Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 01, 2005, 09:16:55 PM
-
I havent seen any subjects covering '51D v 190D but imo these BnZ-ers/knife-fighters are equal in a duel or in furrball enviroment :)
-
P-51 hands down. Better guns, tougher plane, turns better, handles much better.
The D-9 is about worthless, the only people who fly it are people who would rather be in the La-7 but are to "proud".
-
I'd pick the P-51D if both pilots are of equal skill. The FW190D-9 would probably give it a run for his money but the P-51D, I think other than roll rate, has the advantage in all things.
ack-ack
-
The P-51 will win if it becomes a turning fight. The Dora will win if it becomes an E-fight. Atleast, this is my experience when flying the Dora.
-
for me, its hard to shoot at the 190D if it starts "stirring"
-
Yeah P-51 definitely. It does well in turn fights, and not bad in E fights either... If you turn and burn in a 190, you are basically screwed because it takes forever to get your E back. Drop your flaps in the 51 and you can pull some sweet moves.
-
I'd take the Dora anyday in the DA...Climbs better,has more WEP.
game over
-
E fighting I would pick the P51D, BnZ I would go with the D9.........
2 E-fighters in different planes ( P51D vs 190D9 ) goes to the one who manages his E better and makes the other give in to fighting his fight and not his opponents!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
The D-9 is about worthless, the only people who fly it are people who would rather be in the La-7 but are to "proud".
LMAO that time your wrong Id rather be in the Dora any day, but the pony whould win most the time cuz of the gamy flaps.
-
Originally posted by TrueKill
LMAO that time your wrong Id rather be in the Dora any day, but the pony whould win most the time cuz of the gamy flaps.
Yeah, I agree. Auto-retracting flaps are "gamy".
ack-ack
-
'51 flaps are not "gamey".
Its a fact that combat flaps were fitted in all merlin powered mustangs. Regular fighter pilots (umm lets say from 8th AF for example) rarely used combat flaps in fite since they're focused on the target instead of looking through control colums for "combat flaps". I think experienced, ace pilots like Chuck Yeager are the ones who got teh most out of the p-51 flaps.
-
190s had combat flaps to but they come up at 180 dont know what speed the Dponys come up but i know the Bponys come up at about 400. 180-400 thats a big gap. guess its just american engineering.
-
Since planes are being compared, basing the outcome on the pilot factor would be a moot point - both very green pilots and masterfully exceptional aces.
Having said that, IMO both planes are roughly equal in almost every aspect, and the relative situation would decide everything.
-
P51 easily outturns the Dora. This is the more common fight. If both start with same E the Dora will be in for it. Might be able to outclimb the pony in the long run but that will make for a very long fight.
-
Pony.
'nuff said.
-
Bwahahahha Dorka SUCKS wurst plane in da set hahah running vulching Dorka dies hahahha wooooo11!!111one1!!!
PFifty1 PWN!
-
as many of you know i have been a AVID dora pilot for almost 3.5 years....
flying the pony just for the past few weeks, i find absolutly no fear of a 190, even comming from above. i did have a great engagement with i think NORD, though i may be mistaken on who... i got him. that was the toughest fight i have seen. other than that, i think i have been killed maybe 2 or 3 times by 190's that got a shot off because i flew stupid.
conversely, back in my dora, i had quite a few engagements with some the the "better" pony pilots, and mostly we came out even, with a slight advantage to them because i am not a good pilot in the first place. i can remember some specific 1-1's that we went over and over again, i think it was grmrpr. there were others, but mainly it was about even.
it is hard to say, and i still love my dora, but i might hae to give an edge to the p51 by maybe 55% to 45% for the dora. in the end pure pilot skill, AND knowledge of both planes abilities is the deciding factor i think.
just my 2˘
-
Originally posted by Quah!
Bwahahahha Dorka SUCKS wurst plane in da set hahah running vulching Dorka dies hahahha wooooo11!!111one1!!!
PFifty1 PWN!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
i think the P51 with 4 x .50cals not 6,have better firepower than 2x 20mm MG151, on D9
I read about the german 20mm maingeschose shell, could bring down a fighter with 1 shell, and mostly 1 out of 3 were maingeschose, but here the german 20mm are the most useless
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Since planes are being compared, basing the outcome on the pilot factor would be a moot point - both very green pilots and masterfully exceptional aces.
Having said that, IMO both planes are roughly equal in almost every aspect, and the relative situation would decide everything.
They aren't roughly equal, the P-51 is much better. The D-9 has an advantage in acceleration and sustained climb rate, but it can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.
If the two planes meet co-E, the P-51 will be all over the D-9 like stink on ****, the only thing the D-9 can do is flop and pray.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
P-51 hands down. Better guns, tougher plane, turns better, handles much better.
The D-9 is about worthless, the only people who fly it are people who would rather be in the La-7 but are to "proud".
:aok
-
However, a smart D9 should win. Slow down the fight so that the 51 thinks its going to be a turn fight. Than the D9 can go nose down while stick stirring like a mad man to avoid getting hit. It will pick up speed faster than the 51 and eventually, the D9 will be able to convert teh fight to an endless BnZ on the 51. If the D9 gets in troble, stick stiring and diving to the deck is always an option. :D
There is a reason D9 drivers want the lala perked but not the 51
-
Im not the greatest fighter guy out there but while the P-51 can maintain E and turn better, the Dora has that cannon...reach out and tap someone with a well placed cannon round and its game over. For me, you really have to chew them up with those 50 cals a bit longer.
Like someone previously stated...depends on the pilot. In the right hands, an Ace in a Ju88 could down a newb in either :p
-
i would like to adress the issue of toughness. the pony was notoriously poor in terms of toughness. this is because of a number of things, chief among these is its water-cooled engine. also it was a larger plane than the 190 which made it a larger target. i am a huge fan of the 190's astounding roll rate. if this advantage is properly exploited by a competent pilot it will blast the crap out of a pony any day of the week.
and dare i say it: nuff said:cool:
-
Historically they may have been a match. In AH2 the dora is at a disadvantage. If it slows below 170mph it stalls horrible (tip stalls, the plane snaps horribly in the direction of the stall), and it can only zoom so high, and can't loop over as well as the pony with its uberflappen(TM). So it can't turn. It can't outloop (maybe at first). It can't out dive, as the pony dives well, and would keep pace, so the field would be the same as before the dive. It might climb better but it's still not going to help it win a fight against a p51d. It really doesn't fair too well unless it has a slight advantage (starts in the p51ds rear quarter, has a little alt, has a lot of speed already, that type of thing).
I don't fly the dora too much. But when I do I find it hard to fight p47s let alone p51Ds (yeah, I've fought both many a time).
-
They aren't roughly equal, the P-51 is much better. The D-9 has an advantage in acceleration and sustained climb rate, but it can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.
If the two planes meet co-E, the P-51 will be all over the D-9 like stink on ****, the only thing the D-9 can do is flop and pray.
Well, not if the D-9 pilot takes the fight long, and sticks to long, fast passes and extensions.
Sure, he'd be laughed at for being timid and passive and unaggressive... but if that's what it takes to kill a co-alt P-51 with a good pilot in it... yeah, I'd fly like that - to survive, and to win.
-
In a "dueling ladder" type 1-on-1 the 51 holds the best cards since the 190 isnt allowed to extend (i.e. run) and can only try to rope the 51.
However in the MA it is more of an equal match. The 51 has the advantage of better performance above 20k, and thus can (if the pilot cares for long climbs) gain an initial alt and speed advantage on the 190. The 190 otoh holds all the big E cards below 20k: speed, acceleration and climb. Basically if the 51 is to win it needs to win using its initial advantage. If the 190 manages to equalize E and bring the fight below 20k the 51 can only win if the 190 driver makes a mistake. The 190 can escape at will and deny the 51 the same. Speed and climb controls the fight.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Well, not if the D-9 pilot takes the fight long, and sticks to long, fast passes and extensions.
Sure, he'd be laughed at for being timid and passive and unaggressive... but if that's what it takes to kill a co-alt P-51 with a good pilot in it... yeah, I'd fly like that - to survive, and to win.
Even then, it would come down to a toss-up, were I in the P-51 the D-9 would never get a shot, unless it was a MAD type HO shot. If the D-9 tries angles, it might get one shot thanks to quicker speed bleed-off, but after that the P-51 would control the fight. If the D-9 tries "energy" fighting, the P-51 just has to force him up without enough speed to outrun the .50s.. even with the "new & improved" hit modelling that is still a very dicey proposition given the ballistics.
So basically the D-9s only shot would be a timid bore n zoom type fight and the only hope of "winning" would be coming out of the joust crippled instead of dead.
-
So basically the D-9s only shot would be a timid bore n zoom type fight and the only hope of "winning" would be coming out of the joust crippled instead of dead.
Right, but it's still better than dead :)
Ttimid and bore-n-zoom it is, but still, against planes that are as fast as yours and yet still maneuvers much better.. there's basically no other choice than but to try and maximize whatever advantage there is.
I'm just saying that if the D-9 pilot would deem it so important to really stick around and kill the P-51, instead of just run away, then there are still few advantages on its side which can turn the tables decisively - although it'd take a lot of time.
Lure the 51 as low as possible, dance around but never commit.. and with each vertcical or extension, climb more and more until the vertical separation cumulates enough to give out a totally onesided BnZ opportunity.
I know - it's boring, but it's still possible.
At least, you can use this method against a P-51. Against a La-7... no chance at all..
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
In a "dueling ladder" type 1-on-1 the 51 holds the best cards since the 190 isnt allowed to extend (i.e. run) and can only try to rope the 51.
Extending is not running..and yes it is allowed.
Once the 190 runs the pony outta WEP...the stang is on the pure defensive.
Boring?..Yes..if you are the p51 dude.
-
I've had some luck outcliming multiple coalt P51s to a good tactical advantage in the 15 to 20K band in the Dora.
But really it is a terrible POS in AH and I'm shocked to hear that Chuck Yeager of all people said that the FW190D9 was the best WW2 fighter he flew provided it was kept under 25K - yes he flew them after the war and without MW50 to boot.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Extending is not running..and yes it is allowed.
Once the 190 runs the pony outta WEP...the stang is on the pure defensive.
Boring?..Yes..if you are the p51 dude.
And what do we do when it is boring? Joust.
The D-9 will have to either commit to a fight, or partake in a series of jousts... it isn't possible for a D-9 to bleed the P-51 down to the point where it wouldn't be able to get its nose back on you during each bore n zoom pass.
-
If the D-9 pilot does get the game turned in his/her favor (BnZ)then he/she does hold some of the cards. Doesn't mean that the Pony is just waiting to die though. I use a few maneuvers in the Pony that keeps me at a good maneuvering speed and will allow me to take shots here and there when the Dora thinks they are in control. Typically I'm landing shots after the second pass.
-
"Stick stirring" if the D9 uses its superior roll capability it's "stick stirring"? I thought there is a damper to counter the actual stick stirring?
-C+
-
In a 1 vs 1 I would rate the P-51 as superior although by a small enough margin that pilot skill makes the difference. Given equal pilots, the P-51D would probably win.
A large-scale fight, say between two squadrons, could go either way.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But really it is a terrible POS in AH and I'm shocked to hear that Chuck Yeager of all people said that the FW190D9 was the best WW2 fighter he flew provided it was kept under 25K - yes he flew them after the war and without MW50 to boot.
thats what always bothered me about the AH 190...
in the accounts i have read it could turn much better, and if say the elevator authority in AH was brought up 15% in the dora, it would be a monster plane.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm shocked to hear that Chuck Yeager of all people said that the FW190D9 was the best WW2 fighter he flew provided it was kept under 25K - yes he flew them after the war and without MW50 to boot.
So did Eric Brown. He regarded the P-51, the 190D-9 and the Spit XIV as the three best single-engined fighters of the war, with little to choose between them - they had different strengths and weaknesses.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
"thats what always bothered me about the AH 190...
in the accounts i have read it could turn much better, and if say the elevator authority in AH was brought up 15% in the dora, it would be a monster plane."
For some reason I don't think that the description "maneuverable" meant only maneuverability in rolling plane as is commonly thought. I think it meant that the elevator (and rudder) authority are good, too, and the a/c actually can turn or at least change its vector considerably and fast and yet the logic tells that in cannot be very good in sustained turns (except maybe only in a narrow part of speed envelope) or in slow speed dogfight. Maybe the wing-area itself is not a very good quality to compare 190 to other planes but also the planform qualities have to be taken into account? :confused:
-C+
-
I actually don't put much stock in the "XXX was the best plane of the war" type business.
I do believe that when veterans say that the 190 was a good "dogfighter" they aren't even referring to the same kind of fight that AH'ers refer to as a dogfight.
For the most part, AH'ers refer to the same kind of fight that would be seen in WW1, or in a WW2 Japanese pilots idealized version of a fight.
I think for the most part, Western Front vets refer to a more BnZ type "hit and run dogfight". Hell, Eric Brown even says so in his book where he evaluates different kinds of planes.
I'm paraphrasing of course, since I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe his description of the fight went something like "the 190s were untouchable as long as they kept diving and zooming, a spit that followed a 190 up would quickly find another 190 on his tail. Of course, if a 190 was lured into turning with a Spitfire, he would quickly find another Spitfire on his tail as well".
In other words, you have a group of 190s above a group of Spitfires, making passes and "extending" or zooming, it really isn't clear which.
A group of 190s that starts with more altititude or energy than a group of Spits can play this game all day long, and would be quite untouchable. Unless they were good shots the fight would go on for quite a while, but the conclusion would be a foregone affair.
I'm reasonably certain this was meant to describe a fight between 190As and Spit Vs, but I can't say for certain.
I put a lot of trust in HTC, actually. HT is a very smart man... and aerodynamics is physics, which can be modelled accurately given known parameters. With a given set of "atmospheric" variables that effect all planes equally... just having the specs for the given aircraft should make it possible for HTC to develop planes that all perform correctly vis a vis one another. There really isn't much room for "bias" in the modelling. The specs are what they are. The results are what they are. Performance-wise... there really isn't any judgement involved in how individual planes perform.
-
Urchin, in "Duels in Sky" Brown is really putting WW2 Fighters against each other in a duelling situations, not the multiplane engagements that were the standard in WW2.
And still he rates the Spit XIV and FW190D9 as the two top notch fighters for this type of engagment, the P51D following very closely.
I personally think that he takes into account some factors flight sims cannot model at the moment. Control forces and harmony being the most important i guess.
In AH you can fly endless aerobatics without getting tired, but in a real fight that won't be the case.
Turning circle in reality might in many cases much more the result of the pilots ability to apply back pressure on the stick than of the wingload.
Erich Hartmann himself referred to turnfights as being a competition between the physical fitness of the involved pilots. He knew several comrades that trained their fitness to the point where they just would fight so long with an opponent till he lost due to fatigue.
The Spit was also known for having a light elevator - maybe even to light - and that might have been much more important for its famous turning capabilities than its wingloading.
-
I do believe that when veterans say that the 190 was a good "dogfighter" they aren't even referring to the same kind of fight that AH'ers refer to as a dogfight.
I don't know about this, Urchin. The FW190 pilots I have spoken with were very clear in their memories.
A single Mustang (HB836) tried to help out, and attacked the German fighter. A long aerial duel developed. The Mustang finally caught fire, and made a wide turn out the fjord. Perhaps he will try to get away and make a crashlanding. But then the British pilot turned back. According to eyewitnesses the pilot must have been badly wounded, but instead of bailing out he continued the fight. But to no avail. The Mustang crashed in the green pine forrest being the only Mustang loss of this battle. W/O Cecil Claude Caesar was dead.
The German fighter was in trouble also. The engine had been damaged and this forced the pilot to bail out. A small charge dispensed with the canopy and a small figure detatched itself from the plane. But he was to close to the ground for the chute to open. Fortunately, the snowy hillside enabled the pilot to survive, a small avalanche carried him to the bottom of the valley. During the journey down, the flare gun accidentally went off, causing severe burns on one leg. Still, he can walk, and he found his way into a small barn.
http://www.white1foundation.org/history_blackfriday.htm
This was a Mustang III vs. an FW190F8 converted to an FW190A8 at the Geschwader.
They got in close and fought in classic dogfights. In general all fighter pilots avoided a protracted dogfights as it left you vunerable. Both Oscar and Heinz engaged in intense close quater "AH" dogfighting and were successful. Both have expressed the same sentiment about the FW190's dogfighting ability. To quote Oscar Boesch, "I feared no fighter I could see in my Focke!".
He flew an FW190A8 for the majority of his FW190 career. He is credited with P51, Spitfire, La, and Yak kills.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I personally think that he takes into account some factors flight sims cannot model at the moment. Control forces and harmony being the most important i guess.
In AH you can fly endless aerobatics without getting tired, but in a real fight that won't be the case.
Turning circle in reality might in many cases much more the result of the pilots ability to apply back pressure on the stick than of the wingload.
Erich Hartmann himself referred to turnfights as being a competition between the physical fitness of the involved pilots. He knew several comrades that trained their fitness to the point where they just would fight so long with an opponent till he lost due to fatigue.
This is probably it.
Since I have no flight experience, much less aerial combat experience whatsoever, I can only rephrase some of the info I've read, but it seems pretty clear that pulling black out turns at speeds again and again would hardly be anything a real life pilot would want to do.
In AH we can go from +5G to -3G in a matter of seconds. We do 'stick stirring' where the vector of the plane is changed violently in a split second, and then still instantly pull out of it to go into another high G turn yet.
Most pilots would hardly have the time to manage the trinkets, buttons, levers inside the cockpit. Some go as far as to say that changing the throttle setting during combat wasn't a common thing to happen.
It's not difficult to imagine that in WW2 planes, which a pilot had to fight the stick forces at high G loads, the pilot would rarely, if ever, let go of the stick with one hand and start fiddling with throttle levers or push switches or buttons.
In most cases the throttle would be set upon a certain combat setting, and then the pilot would hold the stick with both hands and maneuver at that state.
Based upon past discussions, especially the one related to flaps, it also seems pretty clear that even the "combat flaps", were not really used all that much in combat. Only a handful of extremely experienced pilots would ever use it - in great many cases the flaps were never used in combat at all. People openly admit that they can't find any real any evidence of extensive flap usage for the P-38s. Others with correspondence with P-51 pilots mention that no P-51 pilot ever recalls having using flaps during combat.
...
So basically, my picture of a real life "dogfight" between a P-51 and Fw190D-9 would consist of two pilots with typically throttle set firmly to combat power.
Both pilots would hold the stick firmly with two hands, and struggle to pull turns at speeds. Neither side would go as far as to approach grey out.
Using turn-tightening techniques such as chopping throttle, dumping E, using flaps and etc.. is probably a grossly uncommon thing to happen.
Both planes, as a result, would probably go around in simular turn circles most of the times.
At least, that's my take on it.
Just for the sake of discussion, if HT somehow adds an experimental system of fatigue... the fights between planes would show a lot less diversified results than it is now - at least, in the turn fighting department.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
This is probably it.
Since I have no flight experience, much less aerial combat experience whatsoever, I can only rephrase some of the info I've read, but it seems pretty clear that pulling black out turns at speeds again and again would hardly be anything a real life pilot would want to do.
In AH we can go from +5G to -3G in a matter of seconds. We do 'stick stirring' where the vector of the plane is changed violently in a split second, and then still instantly pull out of it to go into another high G turn yet.
Most pilots would hardly have the time to manage the trinkets, buttons, levers inside the cockpit. Some go as far as to say that changing the throttle setting during combat wasn't a common thing to happen.
It's not difficult to imagine that in WW2 planes, which a pilot had to fight the stick forces at high G loads, the pilot would rarely, if ever, let go of the stick with one hand and start fiddling with throttle levers or push switches or buttons.
In most cases the throttle would be set upon a certain combat setting, and then the pilot would hold the stick with both hands and maneuver at that state.
Based upon past discussions, especially the one related to flaps, it also seems pretty clear that even the "combat flaps", were not really used all that much in combat. Only a handful of extremely experienced pilots would ever use it - in great many cases the flaps were never used in combat at all. People openly admit that they can't find any real any evidence of extensive flap usage for the P-38s. Others with correspondence with P-51 pilots mention that no P-51 pilot ever recalls having using flaps during combat.
...
So basically, my picture of a real life "dogfight" between a P-51 and Fw190D-9 would consist of two pilots with typically throttle set firmly to combat power.
Both pilots would hold the stick firmly with two hands, and struggle to pull turns at speeds. Neither side would go as far as to approach grey out.
Using turn-tightening techniques such as chopping throttle, dumping E, using flaps and etc.. is probably a grossly uncommon thing to happen.
Both planes, as a result, would probably go around in simular turn circles most of the times.
At least, that's my take on it.
Just for the sake of discussion, if HT somehow adds an experimental system of fatigue... the fights between planes would show a lot less diversified results than it is now - at least, in the turn fighting department.
Not to start the flap debate again, but I did post those 38 combat reports, and here's a quote from a combat report of 4th FG pilot Willard Millikan in his combat report of April 22,1944, flying a P51B:
"The Hun kept up his attack and turned steeply to come in on my number 4's tail, so I pushed everything forward and dropped flaps to turn inside him. Through the early stages of the turn he outturned me, but I pulled up and corkscrewed inside him and laid off a deflection shot which hit him hard enough to cause him to flick out of his turn. He started to split-ess but my shots forced him to turn back the other way. Immediately I managed to get a few strikes and he began to skid and slow up and prepare to bale out. I was closing very rapidly so I dropped full flaps and throttled back completely....."
Other examples of 51 drivers using combat flaps etc in dogfights as well.
Dan/CorkyJr
returning you to your previous discussion :)
-
I'm not debating the fact that it did happen Guppy. The point is how commonly did it happen in real life.
-
So in r/l 190D and P-51D are equal?
The P-51D can actually pull tighter turns but i agree that takes toll on the energy of the average fighter pilot.
I also agree that they engaged mostlyy by BnZ, cherry picking, and less turning circles.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't know about this, Urchin. The FW190 pilots I have spoken with were very clear in their memories.
They got in close and fought in classic dogfights. In general all fighter pilots avoided a protracted dogfights as it left you vunerable. Both Oscar and Heinz engaged in intense close quater "AH" dogfighting and were successful. Both have expressed the same sentiment about the FW190's dogfighting ability. To quote Oscar Boesch, "I feared no fighter I could see in my Focke!".
All the best,
Crumpp
Quick some call the Weather Channel to see if Hell froze over because I'm actually agreeing with Crumpp.
I'm reading Luftwaffe Fighter Aces: The Jagdflieger and Their Combat Tactics and Techniques and it mentions that the RAF were surprised when they first started to encounter the FW190. The FW190s they encountered were more than willing to engage in classic dogfights than their bf109 counter parts.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I'm not debating the fact that it did happen Guppy. The point is how commonly did it happen in real life.
A lot more common than you think. For some reason no matter how many examples we provide you seem to either dismiss them off hand or completely ignore them.
Read ALLIED FIGHTER ACES: The Air Combat Tactics and Techniques of World War II. Some pretty good stuff and quite a few mention using flaps in combat.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Quick some call the Weather Channel to see if Hell froze over because I'm actually agreeing with Crumpp.
I'm reading Luftwaffe Fighter Aces: The Jagdflieger and Their Combat Tactics and Techniques and it mentions that the RAF were surprised when they first started to encounter the FW190. The FW190s they encountered were more than willing to engage in classic dogfights than their bf109 counter parts.
ack-ack
ack-ack
yeah.. all the material i read when the 190 came out, and the first spit V's encountered it, they were for lack of a better word PWNED.
they freaked out, and learned to dive out and away from all 190's they encountered (this is during the early days after the BoB)
later what i have read, mostly slanted towards allied since they won, and most is from their perspective, the 190D really caused fits when it was around (though seldom albeit)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Read ALLIED FIGHTER ACES: The Air Combat Tactics and Techniques of World War II. Some pretty good stuff and quite a few mention using flaps in combat.
ack-ack
Does it not say 'not to get into turning fights'. It could be in the sorce you mention or it could have been someplace else, but American fighters were told not to do more than a 1/2 turn (can't remember the exact degree of turn). They were then to break off the pursuit.
-
A lot more common than you think. For some reason no matter how many examples we provide you seem to either dismiss them off hand or completely ignore them.
Read ALLIED FIGHTER ACES: The Air Combat Tactics and Techniques of World War II. Some pretty good stuff and quite a few mention using flaps in combat.
Again, you fail to grasp the concept of "majority" vs the "ace" (notice that the book you recommend, has also got the word "Ace" embedded in the title), not to mention greatly underestimate the difficulty of operating multiple gadgetry inside the cockpit during actual combat.
An experienced pilot could, and probably would, use flaps everytime he engages an enemy, and that still would not make it "common".
Look at the bigger picture Akster.
Not every pilot flying in the air is a wing leader or an ace. Typically 1/3rd or 1/4th of people who fly would actually score a kill, and the rest 2/3rd or 3/4th are wingmen would be in support of the best pilot and leader.
Also, typical combat involving flaps, or any other kind of "fancy moves" for that matter, usually happens when the attacking side is on the 'gangbang'.
Most of the enemy planes are already have been taken care of. Then the attackers would corner the few surviving enemies and have a go at them like a street gang bullies a kid around.... And only then, you see the experts leisurely chasing after a superior maneuvering enemy plane with all kind of fancy maneuvering... all the while the rest of the wingmen are on the watchout nearby, in case he ever makes a mistake.
I've never seen a source where pilots would risk tight turns, or use flaps, or get involved in 'fancy stuff', when the odds were bad, or at least equal.
Not surprising - as anyone who tries such foolishness amidst multiple enemies would probably be the one to die first.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Look at the bigger picture Akster.
And real life combats were not like sim fights either. Most combats were just a single bounce, with usually 1, maybe 2 kill claims, often none. And in high speed. An aerial combat lasted usually only a few seconds, after that you're alone or disengaged, your attacker or target is gone, disappeared.
And yes, only tiny number of pilots ever scored kills, wasn't the rough ratio like 1/10th of the pilots score 9/10ths of all victories?
Do not confuse sim dogfights with real life aerial combats.
-
"(So did Eric Brown. He regarded the P-51, the 190D-9 and the Spit XIV as the three best single-engined fighters of the war, with little to choose between them - they had different strengths and weaknesses.)"
He actually said Dora & MK 14 spit top 2 with little to choose between em & Mustang a tad below these 2.
Buhligen stated:we could outturn the Mustang with both, ( 109 & 190).
I did once read a British pilots account of flying a radial 190, he said; after about 3 turns, I found I had little difficulty getting on the tails of the mustangs.
Werner Schroer said Dora better than Stang. being centrally armed was a neat advantage. More stable gun platform. Yeager said this.
Don't play computer games, so have no comment there. Rather stick to the piots views.
As for flaps, yah both could drop flaps. Dora had presets, a bit more sophisticated no? On turn circle, Stang 960 ft, & Dora with flaps down 800 plus ft.
Turn is overrated, superior roll negates turn, roll in opposite direction & a better turning opponent that cannot roll well, I.E. Spit is no longer on your tail.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I havent seen any subjects covering '51D v 190D but imo these BnZ-ers/knife-fighters are equal in a duel or in furrball enviroment :)
With regard to the original question, the answer is that the P-51D is a somewhat better fighter in AH2 than the 190D-9. I suggest that if you disagree, re-read Urchin's response.
And please, don't waste our time arguing about BnZ tactics. Any pilot with even a hint of skill can avoid the typical Dora jockey all day long.
Last night I made a rare appearance in the MA and took up a P-47N to help eradicate a Knit infestation (field A145 on Trinity). It turned out that I took too much gas (50% and a belly tank) When I arrived, there were two or three Rooks and about 15 Knits milling about. One fighter hanger remained up, but not for long. Coming off the bomb run, I clobbered an IL-2 that was shooting at a fellow Rook. Having too much fuel weight for comfort and being literally surrounded by a horde of Knits, maneuvering for kills was out of the question. I smacked several knit fighters as I blew through their gaggle a couple of times. Maintaining my speed above 300 mph and using the big N's acceleration and speed, I quickly left several pursuing fighters (109G-10s and F4Us) behind and got clear of the mob.
Up ahead were several growing dots, which from the DAR, I determined to be enemy. I headed straight for them. I didn't climb, staying at 2k.
The first enemy spotted was a P-47, an N as it turned out. This guy attempted to avoid a fight by angling off towards the northeast. I cut him off and killed him.
As I finish the Jug, I looked around and directly above me (2k on his icon) was a Knit 190 (later identified as a Dora). I turned perpendicular to his heading. As expected, down he comes. I turn into his attack and he blows by, doing the typical zoom climb to a reverse. This happens several times and each time he has no shot. On his last attempt, I had gained enough angles to meet him head-on. Not liking that option, he stayed off line and we passed on each other's left side. This time he decided to change his tactics and looped the Dora. I instantly made a climbing reverse, dumped some flaps and cut across his loop. I was now behind the Dora, about 45 degrees from a shot and getting closer by the second. Cognizant of what was about to happen, the Dora dives for the deck and runs. I leveled off 600 yards back pulling up my flaps to increase acceleration. I squeezed off a short burst and observed hit sprites. The Dora then began the famous Focke Wulf jitterbug. I was about 1k behind and the 190 showed no interest in doing anything but running. Unfortunately for him, he was running towards some fellow Rooks. I suspect he had a pilot wound as he made no effort to evade and was finished off in a single pass.
Now, the Dora is one of two main rides of that pilot. His other favorite seems to be the Niki. Typical of many Dora jocks, IMHO, he had no idea how to use the Dora's strengths. If the best they can manage are BnZ tactics, sooner of later they will get impatient and burn off enough E to allow a decent pilot to gain angles and suddenly, "the top rail is on bottom".
Performance of the P-47N is not greatly dissimilar to that of the P-51D. The Jug accelerates faster, rolls faster and zoom climbs better. In a steady climb, the Mustang has a slight edge when both use WEP, but that edge depends on weight. A light P-47N is a monster. Unfortunately, 95% of the guys who will fly it have no idea what it's capable of (you guys should come to the TA and find out). Obviously, some Dora drivers have not yet tangled with a well flown P-47N, or they would go look for an easier target.
So yeah, I believe that in AH2 the P-51D is slightly better fighter than the Dora. However, the P-47N is better than both of them. Especially from 10k on up. I can think of only one advantage held by the Dora, max speed on the deck. Climb rate differences are not enough to save you if the other guy is relatively Co-E.
A lot of guys harp on the 190's roll rate advantage. This is easily neutralized if you know how. There's nothing more inviting to me than a 190 trying to get out of trouble with a scissors. This is another maneuver easily countered.
In my opinion, the three best all around fighters in the game are the F4U-4, SpitXIV and the P-38J, in that order. The low altitude monsters such as the Tempest and La-7 are limited in that the higher they go, the poorer they perform. When you get to 20k and higher, the P-47N and Ta-152 literally own the place.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Look at the bigger picture Akster.
Akster? *rolls eyes*
+Tiff/CorkyJr posted a AAR from a flight of P-38Gs, none of the pilots in that flight were aces or even had significant fligh time in the P-38. If you had read that post, you would have read the part where they had used flaps to engage the German planes that bounced them.
It was common for P-38L pilots to use their dive flaps to aid in high speed turning. Common with P-51 and P-47 drivers as well. Just because you can't fathom doing it with all the clutter doesn't mean others weren't able to do it as well. Remember, your view comes from your belief and not based on fact. There has been enough posts to show you otherwise but you refuse to take off the blinders you have on. And that is all I have to say on this subject.
ack-ack
-
"Common with P-51 and P-47 drivers as well. "
I recall that in Col. Anderson's book, he describes using his flaps to turn tighter in a 1 vs 1 dogfight against an ME-109.
The lesser-known pilots might not have written books, but that doesn't mean they didn't use their flaps. But then, some people actually think that WW2 air combat was little more than a series of high-speed bounces.
J_A_B
-
It was common for P-38L pilots to use their dive flaps to aid in high speed turning. Common with P-51 and P-47 drivers as well. Just because you can't fathom doing it with all the clutter doesn't mean others weren't able to do it as well. Remember, your view comes from your belief and not based on fact. There has been enough posts to show you otherwise but you refuse to take off the blinders you have on. And that is all I have to say on this subject.
The point is, pilots using flaps is like chimps learning to catch termites with sticks - it's not a common thing to the entire species of chimps.
It depends on;
1)what kind of group the individual pilot is in
2) what kind of characteristic pilots influence the group, and how they teach new pilots
3) what the usual situation one could expect during flying, and the type of enemy plane
4) what the basic preferences and tendencies of air combat was, depending on nationality
..
It may have been dominant in one area of operations, but that never makes it "common". Neither the USAAF nor the P-38 alone, is a sole standard when determining these things.
To quote Guppy;
Was it reccomended as a long term life insurance policy? Nope. Getting slow in a combat zone, doesn't project a long life.
I think it's safe to say the the AH 38 world is best represented by those 370th FG 38 drivers. The fights are lower, often on the deck and often where the 38 is lugging bombs to some airfield etc.
I don't think it was a reccomended tactic in the Pacific. General George Kenny, head of 5th AF wasn't happy with his new 38 pilots tactics early on, including Bong and Lynch as they were too often trying to dogfight Zeros. The tactics in the Pac were to keep the speed up and B & Z the Zekes etc to death.
I think it's safe to say the 38 drivers were versed in how to use those flaps though, and if you look at those 370th accounts, their use was in a defensive, save their skins posture, not an attack mode. In all those cases they did not have alt and E on their side.
Widewing;
Crump's argument that prolonged use of flaps will actually harm turning is correct. Nonetheless, the enemy you are engaged with is likely experiencing the same problem, exacerbated by the fact that only a handful of WWII fighters had a power loading in the P-38's class (especially the P-38L when rigged for 1,725 hp per engine). Still, I concur that flap use should be limited and maintaining E is a factor of greater importance 95% of the time.
Kurfürst;
it`s no wonder it was rarely mentioned. German tactics revolved around diving attacks and giving no chance for the enemy. Only a few of their pilots preferred manouvering combat over strict energy tactics. Especially as they were usually outnumbered, and turning would slow them down and loosing the initiative.
..J_A_B, from this very thread;
I recall that in Col. Anderson's book, he describes using his flaps to turn tighter in a 1 vs 1 dogfight against an ME-109.
..and, Murdr;
Tilly never would have tried to stay with that (correction) Oscar had it not been 12 vs 2.
Arguing flap usage as a common thing to happen, without duly noting the overall situation into context, is plain wrong.
...
And on the still bigger picture yet, flaps is only a part of what we should be discussing on this thread. The talk about flaps is really only a side-dish.
A fighter pilot's duty is to take things as simple as possible inside his cockpit. Some like complex and heart-pumping fights on purpose, but such was never recommended nor really safe - complexity kills, people.
-
"Arguing flap usage as a common thing to happen, without duly noting the overall situation into context, is plain wrong. "
It can be trusted to common sense that we can all assume pilots weren't dropping 40 degrees flaps the instant they sighted some bogies. As you say, there's no need to over-analyze things.
"The point is, pilots using flaps is like chimps learning to catch termites with sticks - it's not a common thing to the entire species of chimps. "
You could say the exact same thing about pilots using parachutes. Most pilots never had to use it. Should we assume, then, that most pilots didn't know how to use their 'chutes if they needed to? I'd wager that fighter pilots used their flaps (in planes with combat flaps, anyway) more often than they used their parachutes.
"And on the still bigger picture yet, flaps is only a part of what we should be discussing on this thread. The talk about flaps is really only a side-dish. "
Agreed. But--that's what makes these forums fun!
J_A_B
-
It can be trusted to common sense that we can all assume pilots weren't dropping 40 degrees flaps the instant they sighted some bogies. As you say, there's no need to over-analyze things.
Point taken, J_A_B.
The need to emphasize the situational background sprang up from trying to explain my point, concerning the issue of comparing the 190D and the P-51.
Some people could push their plane to limits, others couldn't. Some used flaps quite frequently, others didn't. But regardless of that fact, most would stick to a safer range of maneuvering, on a team level effort. Stick to the promised moves, use others to clear six, and try not to commit everything in a single fight - since they can't simply reup after they die, like we do.
You could say the exact same thing about pilots using parachutes. Most pilots never had to use it. Should we assume, then, that most pilots didn't know how to use their 'chutes if they needed to? I'd wager that fighter pilots used their flaps (in planes with combat flaps, anyway) more often than they used their parachutes.
I never said pilots didn't know how to use flaps, J_A_B. I said pilots wouldn't want to get into that situation in the first place, and those who did go into that situation, had a lot of factors working for them.
Agreed. But--that's what makes these forums fun!
Glad you approve!
I wasn't trying to drag in the old flap debate. Obviously the differences in opinions in that issue would never be resolved.
I was merely trying to make a point that complex issues involved in flying a plane, might be able to explain the reason why some pilots considered the Fw190s as an able "dogfighter", quite contrary to us gamer's impression on that plane.
-
I remember reading as a kid and seeing photos to support it, about the differences in how 4th FG Aces Duane Beeson and Don Gentile flew their 51s.
Beeson rammed the throttle forward and had two hands on the stick, electing to blow on past targets, while Gentile had one hand on the throttle and one on the stick, giving him more control to stay in the 'dogfight'.
Wish I could find the photos now....funny how you can remember stuff when you want to. Found em :)
Gentile on the left, Beeson on the right
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1123395464_beetille.jpg)
-
As many of us remember, Pyro expressed his intention to redo all the 190 family (may be a year ago). So, we may consider AH 190s as unfinished planes at this moment.
-
"But regardless of that fact, most would stick to a safer range of maneuvering, on a team level effort. Stick to the promised moves, use others to clear six, and try not to commit everything in a single fight - since they can't simply reup after they die, like we do. "
There were unquestionably conservative pilots, just as there were more aggressive ones. We see the same thing in AH--we see the P-51 and 190 guys who timidly stay high and fast and basically only cherry-pick, then we see a few who really get into the fights and use everything they have. A heck of a lot of AH P-51 fliers probably never use their flaps, if they still fly like they were when I played the game.
"I was merely trying to make a point that complex issues involved in flying a plane, might be able to explain the reason why some pilots considered the Fw190s as an able "dogfighter", quite contrary to us gamer's impression on that plane."
The 190A DOES seem pretty straightforeward to fly, doesn't it? Between it's fairly simple operation and relative comfort (low stick forces, good vision), I can see why pilots would like it. Something like the P-38 is basically on the opposite end of the spectrum and is complex to operate by comparison. It could be claimed that it was "easier" to get the most out of a 190 than a P-38, and that kind of claim would probably be right for most pilots.
J_A_B
-
I actually think the 190A5 is a pretty fair dogfighter... well, the best of a bad bunch anyway.
You aren't going to kill anyone competent flying a good fighter, but you can surprise people, then leave if you don't get the quick kill you need.
The D-9 and A-8 on the other hand are pretty hopeless.
-
I'm an expert at dying in the D9, A8 and F8 --and the QUICKEst way to accomplish that feat is to get in a slow turn fight with anything other than a heavy Lancaster (if he's light, its iffy):rolleyes:
-
I'd like to point out that, AFAIK, the flaps may even reduce the amount of AoA you can pull. So they do add lift but they may also restrict you maneuverability. AFAIK only leading edge slats (or similar flow equalizers) can increase the AoA you can pull.
I'd choose the slats over flaps. They function faster and enable you to create similar lift as with flaps but faster and without fear of losing control if you pull too much.
-C+
-
190 late A series hopeless? Hmmm , well 4-5 channel coast aces got over 50 Spits each. sounds pretty hopeless.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I actually think the 190A5 is a pretty fair dogfighter... well, the best of a bad bunch anyway.
When the FW190A came out, it was totally superior to the Spitfire V, which was at the time the main RAF fighter. At the time it was considered a supurb dogfighter, even more than the bf109s.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Charge
I'd choose the slats over flaps. They function faster and enable you to create similar lift as with flaps but faster and without fear of losing control if you pull too much.
-C+
I think the Germans that flew the planes with the auto-slats might disagree. One of the biggest complaints about the bf109 and other planes that had the auto-slats was that they had a tendency to deploy asymetrically while maneuvering. It was a problem that the Germans were never fully able to fix.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
When the FW190A came out, it was totally superior to the Spitfire V, which was at the time the main RAF fighter. At the time it was considered a supurb dogfighter, even more than the bf109s.
ack-ack
Yea, but the Spit V we have isn't a Spit V from when the 190A came into service. If I had to guess, I'd say the early 190s could pull more power than the early Spit Vs, and get away via climbing and diving. The 190A's we have can dive away from a Spit V, but climbing away, if the Spit has anywhere near the same amount of speed, would be just about the quickest way I know to die.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
As many of us remember, Pyro expressed his intention to redo all the 190 family (may be a year ago). So, we may consider AH 190s as unfinished planes at this moment.
I remember Pyro wants to make some tweaks on 190A-5 (using company test figures) BUT there were pros and tradeoffs
PROS:
* higher speed at deck.
Trade-offs:
* much lower climb rate.
* maximum speed at alt much lower.
Pyro knew there's alot more to lose then to gain.
-
The FW 190A-5 we have came into service in 1943.
-
Yea, but the Spit V we have isn't a Spit V from when the 190A came into service.
No it is not the correct Spit V.
However, when the Spitfire Mk IX appeared it was a large morale boost to the RAF and was considered the "answer" to the FW-190A.
It's appearence was hardly noticed in the FW-190 Geschwaders. A Spitfire remained a Spitfire until the appearence of the Spitfire Mk IVX.
On the FW-190A5, according to the pilots who flew the FW-190A5 it was worst performing of the Antons. The design gained weight with no power gain. This is backed up by the technical history of the design. Some late production FW-190A5's benefited from some engine and prop changes.
I disagree on the performance changes. Properly modeled the FW190 will get it's high best climb speed and shallower angle climb. The performance specs our FW190A5 is modeled off is EB-104. An FW-190G the USAAF tried to ballast back to an FW-190A5. The G series has a higher drag profile than the FW-190A so it climbs at a steeper angle and much slower speed. It lacked the engine setup of the Antons and it's performance is not representative of the type.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
thx for clarifying,
i thought AH spit 9 is the only "Frankenstein", i guess the A-5 goes with the likes of spit 9:(
-
crummp i sent PM, you might wanna check...
-
And the RAF made no distinction between any of the 190A series. It was just "Fw190" or "Long nose 190" for the D-9.
-
Crumpp,
I could post multiple quotes from Mustang pilots who have said the same regarding the P-51's ability to outperform the 190/109.
One Fw 190 shooting down one P-51 in a dogfight, and then being shot down itself by that same Mustang, doesn't really tell us much.
On a related note, the use of combat flaps by P-51 pilots was very common.
Originally posted by Crumpp
To quote Oscar Boesch, "I feared no fighter I could see in my Focke!".
He flew an FW190A8 for the majority of his FW190 career. He is credited with P51, Spitfire, La, and Yak kills.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by agent 009
As for flaps, yah both could drop flaps. Dora had presets, a bit more sophisticated no? On turn circle, Stang 960 ft, & Dora with flaps down 800 plus ft.
so according to those numbers the dora turned inside the stang?
i'd like to see more about those numbers, and the actual AH abilities.
IIRC kweassa did some tests and the dora was almost deal last of all fighters in turn radius.
-
190 and Turning should never be used in the same sentance (in AH atlist).
Its like saing the SuperDUD has skills.
-
I find the raft of "anectdotal quotes" from WW2 pilots that folks fire back and forth like naval salvoes to be interesting, only to the point of showing the confidence in their mounts (the original pilots).
Most fighter pilots spoke highly of the a/c that brought them home at the end of a tour, almost irregardless of type. That being said they are a poor yardstick to compare raw abilities, unless you can back it up with much more info and put it into perspective.
You had to be a different breed of cat to strap yourself into one of those things for real, and actually go out and fly a combat mission in it to begin with. I think thats worth remembering.
-
I dont think 190s were designed for 1 vs 1 combat, but for real aerial combat of many vs many, where target focusing (1 vs 1) may be a fatal mistake. In many vs many you need good visibility, armour, thrusty radio, weapons, speed and little workload for the pilot. Few planes, if any, are comparable to 190s for that role.
-
Yet there is some anecdotal proof of 190s having mock dogfights and doing well. 190 vs Romanian IAR80 ->win (IAR is considered more maneuverable), 190 vs 109G14 (dogfighter optimized) -> a draw.
-C+
-
Haviing just completed some testing, I must conclude that while the P-51D may hold a slight edge on the Dora, the P-51B will give it fits. Again, altitude makes a difference, so I tested at a medium altitude of 16,000 feet.
Here's the stats tested in TA, fuel burn 1.0, takeoff fuel 50% for P-51s, 75% for others.
P-51B: 418 mph, no WEP. 424 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 417 mph with WEP (didn't bother to test without).
Tempest: 413 mph, no WEP. 424 mph with WEP.
P-51D: 405 mph, no WEP. 407 mph with WEP (16k is just below high blower alt, so the P-51D's hp is its lowest here).
109G-10: 399 mph, no WEP. 429 mph with WEP.
At higher altitudes, things change a bit.
25,000 feet.
P-51B: 429 mph, no WEP. 436 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 421 mph with WEP.
Tempest: Not Tested.
P-51D: 441 mph with WEP.
109G-10: 443 mph with WEP.
F4U-4: 446 mph with WEP.
SpitXIV: 441 mph with WEP.
28,500 feet.
P-51B: 441 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 410 mph with WEP.
P-51D: 433 mph with WEP.
109G-10: 436 mph with WEP.
F4U-4: 445 mph with WEP.
SpitXIV: 444 mph with WEP.
At 27,600 feet, the P-51B hits its maximum of 443 mph (sustained for over two minutes, when WEP ran out).
This level of performance puts the P-51B right up there with the very best in the plane set, perked or otherwise.
So, the best altitude for the Dora to engage the P-51D is right around 16k. However, that's not a good altitude to encounter the P-51B.
My regards,
Widewing
-
When you get to 20k and higher, the P-47N and Ta-152 literally own the place.
Well, I once catched a Ta-152 in a straight chase at 25k... in a P-51B.
I'm average at best, but the P-47N has everything I look for in a fighter, only weakness is its poor climb when heavy. But it can do what Widewing says, and that's blowing through a great numerical advantage picking off people who aren't paying attention. I get quite nervous though when higher cons show up :D
Edit:
Hey Widewing, I just read your last post, you spoiled my secret that the P-51B is so good up high.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I think the Germans that flew the planes with the auto-slats might disagree. One of the biggest complaints about the bf109 and other planes that had the auto-slats was that they had a tendency to deploy asymetrically while maneuvering. It was a problem that the Germans were never fully able to fix.
Incorrect. The slats operated exactly as designed and the problem of asymmertical popout was corrected in the F series and later models.
And what did 109 pilots themselves have to about slats?
Me 109 E:
"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown
- The author writes about an "unpleasant" event. Nothing catastrophic! Surely all of the planes of that time had features, that were unpleasant, just as well as many planes today have. Curtiss Hawk 75 was surely unpleasant to fly with the rear fuselage fuel tank filled, as flying acrobatics could get you killed. P-51 was at least unpleasant with fuselage tanks filled.
Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.
Me 109 E:
"And there I discovered the first thing you have to consider in a 109. The 109 had slots. The slot had a purpose to increase the lift during takeoff and landing. In the air automatically it's pressed to the main wing. And if you turn very roughly you got a chance, it's just by power, the wing, the forewing, comes out a little bit, and you snap. This happened to me. I released the stick immediately and it was ok then. "
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.
Me 109 E/F/G: - The plane had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.
Me 109 G:
"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?
They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.
- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?
No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G:
"- In a battle, which was the case: did the pilot endure more than the Messerschmitt could do or vice versa?
The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled. I don't know, I never tried to find out what the plane would do after that. I never heard anybody else saying that he would have banked so hard that the slats came out. I did that a few times, for example once over the Isthmus I tried to turn after an enemy, banking so hard that both slats came out, but I had to give up.
- How did the slats behave in such a situation, did they go in and out ?
It depended on speed, if you pulled more,they came out, then back in
The slats came out completely, never half-way?
I never came to watch them so intensely. You just knew they had come out, you could see them and feel that the lift increased pretty much.
- So the plane warned that now you are on the edge.
Yes, you knew the plane is about to spin."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.
Me 109 G:
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).
Me 109 G:
"There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
"We didn't have time for acrobatics but we weren't forbidden from doing them, though. Snap roll was fast and easy, and the engine didn't cough as in older planes. Immelman turn was splendid when you tightened the stick a bit on the top. The automatic wing slats did their trick and you didn't need ailerons at all for straightening the plane."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
Source: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#slats
-
Originally posted by Widewing
So, the best altitude for the Dora to engage the P-51D is right around 16k. However, that's not a good altitude to encounter the P-51B.
I figure sea level would be the best altitude for the Dora. That's where she has the biggest speed and climb advantage over both 51s.
-
Pony D ENY 6
Dora ENY 18
If you fly Knight, you are way often ENY restricted, so in that respect the Dora is better.
Given the two to fly in the MA, I take the Dora. Why? Because the Pony D is a better plane IMHO. In fact I think it is the best MA plane.
I just like cannon planes in the MA.
Lately I fly the 109F4 a lot. I find it more of a challenge than the hot late rides. You still don't get any respect for flying such a crate. All you get is gang banged because you can't run. But then again, if you want respect, you probably don't fly in the MA :)
-
If you ain't fighting 5v1, you ain't flying AH.
-
I actually wrote my response before I had even flown any of the 190s.
Now, there is no comparison... the 190 in AH is ****.
To top off the horrible manueverability, you get cockpit bars so thick they completely obscure planes that are 50 yards away.
So P-51 hands down.. hell, P-40B hands down...
-
Actually, the cockpit bars have already been slimmed down once.
Here's the complete discussion when the new 190 first showed up;
previous discussions (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146565&highlight=cockpit+bars)
As you can see, the original implementation was much more horrible. The current one is actually much thinner than the one I've suggested in that thread... and being used to IL2/FB's horrible, horrible 190 cockpits... frankly I think the AH 190 cockpits are not that bad.
The key is to adjust the "alternate front view" by only a little bit. Veering off to the side too much actually doesn't help that much in deflection shooting.
-
The side bars get in the way for deflection shooting... I haven't been able to find any angle that seems to be good for seeing around them and still being able to shoot.