WWII pilot, combat and flight test reports and quotes

[FLS]

  "They were complementary, Me-109 was a rapier, the FW-190A was a sabre." Rall

 

Do understand this as the 109 flying straight and the 190 turning? I don't think that was Rall's point.

Rall was saying the 109 was more maneuverable but the 190 hit harder.

The 190 was better for being faster and having better high speed handling, not for slow speed turning.

[Vulcan]

Do understand this as the 109 flying straight and the 190 turning? I don't think that was Rall's point.

Rall was saying the 109 was more maneuverable but the 190 hit harder.

The 190 was better for being faster and having better high speed handling, not for slow speed turning.

Excellent point, a rapier is a thrusting weapon, and a sabre is a slashing weapon.

Looks like gaston defeated himself?

[FLS]

Actually a rapier can have both edges sharp and can slash.

I doubt Gaston will change his mind after all these years.

He's had time to learn aeronautics and declined.

[Gaston]

Do understand this as the 109 flying straight and the 190 turning? I don't think that was Rall's point.

Rall was saying the 109 was more maneuverable but the 190 hit harder.

The 190 was better for being faster and having better high speed handling, not for slow speed turning.

  You don't think this was Rall's point because you are being intellectually dishonest.

  Rapiers were used for thrusting in a straight line, Sabres were used in swinging curves while drawing the hand back on contact (to slice: They were not heavy enough to chop). Sabres were not much heavier than rapiers: They did not "hit" hard, they sliced, and Rall knew this very well...
 

  The reality is the science does not match observations from a huge variety of sources, the only two really big contradictory elements being Eric Brown and the two US Navy FW-190A evaluations... Both hailing from the Navy... The NAVY opinion of FW-190As...

  And I notice you all avoid dealing directly with these particular Red Fleet magazine quotes, so please let's see your interpretations of them:

  "-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

  "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed."

  "-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken,  preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time."

  To which a nice British companion piece:

  -"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day..."

  Yes, let's see what these two sources meant to say to those "who have learned aerodynamics".

   Gaston

 

 

 

 

 

[Zimme83]

Maneuverability is not the same as turn radius. Its also for ex roll rate.
The early 190 was better than the spit V in almost every aspect expect turn radius so yes - the spits had a lot of trouble with 190:s.

All the spits could outturn any 190, but the 190 was still in some aspects more maneuverable, the roll rate is the most obvious example. Real life pilots where affected by G- and stick forces when turning hard at higher speeds so they did not always pulled their plane to their absolute limit. These effects can never be simulated in a game and the same for the pilots physical status and training so a game will never be exactly as irl.

And you are still wrong:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

[atlau]

Dont try to reason with him...

[Gaston]

Maneuverability is not the same as turn radius. Its also for ex roll rate.
The early 190 was better than the spit V in almost every aspect expect turn radius so yes - the spits had a lot of trouble with 190:s.

All the spits could outturn any 190, but the 190 was still in some aspects more maneuverable, the roll rate is the most obvious example. Real life pilots where affected by G- and stick forces when turning hard at higher speeds so they did not always pulled their plane to their absolute limit. These effects can never be simulated in a game and the same for the pilots physical status and training so a game will never be exactly as irl.

And you are still wrong:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

  Yes, the US Navy tests!!! The US Navy knows more about 190s than the Russians...

  As for pilots not being able to take High Gs, unfortunately for this "attempt" at a counter argument, sustained turns could not go above 3.3 or 3.4 Gs, well within the ability of any pilot to tolerate for many turns. Only high speed unsustained turns could really overtake pilots (beyond 6 Gs), and the 1989 SETP test has shown us that the minimum for 6 Gs  "was close to maximum level speed on all 4 types, indicating a rapid loss of speed when turning close to the structural limit" ...

  Address the quotes directly word by word please. What does this mean:

  "-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament, and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

  "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed."

  "-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time."

  "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away... Not so these 190 pilots."

-------------------------

  As for your grotesque insistence on high speed turning being your "solution" for all this:

 Stability and control committee, "S.C. 1718", 24 April 1944:

  Turning above 250 mph:
"The P-47 easily out-turned the FW-190 at 10 000 ft., and had to throttle back to avoid overrunning the FW-190."

  Turning below 250 mph:
"the ability of  the FW-190 to hang in its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident."

  P-47D vs Me-109G: (Covelle 19 May 44)"(P-47Ds) "We started turning with several 109s and were having no difficulty doing it at 23 500 ft., with full tanks" "The E/A (109s)started to turn [12 000 ft.], and we out-turned them immediately."

 KG200: "The P-47D out turns our Bf-109G."

  All of the above are the challenge quotes.

   When I say address the quotes, I mean word by word. Tell me what I am misreading, word by word, and what it actually means.

  It shouldn't be complicated, science is on your side right?

  Gaston

 

 

 
 

 

[FLS]

Again, none of your quotes offer any quantifiable data. There is nothing there that invalidates the AH FW190 flight model. There is nothing to explain or defend. You don't have an argument.

[Devil 505]

KG200: "The P-47D out turns our Bf-109G."

You do realize that Kg 200 was a bomber unit that never used 109's, right?

pretty much makes that source irrelevant.

[MiloMorai]

You do realize that Kg 200 was a bomber unit that never used 109's, right?

pretty much makes that source irrelevant.

Pre 1945 it does but III./KG200 flew Fw190F-8s in 1945.

http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg200.htm

[Devil 505]

Pre 1945 it does but III./KG200 flew Fw190F-8s in 1945.

http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg200.htm

I know, but the provided quote references the Bf 109G not the FW 190F.

[Gaston]

Again, none of your quotes offer any quantifiable data. There is nothing there that invalidates the AH FW190 flight model. There is nothing to explain or defend. You don't have an argument.

  Sorry, but when the FW-190A is said to out-turn the Spitfire as a matter of a "general common sense statement", with no contradictory combat account, that is a general quantitative statement. General, but quantitative nonetheless.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Johnny Johnson: "I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."

  John Weir:"A Hurricane was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

 "The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

 "-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

------------------------------------------------------------------



  If concrete real-life value X is said to be always greater than concrete real life value Y, then that is not a quantitative statement?

  You are saying because we don't know what value X is, there is no conclusion that can be drawn from its relationship to value Y?

  Are you sure a scientist would stand behind this statement?


 
  There is another (equally sad) argument that was brought up to muddy the waters of what is a perfectly clear situation:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "-Turning and handling superiority could be related to high speeds, so that the superiority depicted could have been the result of good response at high speed."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  So for this statement:  "-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

  What that really meant, then, is that turning was superior at high speeds, so that what the text actually refers to is the minimum of those high speeds...

  If that was the intended meaning, "the large range of speeds" earlier in the sentence requires the rest of the sentence to say: "at the minimum of the higher range of those speeds."

  Reading that this sentence, the way it is structured, is meant to say the higher portion of that "large range of speeds", is a perfect illustration of intellectual dishonesty.

  But there is plenty elsewhere to dispel any notion of good high speed FW-190A handling:

-------------------------------------------

 -"Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)." [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up]

 -"Turning above 250 mph: The P-47 easily out-turned the FW-190 at 10 000 ft., and had to throttle back to avoid overrunning the FW-190."

 -Red Fleet La-5 vs FW-190: "Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible."

-Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable."

-----------------------------------------------------------------


  I fact there is no indication anywhere (except when Kurt Tank mentions light stick forces per G with no maneuverability information), that the FW-190A has anything but terrible handling at higher speeds.

  This alone invalidates any notion that the dozens of quotes I provided could be interpreted as "good high speed handling". There is no account of good high speed turning for the FW-190A. In fact, all the battles (and everything else) point to the opposite: The FW-190A-5's "tendency to black out the pilot" of SC 1718 is very revealing: It shows the FW-190A could inflict punishing Gs by "sinking" tail-out...

  If it was the turn that made the pilot "black out", then it would be the turn "tending to punish the pilot": If it is not the turn punishing the pilot, then it is because it is the aircraft that is decelerating, tail outward, in a loose turn...

  And a loose turn is not good high speed handling.

  The deceleration then is the fault of the aircraft, not of the turn, as Eric Brown explains when he says "kill speed by sinking".

  And "sinking", by the way, that's also pretty bad...

  "Sinking" is not good high speed handling: Brrr!

  Gaston

 

 

 

 

   

 

[FLS]

G load from tail sink? You need to read more. You really don't know what you're talking about.   

The main point you're missing, which we know from years of simulator experience, is that the better turning aircraft can lose the turn fight. Your anecdotes simply reinforce that.   

[Krusty]

Presenting one small comment that NEEDS more detail but ignoring the details and variables that explain that one small comment is by its very definition cherry picking data to prove your preconceived point. And it doesn't hold water.

[Zimme83]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

All trials shows that the spit easily outturns the 190, however, as stated above there are circumstances where a better turner gets outturned, for example if it has a higher speed than its opponent.