Chuck Yeager on the Fw190D

[GRUNHERZ]

From http://www.modelingmadness.com

Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft.  "Which was best?" I wanted to know.  He replied quickly: "That long-nose Focke-Wulf was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."

[Batz]

Of course this is really just annecdotal propagnda done to change the performance of a video game 60 years later.

[F4UDOA]

Batz,

At least give me credit for my quotes I just don't say that many quotable things you know.

Grunherz,

Wasn't it you that made fun of my After Action Report from the Korean War by Capt. Delong?

In fact didn't you use my quote as your signature and replace the word F4U with some German uber plane or another?

I think I'll try it.

Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft. "Which was best?" I wanted to know. He replied quickly: "That long-nose F4U was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."

Hmm, that sounds about right. I think that's what Yeager wanted to say after all

[Puke]

Long-nose/Hose-nose... same thing.  Yeager is talking about the Hog.  Typical Army/Navy rivalry disparaging the hog by calling it a Kurt Tank product.

[GRUNHERZ]

I did use your quote but it wasnt to make fun of the F4U - IIRC it was to make some other unrelated humorous point.

Go ahead go change Yeager's words... I felt that such respect and admiration of the Dora by one of America's top fighter pilot godlike figures would ruffle some feathers and you fellas did not dissapoint.

Chuck Yeager thinks the FW109D is the best prop fighter he ever flew up to 25,000.  Oh yea baby lat that salt sink deeper into your wounds.

Thats one of the cool things about good Americans we have enough pride and self confidence to admire great performance even if it is not our own.

[OIO]

well grun, yeager only flew the 51 in combat and as far as i know he never flew F4u or P38s or any other planes of ww2. He tested new USAF planes and axis planes, but did he ever fly other WW2 era combat-flying planes?

Give him a monster accel 190D9 and its easy to see why he was impressed. Its a p51 with uber acceleration.

[Puke]

I was actually being tongue-in-cheek.  

We all know the best fighter is the Hellcat...and that's because it was easy to produce and numbers are a quality all their own.  

[SunKing]

Originally posted by Puke
Long-nose/Hose-nose... same thing.  Yeager is talking about the Hog.  Typical Army/Navy rivalry disparaging the hog by calling it a Kurt Tank product.

Nice try

[aircav]

Some choice aircraft from a pilot who's flown a lot....

From Eric Brown's 'Wings of the Wierd and Wonderful":

"I have flown almost 500 type of aircraft, excluding variants of a type, and I have graded every one in a book with a terse two line assessment. There are six that receive top grading for handling qualities - the Spitfire XII, Lancaster I with power boosted controls, the de Havilland Hornet, Hawker P1040, North American Sabre, and McDonnell Phantom. These six are so different in size, role and time scale, that they are difficult to compare, but for sheer pilot enjoyment I remember the Hornet making the biggest impression. Certainly all six had good power/weight ratio, superb harmony of control, and excellent performance characteristics, but above all they inspired confidence in the pilot. The Hornet somehow had the edge on the others in my book.

Inevitiably the list above will give the impression that I am biased towards British and American aircraft, but let me say that just a shade below my first choice list are the Japanese Zero, the German Fw.190, Ju.88, and Me.262. However, for tops, it's still the Hornet."

[devious]

Originally posted by aircav
Some choice aircraft from a pilot who's flown a lot....

From Eric Brown's 'Wings of the Wierd and Wonderful":
[...]
Inevitiably the list above will give the impression that I am biased towards British and American aircraft, but let me say that just a shade below my first choice list are the Japanese Zero, the German Fw.190, Ju.88, and Me.262. However, for tops, it's still the Hornet."

Let's face it, Yeager's a dork.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by OIO
well grun, yeager only flew the 51 in combat and as far as i know he never flew F4u or P38s or any other planes of ww2. He tested new USAF planes and axis planes, but did he ever fly other WW2 era combat-flying planes?

Give him a monster accel 190D9 and its easy to see why he was impressed. Its a p51 with uber acceleration.

yeager flew jugs too didnt he?

Id be suprised if the US top ace hadnt flown every type at one stage or another.He was a test pilot for years too so god knows how many planes this guy has flown.I think you all should simply accept the dora was a lot better than the AH dora.I think the area where the 190d9 we have is deficient is in acceleration.
So many test pilots mention its superb acceleration yet this is never a thought that would strike you about the dora we have or WB for that matter.

I think the main problem is the fact that the MW50 or GM1 boost systems cannot be modeled correctly in AH. There is a 'generic' wep system for all planes in AH and this i think is where we lose out.It cant really be avoided so argueing for a better performing 190 is pretty pointless.

As far as i know the 190 matches closely to the various charts but its always just under the charts values, a touch less mph or few degrees of roll lost.If you look at some of the other aircraft in AH they also 'closely' match their chart numbers but generally they are a touch over the chart values, the f6f for example. The roll on the 190 is so superior to other aircraft of that time we should be unable to match the roll but the p51 and even the p47 seem to roll with the 190 easily. the differences in roll is so small that the 190 becomes pretty unremarkable which i feel completely contradicts the comments in various test reports. Unfortunately the so called experts in here forever disregard any coment made by COMBAT PILOTS from that era as if they know better and often they claim its nonsense.Test evaluations done DURING the war when they were looking for weaknesses to exploit and the information could mean life or death for some pilot and these test pilots lie and exagerate the performance? Ive never heard such utter crap in my life. /here we have a TOP allied ace clearly describing an aircraft for us to judge ours against and again people try to say he didnt know what he was talking about. Its fairly hilarious really. Show them a chart , its fake, show them ilots comments its anecdotal, show them your aircraft is 4 or 5 mph too slow they say close enough, acceleration according to RAF reports show it had excellent acceleration yet a spit 5 can out accelrate most of the 190s in AH. This is the area i suspect is wrong.Go try accelerate a 190 in level flight from 200 to its top speed using wep, it takes an absolute AGE. now try it with its contemperies , match the 190d9 to p51D, the 190a5 to spit 5 or 9.You'll see big differences.

However I have given up trying to get it looked into due to the fact i was accused of only asking for changes in order to have an easier time shooting things down.I can tell you I was very angered by this.I couldnt give two hoots what plane I fly AS LONG AS ITS ACCURATE to its WW2 type If i see problems or discrepencies why shouldnt you be able to question it?. If I ask about the p47 im enquiring, if i ask about the 190 im whining and seeking advantage.got too much for me in the end so i decided id just play and ignore it all.Problem is every now and again you read stuff like this report and it just pisses you off.

[F4UDOA]

Hazed,

I absolutely agree.

I do not like when head to head test data is completely disregarded or chalked up to propaganda. For what purpose?

I have AFDU data on the P-47D5 and P-38F that shows very similar maneuverablity at 20K as well as many other reports that would be scoffed at on these boards. But not one person who claims to know better has one shred of flight experiance with them or is qualified to make those assesments. But in here everyone is a genius.

BTW the roll of the 190 in AH is actually slightly superior to the NACA roll data at high speed and worse at lower speed. I have tested this and it is pretty close over all. The P-51 and P-47 are not so good as you think.

Acceleration of A/C is the largest discrepensy I have found in AH (The other being relative stall speeds). AH calculates climb to be equivelent to acceleration directly. The problem with that theory is that Air cooled engines used open cowl flaps to climb but not in level flight. This would make their acceleration better than the climb relaitvely because of reduced drag in level flight. The effect would be larger on some A/C than others.

 I have at least one document that says just that.

This applies to allied and axis A/C btw.

[ra]

The problem with that theory is that Air cooled engines used open cowl flaps to climb but not in level flight.

Liquid-cooled aircraft would have to open radiator flaps in a sustained climb.  Drag is drag.

ra

[F4UDOA]

RA,

Drag is drag huh?

How does cowl flap drag effect an A/C in level flight when the flaps are closed?

How does it effect them when they are open?

Is it more when they are open? yes.

So when they are closed there is less drag.

Show me the flaps on a liquid cooled engine and compare them to an F6F, F4U or P-47.

[bockko]

weelllll, i just got done reading Dunn's autobiography, he flew spits, 47's, 51's and skyraiders i think...his pick for best? spit for pure fighting, 51 for overall fighter. Just adding another quoted ww2 pilot opinion to the mix.