P47 vs 190

[Oldman731]

No... its clearly unclear. The FW in a high angle of attack is going to be losing control and killing the pilot (or at least losing a lot of alt). If you dont realize that you dont know diddly about 190s IRL. Thats how Spits would get the upper hand on them getting them in exactly that situation.

I forgot that you were a FW190 pilot IRL.  You have forgotten much.  Any plane can fly at a high angle of attack - so long as it is not too high an angle - and maintain its altitude.  It's one of the first things new pilots learn.  Physics being what they are, I imagine that both the P-47 and the FW190 could do this, even back then.  The FW was simply able to do it better at low speeds according to the report of the test pilots.

- oldman

[FLS]

My point was that neither fighter is what we would call a turn fighter. They were valued for being good high speed fighters.

If you have questions about the 190 flight model post your data.  

The Spitfire pilots in England told the Jug pilots of the 56th that the P-47 was too big and heavy to turn with the 109s and 190s. The 56th proved them wrong. The size and weight of an aircraft is not an issue when it has sufficient power.

[Noir]

where is Gaston when you need him ?

[Chalenge]

I forgot that you were a FW190 pilot IRL.  You have forgotten much.  Any plane can fly at a high angle of attack - so long as it is not too high an angle - and maintain its altitude.  It's one of the first things new pilots learn.  Physics being what they are, I imagine that both the P-47 and the FW190 could do this, even back then.  The FW was simply able to do it better at low speeds according to the report of the test pilots.

- oldman

Your missing the point (besides using ridiculous comments). Both stories are poor evidence because they leave out far too much detail and the same goes for any video. The videos intent is to prove the number of hits and position during firing. Relative performance of the airplanes is difficult to impossible to derive from the videos.

[Oldman731]

Your missing the point (besides using ridiculous comments). Both stories are poor evidence because they leave out far too much detail and the same goes for any video. The videos intent is to prove the number of hits and position during firing. Relative performance of the airplanes is difficult to impossible to derive from the videos.

Heh, look who's talking.  Pay attention, we were discussing the written pilot report, not the videos.  The written pilot report says that, as tested, the P47 outturned the FW at higher speeds and the FW outturned the 47 at lower speeds.  You promptly pooh-poohed it as unprofessional and unworthy of consideration.  It isn't.  It is a description of multiple mock combats, flown by real pilots in the real airplanes, which I, at least, was able to grasp.

- oldman

[Chalenge]

Its poorly written and anecdotal in content. I pooh-poohed it just like I did you and your opinion.

[Stoney]

Bozon,
if you have a more than two times heavier airframe, you have to produce more than two times more lift also more than two times more thrust to get the same flight performance. More than two is rather close to three in this case.
Is the jug more than two times heavyer that the 109?
Is the jug more than two times powerfuller that the 109?
Can the jugs wing produce more than two times much lift than the 109s  aka was its wingtwo times bigger?

At combat weights, a typical 190A model was about 2/3rds as light as a P47D.  Ironically, it had 2/3rds the wing area.  It had about 3/4's the power at Sea Level.  At those same weights, it possessed almost equivalent wing-loading (if slightly worse).  None of these relationships I've listed, in this context, can be used in isolation to create any sort of relative performance comparison between the two aircraft.

[Debrody]

Stoney, Bozon mentioned the 109 too, and i dont think the jug could outturn the 109 except at very high altitudes. But thats what im saying, those characteristics (and a lot more) all together result the flight performance.  Are you talking about the a-8? I found the 190 a-8 a brick even with only 2 cannons while a jug can handle very nicely when it has less than 50% fuel. But again, true, at higher altitude the jug should eat the 190 alive with its monster engine, helluva flaps and big wings. Its the low altitude performance when the 190 should win, in my dumb opinion.

[Stoney]

Stoney, Bozon mentioned the 109 too, and i dont think the jug could outturn the 109 except at very high altitudes. But thats what im saying, those characteristics (and a lot more) all together result the flight performance.  Are you talking about the a-8? I found the 190 a-8 a brick even with only 2 cannons while a jug can handle very nicely when it has less than 50% fuel. But again, true, at higher altitude the jug should eat the 190 alive with its monster engine, helluva flaps and big wings. Its the low altitude performance when the 190 should win, in my dumb opinion.

I'm just saying that those metrics are easily misused when taken in isolation.  Wing loading, by itself, doesn't create any type of performance predictor--it merely shows the ratio of weight to wing area.

And, as usual, the term "out turn" is dubious at best.  But no, I can't imagine a flight regime where the Jug has a better sea-level,sustained turning radius compared to a late-model 109. 

Gun camera footage, test flight reports (with anecdotal comparisons of performance characteristics), anecdotes from fighter or test pilots, etc. should only be considered for what they are--context, and not proof of a specific performance comparison.

[bozon]

Also... the 190s were considered as the age's best figter, from numerous sources. I dont think that the 190 should be an über turnfighter, but if it was a brick in the real life, then how could it be the Luftwaffe's best fighter?

The 190 was considered superior to its main adversary when it appeared - the spit 5. This is in spite of the fact the the spit could easily out-turn it. As said many times before, turning does not win air combat. In particular at high altitude, the most valued attributes were speed, roll rate and dive ability. This because 90% of the defensive ACM was a split S and screaming dive to the clouds. The 190 dominated spits in that maneuver. P-47 beat the 190 in its own game.

Back to weights, if you check the empty weights, the wing-loading of a P47 is similar and even slightly superior to the 190, depending on the specific models compared. For non sustained turns, high wingloading was not a problem because the plane was limited to about 6G either by structural limitations or pilot endurance, not by the maximum lift the wing can provide. High wingload planes usually allow higher max speed which was valued much more than sustained turning ability. The typical wing load of planes kept increasing throughout the war period.

Sustained turning is also much about excess power. The P47 had more excess power than any 109 or 190 it faced - at high altitude. People tend to compare maximum climb-rate numbers and don't understand how People like Johnson claimed their Jugs out climbed and out turned the 109 and 190. They were not fighting them on the deck, they were fighting at 30k. Carrying that heavy and complex turbo-supercharger around does pay off at some point.

Finally, if you are also considering non sustained turns, which are more typical for normal combat than sustained turns, the picture is much more complicated. One of the better traits of the P47 in that respect is that it is very stable into the stall and can safely pull high G at high speed and shed a lot of speed fast to make a smaller circle. The 190 was famous for snap-stalling at such conditions and the 109 could not cut a 90 deg corner like the jug. At high speeds in particular, the 109 elevator was hard to operate while the jug had good response all the way till compression kicked in. If they went round and round the 109 will probably eventually come around on the jug, but in cutting one high speed turn to get/evade a shot, the jug was better.

[BaldEagl]

Almost every YT video posted here is unavailable to me because of the music used in it. I'm harldy even trying to click the links anymore.

   Do they ban music in Germany or what?

[moot]

Commercial rights to video and/or audio.  E.G. you can't watch Euronews or Eurosport web feed from North America/USA.

[bj229r]

The 190 was considered superior to its main adversary when it appeared - the spit 5. This is in spite of the fact the the spit could easily out-turn it. As said many times before, turning does not win air combat. In particular at high altitude, the most valued attributes were speed, roll rate and dive ability. This because 90% of the defensive ACM was a split S and screaming dive to the clouds. The 190 dominated spits in that maneuver. P-47 beat the 190 in its own game.

Back to weights, if you check the empty weights, the wing-loading of a P47 is similar and even slightly superior to the 190, depending on the specific models compared. For non sustained turns, high wingloading was not a problem because the plane was limited to about 6G either by structural limitations or pilot endurance, not by the maximum lift the wing can provide. High wingload planes usually allow higher max speed which was valued much more than sustained turning ability. The typical wing load of planes kept increasing throughout the war period.

Sustained turning is also much about excess power. The P47 had more excess power than any 109 or 190 it faced - at high altitude. People tend to compare maximum climb-rate numbers and don't understand how People like Johnson claimed their Jugs out climbed and out turned the 109 and 190. They were not fighting them on the deck, they were fighting at 30k. Carrying that heavy and complex turbo-supercharger around does pay off at some point.

Finally, if you are also considering non sustained turns, which are more typical for normal combat than sustained turns, the picture is much more complicated. One of the better traits of the P47 in that respect is that it is very stable into the stall and can safely pull high G at high speed and shed a lot of speed fast to make a smaller circle. The 190 was famous for snap-stalling at such conditions and the 109 could not cut a 90 deg corner like the jug. At high speeds in particular, the 109 elevator was hard to operate while the jug had good response all the way till compression kicked in. If they went round and round the 109 will probably eventually come around on the jug, but in cutting one high speed turn to get/evade a shot, the jug was better.

In addition, Johnson continually stated that the jug couldn't outturn it's quarry, but it could most certainly outROLL them, which helped accomplish the same objective, without bleeding as much E --(I don't think he saw a D9, as he rotated home before D-Day?) At any rate, my absolute favorite fights in AH are jug vs 190

[drgondog]

Lusche its the German gun camera footage of FW190A? versus Lagg 5 P47D-11 and Mustang that you have seen before.

At the time of this posting there is no derogatory comment posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7MRXPSqr0

Not going to look through the rest of them but you can search for "Fw 190A-7 x P-47 Thunderbolt" (its a D-11) for the Jug video.

A D-11 should have the paddle blade prop and water injection. A lot of P-47D-11's between Jan 44 and April 44.  Nobody in the 8th AF was thinking Fw 190A6-A7 was 'easy' and tended to avoid turning fights if at all possible below 15,000.

I see a lot of references about dropping flaps (not from you) and 'easily out turning (pick one)..When you drop flaps you will get things for sure - 1.) a slight to significant reduction in turning radius, and 2.) a huge loss in energy leaving fewer options to win if your short term turn advantage doesn't work out for you.

[bj229r]

I'm thinking dropping flaps happens a LOT more in here than happened in WW2