Spit 5

[Crumpp]

Angus,

That is not to say that a 190 will outturn a Spitfire or turn with anything it could not turn with in reality.  It could and did turn with all of the USAAF fighters.  Depending on speed and altitude determined it ability.

Crumpp

[Angus]

So, a paradoxical info?
F4U easily outturns a 190. P51 turns with F4U. P51 outturns 190 with a slight advantage?
I read life accounts of turnfights between 190's and 51's. The 51's did not have to worry that much, however, they would at times need to pop out a notch of flaps.

I am referring to co-E of course. However, the 190's frequently being the "bouncer", could afford a few turns and thereby sometimes cutting in nicely before loosing it's E.


And where does the 38 fit into the rack?
I always thought that a P38L would outturn both the Mustang and the F4U, sitting somewhere near the hellcat.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
A P51 and a F4U are very close in the turning business.
 

Source?

What I've seen so far (as well as tried in AH) the F4U and the P51 have a rather similar turning capability, while the 190 is VASTLY INFERIOR to the F4U.
 [/B]

Aha! "I have seen it AH!"

[Angus]

Issie:
"Originally posted by Angus
A P51 and a F4U are very close in the turning business. "

Prove me (and HTC) wrong, how about that?

[Angus]

Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.

[Crumpp]

I am referring to co-E of course. However, the 190's frequently being the "bouncer", could afford a few turns and thereby sometimes cutting in nicely before loosing it's E.

Did you check out the aileron comments?  That would explain the paradox.

FW-190's were rarely the "bouncer" after Jan '44.  Great read on the time period from Jan. '44 til the end is:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0887403484

Once Doolittle release the Allied fighters to "destroy" the Luftwaffe the writing was on the wall.  Germany just could not afford a war of attrition.  

In fact, after Jan '44, it is usually the Allies doing the bouncing as the Luftwaffe is trying to take-off and form up to attack the bomber stream.

JG26 took to hiding their fighters in the woods.  They even went so far as to put cows on their grass field airstrips to fool the prowling Allied fighters so they could take off.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.

I do have it as well, and so of the F4U vs. P-51C flight trials.

As for the former 'proving the FW 190 vastly inferior'... hmm, the trials actually say the Fw 190 holding the advantage in everything expect turning.

"Prove me (and HTC) wrong, how about that?"[/B]

Not interested.  

[Angus]

Of course not interested. Because it's a hopeless point?
Ok, refresh your memory. I was referring to turning, but I''ll enter some other subjects as well.
Please don't read manuals while wearing a spotwelding helmet, ok?

TURNING:
QUOTE:

"The Corsair and Hellcat could follow the FW 190 in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW 190 could not follow any of the other two at any speed."

MANEUVERABILITY:

"No maneuver could be done in the FW 190 which could not be followed by both the Corsair and Hellcat."


Comapared to Issie's reading:

"the trials actually say the Fw 190 holding the advantage in everything expect turning. "

So eat that!


For Crumpp:

"JG26 took to hiding their fighters in the woods. They even went so far as to put cows on their grass field airstrips to fool the prowling Allied fighters so they could take off. "

Cattle could prove useful. In the end, having exxessive fuel shortage, some LW squadrons would glide in for landing with a dead engine to save fuel. Oxen would then be used to pull aircraft around on the ground if neccessary.
Nice link

[Crumpp]

Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.

Absolutely,  In that trial both the F4U and the F6F are vastly superior in the turn.  

It is an F4U-1D and an F6F-3 vs FW-190A5/U4 Aufklarar.

 The test pilot for the FW-190:

1.  Complains about aileron reversal and the tendancy to stall in the turns.  Only in the Luftwaffe test and this test is any problem with ailerons in the turn.  The RAF, which tested several different varients of 190's during the war, never mentions this characteristic.  The RAF mentions stalling but never aileron reversal.  That simply was not a characteristic of a properly serviced 190.

2.  There was obvious engine problems.  The motor fouled plugs at low speed and simply quit at altitude on several occasions.  Probably did not like US AvGas. Powerloading does effect turn radius but not nearly as much as wingloading.

Do I think the 190 can outturn an F4U-1D?  No, I think it would be close and the F4U-1 would be "slightly" superior.

The F6F-3 would have a larger margin of superiority but not as much as in the trials.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Don`t know what you are bubbling about Angie. Perhaps you have a bad or something.

Well, let`s see, the report says the Fw 190 outclimbs both the Corsair and Hellcat at all altitudes at it`s favourable climbspeed of 160mph.

Speed trials showed the FW 190 faster than the Hellcat at all altitudes, and superior to the Corsair above 10k ft. Since speed rums were for 2 min only, and judgeing by the speeds at low level, the Fw 190 simply didn`t reach it`s max speed yet.

Acceleration showed the FW 190 is superior to the Hellcat. The corsair was found to be slightly superior to the 190 up to 15 feet, above which the 190 was slightly superior. They note that applying full power is easier in the FW because of the automatic system.

Roll rate shows the FW 190 greatly superior to the Hellcat. They claim the FW 190 and Corsair have ca. equal roll rate, a later British report disproves that (F-4U having 2/3 the roll rate). Considering there was no real measurement..

Turning favoured the Hellcat Corsair as you note by a great margin.

Zooms were about equal.

Forward view better on USN planes, rear view better on FW 190.

Overall the USN staff like the cocpit, engine controls etc.


Compare to Angie`s :

"the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior."

Well as the above shows, that`s a very thick pink sunglass Angie is wearing.

[Crumpp]

160mph.

160 knots - 184.125 Miles (statute) per hour

The FW-190 climbed at a shallow angle but fast speed.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Angus M8,

Here is why a 190 should out zoom a Spitfire at ANY co-speed state, It has almost 3 times the potential energy at equal speed:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy....nergy-conserved



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are about to start comparing these mechanical forms of energy with other forms, we must start paying attention to an additional detail: an object’s potential energy depends not only on its altitude but also on its mass. A 300-ton Boeing at any given altitude has 300 times more potential energy than a 1-ton Piper at the same altitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And here is why a Spitfire in a co-energy state trying to DIRECTLY follow a 190 in a sustained climb will be left behind. The FW-190 climbs at a much faster speed but much shallower angle.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dividing line between the mushing regime and the front side of the power curve is the highest point on the power curve. At this point, the airplane can fly with the minimal amount of dissipation; this is the “low-rent district”. The airspeed where this occurs is called the best-rate-of-climb airspeed and denoted VY.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Crumpp

[Nashwan]

Nashwan will be mad, he isn`t in a good mood or stance anyway around now for some reason.

I'm in an exellent mood, in the last few days I've seen yet another Spitfire test showing a climb rate similar to BS 543s.

Well, let`s see, the report says the Fw 190 outclimbs both the Corsair and Hellcat at all altitudes at it`s favourable climbspeed of 160mph.

It says the Corsair outclimbed the 190 at it's more favourable climb speed of 140 knots, too.

The best climbing speed of the Corsair, 135 knots, was not used at all.

That doesn't tell us much about which plane will climb best when each flys at their own best climbing speed.

Here is why a 190 should out zoom a Spitfire at ANY co-speed state, It has almost 3 times the potential energy at equal speed:

Why 3 times? Not saying it's wrong, I just don't understand where you get the "3 times" figure.

[Angus]

Can't get the link to work Crumpp.
And Izzy:
Even though the 190 outperforms the US fighters at some speeds and some alt bands, that does not apply to all.
And when it comes to maneuvers, the 190 is vastly inferior in ALL aspects except roll.
That I can see through my goggles

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm in an exellent mood, in the last few days I've seen yet another Spitfire test showing a climb rate similar to BS 543s.

I am happy you enjoy your role as an entertainer.
I wonder about the private life of a man who spends his time at ~3AM in the morning making up jig-jag stories about überspitty climb rates, though. You don`t even have a dog I guess.

It says the Corsair outclimbed the 190 at it's more favourable climb speed of 140 knots, too.

The best climbing speed of the Corsair, 135 knots, was not used at all.

That doesn't tell us much about which plane will climb best when each flys at their own best climbing speed.

Right. We know however from the official performance datasheets that the F4U-1 did 3120 fpm at SL, at 20k ft it did 2120 fpm on WEP.

The FW 190A did 3870 fpm at SL, and 3000 fpm at 20k ft.

That`s on 1.42ata. On 1.65ata, FW 190A could climb up to 4600 fpm.

There`s little doubt about the relative climb abilities of the two, really.