Hauptmann Heinz Lange:
I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way
-Very interesting quote, worth parsing: "I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well"
By the way, Isn"t "just about as well" enough to blow wing-loading calculationsd to hell?
This could be interpreted one of two ways: Either the Me-109 had a tighter
unsustained turn radius, which is what I always accepted, and the FW-190A gained parity in SUSTAINED turns over several 360°s, or the opposite: The 109 is tighter sustained, equal unsustained...
Intuitively one would lean for the latter. But virtually every other statement made by almost all other pilots, including Gunther Rall, point the other way: "They (Rechlin) told us it could out-turn our Me-109F (900 lbs lighter than G), however I could out-turn it"
So Rechlin DID think the early FW-190A out-turned the Me-109F... (Unqualified "out-turning" in WWII always implies in
sustained turns, "tighter turn radius" on the other hand is almost always a reference to
unsustained turns: Pretty self-evident common sense, but hard to accept when it doesn't fit your worldview apparently....
Also worth pointing out is the use here of "
tighter horizontal turn", NOT
faster or
better horizontal turn...
Think about the implications of wing-loading: Is the Me-109's lower wing loading a bigger help to
sustain speed in turns or to make the turn
tighter?
Obviously the answer is that a lighter wing loading helps more to make the
tightest turns, but wingloading is of little help to sustain speed in those turns if the drag created by the turning condition is much higher (for unknown reasons due to overall airframe design and behaviour in drag at higher angles of attack)...
Then the heavier aircraft can sustain higher Gs, because of its higher speed, "and do just about as well", despite not turning as tightly...
I always accepted that the Me-109F, and maybe even the G if downthrottled, made TIGHTER turn radiuses: The argument I have always said was that the Me-109's intrinsinc peculiarity is to bleed more speed in sustained turns (this is in fact intrinsinc to the entire Me-109 series: The Me-109E had a minimum radius of 800 feet, but was still out-turned by the Spitfire I with a minimum radius of over 1000 feet. Even the Hurricane I was better than the Spitfire I in real tests with a radius of 850 feet)...
As far as tests disproving what I say for sustained turns, besides the lonely La-5 quote there is always the TsAGI test series #256...
The Me-109G-2 is quoted at 20 seconds, the Spitfire Mk V at 18.8 seconds, the F. Mk IX at 17.5 and the LF at 18.5 seconds (because of the detrimental effects of greater full throttle power I would suppose).
Sustained speeds are all around 320-340 km/h, so not above the FW-190A"s better performing speeds...
I saw a TsAGI #256-based graph on a Russian site that for the FW-190A-4 cryptically said 19-23 seconds: I was told later this was wrong and it should have read 22-23 seconds. If it is wrong, can I see a scan of the original document, since apparently EVERYTHING here hangs on TsAGI test #256?
I would also like to know what TsAGI #256 says of the FW-190A-5...
Even if it IS a powerful statement that the Me-109G out-sustains turns with the FW-190A (I concede as much), the British RAE strenuously disagree with this in their tests against a Me-109G-6/U2, U2 here being a reference to the tall wooden tail apparently, NOT to underwing gondolas as often wrongly assumed...
So even if Russian combat pilots say unequivocally "Better maneuverability on the horizontal than the Bf-109", the Russian combat pilots AND the RAE test establishment are wrong here, but the #256 test ran by Russian test pilots is right?
What was the TsAGI turn time on the FW-190A-5?
Gaston
P.S. Nobody here remembers an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace posting here and answering questions through a relative in his own 6-8 page thread in 2004-2005, or how he out-turned a P-51D on the deck and shot it down? Must be happening here EVERY DAY I guess... You guys are unbelievable...
G.
