Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on December 29, 2005, 09:50:04 PM
-
Crummp,
I wanted to respond to some of your comments I found surprising in the FW190 VRS F8F thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can improve it marginally with superior power loading but high wingloading is hard to overcome unless you are flying a stunt plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded to my comment with.
Does a stunt plane use different physics? It is not nearly as hard as you think to overcome. In fact wing loading is not very good for determining turning ability except in the most general of terms.
Increasing thrust reduces radius by allowing a larger angle of bank. Even though the Spitfire gained 1000lbs, a relatively small power increase was more than able to compensate. The FW-190 gained as much power and much less weight than the entire series of Spitfires used during the war.
I completely disagree with your analogy based on my brief research of stunt aircraft and their characteristics. I used the Suhkoi SU-26 as my test aircraft because Suhkoi makes the best Aerobatic aircraft in the world and the numbers are readily available.
(http://img14.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc221&image=7df3f_PaequalsPr.jpg)
Category Unlimited single-seater
Length 6.83 m
Wingspan 7.80 m
Wing aera 10.83 m2
Empty mass 720 kg
Engine Vedeneyev M14P, nine-cylinders radial
360
Hp
Propeller 3 blade constant-speed
Span : 2.54
m
Max speed 450 Km/h
Stall speed 110 Km/h
Roll rate 400 °/s
Max acceleration +12 / -8 g
Actually I think my Stunt/Aerobatic plane analogy works well if you look at the critical indicators
1. Power loading empty weight
1587lbs / 360HP = 4.4
Wing Loading
1587LBS / 116Sqft = 13.6
The power loading is worse than a F6F while the wing loading is astronomically low. So what is import factor in high AOA manuevers? Wing loading or power loading?
For comparison
FW190A-5
Power loading
Basic Weight = 6716LBS
Power Loading
6716LBS / 1755HP = 3.82
Wing Loading
6716LBS / 197Sqft = 34.09
The FW190 Has better power loading but I wouldn't want to try to outturn the Suhkoi.
Also you posted this as part of your proof of theory. I have a couple of good books on Aerodynamics and I have worked hard to learn some basic calculations to help me fill in the blanks but I do not know what I am to take out of this.
(http://img14.potato.com/loc221/th_7df3f_PaequalsPr.jpg)
Lastly you made this reponse to the problems caused by sabotage and poor workmanship due to the use of slave labor.
Got to call a BS flag on this one F4UDOA.
While sabotage and poor quality control did effect German production it had little effect on the frontline Geschwaders until the system breakdowns in the last months of the war.
Just like the allies, the aircraft were inspected and had to perform during a check out flight before being accepted by the Luftwaffe for service.
Only in terms of supply would this be an issue, not performance.
Now there is one outstanding exception. Oil formulation appears to have been sabotaged in 1943. The Luftwaffe lost almost 500 801 motors in one year because one man changed the formula causing the oil to breakdown at high tempatures. This cause broken rods. The cause was found, the formula fixed, and the poor guy is listed as "no longer working" in oil production.
Some other instances of "sabotage" did occur. For example an entire Staffle is listed in one Beanstandungen as being "sabotaged" when they cracked cylinders in two motors in a month. The Kommandogerät jets were drilled allowing the motor to run at 1.8ata using Erhöhte Notleistung. In a military service were destruction of state property could carry the death penalty, I would list the mechanics tinkering as "sabotage" too if I was the pilot benefiting. Focke Wulf and BMW conducted a study and determined the practice was dangerous. Geschwaders were ordered to cease the modification.
The chances of a sabotaged motor or aircraft reaching the Geschwaders was pretty remote.
This quote from a Luftwaffe pilot would seem to indicate that the problems did reach the field. The quote is in regard to the 109G-14 showing up with various problems from poor workmanship to wires being cut. The Pilot Hans Knickrehm is from JG/3. However it is copyright material so I cannot cut and paste.
Here is the page
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ad_IuiD6WPQJ:[url]www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html+fw+190+sabotage&hl=en[/url]
You also mention that the perpatraitors were subject to the death penalty if caught. You realize that the workers in these factories were already sentenced to death?
-
The reduction of turn radius with increased power is relatively small, the major improvement is in the turn RATE. This is obvious when you look at an E-M diagram, such as the ones found in this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132948
Looking at those EM charts - even if you could have enough power to pull 6G in a sustained turn, the turn radius would only decrease by about 10-15%, while the turn RATE would be almost doubled!
-
Absolutely,
Turn rate increases but the radius does not get affected very much(relatively). Especially when the difference in power loading is marginal. If you know the HP, Wing area, top speed at sealevel and 1G stall speed there is very little to the imagination at that point.
I have a good spread sheet that shows this very clearly at various G loads.
-
I need to rephrase a little bit.
The airflow over the wing will reduce stall speed very much by the application of even a little power. However in relation to another aircraft with significantly superior wingloading this will by itself not be enough to overcome the deficit in turn radius IMHO.
-
The airflow over the wing will reduce stall speed very much by the application of even a little power. However in relation to another aircraft with significantly superior wingloading this will by itself not be enough to overcome the deficit in turn radius IMHO.
That is a pretty good generalization and would be correct. The Spifire Mk XIV for example was able to overcome a 5lb per sq ft wingloading increase over the Spitfire Mk IX by having more thrust.
This is why the Dora outturns the FW-190A8. It has the same wingloading by more efficient propeller and more power. The FW-190A8 turned as well if not better than the FW-190A3. The FW-190A8 has significantly more power and a more efficient propeller than the FW-190A3.
The wingloading at Fluggewicht for a full wing armament fighter variants only increases 3-4 lbs from the FW-190A3 to the FW-190A8.
FW-190A3 - 3978kg
FW-190A8 - 4272kg
Turn rate increases but the radius does not get affected very much. Especially when the difference in power loading is marginal. If you know the HP, Wing area, top speed at sealevel and 1G stall speed there is very little to the imagination at that point.
justin_g very nicely explained how better powerloading increases an aircraft turning ability.
F4UDOA says:
This quote from a Luftwaffe pilot would seem to indicate that the problems did reach the field.
Crumpp says:
While sabotage and poor quality control did effect German production it had little effect on the frontline Geschwaders until the system breakdowns in the last months of the war.
Big Difference in what I said and what you are taking it to mean.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
I believe the A3 was the best overall dogfighter of the bunch.
I do not believe the Spit XIV could turn as well as the Spit IX the same way I don't believe the A8 could turn as well as the A3. They both trade turn radius for rate. I don't think they got them very slow when they were testing.
The only tactic that could be employed would be using their speed advantage combined with climb rate to b&z.
The A6M2/5 was probably the best turning of the major A/C types of the war but it had very modest power loading. By contrast a LA-7 could never out turn it but could definitely fly very fast circles around it.
The P-47D-5 specified in the trial against the FW190A-5 actually had worse wing loading but most likely had better power loading at high alts and yet at low speed the 190 still out turned it.
FYI, The AAF evaluation of the FW190D-9 says that they preffered the Anton because it handled so much better.
-
I do not believe the Spit XIV could turn as well as the Spit IX They both trade turn radius for rate.
Decrease turn radius and you increase turn rate, F4UDOA. You can believe it or not but it remains a fact.
Power on stall will also improve when thrust is added. You have increased thrust to overcome drag.
The RAE tested the Spitfire Mik XIV and the conclusions are available to all. Once more these results are very much backed up by science.
The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
the same way I don't believe the A8 could turn as well as the A3.
Why wouldn't it?
Adding thrust increases lift.
(http://img129.potato.com/loc50/th_b0e42_lift_forces.jpg) (http://img129.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc50&image=b0e42_lift_forces.jpg)
(http://img133.potato.com/loc298/th_58ffa_thrust_component_of_lift.jpg) (http://img133.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc298&image=58ffa_thrust_component_of_lift.jpg)
The Focke Wulf gained less weight and just as much power as the Spitfire. It gained less weight and more power than many allied designs. It also gained several propeller upgrades increasing the efficiency. In fact the design used 5 different metal props and two different wooden ones during it's design lifetime.
Do you have facts or just beliefs on this?
I don't think they got them very slow when they were testing.
The power off stall speed of the Spitfire Mk IX was probably lower than the Spitfire Mk XIV. However combat pilots are not using power off stall. They are flying with power on.
With increased thrust, the Spitfire Mk XIV was able to overcome a 1000lb weight increase and a 5lb sq ft wingloading increase. It simply was able to pull a larger angle of bank at the same speed than the Spitfire Mk IX. This reduced the turn radius, increased the turn rate, and allowed it to match the much lower wingloading of the Spitfire Mk IX.
However in relation to another aircraft with significantly superior wingloading this will by itself not be enough to overcome the deficit in turn radius IMHO.
Your statement remains true if the wingloading difference is significant. A few lbs increase can be overcome with thrust.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The AAF evaluation of the FW190D-9 says that they preffered the Anton because it handled so much better.
FYI,
I would trust the Luftwaffe FW-190 Geschwader pilots who had significant experience in both over an unknown condition Dora.
Additionally, depending on the Dora, this could very well be the case. The first production Dora's did not represent a major thrust increase. Once the Oldenburg system and Junkers team modified the Jumo 213's things were different.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
This quote from a Luftwaffe pilot would seem to indicate that the problems did reach the field. The quote is in regard to the 109G-14 showing up with various problems from poor workmanship to wires being cut. The Pilot Hans Knickrehm is from JG/3. However it is copyright material so I cannot cut and paste.
Here is the page
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ad_IuiD6WPQJ:[url]www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html+fw+190+sabotage&hl=en[/url]
You also mention that the perpatraitors were subject to the death penalty if caught. You realize that the workers in these factories were already sentenced to death?
F4U, I guess we all know the reason why this site has these selective pickings with strong bias and the habit of forgetting the big picture. Sure, Knickrehm got a poorly made plane, he was unlucky. But what does that prove? One can generally find qoutes for a claim and qoutes showin the opposite. They are exceptions to the rule. I can find you qoute from Caldwell's JG 26 diary of a JG 26 pilot prasing the quality of his Dora-9 built in Sorau. One can find individual examples of both good and poor production quality, so what do we learn, that production planes varied in quality? That was the same everywhere, that's why there was an acceptance tolerance on performance of production aircraft. We know Williams and his site, and what his agenda is, thus we know why that qoute was put there. Looking through his articles, my impression is that there are tons and tons and tons of refernces to bad things on the LW side for which even the remote possibility of competitive performance must be dismissed, and nothing, zero, nada concenrs for his 'own' side. Oh I am quite sure it was that black and white [sarcasm on]!
The big picture from what I learned is quite different. Even the American reports done immidiately post-war (I refer to USSBS) admit the quality was quite well kept up regarding the items that defined performance, and the report goes into details praising the BAL's rigorous standards up to the end of the war. The authors go as far stating they could swap planes with the LW (and apart from range issues) still beat them not because of the quality of planes, which was seen equal, but the pilots.
Also I have 1945 april (i think) interview with a Me 262 accaptence test pilot. He states that practically all planes he tested satisfied the performance tolerance. That says it all, regardless of the rather transparent personal agenda from the creators of spitfireperformance.com. BTW, I am to take a site seriously that claims a certain boost was not cleared, and shows as 'evidence' the ratings of another engine? Doh.
-
Barbi, you are like the bull when seeing red > ignores all else.
Mike says that his performance curves should be treated with reserve.
I am to take a site seriously that claims a certain boost was not cleared
He says: The DB605DC at 1.98ata with MW was tested but seems not to to have made it into service.
It was not just Knickrehm's a/c, for he says more than one a/c received by his unit.
Kindly try to improve your reading comprehension skills.
-
Kurfurst,
Is your assertion that the possibility that slave (Slave being a kind term in this case) labor might want to do less than a perfect job or even want to "sabotage" the very people that were trying to kill them?
Are you saying that they had the same vigilence in there effort than say a worker at Grumman, North American or Supermarine who might have a family mamber who life depended on the quality of their work?
What ever problems you have with Mike Williams are your own, the quote came from a member of the Luftwaffe who described multplie problems not one incedent.
-
German quality control problems had more to do with expanding their industrial base than slave labor.
The skilled workers were not the slaves either.
Examine so companies just dealing with expansion:
n January 1943 the government’s War Production Board officially criticized Willow Run’s performance for the first time. The factory’s primary problem, according to the board, was a shortage of manpower, the plant found it difficult to hire and keep competent workers.
What were all those loyal workers doing?
At the same time, it was reported that "the automotive type precision tooling at Willow Run had resulted in such uniformity of production that more than half of all of the Ford-built Liberators were accepted for delivery on their maiden flights," an unusually high percentage of plane approval.
Who was sabotaging the other 50 Percent that did not make it?
. Willow Run did not produce a plane until July 1942, and that one was a knockdown sent to a Douglas Aircraft assembly plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The first flyaway was not turned over to the United States Army until September 10, 1942.
During the last few months of 1943, as the giant plant began living up to its press notices of 1941 and the first half of 1942, the threat of a government takeover faded.
Over a year to begin producing some quality planes?
http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/willow_run/willow_run.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The aeronautical science questions are answered on how increasing power available can overcome a small wingloading increase thereby improving turn performance.
This thread is done then as it is moving on to other subjects.
I believe the A3 was the best overall dogfighter of the bunch.
You can believe that if you wish. However, the pilots who flew the FW-190A, the facts, and the science point to a different conclusion.
The P-47D-5 specified in the trial against the FW190A-5 actually had worse wing loading but most likely had better power loading at high alts and yet at low speed the 190 still out turned it.
At high altitudes, where the P 47 does have better powerloading the P47 easily outturned the FW-190A5. The FW-190A5 recieved only the penalty of increased wingloading with no power gains over the earlier FW-190A's. All the Focke Wulf pilots agree it was the worst performing variant.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Power on stall will also improve when thrust is added. You have increased thrust to overcome drag.
Not really how it works. Adding some propellor thrust at the low airspeed of a 1G stall has the effect of increasing the local velocity of the air moving over the wing in the propwash, which provides an increase in lift.
However, only a small amount of engine power is required for this effect, and adding more after that gives extremely diminishing returns. For example the NACA tested the Spitfire V stall in several conditions:
Stalling speeds, clean condition
Glide(engine off) = 90mph
Cruise(2650rpm, +3.75lbs) = 77mph
Climbing(2850rpm, +7lbs) = 76mph
Also this effect will be greatly reduced at higher speeds, where the thrust from the propellor will become less and less. So adding power in a sustained turn will not increase the lift of the wing in that way.
What is true is that increased power will allow the aircraft to overcome more drag, allowing the aircraft to fly at a higher speed(and G load) in a sustained turn. So you keep turning almost the same radius, but at a faster speed which increases the turn rate.
This can be easily seen on the EM diagrams. The only way to significantly reduce turn radius is to fly near corner velocity(6G stall speed). The only way to be able to sustain that speed is to have more power - ALOT more power. But only moderate increases in power will result in noticable improvement in sustained turn RATE, with the turn radius being reduced by only a tiny amount.
-
Adding some propellor thrust at the low airspeed of a 1G stall has the effect of increasing the local velocity of the air moving over the wing in the propwash, which provides an increase in lift.
Your correct in your statement but I think your refering to fin thrust.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1944/naca-wr-l-25/naca-wr-l-25.pdf
Which is an aircraft stability issue linked to propeller design.
Perkins & Hage says turning is a fundamental relationship of thrust required and power available for an airplane at various angles of bank.
(http://img137.potato.com/loc131/th_9397b_turnperformance.jpg) (http://img137.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc131&image=9397b_turnperformance.jpg)
Adding thrust allows an aircraft to pull a sharper angle of bank reducing the radius and increasing the rate.
(http://img10.potato.com/loc21/th_3e24d_PaequalsPr.jpg) (http://img10.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc21&image=3e24d_PaequalsPr.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Kurfurst,
Is your assertion that the possibility that slave (Slave being a kind term in this case) labor might want to do less than a perfect job or even want to "sabotage" the very people that were trying to kill them?
F4U, I tend to think you have some very generalized idea on production. "Slaves" were of course there, there were as well paid foreign workers from Holland and France's aero industry. They were quite interested not being sent home, since they only could get jobs in Germany. They came there voluntarily, some because of ideolical reasons, others because of the money for the familiy.
The number of 'slaves', ie. Prisoners of War and Jews amounted only 12% of the total workforce in the aviation industry (USSBS). And I tend to think they were far more busy beinng happy to get out of the KZ to a relatively safe place, rather than get back there for some error they made. They tried to survive, not to play some hero, at least most of them. I am sure there were exceptions.
One can guess what sorts of jobs they did get, having no idea about aircraft industry - I've seen a documentary about Messerschmitt, where his former engineers were interviewed, it was told they got only the lowest jobs which required no knowladge, not the actual manufacturing of aircraft. A ukrainian peasant women for example, however nice she may be, knows very little about stressed skin construction technologies and won't be told to try to do that. She may bring a bucket of rivets to the skilled German or Foreign labour, sweep the floor, and generally help out.
Are you saying that they had the same vigilence in there effort than say a worker at Grumman, North American or Supermarine who might have a family mamber who life depended on the quality of their work?[/B]
I can hardly see a reason why a German worker, especially in nazi germany, would be inspired to sabotage the warplanes of his own country, which was constantly being bombed and probably already lost some relatives in carpet bombings..
What ever problems you have with Mike Williams are your own, the quote came from a member of the Luftwaffe who described multplie problems not one incedent. [/B]
Sure, and for every Mike Williams qoute, there's 3 others saying the opposite, he just doesn't show them. He wishes to impress visitors with the small picture, single pilots telling about they got a bad aircraft, a dozen of single accounts how Spitfires shot down enemy aircraft (given those, they themselves were never shot down, it was one long glory march). He compares the best aircraft on the highest boost, of which probalby a dozen were around and had no real impact on the operation to the most common enemy aircrafts. He doesn't see, or want us to see the big picture.
I tend to rely on sources that show this big picture instead. The USSBS in a summary of the state of Germany's industry, all areas. They had no reason to praise it or show it better than it was. Yet, about the quality of the aircraft industry they say the decline in quality was superficial and not effecting performance seriously. Quality control (BAL) ws held in high regard and rejected the planes and components that did not met the specs due to the sabotage/errors that may have occured under such condition.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Mike says that his performance curves should be treated with reserve.
He never says that to his beloved Spitfire curves, I wonder why? :D
He says: The DB605DC at 1.98ata with MW was tested but seems not to to have made it into service.[/B]
Sure he says that, but it seems to be his wishful thinking since after all, nothing supports it. He used to list 1.98 performance curves for a while (with thin yellow lines on a white background, one could barely see it...), with a qoute from butch2k who he referred as "Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109". Butch2k, who I'd rather believe instead of the MW or NS, stated there : "1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. ..You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced.."
Mike Williams and Neil Stirling were also shown the actual orders about 1.98ata introduction to four Bf 109 wings, which they dismissed, and entrenched themselves in a partisan stance, removing all 1.98ata curves, removing the now unpleasent qoute from butch2k which stood in the way of the agenda, and are claiming 1.98ata (which could be used by the DB 605DC) was never used in service. They also went as far forging evidence, showing the boost rates of a different engine, the DB 605DB.
It was not just Knickrehm's a/c, for he says more than one a/c received by his unit.[/B]
Oh, I am sure of that, but that's a drop in the sea compared to the big picture. Knickrehm's unit may have received a dozen, poorly produced aircraft, but the LW had 3000+ plus fighters at that time...
-
This quote from a Luftwaffe pilot would seem to indicate that the problems did reach the field.
While I agree it does appear in the quote that the Germans recieved scores of substandard aircraft you have to read the quote and put it into the context of history.
The machines that were delivered were technically obsolete and of considerably lowered quality. The engines proved prone to trouble after much too short a time, because the factories had had to sharply curtail test runs for lack of fuel. The surface finish of the outer skin also left much to be desired. The sprayed-on camouflage finish was rough and uneven. The result was a further reduction in speed. We often discovered clear cases of sabotage during our acceptance checks. Cables or wires were not secured, were improperly attached, scratched or had even been visibly cut. 1
"During our acceptance checks" is a key phrase. He is clearly discussing aircraft which have not been accepted for Luftwaffe Service.
1943-44 represent a large scale expansion of the German aircraft industry. Of course there were quality control problems. That is a natural part of the expansion cycle and is generally planned for in most companies.
Again examine Willow Run, a model US Factory:
At the same time, it was reported that "the automotive type precision tooling at Willow Run had resulted in such uniformity of production that more than half of all of the Ford-built Liberators were accepted for delivery on their maiden flights," an unusually high percentage of plane approval.
If 50 percent of your airplanes manufacturered are making through acceptance first time, they are really being well made.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just a quick comment about turning, what really counts is turn rate. In fact, turning below corner speed is not a good idea, turning at stall speed is even worse idea.
-
Read up on the Todt organization to get an idea of the extense of slave labour. Was sabotage or just just poor workmanship possible? Yes.
Read up on Schindler as well and see what he got away with!
Anyway, since you're in the comparing business, Does anyone have nice numbers of weight, top speed, and time to alt for say, an F4u, 190 Spit or whatever, as long as the power is in the same ballpark. Or better still, for a 190 for instance the A5, the hp, the weight, and time to 10 and 20K?
I can get the energy into N for you, so the only difference is Hp and/or wing efficiency at climb.
Well, happy new year, again ;)
-
Which has what to do with the aircraft industry, Angus??
Are you simply trolling AGAIN?
Do you see anyone claiming sabotage did not occur?
-
I see someone claiming that the effect of it is miniscule. It's not a troll.
Schindler ran an ammunition plant along with other stuff. I think not as single shot ever worked.
Messerchmitt was a part of the game as well.
As for the workers output, it may have been ok, - people trying to do good to save their skin. But again, the prisoner was only supposed to last 9 months as an average.
I have yet to see the foreign labour as "well paid"
Just browse up a little Crumpp and spot the real troll.
-
You completely missed the mark, Angus. Please reread the post and try to understand what is written this time.
Read up.
-
Reread Kuffies reply yerself....
-
I have yet to see the foreign labour as "well paid"
Lol, thats not what he said...
there were as well(comma) paid foreign workers from Holland and France's aero industry
-
Exactly Justin ;)
-
Crummp,
I will post the D9 USAF evaluation. You have far more information on the FW190 than I do but much of what I have read points to early versions of the 190 (And 109) being the best fighting versions. I am using the empty weight growth and the steadily increasing wingloading as the reason for this. Both varients required ariframe redesigns to maintain there viability as "interceptor" aircraft.
You said
At the same time, it was reported that "the automotive type precision tooling at Willow Run had resulted in such uniformity of production that more than half of all of the Ford-built Liberators were accepted for delivery on their maiden flights," an unusually high percentage of plane approval.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was sabotaging the other 50 Percent that did not make it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Willow Run did not produce a plane until July 1942, and that one was a knockdown sent to a Douglas Aircraft assembly plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The first flyaway was not turned over to the United States Army until September 10, 1942.
I think we are looking at this situation differently.
I am pointing to a Luftwaffe Pilot in squadron service at a forward base who is flying combat missons daily saying that had to look for problems related to sabotage.
You are pointing acceptance test at the factory in US 5,000 miles away from the front lines. Those aircraft had to be first flown by a factory pilot then "accepted" by the AAF or USN, then flown across the country by the WAAC to a shipping area, transported to Europe or the South Pacific then flown from the staging area to the squadrons for "acceptance". If at that point 50% of the A/C had issues that would be a problem. And all of that was 1942 when the US was still figuring out the whole war effort thing.
However a Luftwaffe unit having to check for signs of sabotage points to another type of problem altogether.
Besides, by 1945 he could have walked back to Focke Wolf and picked up the spare parts himself <==Humor;)
-
No matter what sim and no matter when,
You will always find those that will find evidence to support their view on history
no matter which way it goes.
To think that any one side had a huge technological advantage and superior intelligence when designing combat aircraft seems a bit silly.
All sides were dealing with the same physics and striving for the same basic goals.
Some planes covered a variety of performance goals with adequate numbers and some planes excelled in a few categories while being less than spectacular in others.
Typically in the end, the PILOT and his knowledge of his machine is what won a 1vs 1 fight. Along with the knowledge of what the enemies capabilities were.
To use an enemy evaluation of a plane they dont have the tools and supplies to maintain and run properly seems ludicrous to me.
-
I had the chance to meet two former Black Sheep Squadron pilots at an airshow one time. I asked them about climb times, roll rates and top speeds. They looked at me like I had three heads, they never cared about any of that stuff. They were Marines carrying flying rifles whom where fighting a war. It was all about the guys they were fighting with no different than if they were dug into a hole on Iwo Jima.
However we are in a different position of analysing hardware that is more rare than a white elephant. All we have to use is old documents and a few annecdotes.
And when one of those documents, such as the Navy test flights of the FW190 comes to light it is worth more than a casual read especially when the aircraft test to be faster than the Luftwaffe records show it to have been. Granted the ailerons may have not been aligned properly. It must be considered that this was not done for propaganda but in preparation of a Marine assault using F4U-1D's carrying Tiny Tim rockets to attack V-1 and V-2 sites in Europe. The success of D-Day negated the operation but it was well into the planning phase before it was cancelled.