Oleg says Bf109 rolls faster than Fw190 series? Huh, eh? WTF??

[fscott]

In what century and what country?

Like many people I visit this forum maybe once or twice per week and just picked up on the thread about IL-2.  Then I went over to SimHQ and read the thread about the test data being debated among the PHD's.

Is Oleg still standing by his statement? And where the f*ck is he getting his data?

100% of the data I've seen, plus every freaking aviation book about WW2 planes, says the 190 was the fastest roller of the mainline german fighters, and now ONE MAN comes along "proving" the rest of the world is wrong?

This is like saying the Tiger tank was the fastest tank of the war.

Good grief Oleg...

[fscott]

Uhm, just a thought, is it possible Oleg is getting "rollrate" mixed with "turnrate"?

This is the only logical conclusion I can come to based upon Oleg's outlandish statement.  It really makes me wonder about the whole IL-2 flight modelling, if he really said what he means.

[Boroda]

Unfortunately, it's not only Oleg Maddox's opinion, but an opinion of TsAGI and NII VVS.

Like an old Soviet joke: surprisingly, Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels are two persons, not four  

[Boroda]

Fscott, there is at least one person at Maddox team who knows the difference between English terms "roll" and "turn", but the problem is that he is too busy now to read Western forums.

But I think that your idea can be right... I'll inqure at the Russian Shturmovik forum right now.

[luthier]

FScott,


That's because every book you (and I) have ever read is all based on a single evaluation report of a FW-190. By the way, the famed NACA charts don't even show Bf-109 roll rates anywhere near the FW's.

If somebody told about the roll rates a few months ago, I'd laugh in his face just as well. However, I kinda had this weird feeling in the back of my mind and just couldn't find an acceptable explanation as to why Luftwaffe achieved such incredible successes in the Bf-109 and moved the FW-190 to heavy fighter and ground attack role while continuing to improve the Bf-109.

I talk to a few WWII veterans, and I know a person who is a regular at Luftwaffe veteran meetings - he's good friends with Gunther Rall and many other lesser-known aces; his neighbourghs are a JG5 and JG77 fighter pilots and his grandfather is fromer JG54.
It's alarming that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those veterans who's been asked on this matter just in the past two days says the exact same thing: Bf-109 was superior in high-speed handling and rate of roll.

I do not know how to explain this difference.
The fact is that Soviet Union has tested dozens of every model of the FW-190 and Bf-109, each tested independently of each other at fear of scientits falsifying the results. And compilation of those individual reports in addition to Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt factories data by today's aviation engineers is the main basis of Oleg's flight model.

I still find the roll rate argument hard to swallow, just because I was lead to believe in FW's superiority by everything I've ever known.

But can somebody explain to me why all those veterans, and independent research of all those scientist in both Germany and Russia shows a different picture from what I always believed?

[Karnak]

Luthier,

The NACA charts are not the only source of info.  Saying that is a pile of BS.

Look at this performance sequence that the British, not Americans, noted:

Spitfire MkIa vs. Bf109E: The Bf109E out rolled the Spitfire MkIa.

Then the British replaced the fabric covered aelirons with aluminum skined aelirons on the Spitfire MkVb and on all Spitfires after.

The result?  The Spitfire nout rolled the Bf109 at all speeds.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Spitfire easily out rolled the Fw190?  No tests indicate that.

Here is the text of the British combat testing of the Spitfire MkXIV against the Fw190 and Bf109G:
 

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Maximum Speeds
38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.

Maximum Climb
39. The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190 (BMW.801D) or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.

Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

Rate of Roll
42. The FW 190 is very much better.

Conclusion
43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G

Maximum speed
44. The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.

Maximum Climb
45. Same results. At 16,000 ft. indentical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV out-climbs the Me.109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without opening throttle. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the Me.109G quite easily.

Dive
46. During the initial part of the dive, the Me.109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 m.p.h. is reached, the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the Me.109G.

Turning Circle
47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction.

Rate of Roll
48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion
49. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Me.109G in every respect.

That isn't NACA data, it is AFDU Tactical Trials data.  You are saying that all American, British and German tests are BS in favor of the two Russian tests?

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[fscott]

If the FW190 was such a lousy roller, why did they ever go into production? What was the advantage of the first production Fw190 over the current mainline 109?

The Germs had several radial version aircraft designs in testing, so that couldn't be the reason, they also had several powerfully armed versions of the 109 as well as prototypes, so that cannot be the reaons either.

As far as I can see, if the Bf109 DID in fact outroll the Fw190, then there was absolutely no reason for the Germs to give the go ahead for 190 production.  

Somewhere I remember reading that one of the main reasons for thumbs up to Fw190 production was it's "substantial rollrate", and "ability to perform scissors."

[luthier]

I'm at a loss here...

I find the US and UK tests trustworthy - but I also can't force myself to completely discount the Soviet tests and all those Luftwaffe veterans I've heard from in the past two days...

I think that the answer may be somewhere in between.

I know for a fact now that Bf-109 was not as bad at high speeds as I always believed - not only Luftwaffe veterans, but the official FAF test report, plus stories from a few pilots who pulled out of 750 km/h dives attest to the Soviet tests correctness.

Also, Adolph Galland among other pilots has stated that Bf-109 had lighter controls at higher speeds.

Can it be that in a general agressive high-speed low-alt Eastern Front environment Bf-109 outrolled the 190, while at higher alt lower speed Western Front conditions FW had a better rate of roll?

I am yet to see a single chart - including the Soviet - showing performance curves for the 109. I've seen plenty of the FW data. I'd love to overlay all those curves from all the sources and see if maybe Soviet scientists were more competent that you believe.

Descriptions of the actual tests run would be great. Do you have anything on the RAF rate of roll tests, Karnak? Or just the results?

[Hristo]

Maybe we should wait to see Fw 190 in Il-2 first. And then see how those two compare to each other ?

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

[Karnak]

Just the results.

Those tests were intended to give frontline pilots an idea what to do in a given circumstance.  If the roll rate swtiched from the Spitfire's advantage at low speed to the 109's advantage at high speed it would have been noted.

The Spitfire will ALWAYS out roll a Bf109.

Likewise, an Fw190 will ALWAYS out roll a Spitfire.

Here are the results from the same test against the Spitfire MkIX and Tempest MkV:
 

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX
13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TEMPEST V

Range and Endurance
24. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of both aircraft. (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb. boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

24A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-

The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S. Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high crusing speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. longe range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
25. From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 feet as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 feet.

Maximum Climb
26. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed thoughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead.

Dive
27. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle
28. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll
29. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph., but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

Conclusions
30. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling techique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height.

Note how they noted the exchange of roll rate advantage with the Tempest.

Keep in mind tha air combat on the west front was not high altitude, low speed.  There was plenty of low altitude, high speed combat, particularly by the RAF.  Much of the high altitude combat was also high speed.

[pugg666]

from fscott

 

Somewhere I remember reading that one of the main reasons for thumbs up to Fw190 production was it's "substantial rollrate", and "ability to perform scissors."

i was under the impression that one of the main reasons why the 190 was given the thumbs up was because it used an engine that was not under great demand and therefore highly avaliable?
correct me if i'm wrong on this one.

[DeeZCamp]

First off the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows...From what Ive seen in film or other wise.

This is a bs issue, aces has dampend roll rates because of lag/warp rolling issues. Its just like a stick stur issue.

Ya dont see dampening or stick stiring issues in il2.. and Ive tested it... the other plane shows/rolls at his FE rate.

simple.

[Karnak]

DeeZCamp,

Aces High does not have its roll rates dampened to prevent lag issues.  Thus says HTC.  The roll rates of the aircraft in AH are where HTC believes that they should be.

I have never seen footage of WWII aircraft rolling like those in Il2.  If you know of a link to such footage I'd love to see it.

[jihad]

Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
First off the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows...From what Ive seen in film or other wise.

This is a bs issue, aces has dampend roll rates because of lag/warp rolling issues. Its just like a stick stur issue.

Ya dont see dampening or stick stiring issues in il2.. and Ive tested it... the other plane shows/rolls at his FE rate.

simple.

Pure roadkill deez, the "dont move your controls so fast" eliminates stick stirring, and I don't see any data from you to confirm that AH has *dampened* roll rates.

Plenty of knowledgeable people who have NACA data agree that AH hits the numbers, until you get a clue as to what your talking about shut the diddly up - you look stupider everytime you post remarks like the above.

If you can't back up your claims about Aces High FM with hard data your opinions don't mean dick, and 4 people mini games aren't a true test of net coding either.

Why don't you do everyone a favor and delete your bookmark for the UBB?

Don't go away mad, just go away.

[Nash]

But Jihad - "the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows"... that's gotta count for somethin'.