WWII pilot, combat and flight test reports and quotes

[MiloMorai]

FW-190A pilots were offered 3 types of ailerons: 3 different chords (you can tell them on some photos by their trim tab layout): Thin, medium, broad.

First time I have heard of this. Please post examples.

[Chalenge]

That is ludicrous advice. The only thing worse would be slow, straight and level.

Aw! but I love it when the first move is a nice, coordinated, level turn!

[atlau]

Minimum speed and sustained turn are incompatible Gaston. At your slowest level speed you cannot turn. All lift is used to keep you from falling out of the sky. At maximum speed you can no longer turn without having to slow down since some thrust us being used to counter the additional induced drag that results from turning.

Somewhere in there you have instantaneous and sustained corner velocities. Your anecdotes while interesting are not proof of a modeling deficiency (which im sure exist due to lack of data and the difficulty of modeling aircraft behavior at the edge of the envelope).

My car routinely gets passed by Priuses on the highway. Is that because they are faster or i don't drive as aggressively?

[Devil 505]

My car routinely gets passed by Priuses on the highway. Is that because they are faster or i don't drive as aggressively?

Can they out turn you at minimum speed though?

[atlau]

Speed or velocity?

[Vraciu]

Aw! but I love it when the first move is a nice, coordinated, level turn!

It's actually quite effective depending on the situation.  One player in particular uses that move to win by forcing stalemate where the pursuing fighter never gains ground and almost always loses it.

[Gaston]

It's bad advice for any aircraft. 

The AH flight models are correct enough. These discussions are really about the different ways you can interpret insufficient information.

  So flight simulations know better than actual front line pilots?

  P-51D vs Me-109G(Hanseman) :"Dogfight at 500 ft."--"Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch"--"Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."

 Kyösti Karhila: "I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

  Gaston

 

 

[atlau]

Uh... dude youre mixing up anecdotes for some incomprehensible agenda.

In the first example he slowed down, decreased his turn radius and with an aircraft attempting to pull lead gave him closer and aspect problems, forcing to fly outside his turn circle.


In the second situation the offender was above corner velocity and slowing down allowed him to increase their turn rate.

 None of them said that slowed to a stall and then magically won.

[Gaston]

First time I have heard of this. Please post examples.

  Probably because you have no WWII FW-190A pilot relative...

  Flush with trailing edge, trim tab sticking out:

 


   Long chord going beyond the trailing edge:

 


   Flush with trailing edge:

 


  Beyond trailing edge:

 


  I know this is not mentioned anywhere, but hey: The only source was this site, from the pilot's relative, in the circa 2004-2005 AH thread titled "FW-190A performance in combat", which has now "disappeared" for decades, and for the life of this board not a single person can remember this thread of at least 3 pages?... There are some truly mysterious things  going on around here... I must be making it all up...

  Thinking of this logically, does that aileron chord choice thing sound like something somebody would make up? Waiting for the wing drop in the turn, and then "catching" the drop with the ailerons, and then continuing the turn with the ailerons deflected? The FW-190A was a superb low-speed turn-fighter, with ailerons deflected, that's something a liar would make up? Really?

  How about this other mention from the same relative?: "He underlined that with the broad wood prop, the prop's diameter was larger, and this required care to not touch the ground with the prop's blade tips while going down the runway."

  Yes, that totally sounds like someone who is making this up.

  Gaston
 

 

[Gaston]

Uh... dude youre mixing up anecdotes for some incomprehensible agenda.

In the first example he slowed down, decreased his turn radius and with an aircraft attempting to pull lead gave him closer and aspect problems, forcing to fly outside his turn circle.

  Since this involves several 360 turns at 500 ft., I'm sure they were going at blistering speed:

  "Dogfight at 500 ft."--"Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got close to the edge of the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."

  SETP 1989 test: "Corner Speed on all types (P-51-P-47-F6F) was found to be very close to their maximum level (METO) speed (10 000 feet: 320 mph)"

  You'll never guess: The "corner speed" determined by the lowest speed to do 6 Gs in dive pull outs will not match what you can do in horizontal turns: Horizontal turns at full METO power requires a much higher speed to make 6 Gs.... Hmm... More mysteries...

 

In the second situation the offender was above corner velocity and slowing down allowed him to increase their turn rate.

 None of them said that slowed to a stall and then magically won.

  That's a tough one... He mentions the optimal sustained turning speed (maximum sustained Gs then: 3 Gs or thereabouts) for a reduced throttle Me-109G as 160 mph. Stall flaps down and level is about 100 mph... When you add turning, that's pretty close to a stall to pull around 3 Gs with a 60 mph margin...

  Doesn't sound like blistering speeds to me, but hey, you know better than they do, right?

  Gaston

   

[Oldman731]

I know this is not mentioned anywhere, but hey: The only source was this site, from the pilot's relative, in the circa 2004-2005 AH thread titled "FW-190A performance in combat", which has now "disappeared" for decades, and for the life of this board not a single person can remember this thread of at least 3 pages?... There are some truly mysterious things  going on around here... I must be making it all up...

Might have happened when HTC switched to the present BBS.  I can't recall if everything had to begin all over again.

- oldman

[atlau]

The speed required to pull 6 gs is the same. The difference between level or descending is how long you can sustain it with gravity helping.

So if corner is 320 that contradicts your minimum speed statement from earlier.

Also was the 320 the intersection of the accelerated stall and pilot g or airframe g limit?

[Ack-Ack]

An old thread at the Ubisoft forums starring Gaston with his same claims about the FW190A series.  The thread does show that Gaston likes to throw out the laws of physics and replace them with pilot anecdotes.

Soviet FW-190A combat evaluation and the He-100 issue...

One of the posts from a player that disproves one of Gaston's claims about the USN testing of a FW190A-5.

ImpStarDuece
01-15-2010, 12:04 AM
I’ve collated the commentary from the BuAer test of an F4U-1 and F6F-3 against a FW 190A5/U5 (mislabelled in the test as a “FW 190 A/4”), with specific attention paid to manoeuvrability and engine operation:

Draw your own conclusions…

HORIZONTAL ACCELERATIONS:

“It should be noted that the application of full power in the FW-190 was much easier than in the either airplanes due to the fact that it was necessary to use only the throttle control”

TURNING CIRCLES:

Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and the F6F-3 to be far superior to the FW-190. Both the F6F and the F4U could follow the FW-190 in turn with ease at any speed, but the FW-190 could not follow either of the other two airplanes. The FW-190, when in a tight turn to the left and near the stalling sped, exhibits a tendency to reverse aileron control and stall without warning. Similarly, when turning to the right it tends to drop the right wing and nose, diving as a result.

From a head-on meeting with the FW-190 both the F4U-1 and the F6F-4 could be directly behind the FW-190 in one turn. From a position directly behind it was possible to turn inside the FW-190 and be directly behind it again in about three turns.

MANUVERABILITY:

The F4U-1 and the F6F-3 were found to be more manoeuvrable than the FW-190. No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by the F4U-1 and F6F-3.

It was found hat the FW-190 requires a much greater radius in which to loop than do either the F4U-1 or F6F-2, and tens to stall sharply when trying to follow the F4U-1 or F6F-2 in a loop.

Formation flying was extremely difficult with the FW-190 because of the lack of powerplant control.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS IN MOCK COMBAT

The FW-190 is a very simple aircraft to fly in combat and seems to be designed for pilot convenience. It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against aircraft which can fly at near the stalling speed. In general it is considered to be an excellent interceptor-type aircraft which is at a disadvantage against aircraft designed for the purposes of “in fighting”.

One throttle level controls propeller pitch, manifold pressure, mixture, magneto timing, and throttle setting, making operation comparatively simple.


GENERAL OPINION OF PILOTS AS TO RELATIVE MERITS…

…it is felt that although more automatic features are provided in the FW-190, less direct control over variable settings is provided and the pilots has, as a result, less actual control over the engine performance.

SUGGESTED TACTICS TO BE USED AGAINST THE FW-190…

If attacked by the FW-190, the F4U-1 and F6F-3 can evade by the use of tight turns. When followed by the FW-190 the F4U and F6F can evade by the use of tight loops. If the FW-190 attempts to follow the other airports in tight loops it stalls out.

In general, whenever the hit-and-run technique cannot be employed, the F4U and F6F should make every effort to close with the FW-190, in both offence and defence.



I’ve also added selected commentary on performance and handling characteristics from the AAF memorandum on the FW-190G-3 (the US captured 6 190G-3s, intact, in Italy in 1944):

Summary:

It [the FW-190] compares favorably with standard AAF fighter types in maneuverability, speed and climb at low and medium altitudes, but is definitely weaker in performance at altitudes over 28,000 ft. Stability was satisfactory at the weight and c.g. at which the airplane was tested and the controls are excellent at all speeds up to 400 MPH indicated airspeed where the elevator tends to become quite heavy and noticeable buffeting and vibration of the airplane occurs.


Flight Characteristics

A. Cockpit Layout


The engine control which automatically selects the correct propeller pitch and fuel mixture for any power setting is a desirable feature since the pilot need concern himself only with the throttle setting.

G. Stalls and Stall Warning

The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall. Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls.


H. Maneuverability and Aerobatics

The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.

The airplane responds to the controls satisfactory in performing rolls, loops, Immelmanns and other aerobatics.

Conclusions

The FW-190, AAF No. EB-104, is a well armored fighter airplane with provisions for carrying heavy armament and it compares favorably with standard AAF types of the same date in maneuverability, speed, and climb at low and medium altitudes.

Since Gaston likes to depend solely on pilot anecdotes and has stated in this thread and others that USN practice was "full forward" throttle in combat, here is a USN combat pilot's anecdote on his throttle usage in combat.

"I pulled up into an extremely tight vertical turn and chopped my throttle to kill speed so I could get around quickly..."  - Lt. Buck Dungan was in a scrap over Orote, Guam, June 19, 1944

[Gaston]

Might have happened when HTC switched to the present BBS.  I can't recall if everything had to begin all over again.

- oldman

  Interesting: I tried to find it, when contemporary threads definitely still existed, about 8 years ago. There was no finding it even with scrolling day by day over the several nearest years, or with search terms of several specific sentences such as the thread's title, "FW-190A veteran combat experience" (I misquoted the title earlier) or "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A".

  Posting four or five years after the thread's post date, no one said they remembered it... Very odd.

  I remember one poster in it complaining that hearing about P-51s being shot down "makes me angry"... I even remember the thread got testy in a bizarre way: The thing about the large wood prop touching the ground was pointed out as nothing special, because the P-47s larger diameter Paddle blade prop did the same thing. The FW-190 thread's OP then said in a kind of defensive way: "He just thought it was an interesting thing to point out...": The aggressiveness against the OP (the pilot's relative) had a curious pointless feel to it...

  Someone asked if his relative would be interested in playing AH, and the poster replied "probably not". That was the last thing I remember of it. This thread was hugely important to me because it was only then that I started to question the assumed truth about these things: It was the start of this whole thing... I later realized there was a ton of quotes that unambiguously described the FW-190A as best used as a low speed turn fighter, or in head to heads when the opponent would not turn. It was fast, but the accounts of its extremely poor high speed handling also began piling up...

  As you can see from my compilation, this stuff was everywhere, including the famous quote by Rall that describe it as a curved saber to the Me-109's straight rapier...

  Gaston

[Gaston]

The speed required to pull 6 gs is the same. The difference between level or descending is how long you can sustain it with gravity helping.

So if corner is 320 that contradicts your minimum speed statement from earlier.

Also was the 320 the intersection of the accelerated stall and pilot g or airframe g limit?

  No the horizontal and vertical "Corner Speeds" are not the same: That is what the 320 MPH SETP 1989 test at METO absolutely proves: When pulling out of a dive, the P-51D's 6G "Corner Speed" is 250 mph or thereabouts: That 70 MPH discrepancy (with modern 1989 instruments) absolutely proves that the vertical tolerates a lower speed for 6 G than the horizontal, which in effect proves the propeller's load influences the wingloading.

  Hence the WWII obsession with down-throttling...

  SETP test was Minimum to reach 6 Gs at METO.

  "Corner Speed" is minimum speed to reach an unsustained 6 G, it has nothing to do with sustaining 3G turns "at a minimum speed"...

   320 MPH for 6 Gs is so high the aircraft will barely maintain this 6 G for a few seconds...

  The fact that the horizontal corner speed is so close to max. level speed (and is at a much lower speed when pulling on the vertical) would mean that lowering power should never help these things turn horizontally, EVER, but it does... Hence the current basic knowledge is wrong on the horizontal (because they only ever took data from dive pull-outs -where the P-51D's Corner Speed is indeed around 240-250 mph-, dives during which the prop is unloaded).

  It is the prop being loaded that skewers things (which doesn't happen nose-down), hence the down throttling for faster prolonged sustained speed horizontal turning, all the way down to 160 mph for the Me-109, as Karhila points out. Unloading the prop unloads the wings, allowing tighter sustained turns.

  Gaston