it little depend of alt- still Fw 190 has better dive acceleration then Spit.


So make a test and try to take off with your mate (online)

You in Fw 190 A-4 or A-5 ( stock ones) and he in Spitfire Mark IX.

Im qute sure that you will be need 2 longer ditance to take off in stock FW 190

Than try the same with new ones Fw 190 from UP ( A-3 or A-4 1.42) vs the same Spitfire.

The same way zoom climb in stock Fw 190 is cut like acceleration.

I know FM code for IL2 and im sure that 1C cut for some reason values which casue bad acceleration and zoom climb for Fw 190 A series. It not happend with D-9 series.

IRL Fw 190 was briliant in initial acceleation ecpecially in dive and also have very good zoom climb. Unfortunaly stock Fw 190 A series are very far from these.

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed my point, it isn't really so much about facts as it is about accuracy. I know that everyone here is capable of going to the library and making a good case for each plane in this sim. To reiterate my point, i think the stock game had a balance in the aircraft so that you could fly any plane with a reasonable expectation of what should occur.

Did you just use your data and compare it to the Spitfire as your baseline model, or did you also cross reference it with how it performed against other aircraft?

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Stock Fw 190 A series have cuted acceleartion values for not known reason. ( political and marketing?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its nice to see some of these corrections but i don't think the stock sim was too far off, especially considering how the other planes perform in relation to another. You might pick apart the Yak numbers and also find it doesn't perform as indicated on a flight test done some 60 years ago on out dated instruments. I hate to bring this up here, but i just spent a couple hours flying the stock game online and there is a considerable difference in how every plane performs. It just seems like in UP most every plane climbs like a 109 and dives like a P-47. The high yo yo is sort of common place no matter what plane you use because of this. In short, there is a lot performance information Il2 compare doesn't really cover. I'm all for the accuracy, and it is a lot of fun, but parts seem excessive to me and its not with any one particular aircraft. I can't really say, hey i think your 190 model is too strong in the vertical, when most planes in Up are optimistic in the vertical.
To some extent it is less simulation, and i know you guys are constantly working on it and for the most part I enjoy it. I just wasn't aware of how different the stock sim was from the Up version.


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you dont know and see some facts.

Do you know that IRL Fw 190 A-3 or A-4 have near the same take off distance like Spitfire Mark IX? Also acceleation was similar in both planes - it little depend of alt- still Fw 190 has better dive acceleration then Spit.


So make a test and try to take off with your mate (online)

You in Fw 190 A-4 or A-5 ( stock ones) and he in Spitfire Mark IX.

Im qute sure that you will be need 2 longer ditance to take off in stock FW 190

Than try the same with new ones Fw 190 from UP ( A-3 or A-4 1.42) vs the same Spitfire.

The same way zoom climb in stock Fw 190 is cut like acceleration.

I know FM code for IL2 and im sure that 1C cut for some reason values which casue bad acceleration and zoom climb for Fw 190 A series. It not happend with D-9 series.

IRL Fw 190 was briliant in initial acceleation ecpecially in dive and also have very good zoom climb. Unfortunaly stock Fw 190 A series are very far from these.

The fact is that stock Fw 190 A series was serously dumped in acceleration and zoom climb performacne. These was corrected in UP new added Fw 190 planes.

And for clearance stock planes in UP are the same like in 4.09 and were not changed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

all stock planes in UP perform exactly the same as in stock 4.09. one word, plecebo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wrong.

I would normally laugh, but there are considerable differences i noticed, mostly in climb.

try again.


Bill

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed my point, it isn't really so much about facts as it is about accuracy. I know that everyone here is capable of going to the library and making a good case for each plane in this sim. To reiterate my point, i think the stock game had a balance in the aircraft so that you could fly any plane with a reasonable expectation of what should occur.

Did you just use your data and compare it to the Spitfire as your baseline model, or did you also cross reference it with how it performed against other aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sry but you are wrong here. Stock Fw 190 A series are not accurate for any other stock planes also. Try to fight in stock A-4 vs Spitfire MKVB or IX or any russian birds ( LA5 etc). Stock Fw 190 A could only run out from SPitfires. It isnt even better so much in dive not mention zoom climb. Spit MKVb stock is far better in climb rate at any alts. These is not historical accuracy.

I will reapet again stock Fw 190 A series was seriously cut in acceleation and zoom climb performacne and has no accuracy with any other planes. IT should be much better. Question is why 1C or Oleg M. made these? I suppose it was marketing or political reason ( remembet that main market field for IL2 was Russia)

thefruitbat
03-31-2010, 09:00 AM
@BillSwagger

no, like it or not, you are wrong. HSFX there are differences, UP, no, thanks for playing.

i'm not going to bother arguing any futher with you, something i know to be true.

You can look for yourself, since someone (gryphon) retested every plane in UP2.0 for new il2 compare data, and guess what, the stock planes match exactly the original il2 compare data.

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

all stock planes in UP perform exactly the same as in stock 4.09. one word, plecebo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wrong.

I would normally laugh, but there are considerable differences i noticed, mostly in climb.

try again.


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to.

It was checked many times by many peoples and there were made IL2 Compare test which show that stock are the same in 4.09 and UP.

If you interested just downoad IL2 COmpare for UP 2.0N ( where you have all planes both stock and new ones)

Look here for WOP forum:

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...opic&t=6237&start=15 (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=6237&start=15)

IL2 Compare for UP 2.0N ( included 4.09 stock planes)
http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...DataUltrapack20n.zip (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/wopDownloads/wopstaff/IL2CompareDataUltrapack20n.zip)

Speaking that in UP 2.0 stock planes are different it is just propaganda spread by some wrong attitude people.

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 09:19 AM
il2 compare data is the same, there other performance characteristics not covered here.

Look, i really don't want to press on this issue and i can see i am already butting heads.

Its your game, your gonna do what you want.

I also don't disagree with your historical basis, its just not a very broad one.

To me, your model needs some work. If you leave it the way it is, its not going to kill me. I just laugh everytime i see a 190 out zoom a tempest.
And remember your name is on that,
Not 1Cs.



Bill

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
il2 compare data is the same, there other performance characteristics not covered here.

Look, i really don't want to press on this issue and i can see i am already butting heads.

Its your game, your gonna do what you want.

I also don't disagree with your historical basis, its just not a very broad one.

To me, your model needs some work. If you leave it the way it is, its not going to kill me. I just laugh everytime i see a 190 out zoom a tempest.
And remember your name is on that,
Not 1Cs.



Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look if UP would like to change stock FMs there were not need to make NEW SLOTS FOR THE SAME PLANES BUT WITH NEW FM and PERFORMACNE

It would be much simpler and quckier to change sotck ones planes without making new slot ones - it would safe a lot of time and effort.

But as you see UP team take a lot of effort and work to make new slots planes but with much historcial accuracy performacne.

I cant say what is made by HSFX or SAS mod pack. I can only say about UP. And i know that stock are the same in UP and 4.09.


If it would be change in FM data for e.x. take off weight of any plane rise or drop about even 50kg IL2 Compare diagrams will show it imidietly. So if IL2 Compare diagrams show the same for stock planes in UP its mean that FM data are the same.

Ad. to Fw 190 and Tempest - i didnt notcie such things as you wrote. Do you check new Fw190A* or D-9* vs stock Tempest or new Tempest 11 or 13 lbs. From my experience new Tempest are very fast at low to medium alts and also have very good zoom climbs. The same is with new Typhoon - there are very nice in zoom climbs and new Fw 190 are not better here.

thefruitbat
03-31-2010, 09:31 AM
you argue that climb rates are different, yet the new il2 compare data specifically shows climb rates to be the same...

anyway, enough of this.

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 10:10 AM
I wouldn't argue with me, either.

You'll lose.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bill

thefruitbat
03-31-2010, 10:20 AM
Not on this one.

Got track?

BillSwagger
03-31-2010, 10:48 AM
If you want a track, you may need to wait until someone hosts a 4.09m crt=2 server.
Also, i've done a few other tests with various aircraft, including the 109k, G6, 190A and D, P-51B,C,D, P-47D, and La-7s as well as the P-40, mostly dive to climb stuff. Its very trivial to me, but i will say there are differences be it subtle enough to notice in a game that you've grown use to playing.

I am trying to make a point less about the differences of stock and Up, and more about the modeling.

I realize a lot of time and effort has gone into this work, but I think you need to do a bit more cross referencing, and making sure the plane (fw190) is with in reason to other models. Using the Spitfire as a baseline is a start but what if, for example, the instrumentation is different for each airplane in your samples.

I found a German fighter test against a French fighter, and one remark made was that the indicated speeds were markedly optimistic as compared to the French fighter.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactic...ichsflg_Aug1940.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html)

There has also been a similar suggestion made about the speeds of the f6f as compared to the f4u, being as much as 20mph difference indicated, however flying at the exact same height and speeds. So there is a lot more to do than just comparing speeds and test data. The more aircraft you can include in your sample the better because you can get a broader perspective.

Its like rock, paper, scissors. You know that game. Some of the modeling is represented as though rock beats paper and scissors.
Your response is, i've done the research and this is how it was, and maybe the 190 is suppose to own the Spitfire in some situations but it should not make it unbeatable in others. And thats where the flaw is, and it screws with the rest of the sim.

Furthermore, after reviewing much of the other information provided in this thread, there are obvious short comings to your model, mainly is the point of fact that a P-47 can't run down your Fw190 from a 10,000ft dive. Now i don't want to get in a long discussion about dive models, the fact is your model is just too fast. You can throw more outdated numbers at me, but it doesn't change how lopsided it appears to me. OTOH, maybe P-47 is too slow, and so is the P-51, and so is the.... and so on.



Bill

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Speaking about relative climb performacne between Fw 190 and Spitfires there is need some more deep look ( i study it a lot comparing historical charts and data for both planes)

Firstly RAF was tested Faber A-3 at 1.35 Ata 2450 RMP (derated) vs Spitfire MArk VB +9lbs (nomian power) - so at these setting A-3 has overall better climb rate then VB.

Look at IL2 Compare Diagram.

100% power line is for:

A-3 - 1.3 Ata 2400 RPM
VB- 9 lbs

So if you take 100% power line for VB +9 lbs and make new one line for 1.35 Ata 2450 RPM for A-3 ( it would be the line between 100% and 110%) you will note that at these setting A-3 would have climb rate better then Spit VB at all height.

That is confirmed by RL data and test.

Now when we compare 110 % power lines which mean :

- Spit V - +12lbs (emergency)
- A-3 - 1.42 Ata 2700 RPM (emergency)

It mean that at War Emergency Power Spitfies has some adventage in climb but only 1,5 - 4km where superchager of A-3 has the weaker efficenty and SPitfire has the best efficenty. In others alt levels A-3 is better then Spit - also at high alts is much better in speed and climbs.

So generally A-3 is much faster then Spit and have better climb at nomial power. New Fw 190 also accelerate much better and have very good zoom climb ( not like stock one brick).

These casue that Spit MKB have not many chance with Fw 190 - the only its chance it medium alts in dogfight if Fw 190 will decide to turn fight with it. Still Fw 190 could always make oturun and outdive Spit with easy. Pair of Fw 190 not give any chance here for pair of Spits MK VB. Improvent zoom climbs also make real difference here.

Thats it look. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have actual climb data for FW-190A-any models at under 250 kph IAS and it is higher than Spit VB at 9 lbs boost
at the same speed? This are the same FW-190A specifically noted by the Germans as not great ROC at their best climb
speed around 270 kph?

Not talking about Farnborough conclusions that do not give such data.

Kettenhunde
03-31-2010, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It does not need to slow down in the horizontal, thats not its only option. It just hi yoyo's, sacrificing its speed for height, allowing it to turn sharper, and then translate its height advantage back into speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A yo-yo is going to be nuetral and will not advance the Spitfire. For a yo-yo, the regimes of flight the Spitfire advances are cancelled by the regimes of flight the FW-190 will advance.

Understand that? When slow, the Spitfire will be superior but when fast, the FW-190 will advance.

Kwiatos
03-31-2010, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

You have actual climb data for FW-190A-any models at under 250 kph IAS and it is higher than Spit VB at 9 lbs boost
at the same speed? This are the same FW-190A specifically noted by the Germans as not great ROC at their best climb
speed around 270 kph?

Not talking about Farnborough conclusions that do not give such data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know fully what you mean. But from IL2 Compare diagrams it looks that Spitfire VB in game has little lower best climb speed then Fw 190 A.

In Farnborough raport about Faber A-3 and Spitfire MkVB climb rate comparsion there is such info:

" the best climb speed for climbing are aproximatly the same but angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. "

So i think it is quite accurate as for the game.

TS_Sancho
03-31-2010, 02:04 PM
Kwiatos, as someone who uses Ultrapack on Spits/109's it is nice to see you joining this debate.

I enjoy the Ultrapack product but would feel better about the accuracy of your flight models if they were to pass the scrutiny of some of the folks here ( the engineering types, not the armchair warrior peanut gallery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I am especially hopeful that your interpretation of the FW190 A3 proves itself to be correct as I really enjoy the flight characteristics of this particular aircraft and the difficulties it presents its Spitfire rivals.

M_Gunz
03-31-2010, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
" the best climb speed for climbing are aproximatly the same but angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. "
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The angle of the climb or the angle of the plane?

I know there is data.

FoolTrottel
03-31-2010, 02:36 PM
Locked it, as some of you are breaking the rules over here...
Yeah, I know it started earlier, on page 9, or maybe even before that.


Regarding mods, no discussions on FM/DM/WEP, remember?

If you don't: Revised forum policy concerning the discussion of mods on these boards. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7441010176)

Have Fun!