Karnak - no disrespect but could you please stay on topic (roll rate) when putting your argument forward? I fail to see what relevance "Search views" have to comparing 109s and 190s roll rate, especially those of a Spit XIV.
I also find "easily", "slightly", "gains on" things when comparing 2 aircraft somewhat childish. How about roll rate in
degrees per second?
Another question - which 109 this tactical comparison is talking about? And which model of 190 was considered for the tests (how many planes were used for testing would be another interesting thing to find out).
Somehow we all seem to forget that Western front 190 was not at all the same plane as it was used in the Eastern front - different roles entirely, different armour/armament.
The problem is that everyone just willing to accept "western sources" as god sent reliable info. From what you've just quoted I see
them as BS, not the russian data. As Luthier pointed out in another thread 2 research establishments in Russia conducted tests using many a captured aircraft. Please note - not the factory data, not brand new planes - combat ready machines that flew real combat sorties!
Heads rolled (literally!) if the data presented was found to be inaccurate... Please be careful when you discount it so easily as BS...
fscott:
If the FW190 was such a lousy roller, why did they ever go into production?
Who knows what made LW to select 190. I'm sure performance was not the only issue that was considered...
