Vy vs Best Energy Airspeed

[JG14_Josf]

What is more likely?

I placed my bet.

What is the point of such scrutiny? Is this a simple matter of accuracy in journalism or is there another reason for this need to identify the FW in question, the date of the fight, or any other specific detail?

If the idea is to be accurate then by all means identify the planes involved. If the best that can be done is to calculate internment dates against production dates and then the results still allow for the event to hold true then what has been done? Has accuracy been served to communicate your opinion?

Is that it?

Please don’t read anything in between the lines. I am asking a simple academic question. Is that the extent of your message concerning my attempt to communicate what I consider to be valuable information concerning our common interest i.e. WWII air combat?

My opinion is that the message found in those words is valuable because it is accurate specific to the application of tactics in air combat relative to specific performance capabilities. If your contention is limited to the possible error concerning the identification of a specific plane model and if there is no new information that can accurately identify the error then thanks for the effort.

Is this the extent of our communication?

[TequilaChaser]

this started out as a great thread!  ya'll should switch emails

with that said, if it was a Fw190A8 verses a P51B
or a Fw190D9 vs a P51D it all really wouldn't matter unless the game you flying is as accurate as the real life counter parts........so it could matter to a degree depending on how well the flight sim you are transfering this knowledge to is designed to being close to the real thing.......

the differences in the P51B and P51D as well as the FW190A8 and the FW190D9 are quiet unique so if you are trying to take the thread you quoted and put it toward  flying against said aircraft in the game, if the aircraft are mis identified you would be in for a surprise, maybe for the good maybe for the worst.....

[Crumpp]

another reason for this need to identify the FW in question, the date of the fight, or any other specific detail?

Yes.

Examining the aircraft backs up some documentation I have and might help complete a puzzle.

My opinion is that the message found in those words is valuable because it is accurate specific to the application of tactics in air combat relative to specific performance capabilities.

Exactly.  This encounter does represent one of the very few anecdotes of USAAF aces running into experienced Luftwaffe pilots.  The more details, the more we learn from it.

You have to understand that the vast majority of the Luftwaffe the USAAF encontered were not trained well enough to make any kind of air to air combat comparision based off of aircraft performance.

Here we do see two master's at work and specific aircraft performance is a factor.  It is even more significant once the correct opponents are identified.  Expecially since this is exactly the manner Experten Luftwaffe FW-190A8 pilots relate they fought their aircraft with great success against the P51.

With that said It is not my intention or desire to hijack.  This is a great thread and I think Identifying the opponents adds to it.  The more "known's" we have the more accurate our predictions.

Crumpp

[Badboy]

Originally posted by JG14_Josf
I'm not sure where you are going with the Jet vs Prop comparison but the sustained turn technique described in "Fighter Combat" serves me quite well in WWII combat simulation.

Hi Joe,

Just trying to be helpful here… There is a lot of information to be found on sustained turns, and a lot of it comes from the perspective of modern air combat, so when you actually try to figure out how to perform an optimum sustained turn, in a practical sense, information can be misleading. Sources might advocate rules of thumb, such as maintaining a speed close to corner velocity, which is good advice in a Jet, because the sustained turn rate can drop rapidly below that speed. But the best sustained turn rate for a prop fighter occurs well below corner velocity, at the edge of the stall, where most Jet’s would be wallowing well below their best sustained turn rate.

For example, Shaw says in his book that "the minimum sustained turn radius is normally achieved at fairly slow airspeed, considerably slower than for best sustained turn rate." and you can see from the EM diagram I posted, that is true for the Jet, (shown in red) where the best sustained turn radius occurs at a much lower speed than the best sustained turn rate. However, that’s not so true for propeller driven fighters, the difference is very much smaller, and for practical purposes the best sustained turn rate and radius are at the same point in the envelope, on the edge of the stall. That’s an important distinction that often gets missed when these ideas are translated into the geometry of air combat, so I was just pointing it out in my previous post in an attempt to be helpful.

Badboy

[hitech]

Rule of thumb 2.5 g stall speed for sustained turns.

HiTech

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

If the error can be identified then please do so, otherwise your guess must be weighted against the guess of a guy who is claiming to have actually been there and therefore his opinion is somewhat more valuable than yours in my opinion. Am I being unreasonable?

The accuracy of identifying the plane type is secondary if the idea is to understand the tactical application of maneuvering based upon performance variables, which is the reason why I posted the quote.

The quote is not simply a pilots account of a specific engagement, rather it is an example illustrating ‘how to’ employ tactics based upon specific performance advantages.

Is this not valuable information? Is this information not germane to the topic?

Is it more important to identify a specific plane with a 20 percent wing loading advantage over another plane with a 20 percent power loading advantage than it is to identify the tactics that work and do not work as these performance advantages are pitted against each other?

I think, as far as the quote from “Fighter Combat” goes the important information concerns the application of tactics and maneuvering relative to variations in performance capabilities and that is why I posted the quote. To me the identity of the planes involved is secondary and therefore I see no reason to spend a whole lot of energy and time trying to refute the stated observation. If there was a mistake it matters not to the nature of the information in consideration.

One plane employs an acceleration advantage to extend into vertical capability, while the other plane uses a wing loading advantage to gain angles. Dog fighting (according to this type of information) included more than a simple matter of pulling on the stick to get on the opponents tail. A plane with an advantage in power loading could extend from an opponent in a diving turn and in the process gain a sufficient advantage in energy to reverse into position from defensive to offensive, from being in front to being in the rear hemisphere of the plane with the wing loading advantage. The distinction is being made as to what performance advantages lend themselves to which tactics. Powerloading (which is a qualified term in the Book) supports energy tactics while wing loading advantages tend to support angles tactics.

This distinction supports the claim that dog fighting does not require turn performance advantages.

If this is true, that dog fighting can be conducted by an inferior turning plane against a better turning plane by using energy tactics then there is value in figuring out at which speed one plane with gain energy over another plane.

Is it possible that the better power loaded plane in the example unloaded his plane in his diving turn, that the FW pilot reduced drag in an effort to gain relative energy?

Is it then possible that the FW pilot made an efficient turn to zoom his plane on a heading that would again unload his plane to minimize drag?

Did the FW pilot just go to his best relative energy gaining speed and then sit back and wait for the expected results?

My efforts are aimed at understanding Air Combat.

Games are fun and sometimes they manage to pass as a reasonable simulation from my perspective. But what do I know?

I prefer to defer to those who are more likely to know, those who have sat in those planes and those who have been required to fight for their lives.

What does it matter if my opinion is in error? Being ignorant is not so bad. Being ignorant of my ignorance is a real problem.

If the FW was not a D model and if this can be confirmed then that is a step toward knowledge. Meanwhile I do not know. I only have my opinion.

[JG14_Josf]

Badboy,

The sustained turn technique does not involve sustaining level flight in a turn. In fact, as I have found it to be best utilized the sustained turn technique works better if you lure the enemy into a nose low situation just before the transition into a zoom. In such a situation the trap is set when the target goes for angles with gravity against him and therefore he burns even more energy with the increase in drag.

The sustained turn technique requires the employer to maintain corner or vertical maneuvering speed which ever is the higher velocity. The setup is dependent upon maintaining this speed and it definitely requires that the target over-commits, at least from my limited experience.

This technique works even in a double inferior situation however the margin of error is reduced requiring the target to be very aggressive. A mistake in judgment of relative energy is even more costly when neither turn nor energy performance is on your side.

The sustained turn technique is a nose to tail ore two circle turn post merge set-up to lure the target into a lead turn sort of affair where the trap is set when the target is forced to make up too many angles in a too short period of time during the second merge and overshoot. The target burns all his energy going for the shot while the attacker withdrawals his energy savings into a zoom or spiraling zoom climb.

The target is left out of speed and out of luck, especially if your wingman was in the right place at the right time.

Geometry is important. The long way around gives you time to judge relative energy and will cancel any gains in angles made by the target. The more he goes for angles the better will be the set-up.

It is really important not to lose your nerve at the second merge. Hold the lag turn and then turn in at the last minute to quickly accelerate the increase in angles.

If the target stalls out then the set-up was… almost perfect. If the target just manages to hold it together, just shy of stalling, then he will be more likely to follow you up for the coup de grace.

I really like it better when a wingman delivers the goods. I can just imagine the opponent thinking “One more second and I’ve got him” just as he realizes his ultimate exposure.

These guys with the turn and burn planes often have that arrogance of superiority and they are the ones who go for the bait, I think.

I’ve been there too. Imagine my fortune to have finally realized this maneuver. It works.

[Crumpp]

If the error can be identified then please do so, otherwise your guess must be weighted against the guess of a guy who is claiming to have actually been there and therefore his opinion is somewhat more valuable than yours in my opinion. Am I being unreasonable?

It is not a guess Josf.  When Godfrey was flying a P51B there were NO FW-190D9's in service.  

The plane did not exist except as a handful of prototypes that were not flown in combat nor did they ever encounter enemy aircraft.

It's like saying a Luftwaffe pilot encountered a P51D in 1942.

Godfrey was shot down and made a POW in August of 1944 flying a P51D.

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces2.html#Godfrey

August 24, 1944, POW - in P-51D 44-13412, 8 miles northeast of Nordhausen, Germany, he was hit by his wingman's gunfire and bellied in

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/resource/godfrey.html

The first 30 production FW-190D9's were delivered for SERVICE trials to III/JG54 in October '44.  They did not enter service until November '44.

Crumpp

[Wotan]

Actually, according to data from "Green Hearts, First in Combat with the Dora 9" by Axel Urbanke, the FW 190D-9 production began in August '44  and was in 'operational sevice'  with III./JG 54 in September '44.

EDITED for clarity and to add this link:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

All that you have convinced me about is that an error has been made somewhere concerning the information being presented.

If you presume to know something based upon text written down on pieces of paper then this is something you choose to do, and even if what you think you know to be true does turn out to be true it doesn't alter the fact that you do not and cannot know everything.

You pick and choose what you want to believe and discard that which you do not what to believe. We all are guilty of this tendency. Some of us are more skeptical than others.

I choose to believe that all the information so far presented on this subject is true and false to some degree. Why? Because I am absolutely sure of one thing: that I cannot possibly prove any one of the statements so far presented with the information I currently posses.

“The plane did not exist except as a handful of prototypes that were not flown in combat nor did they ever encounter enemy aircraft.”

Even if the above were proven in some manner that has not yet been my experience to know then there remains other possible reasons for the contradiction. Other possibilities are possible; they exist even if we have not thought about them.

Example:
Godfrey actually described a situation told to him by another P-51 pilot and the account was in this manner first recorded with dates mixed up. Impossible! What does it matter?

What is certain is that the account appears in black and white as well as all those references that you have so far presented. A contradiction exists.

If you are convinced that the contradiction can be explained in a specific manner then by all means don’t let me rain on your parade.

Please allow me to be somewhat more skeptical, after all, what does it matter? I have no stake in this other than a desire to know, and so far all that I know is that the quote is very useful for understanding air combat and that a contradiction exists concerning plane type, or date, or pilot, or whatever.

[Crumpp]

Wotan,

According to Dietmar Hermanns book:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764318764

It did not reach III/JG 54 until October and was undergoing factory trials in production/factory trials in September.

Interesting.

Nevertheless, Godfrey certainly did not encounter an FW-190D9 while flying a P51B.

From his service dates my guess is an FW-190A8, the most common Focke Wulf at that time.

Josef,

It has been my experience from interviewing veterans and being a veteran myself that mistakes happen.  I had one pilot swear he always outturned Yaks in an FW-190A8.  I believed him but pressed him for some details, as the science will tell you, this is impossible.  Several days later he called me back to clarify after much thinking about it that no he did not level turn.  He used yo-yo's, which is an energy tactic that looks very similar to turning.

Crumpp

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

Please allow me to communicate one more angle on this contention.

In the first place it seems important to express that at no time have I concluded or tried to communicate that Godfrey or any other pilot certainly and without doubt has done anything specific.

Being certain about anything derived from written text is a step I am not inclined to make without reserving a healthy bit of skepticism.

Over time it seems to me that the more information that my brain processes and the more things repeat or fit nicely together into some sort of conformity the more I am able to recognize certain things to be likely. I am able to hypothesize. I can then work on proving, if possible, but the skeptic in me demands that I recognize the difference.

What makes sense to me based upon reading Robert Shaw's book and other sources is the idea that energy tactics worked in history when the FW190 was used to combat the P-51.

Your experience with pilot interviews is a very good thing to communicate and thanks for this effort. What is important about their message? I think it is that we are all human beings and that sometimes our humanity is put to the test.

I had the pleasure to listen to Charlie Brown, Franz Stigler, and Gabby Gabreski. Listening to Gabby speak was especially inspiring. The man optimized honor in my eyes. This is not to be confused with some form of hero worship. Honorable people as simply honorable, they are not perfect, nor god like. From that experience my tendency is to afford the fighter pilots word a greater measure of credibility. Perhaps this is a mistake. I don’t think so.

Therefore I am back to my original situation to weigh the printed words of Godfrey and Shaw against the printed words of Crumpp and his resources. No one comes up short if my mind simply remains open until further evidence can remove doubt.

If during your interviews your wish is to get specific and exact information then I’m wondering if the communication takes on the form of interrogation. This is my imagination. I don’t know. If so then the incentive to be accurate may be displaced by a desire to do something else, and this would be a shame, in my opinion. That is all I have to work with since this subject is another one that leaves me without enough information to draw any absolute conclusions.

[Crumpp]

What makes sense to me based upon reading Robert Shaw's book and other sources is the idea that energy tactics worked in history when the FW190 was used to combat the P-51.

Absolutely.  What I draw from this encounter is that each fighter against it's contemprary had it's advantages.  I think Godfrey ran into a expert pilot in an FW-190A8 cleared for the new boost pressures that had just been emplaced the previous month.

Or

He ran into an expert pilot equipped with the new engine the FW-190A8 was cleared for the previous month.  

Impossible to answer without more information.

Honorable people as simply honorable, they are not perfect, nor god like. From that experience my tendency is to afford the fighter pilots word a greater measure of credibility. Perhaps this is a mistake. I don’t think so.

Exactly.  These men are very honorable and you must understand that there is nothing dishonorable or dishonest to be found.  

Good example is the FW-190A8 pilot.  Study up on a yo-yo.  It is nothing more  than a climbing or diving TURN using the dynamics of energy and geometry to make up for turn radius.  It has been the cause of much confusion in the history of the airwar.  For example you will find many claims of Marsailles "outturning" P40's in the Desert.  Talk to his wingman and he will tell you Marsailles conducted yo-yo's.

When he said he outturned yaks, it was the truth from his viewpoint in the cockpit.

If during your interviews your wish is to get specific and exact information then I’m wondering if the communication takes on the form of interrogation.

Your hardly in a position to make such an assumption.  No they are discussions.  I have found the pilots very much like to talk about their aircraft especially with someone who is knowledgable.  I find them very enjoyable and I believe they do too.  I don't think they would call back as often as they do if they were not.  

Crumpp

[JG14_Josf]

Crumpp,

If you read into my words that I have made an assumption concerning your communication then you are extending your imagination past the boundaries of good cause. I intentionally used specific wording so as to communicate the firm believe that an assumption on my part is wrong.

My use of the word ‘interview’ was in error if your communication is instead better described as ‘discussion’. In this manner I now have more information and can form a better, more accurate assessment of what you are trying to communicate. From a place of ignorance we are all bound to make mistakes. I thought I had made that quite clear already.

On the subject of assumptions it may help for us to not assume either of us are completely ingornant. One could ask the other: “if” you don’t know this then… or ‘if’ you have made an assumption then you are ‘in no position to…”

I am quite able to employ in simulation something similar to what Robert Shaw describes as the ‘High Yo-Yo’. My tendency is to not claim absolute knowledge on this or any particular maneuver. Why am I writing on this forum? I want to know more and gain insight where my doubts remain.

Confusion, I think, results from people who assume that they know something when in fact they do not and then they go about communicating this error. Is it not better to communicate with a healthy reserve of skepticism?

[Crumpp]

If during your interviews your wish is to get specific and exact information then I’m wondering if the communication takes on the form of interrogation. This is my imagination. I don’t know. If so then the incentive to be accurate may be displaced by a desire to do something else, and this would be a shame, in my opinion. That is all I have to work with since this subject is another one that leaves me without enough information to draw any absolute conclusions.

Sounds like your wondering if I interrogate and put these guys under pressure so that I get the answer's I want!!

Would not be a very good technique for writing a history book about the events they lived through.

My use of the word ‘interview’ was in error if your communication is instead better described as ‘discussion’.

It is the use of the word "interrogate".

On the subject of assumptions it may help for us to not assume either of us are completely ingornant.

I certainly do not assume you are ignorant nor anyone else.  There are some very intelligent folks who prowl these boards.

Confusion, I think, results from people who assume that they know something when in fact they do not and then they go about communicating this error. Is it not better to communicate with a healthy reserve of skepticism?

Confusion comes from many sources.  One is being verbose and another is a passive agressive style.

Enjoy the discussion, Josef but would like to see the thread get back on track.
I think your a good guy and I hope you find the answers you seek.

Crumpp