PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 turnrate question.



Flight_boy1990
09-15-2007, 11:41 AM
Hi dudes,
i just wonna ask which plane was better turner,the FW-190 or the P-51 (not talking much for the Mustang).I don't have any problems if i have to turn fight with a Pony,coz i know what to do(let's say that i know his "weak" places).
So which one was better?

Flight_boy1990
09-15-2007, 11:41 AM
Hi dudes,
i just wonna ask which plane was better turner,the FW-190 or the P-51 (not talking much for the Mustang).I don't have any problems if i have to turn fight with a Pony,coz i know what to do(let's say that i know his "weak" places).
So which one was better?

AKA_TAGERT
09-15-2007, 11:55 AM
I think the color green is much better than yellow

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 12:57 PM
Turn rate is a very debatable. Very few can come up with hard proof and it boils down to pilot accounts for the most part. And you will hear different from both sides.

I would say that the FW-190A could turn at least as well as the P-51. It seems that the 109 and 190 should have their turn rates switched.

S!

stalkervision
09-15-2007, 01:28 PM
I wish people would realise turn rate isn't the most important thing for a combat aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VW-IceFire
09-15-2007, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Hi dudes,
i just wonna ask which plane was better turner,the FW-190 or the P-51 (not talking much for the Mustang).I don't have any problems if i have to turn fight with a Pony,coz i know what to do(let's say that i know his "weak" places).
So which one was better? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on speed and altitude. At high altitude (20,000 feet or higher) the P-51 out turns many fighters. At low altitude its about even between the two...but I favour the P-51 as having the better turn and particularly when the speed gets a bit lower and the combat flaps are used. Thats in relation to the FW190A. The FW190D-9 and Ta-152H are slightly better in the turn and have allot of extra power.

Still..there is no reason to turn fight a FW190 in a Mustang when you can use a variety of other maneuvers to reposition for continued attacks. Turn fighting is only when you're fighting 1 versus 1 and you know you can win. Otherwise its a loosing proposition for both.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I wish people would realise turn rate isn't the most important thing for a combat aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of us do realize it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Im far more concerned with roll rate over turn rate. This is were the FW truly shines and it should be exploited. It takes an experienced pilot to do so though and this is why so many posters are concerned with turn rate as its the easiest and most noticeable. But it will take an inexperienced pilot to be suckered in to it.

S!

Brain32
09-15-2007, 05:01 PM
Ofcourse turn rate is not MOST important, but it's still very important. Sure thing, if turn rate comes at the great expense of some other characteristics, speed being IMO the most important then to he11 with it, but when variations are small then it's important to have it right.

As for P51 vs FW190, AFDU tactical trials described FW190G and MustangIII turn situation as little to choose, Russian TsAGI turn time testing agreed with it...

Bremspropeller
09-15-2007, 05:11 PM
Largely depends on the P-51's CoG, read "it's fuel qty".

WOODY01
09-16-2007, 05:26 AM
And the confidence of the Pilot surely, if you fly the Mustang with a smile on your face the whole time you can do alot more with it than someone who is scared of some of its 'attributes', same I guess for the FW190.
Turn rate of the two is always going to change depending on how much energy in the bank each aircraft has - and how much the pilot is willing to 'spend'.

JG4_Helofly
09-16-2007, 05:40 AM
If we are talking about sustained turn the 190 would have a slight advantage IMO due to the better p/w ratio. For instant turn I don't know. The p51 has a larger wing area compared to the 190, but the profile is not the same. How does a laminar wing compare to a normal wing in lift production in a turn?

Bremspropeller
09-16-2007, 07:51 AM
It sucks.

Laminar wings create less lift under any circumstances.

gregpeters
09-16-2007, 08:52 AM
or... to rephrase that:
laminar wings dont suck enough !

DKoor
09-16-2007, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gregpeters:
or... to rephrase that:
laminar wings dont suck enough ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
09-16-2007, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Ofcourse turn rate is not MOST important, but it's still very important. Sure thing, if turn rate comes at the great expense of some other characteristics, speed being IMO the most important then to he11 with it, but when variations are small then it's important to have it right.

As for P51 vs FW190, AFDU tactical trials described FW190G and MustangIII turn situation as little to choose, Russian TsAGI turn time testing agreed with it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe British tests came out with exactly the same results.

'There is little to choose between the two planes, if anything, then the Mustang is slightly better.'



BTW, have you guys read this?!?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

The plane has an outstanding rate of roll, however it has a rate of roll which cannot compare with the P38J? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

This test is as bad as the the test of the Bf109G by the RAF.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It sucks.

Laminar wings create less lift under any circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain. Or point me towards a good source where I can read it for myself.

S!

Ogie76
09-16-2007, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Ofcourse turn rate is not MOST important, but it's still very important. Sure thing, if turn rate comes at the great expense of some other characteristics, speed being IMO the most important then to he11 with it, but when variations are small then it's important to have it right.

As for P51 vs FW190, AFDU tactical trials described FW190G and MustangIII turn situation as little to choose, Russian TsAGI turn time testing agreed with it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe British tests came out with exactly the same results.

'There is little to choose between the two planes, if anything, then the Mustang is slightly better.'



BTW, have you guys read this?!?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

The plane has an outstanding rate of roll, however it has a rate of roll which cannot compare with the P38J? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

This test is as bad as the the test of the Bf109G by the RAF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

omg, that cannot be... and do you have the link to the RAF 109 report handy, i wouldnt mind seeing what they said..