Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Jochen on February 08, 2000, 07:07:00 AM
-
The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang.
For some odd reason, the designations Fw 190D-2 thru 8 were skipped, and the first production version of the "Dora" was the Fw 190D-9, which attained production status in the early summer of 1944. It was powered by a Jumo 213A-1 engine rated at 1776 hp for takeoff and 1600 at 18,000 feet. However, with MW 50 (water/methanol) injection, it could give 2240 hp at sea level and 2000 hp at 11,150 feet. The boost could not be used longer than ten minutes at a time, but there was sufficient MW 50 fuel for a maximum of 40 minutes use.
I wonder if anyone can give reasons why 190D-9 would have better turning capability than Fw 190A? Is it just part of the myth or is there any truth behind the claim?
As I see it, Dora was bit heavier with similar wing area which leads to increased wingloading, again leading to assumption that turning ability is worser.
On the other hand, powerloading might be bit better and weight distribution more ideal because of lenghtened tail section. I know powerloading has effect on turning ability but how great?
I'm sure Dora will be modeled quite soon, as most of the artwork can be imported from Fw 190A series. I guess FM needs bit more engine power and just a little bit of more weight. If we can take difference between AH and WB Fw 190A-8 as a reference, the AH Dora will be bit different than in WB.
(http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/archiv/jagdflz/fw190_d.jpg)
------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) (Warbirds)
If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!
-
I suspect the Dora was lighter than an A8, at least the one with all the armour that we have in AH, probably by about 500 lbs. It's about 1000 lbs heavier than an A4 or A5.
-
Did the Dora have 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm?
Mino
-
Minotaur-
Only 2.
-
As far as I know, 190A8 is heavier than any
D variant. 190Ds can outaccelerate, outrun,
outclimb, outdive and outturn (high/medium
speeds)190A8s. In the other hand, it seems
that 190A4 can easily outturn the Dora below
10000f.
The most close match to 190D9 is P51D. The
Mustang is a bit faster (level flight), but
the Dora can outclimb, outdive the Pony and
its roll rate at high speed is tremendous
compared to the P51D. The main advantage of
P51 over Dora is just its turning ability.
-
Answered your own question Jochen. The better powerloading(2000+ hp vs 1700), and also lower drag(less frontal area) allows the Dora to keep it's speed better in level turns.
-
Ah the D9, I put order for this plane. HT said it will be shipped to my house as soon he builts one. Yea P51 you cant run no more (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bash
http://www.fly.to/airwolves (http://www.fly.to/airwolves)
-
Operating from memory here, but while the average D9 had x2 MG151 20mm's plus x2 13mm MG's, it was similar to A8's in that it had many options.
I have seen pictures of D models with mounting points for all four wing cannons the same as the A models.
It will be interesting to see what the final armament options are.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
More intereesting to see the range of JABO options available...
-
Look in back of Jochens picture..
(http://route89.com/~wacko99/smile/eek.gif)
what shinny and new and comming for you??
Ill take a D13 with a side of 47n to go please...
Hold the paint on the 47.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Originally posted by Jochen:
I wonder if anyone can give reasons why 190D-9 would have better turning capability than Fw 190A? Is it just part of the myth or is there any truth behind the claim?
The fuselage plug immediately forward of the tail put the hor stab and elevator further back from the center of gravity. This results in a greater moment arm for affecting pitch. Depending on the pilot's strength (which an experienced pilot would certainly have more of than a new pilot), he might be able to get a higher pitch rate and subsequent tighter turn at the expense of burning E and the risk of blacking out.
MiG
-
"excellent turning rate at speed" is not the same thing than "turn rate", at speed the Dora could outurn even the Spitfire. I belive you are talking about Joe Baugher's paper about 190, in Robert Shaw's book, you could find a dogfight between Dora and P-51, the american pilot describes Dora having quite similar turn capabilities than P-51. Take a look the performance charts at http://www.geocities.com/weurger/main.htm (http://www.geocities.com/weurger/main.htm) ( very nice site to EAW players )
Talking about Dora whit 4 cannons, it was
the Fw 190D-11, the fuselage-mounted guns were eliminated, and there were two MG 151s in the wing roots and two MK 108s in the outer wings. But only seven prototypes were built.
Take a look at: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html)
P51 x Dora = AFC x NFC
-
Mig-
I almost posted more-or-less the same idea; thank you for verifying my thoughts!
I used to fly R/C scale models. The best flying plane I ever built was a 190D9. It was stable and maneuverable (for all the reasons you pointed out). Completely viceless. By comparison, any short-coupled a/c was twitchy and viscious. 190A's were not a lot of fun!
What else did I find? (this all before any online experience)
F4U- great roll, but rather heavy on the controls. Tendency to snap hard out of sustained turns. Engine-off performance was terrible, with little elevator authority.
P51- flew like it was on rails, but had a tendency to drop nose in sustained turns. Aileron authority greatly diminished at slow speed, overuse of rudder while slow resulted in a spin.
Zero- No vices. Very predictable flight (other than pronounced pitch-up with flaps).
Ki43- Very maneuverable. Snap rolls were easy to enter and exit.
ME109- sensitive to pitch, snap rolls were easy to enter and violent. Not a plane that I could ever "relax and fly".
Spitfire- a kite, pure and simple. Not overly fast, and could be floated down to a crawl. Ground handling was the only drawback.
P40- a real turd. Lost energy quick with power off (cowl drag), and didn't get it back easily. Always felt I had to stay ahead of it.
P39- stable, though slow to maneuver. Kind of a mushy flight envelope.
Ki100- fast! I used this one for combat, and it was a maneuverable little beast.
A26- a little underpowered, otherwise stable. Engine-out flight was possible, but required full attention. With both engines gone, it glided like a brick.
Had many others that have escaped my mind at the moment. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Wells,
Has Pyro said anything about the A-8 configuration with the different armament options? In other words, is the 4 x 20 mm the non armored version and if you grab 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 30 mm you get all the armor.
//fats
-
There's no different armoured/unarmoured version. You would notice the climbrate change significantly, and it doesn't when you select the 30mm.
-
I think it's an intresting phenonmen but it isn't a one off as the spit 14 is heavier(higher wingloading) with practically the same aerodynamics but more hp than the spit 9. They were found by british trials to have identical turning circles.
=============
Tactical Trials Spitfire XIV RB 179
Tactical comparison against the Spitfire IX
Speeds - At all heights the Mk XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.
Turning Circle - The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of the approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Mk XIV.
Rate of Roll - Rate of roll is very much the same.
Conclusions - All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
=========================
Intrestingly this is not reflected in warbirds with the spit 14 turning much worse than the 9 which suggests it's a factor not modelled in WB, it will be intresting when we see what happens in AH.
-
About armament, I think the outer cannons were omitted to give room for the MW50 tanks, but maybe it was possible to leave out the tanks and install cannons by the airfield engineers. Not sure.
In all D-subtypes provision was made for installation of a 30mm MK108 firing through airscrew though. Not sure if this was ever used either.
------------------
Vänr. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
-
Also, didn't the 190D-9 have a new airfoil, as compared with earlier model 109's?
Also, about the R/C post above, you were talking about the P-39 R/C plane being mushy and slow to maneuver, correct? Just checking, because everyhting I have read, indicates that the P-39 was quite maneuverable and could handily out turn a zero (But not fight in the vertical with a zero unless it was a diving fight, not a climbing fight due to weight).
In fact, based on what I have read of the Soviets who flew the P-39, you really had to watch out for its spin, especially at the top of a loop (Inverted spin). The engine mounted near the P-39s c.g., and the fact that most didn't have the 37mm cannon, meant the P-39 had low angular inertia (e.g.- could `rotate' quickly) which made it highly maneuverable. Does anyone know if this will ever be modeled in AH? I know HT and Pyro already said the Dora will be modeled. =-)
-
Jochen, beauty pic...where'd ya get it?
-
Sundog: D-9 used the wings, empennage, and middle fuselage from the A-8. The nose was obviously extended for the new engine. To balance things an extension was added to the fuselage in front of the empennage.
-
Ok, so we can conlclude that D-9 can, in theory, indeed outturn A-8's? Sounds pretty good to me.
I don't think we ever get Ta 152 but is there any reason why we should? After all, it was not used in significant numbers altought it made one ace. Dora, on the other hand, is enough capable to deal with other late war planes that really flew in action.
Jochen, beauty pic...where'd ya get it?
http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/archiv/index.htm (http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/archiv/index.htm)
(http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/archiv/jagdflz/me1094.jpg)
------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) (Warbirds)
If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!
-
Dora:
wing loading: 481/sq ft
A-8:
wing loading: 491/sq ft
Dora turns better ( very better due hp also ) than A-8. A-4 is the best for this kinda arena.
Wanna see something cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
(http://www.cnd.net/~kais/ac/jaegers/dora9003.jpg)
4 20mm and 1 30m
Gramma
JG 300 Sturmgruppe I
-
"The most close match to 190D9 is P51D."
Among the presently modeled planes, but the closest match is the -4 Corsair, I think.
------------------
Spinny, VF-17, The Jolly Rogers 8X
-
Erm, yeah... nice try, but you already got the -1C. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
I wasn't arguing for the -4s inclusion, I was just pointing out that its performance is closer to the Dora's than the 51D, esp. in rollrate. Not that I would mind seeing it in the game, you understand.
------------------
Spinny, VF-17, The Jolly Rogers 8X
-
Hell Juzz... you guys been squeaking about the C-Hog so much (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I bet Spinny would agree with me that we would happily give up the C-Hog for the -4. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) Then we would certainly hear some squeaking about "UberHogs".
Jmccaul, is that the exact wording? I was always told that the "turning time" was the same. Which meant that the XIV could make a turn in the same number of seconds as the
IX. But this meant that the XIV made a larger circle, but at a higher speed. Any other Spit experts around here? I know this has been debated ad nauseum over on AGW.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
Ah, you beat me too it, Verm. And yes, I would most certainly trade the cannon-armed -1C for the Mg armed -4. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
F4U-4 vs P-51D vs Fw190D-9
Speed: 450(440)mph, 424(433)mph, 426(400)mph at 20,000(30,000)ft.
Climbrate: 4770fpm, 3500fpm, 4200fpm at S/L.
Wingloading: 40lbs/sqft, 43lbs/sqft, 49lbs/sqft.
Powerloading: 5.94lbs/hp, 5.95lbs/hp, 5.33lbs/hp
Ceiling: 38500ft, 41900ft, 39500ft.
The F4U-4 appears to be superior to both by a fair margin.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 02-09-2000).]
-
"Superior to both by a fair margin"
Hehehehe thats the point (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Actually though I believe, your speed and climbrates are taken from the 115 Octane Navy test data. (Thanks Wells for straightening me out on this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Climbrate was something like 3900 fpm, and I forget top speed was, with the normal fuel
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
Probably - I got the F4U-4 data from a .pdf file that was posted on AGW, I think it's the manufacturer's "brochure" for the plane. Using MIL power it's climbrate at S/L is quoted as 2910fpm, top speed 430mph at 32k.
-
Verm
i got it off the web and saved it but i can't remember the address. Here's the whole thing make of it what you will.
==================================
Boscombe Down September 1943 Spitfire XIV JF 319
Griffon 61
Standard C-type full span wing, 36 ft 10 in
Two 20 mm cannon and four .303 in Browning guns
Fully loaded weight 8,400 pounds, wingloading 34.7 lbs per sq ft
Performance test Spitfire XIV
Height Top Speed Time to climb mins Rate of Climb ft/min
Sea Level 363 . 5,110
4,000 385 0 m 48 s 4,640
5,050 391 . .
8,000 389 1 m 45 s 3,830
12,000 388 2 m 51 s 3,600
16,000 405 3 m 57 s 3,600
20,000 423 5 m 06 s 3,600
25,400 446 . .
30,000 443 8 m 21 s 2,390
34,000 436 10 m 15 s 1,800
39,000 421 . .
42,000 . 18 m 15 s 460
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical Trials Spitfire XIV RB 179
Tactical comparison against the Spitfire IX
Speeds - At all heights the Mk XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.
Turning Circle - The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of the approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Mk XIV.
Rate of Roll - Rate of roll is very much the same.
Conclusions - All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
Combat trial against the FW 190 (BMW 801D)
Max Speeds - From 0-5000 ft and and 15,000-20,000 ft the Mk XIV is only 20 mph faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 mph faster than the Fw 190A. It is estaimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB603) at all heights
Max Climb - The Mk XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190A or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB603) at all heights.
Dive - The FW 190 gains slightly initialy, but overall the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.
Turning Circle - MK XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Rate of Roll - The FW 190 is very much better.
Combat trial against the Me 109G
Max speed - Mk XIV is 40 mph faster at all heights except 16,000 ft, where it is only 10 mph faster.
Max Climb - Same result: at 16,000 ft both aircraft are indenticl, otherwise the Mk XIV outclimbs the Me 109G. Zoom climb is practically identical when made without opening the throttle. At full throttle, the Mk XIV draws away from the Me 109G easily.
Dive - During the initial part of the dive, the 109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph is reached, the Mk XIV gains on the 109G.
Turning Circle - Mk XIV out turns the ME 109G.
Rate of Roll - Mk XIV rolls much more quickly.
Conclusion - The Spitfire XIV is superior to the ME 109G in every respect.
================================
-
Juzz - Keep in mind those are D-9 figures you quote are for takeoff/emergency power without MW 50.
-
Ok Juzz here is what I pulled from America's Hundred Thousand, which I believe is a standard performance of the F4U-4 on 100 octane fuel.
F4U-4
Mil Power at SL, Max speed = 360 mph
WEP Power at SL, Max speed = 380 mph
Mil Power at 25k, Max speed = 420 mph
WEP Power at 25k, Max speed = 445 mph
Mil Climb at SL = 3400 fpm
WEP Climb at SL = 3900 fpm
Depending on power setting, climb to 20,000ft is between 6 to 7 mins.
Now compare that to your Data on the Pony, and the 190D.
Yes its going to be faster than either. But its climb will fall between the two. Its powerloading will be the worst (about equal to Pony) so it will accelerate the slowest too, but not by much. Its firepower, while equal to Pony, would be less than the Dora.
Direct comparison
Speed: Hog, Dora, Pony
Climb: Dora, Hog, Pony
Accel: Dora, Pony, Hog
Turn: Hog, Pony, Dora
Firepower: Dora, Hog=Pony
So basicly it would be a very capable aircraft, but not dominate in all category's. The real loser would be the Pony.
IMO it wouldnt' unbalance the planeset either, and would actually give the Navy (Big BLOOOO boys) some competitive iron, in the late war arena.
So I say, give us both the Dora and the -4 Corsair.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
So I say, give us both the Dora and the -4 Corsair.
AH HA! I knew it! What next, Bearcat?! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
One small thing - in the AH arena, how much fuel do people fly the Pony/Hog with? The Dora would likely need full fuel to have a good endurance, while the Pony/Hog can make do with ½ tanks...
Funked: I got the Dora climb figure from a somewhat iffy source for a/c info, Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, and worse yet it was a "calculated" figure. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) So very likely it's wrong anyway.
-
Nahhh.... no Bearcat. It didn't see any combat. The other two did, and meet the overall same criteria that the rest of the AH planeset does.
The Hog is a thirsty beast on fuel. Depending on whether you use droptanks for the climbout or internals, you typically take either 75% or 100% for those extended E style hunt and kill mission.
The Pony is alot better, its actually a tea toatler (sp?) by comparison. With this ride, I typicall take drop tanks (drop one immediately, use second to climbout then drop) and then take 50% fuel which will last a long time.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
-
In the Pony you can do with 50% to 75% fuel. Not so with the Hawg.
The Hawg has a really SAD climb rate, so you need more fuel to climb to alt. than most other planes. The Hawg's engine chews up gas quickly at full throttle, especially using WEP. I take 75% fuel in the Hawg as a minimum. Normally I will take 100%, which burns down to 75% by the time I climb to alt and get to the target area. If I know I have a long way to go, I'll take 75% and one drop tank instead, but that chomps because the Hawg is a brick with the drop tank on and climbs so much slower.
BTW, I run out of gas long before I run out of ammo normally. A bigger gas tank would be the first thing I'd put in if I was building my own Hog. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
-
I'm guessing range will improve with the new fuel economy modelling, if you use cruise settings and don't just WEP everywhere. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
"The Dora would likely need full fuel to have a good endurance, while the Pony/Hog can make do with ½ tanks..."
Takes the Hog about 1/3 of a tank to get to
20-22k at 135 knts (155 mph).
------------------
Spinny, VF-17, The Jolly Rogers 8X
-
I like the turn comparison's between 190D9 and 190A8 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So 190D9 turns better then 190A8 which is probably one of the worst turn fighters EVER build (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Great.
if you are turnfighting in 190D9 - you already made a serious mistake (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
WHERE IS MY SPIT 14 !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Hey Ski, what was the final word from over on AGW about the never ending Spit XIV should turn as well as a Spit IX, controversy, that comes from that document that jmmcaul posted?
Everything I know about Engineering and Aeronautics, says that you take two planes with exact same wing, one weighs alot more but has more power, and they turn exactly the same is a highly unlikely occurence.
True they may have the same turn time, with one turning thru a larger radius but faster, but how could it have identical turn radius?
Did the Spitfire experten ever come to a concensus??
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-10-2000).]
-
Verm,
If the propwash velocity over the wings is that much greater than on the Spit IX, it might be possible to increase the lift enough to make up for any difference in weight. The manuals for each plane give about the same clean stall speeds, so it could also be that the XIV was less stable in pitch, meaning less of a download from the stabilizer, which takes away from the overall lift and increases stall speed. Otherwise, the Spit XIV should stall 5 mph faster just due to the increased weight. The difference in turn radii being about 20m. Whether or not that's measurable while flying, who knows?
Like you said, what does 'turning circle' really mean? Radius? Rate? It's not really all that clear. I suspect it's a combination of all the above factors.
-
Hey... someone said Bearcat! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'd actually consider getting an AH account if they did something interesting like that.
PS - The 51D would most likely outturn the F4U-4.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
I dunno SnakeEyes, the F4U-4 should actually turn as well or better than the F4U-1 which turns as well or better than the P-51D. The weight increase between -1 and -4 was very small, and the thrust increase was signficant.
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
So 190D9 turns better then 190A8 which is probably one of the worst turn fighters EVER build (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Great.
190A8 is anything but a bad turner. It
depends on the speed. That beast can turn
brutally at speeds where any other plane
simply disintegrates. Just try the next.
Pick up P51D or F4U and climb to 5000, then
dive in vertical until you reach 410 mph and
make a hard left turn, your wings will
blow up. Repeat this with the 190A8 and
rethink about wich one is the turner and
wich one is the brick.
-
MANDOBLE, go and get in a turnfight with a P-51D or F4U while flying the Fw190A-8 and see how it "turns" out...
-
I could use the roll rate, zoom climb ability and outright speed of a P47-M to shoot all your Nancy boy butts down!
-Westy
(come on Pyro. gimme the plane so I can scare the pants off em (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) )
-
Hehehe Westy roll rate?
Don't forget that on the deck the M is no faster than a whole bunch of planes. Above 25k it is King Kong tho!
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-11-2000).]
-
Juzz, I do, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose
but rarely does it have anything to do with the turn RATE, more who can retain E longer,which is a combination of plane and pilot, Btw, Gunston's book lists a better fuel range for the A8 adn D9 than Spit.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"