D9 should turn better in AH (new arguments)

[Naudet]

Why the D9 should be a better tunring plane as it is at the moment.

I know we had this discussion quite often in the forum, but i now come up with a new argumentation.
To not offend our allieds, i will just compare the D9 to the other german planes FW190 and ME109.

From tests between allied planes and captured FW190A3 and ME109G6 it can be taken as fact that the FW190A3 turns better than the G6, why, cause the A3 turns as good as a P51B while the G6 is clearly outturned by the P51B.

In AH we have (assuming equal pilot skills) a better turning 109er over all FW190.

Now i explain why the D9 should outturn both the A5 and 109er in AH.

The concept i use is the energy maneuvering concept (EMC), that explains turning performance mostly due to the exess power a plane has. It is much advanced over the wingloading concept which has much to many flaws ti be off any use. It can be said that wingloading only gives ideas about performance differences when the wing is of totaly the same constrution except the wing area, than the wingloading will give an idea which plane turns better. But if u compare different wig types this no longer is usefull
The rules are more exess power = better turning performance, especially substained turn.

The factors important for the EMC are engine output (i use emergency power output in this post), drag factor, weight and so far i understood it right lift factor.

Now we can say why the D9 should turn better than the A5 and A8. The lift factor is the same, but engine output has increased, drag is reduced (D9s drag factor is lower than of A-series) weight compared to A5 is nearly the same and to A8 it is also lower. So the overall exess power of the D9 is higher than A5 or A8 and so turn performance is increased.

Compared to the 109er we can now get back to our test from above. The A3 turns better than the G6, we can assume that the D9 has equal or slightly better exess power than the A3 due to the much increased engine output and the lower drag compensating the lower weight of the A3. So D9 should outturn the G6 in substained turns.
The G10 should also be turning worse, as engine power may have increased but also weight increases.

This is normally also covered from statements of LW pilots, the later the 109er version the better climb and speed but turning getting worse. And also the statement that D9 could hold turns longer than A8 or 109er G series.

Now a little excurs to turn vs allied planes.
Vs a P5P1 a D9 should turn the same. But against a P51D it should get a slight advantage, cause the weight of the D has increased and also the drag has increased due to the bubble canopy. Additionaly in this case we can directly look at the wingloading cause both birds use the same wingtype and size, and Ds wingloading is higher therefore turning is worse than B.


I know now a large number of people will beat at me, but for the blaming posts plz use the thread i posted under „Beat on the worst LW Whiner Naudet“.

Serious arguments can be posted here,  insults plz in the other posts.


tc Naudet

[juzz]

"From tests between allied planes and captured FW190A3 and ME109G6 it can be taken as fact that the FW190A3 turns better than the G6, why, cause the A3 turns as good as a P51B while the G6 is clearly outturned by the P51B."

There's a RAF pilot test flight report of the Fw 190A-3 where he states he could easily out-turn some P-51's(Note: P-51 is much lighter than P-51B) which attacked him(he couldn't tell if they were mock attacks, or if those Mustang guys were actually trying to kill him!).

"weight compared to A5 is nearly the same and to A8 it is also lower."

Not true. The A-5 still weighs MUCH less than the D-9.

"The G10 should also be turning worse, as engine power may have increased but also weight increases"

1. D-9 has less drag than A-5, weighs more, and has much more power.

2. G-10 has less drag than G-6, weighs more, and has much more power.

Why are you saying that the D-9 would improve in turning ability over the A-5, but that the G-10 would be worse than the G-6? According to the basis of your argument the G-10 should turn better than the G-6.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: juzz ]

[Naudet]

I see ur point on the G10, here i must refer to the pilot report of JG301/302, Hoehenstaffel of JG26, were they stated that the design of the 109 was already at its peak wiht the F4/G1+G2 and that the modification after those versions only worsened the flight charakteristics especially turning performance.

This fact is due to the 109er being modified beyond its original design capacities while the FW190 had not reached the design limits even with planes like the D11,D12 or D13. And weight increase from G6 to G10 is a higher percentage increase than from A5 to D9.

And on the A5 weight, my sources always give something like 8200 lbs normally loaded while the D9 is around 8400 lbs. If u have other numbers plz post em here and give the source, than i might have to correct the A5 to D9 performance assumptions.


And the RAF pilots statement about A3 turning would support my assumtion that the FW190 D9 should turn better than P51D (maybe even P51B).

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]

[gripen]

Hmmm...
If you mean this RAF pilot statement:

Statement

It does not say that the A-3 actually out turned Mustang but was able to get on the tail. I quess that pilot means that due to good roll rate of the A-3 he was able to out turn Mustangs in the beginning of the turn. According to this:

Better Statement

The Mustang turns better than the A-3.

gripen

[Naudet]

gripen, something is wrong with the links, the only lead to a "this page is not available" message.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]

[gripen]

Strange, they do work for me. But try this main page instead:

Index

BTW the G-6 used for tactical trials against the Mustang was with wing cannons (TP814 according to West's Captive Luftwaffe).

gripen

[MANDOBLE]

My own experience flying a lot A8 A5 and D9:

A5 outturns D9 all the time.
A8 and F8 outturns initially the D9 (all at lo speeds), but bleeds energy faster, so, D9 is able to maintain itself circling more time. After one or two complete circles, the advantage should be at the Dora side.

I agree with the point that D9 should outturn A8 from the first time, and not only after one or two circles.

The extrange thing is that A8/F8 and A5 have better control at very hi speeds than D9, even better roll rate.

[Naudet]

I find the energy retention of the D9 is too low, this is also supported by the EMC, cause if u have more exess power at hand u dont loose E as fast as with less power, also less drag --> less E loss.

[Wilbus]

Sounds right Naudet but to have anything done we gotto post pure numbers, and see if you're right, I'd be very happy if you are  

The only high speed problem the 190 ever had was the slight weight increase of the Ailerons, and when ya thing about it, there were very few planes that actually exeeded 500Mph the way we do in AH.

[Naudet]

LOL its a thing with the pure numbers, the wingloading argument is still a major one in AH discussion thought i already was proven directly after the 2nd WW that this argument has to many flaws and is only valuable when u look at wings of same design that have different wing area

[BlauK]

Naudet,

I thought that A3 and D9 are of completely different wing and fuselage design, A3 being one of the early well turning FWs and D9 being a "long-nosed" version.

A3 cleary out-turns 109s, but D9 should not.

My sources mention over 9400 lbs loaded weight for D9, also I think that wing loading is a valid factor. Both 109s and P-51D have a smaller wing loading.

Furthermore 109G-10 should not be much worse turner than G-6. Difference in weight was not that much.

Some of the sources I compiled earlier for comparisons in EAW: Plane Stats

[R4M]

Originally posted by BlauK:
Naudet,

I thought that A3 and D9 are of completely different wing and fuselage design, A3 being one of the early well turning FWs and D9 being a "long-nosed" version.

the 190A3 has an almost identical wing to that of the D9. Is true that in the 190A6 the wing was a bit strenghtened to allow for the use of MG151 on the outter wing, but that was it.

The D9 had an identical wing to that of the A6,A7 and A8, and an almost identical one ot that of the A3.

About the fuselage, no again. THe BMW was moved a couple inches forward in the A4-A5 version change. But the fuselage itself was the same. The D9 added a section to the tail to compensate for the longer nose, but the main airframe was exactly identical.

My sources list the 190D9 around 350lbs lighter than a 190A8. AS the 190A8 is around 1000lbs lighter than the 190A5, you get that D9 is 650lbs heavier than A5.

I dont know if that is very accurate, but is the best I have on the matter.

I also think that the E-retaining of the 190D9 is under what it should. But that is an opinion I have comparing it with other planes of the set, not because factual data.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[Naudet]

The normal laoded weight for a D9 as out of original FW climb chart is 4270 kg, that includes ETC 504 rack, full fuel and loaded guns. At this weight the plane is combat ready.

An A8 at same status (figher, normally laoded) was 4380 kg.

Thats the data i got for D9 and A8.The figures i have for A3 are loaded 8770 lbs. No data on kg available to me.

[Urchin]

Don't think it would cut it guys.  I've read that the D-9 could outturn the A series "in the hands of a competent pilot"- but I've never seen data on turn circles or turn rate comparing the two.  Without those, I don't think HTC would be willing to make the Dora turn better.

[R4M]

just by comparing powerloadings, you see clearly that the 190D9 should have a better turnrate than the 190A8, and not that much worse than the 190A5. Turning circle should be smaller than 190A8 and wider than 190A5.

Of course I'm talking in a 2100hp powered Ju213A Fw190D9. At this point I still dont know wich engine-fuel-booster combination is the D9 actually using (I think its B4 and MW50,but I'm not that sure at 100%)