Spit 5

[Angus]

I have an account of an uphill chase, P51's vs 190A's
Interested?

Oh, the P51's caught the 190's and shot some down.

[VO101_Isegrim]

And that would prove....?

I`d happily be in a 190A-6 vs. any Mustang. Quite a good match, `cept for firepower. But then again, I`d be even more in G-10 or K-4.

[Angus]

Here comes:
(Engagement starts with the 190's some reasonable altitude above)
"We were at 12000 feet and the Fw's climbed for all they were worth, but we gradually caught up with them and at 22000 feet we were close enough to open fire."

The 190's performed a Split S and dived. Look what happened:

"I told Yellow 3 and 4 to continue chasing the  other planes, then rolled over and followed the Silly fellow who thought he could leave a Mustang behind him in a dive. I told Basil Clapin, my No 2, to follow the Fw on the right and I'd take care of the one on the left. We quickly caught up with them and I was able to direct a long stream of bullets at my adversary before I was forced to pull over to one sid as I was about to pass him."

No testflight of course, but actual combat. That particular P51 outclimbed and outdived the 190. The fight evolved into a treetop level turnfight, where the P51 also outturned the enemy aircraft and eventually the German pilot after suffering damage, bailed out.

So where did the Mustang rack up vs F6F and F4U again??????

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
No testflight of course, but actual combat. That particular P51 outclimbed and outdived the 190. The fight evolved into a treetop level turnfight, where the P51 also outturned the enemy aircraft and eventually the German pilot after suffering damage, bailed out.

So where did the Mustang rack up vs F6F and F4U again??????

Well I don`t see where your oral story disproved the fact the P-51 wasn`t anywhere near the manouverbility of the F6F or F4U, as told by direct US comparisions between their own planes. Or by British testing between the two.

I can post oral stories of 109s outturning Spitfires with ease, 109Es catching recce Spits etc. They don`t prove much.

Well especially not to our three partisan forum members we have on this board who say no LW plane could do anything good, LOL.

[Angus]

"I can post oral stories of 109s outturning Spitfires with ease, 109Es catching recce Spits etc. They don`t prove much. "

Please Post them.

Oh, this was more than an oral Story, it ended with a confirmed kill, and it consisted of several Mustangs going through the same sequence with several 190's.
Full power dive and climb is a rather more reliable thing than the out-turn tales, since in the turning sence there may often be unknown factors, such as typically "E".
But catching 190's uphill in a 10K climb, I found rather interesting.
 Surprizing, for as you say "the P-51 wasn`t anywhere near the manouverbility of the F6F or F4U"  

[VO101_Isegrim]

Angie, nobody is stopping you from believing your own oral stories instead of objective comparison reports.

[Angus]

This is NOT AN OWN ORAL STORY.
This occured on the 24th of June 1944.
P51's involved were C's from 65th sqn RAF.
Some kills occured, were filmed, and confirmed. I actually have seen one of those.
But, since it obviously does not suit your hot-belief, you prefer to get it down to another level.

Point is, the 190 was no uber-plane, it had it's pro's and con's like all others. VS the US late war fighters such as P51's it was often in very serious trouble.
The "Oral" story gives you a hint of that. The 190's, presumably the A8 line were at disadvantage in those 3 aspects of performance, Climb, dive, and speed, and in terms of maneuverablility, slightly inferior in turn rate, even against the P51.
In a fight against the Corsair, the difference would perhaps have been even more marked, at least if your words about the P51 being totally inferioe are worth anything.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Angie, nobody is stopping you from believing your own oral stories instead of objective comparison reports.

I think you are missing the point Isegrim.  You seem to want to discount any kind of pilot report that wasn't done in testing.

Yet the reports of pilot's in combat are what will make the rounds of the fighter fields and set the tone for the pilots going into combat.

Think about how the Spit V pilots reacted when they encountered the 190 for the first time.  Despite their reports they were told that there was no new German fighter and that radial they saw was probably just old French Hawk 75s.  Yet the pilots knew they were up against something they couldn't tangle with on even terms anymore.

Then they get the IX.  Offficial testing be damned.  The pilots felt like they had an equal or better aircraft to the one that had been kicking them all over the sky while they were in Spit Vs.  That boost in confidence made a huge difference.

You can argue til the cows come home about the details of which could do what thing better by how many feet per minute or miles per hour.  but in my eyes it was that boost in confidence that made the most difference as the pilots began to fly more aggressively and got the most out of thier planes because they believed it could do the job.

While the details count, so does the attitude and the reports of pilots returning from combat helps to set that attitude.

Dan/Slack

[Angus]

Amen to that.
There was always some sense being made out of debriefings.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Point is, the 190 was no uber-plane, it had it's pro's and con's like all others. VS the US late war fighters such as P51's it was often in very serious trouble.
The "Oral" story gives you a hint of that. The 190's, presumably the A8 line were at disadvantage in those 3 aspects of performance, Climb, dive, and speed, and in terms of maneuverablility, slightly inferior in turn rate, even against the P51.

Nobody here claimed the 190 was an uberplane; IMHO, most of it`s reputation was really developed by the RAF itself as an excuse for it`s 'performance' against a few LW Gruppen along the channel in 1942. The FW 190 was the Boogeyman, the Secret Überplane, the excuse for everything.

You are repeating that 'inferior in everything' line  like a madman ever since you stepped in the thread. Even if the facts, ie. tested climb rates and level speeds, disprove you utterly.

As I said, Angie, you can choose to believe the reality you have created for yourself and live in that.

Originally posted by Angus

In a fight against the Corsair, the difference would perhaps have been even more marked, at least if your words about the P51 being totally inferioe are worth anything.

Funnily enough, as per Erich Brown, who flown them both, considered a 190 a much better fighter, 'a light fighter vs. a heavy one', as he put it. But what can Erich Brown tell about that to you... nothing, really.

[Crumpp]

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html

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.

 

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

This is also why a Spit XII was a deadlier opponent and could follow a 190 directly.  Angle for Angle a Spit IX pays more "rent" because it is farther from its point of equilibrium than the 190 which climbs at a shallower angle and faster speed.  If the 190 climbed at the same Airspeed as the Spitfire (as AH models it now) but shallower angle THEN the Spit IX would catch it by directly following.

The P51 is an extremely aerodynamic plane.  Much more so than either the 190 or the Spit.  I suspect it also climbs at a much faster Airspeed and would not have a problem directly following a 190.

Understand, a Spit IX can EASILY get above a 190 and outclimb it.  He just has to increase his angle of attack and climb at a steeper angle but slower speed.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Guppy35

I think you are missing the point Isegrim.  You seem to want to discount any kind of pilot report that wasn't done in testing.û

No, but they never weight the same as objective, controlled testing. I can bring you an examples of 109s leaving P-51s behind in dives, yet I am inclined to believe they could not, if everything was equal.

Then they get the IX.  Offficial testing be damned.  The pilots felt like they had an equal or better aircraft to the one that had been kicking them all over the sky while they were in Spit Vs.  That boost in confidence made a huge difference.
[/B]

Sure it makes a difference between the behaviour of pilots, and often that what`s makes the difference.

But here`s an example. Newbie Spit IX pilots chases a FW 190 over the channel. He as an awful lot of confidence. The 190 will still leave him behind. Or a Zero chasing an F4U. He knows he rides his own divine Samurai sword, or something like that. Still he will be left behind with ease.

You can argue til the cows come home about the details of which could do what thing better by how many feet per minute or miles per hour.  but in my eyes it was that boost in confidence that made the most difference as the pilots began to fly more aggressively and got the most out of thier planes because they believed it could do the job.

While the details count, so does the attitude and the reports of pilots returning from combat helps to set that attitude.

Dan/Slack [/B]

I can agree with that. Too bad you couldn`t read Tobak`s book, he desribes the same thing. He flew G-6s, G-14s and G-10 from mid44 to the end of the war, and encountered many Soviet types. Now, he said that he could never tell apart the La 5 and La-7, but he always knew when he faced the La-7s, the enemy pilots were much more confident, much more agressive. Previously, it often happened that even large Soviet formation gave up the fight before it commenced, rolled and dived away, if the combat took place at little higher altitude they were used to, `cos they knew the 109s are better at altitude. Not anymore with the La-7.. on the other hand, regardless of what the La pilot believed, he was still outclassed at altitude.. kinda controversial, if you have false confidence, you might end up worser than if you have none.

[Angus]

Well, Izzie pop, in my "reality" I accept the possibility that a P51 could out-dive, out-climb, out-run, and out-turn the 190A series.
I guess I have the same reality as most on these boards then.
Just try to live with yours then

[VO101_Isegrim]

Yeah, the 190 was worthless piece of crap that could do nothing well. Outclassed, in all respects. Like all the LW planes were, after all. You convinced me. Thanks for the enlightening.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim


Sure it makes a difference between the behaviour of pilots, and often that what`s makes the difference.

But here`s an example. Newbie Spit IX pilots chases a FW 190 over the channel. He as an awful lot of confidence. The 190 will still leave him behind.

And the Spit V pilot is saying "thank god the guy is leaving"  while the Spit IX pilot is thinking, 'The SOB is running away!"


It's all about perception

And of course the Spit XII pilot chasing the 190 over the channel catches him and shoots him down

Dan/Slack