Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: PanosGR on August 28, 2009, 08:11:35 AM
-
Ok im confused. I know from the game that spit’s uber turn is unmatched as it compare to 109. I also know that even Pony can turn harder than the 109 esp in hands of guys like SkatSR, Steve or uptown. But in the video below guys that actually fly these planes seems to have different opinion. Watch this vid the first pilot I think his name is Harold says –and though my English are not good- but Im pretty sure that he says at 0:48 that P-51 doesn’t turn at all!!!!!!! Compare to this (the pilot –means a G series 109). As it concerns about spits Vs !09s though his has not a personal opinion his general attitude is that Spit Mk 5 maybe turns tighter than the 109G –maybe!!!- but not with the 109F. Anyway there are more interesting things in this Vid esp. when Skip Holmes coments about these tradiotional adversaries but the problem is that what they about turn rates are not what I see in THE GAME.
At the same vid at 3:20 skip makes some interesting remarks about FS programmers and real life but im not sure what his talking about I cannot understand him fully, and also at last section about Spit Vs 109 sustained turn rates but I missing the point which is better….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&feature=related)
But on the other hand in this well known vid (i mean most of you must have seen it) History CH. approx. at 1:20 insist that pony (it is actually a B model that showing in the graphics) can turn harder than the 109!!! So Harold in the first vid speaks about the D model?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2kkwWFIeUY&feature=related
and so in this vid at 2:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cH_OV032mE&feature=related
But…wait, its getting better: In this vid History Ch. at 1:24 approx. says that FW190A8 can turn better than the Pony!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKq4uJ4I_7M&NR=1
so conclusion is that, and according to History Ch,. that pony outturns 109 but not the FW-190A8.
That’s why am so confused. I dare to say that I tend to believe that Harold and Skip comments are much more reliable than those on History Ch. which in turn (or in return?....) are kind off contradict to what is happening in the game.
-
History Channel = Poor accuracy
IMHO Skip Holm sounds like he is transposing a lot of personal prefrence for the 109 into his performance evaluations.
Depending on the altitude and speed the P-51 can out turn some of the 109 variants.
In WW2 most American pilots had a G-Suit to help fatigue and blackout, perhaps overriding any performance advantage.
-
Umm yes that is right :D
-
All I know is a smile slowly forms whenever a pony drags himself into a turn fight with my 109... :D
-
All I know is a smile slowly forms whenever a pony drags himself into a turn fight with my 109... :D
There's a few P-51 pilots out there that will quickly whipe that smile off your face. ;)
-
There's a few P-51 pilots out there that will quickly whipe that smile off your face. ;)
Steve and myself being one of them....
:aok
Speaking of which I need to find time to 1v1 with him or BatfinkV, life has had me way to busy lately.
-
it also seems in real life pilots were not as agressive as we play in the game if you understand what Im trying to say :confused:
-
I agree perfectly...
In Aces High a vast majority of the good pilots focus on killing the enemy over personal safety. In WW2 most pilots number one priority was getting out alive, understandably given the stakes.
I think this plays into game dynamics and how planes match up against each other. In WW2, and to some extent AH2, the most aggressive pilot usually won the engagement.
With both pilots being on a equal playing field anyway....
-
There's a few P-51 pilots out there that will quickly whipe that smile off your face. ;)
Certainly true, but they are few and far between -- especially if I'm in me trusty F or G2 :D
-
With Respect to the Bud Andersen encounter, I read his book and got to talk with his at Oshkosh in '96. He made a point of mentioning the use of flaps on P-51 to optimize turn rate in this encounter, especially in the initial turn fight where they walked around the wagon wheel on the 109s. He said the first 15deg of flaps would dramatically improve the turn radius of a Pony, and that his Mustang Squad mates surprised a lot of 109 drivers in turn fights. But of course no single event dog fight should be SOLEY used to define the performance advantages of any two plane types, it seems this often happens on the Hist channel where anecdotal evidence is used in the place of actual performance stats.
I think the point above about arena fighting vs real life is spot on. Perhaps the turn radius performance difference between these planes is smaller than other real life factors that probably had a bigger influence, like e-states, fuel quality, maintenance, pilot conditioning, mental states, and pilot talent.
It would be interesting to read or see material that Chronicles the dog fights of German pilots. It would probably be full of stories of Hot soup Mustang pilots who thought they had a better plain and tried to turn fight a 109 and became a flag painted on the side of Ralls 109, and hence ex toll the performance virtues of 109 over Mustangs.
-
There was an article in Flight Journal where 2 well known individuals tested a 109G10 against a P51D.
In the article they said both were surprised that the 109 OUT TURNED the P51!
Both said the ONLY thing the P51 had on the 109 was speed.
It is possible that many of the kills and fights reported by our pilots was against newer or less trained LW pilots and those that meant up with the good ones didn't RTB to tell their story.
A similar story of interest also in Flight Journal was about a 190A4 Or A5 against a F6F.
Again many were surprised at how well the 190 actually preformed against the F6F!
HTC was referred to BOTH articles.
IMHO too many SEEM to believe that most of the allied planes were better then the LW planes while they forget the NUMBERS imbalance that played a very large roll in the fighting of that time.
The names "Butcher Bird" for the 190 and the reference to "the Deadly 109" were not given lightly!
IMHO much of the stuff we see reported as true on the History Channel and such does a disservice to ALL the individuals that flew in combat during WWII!
-
The real question then, is how acurate is HTC's flight data for the various models?
Maybe a question for HTC, if anyone there is reading this thread and cares to answer is, where do the performance stats come from?
-
In AHII, the P-51 is inferior in both rate and radius of turn to every model of 109. This is not debatable.
Was this true in real life? Highly debatable. Surely all the times P-51s managed to come out on top in Luftberrys with 109s it was not purely because Luftwaffe pilot did not know how to sucessfully perform the dauntingly complex Luftberry maneuver. :rolleyes: I'm not saying that the max turn performance of the P-51 was nessecarily better than that of the 109s, the physics of the thing would seem to say otherwise, but I do think it looks like there was alot more parity than we have in the game.
In AHII, both P-51s are also out-turned by the all marks P-47, especially the D-11, and the Typhoon, which stands in stark contrast to what test pilots from the era have to say. Pilots who were no doubt at least as good and knew their planes as well as any pilot today.
-
In AH people "fly" these modelled aircraft like they would bumper cars
at an amusement park. They're moving pixels on a computer screen -
not actually at the stick of a real aircraft. Don't confuse main arena
"skill" or perceived performance with anything that happened in real life.
If something you see or think happens in the MA that does not match up
with your expectations of what you believe should not happen in real life
the problem is your trying to think the MA is "real" and these planes are
being flown by real pilots in real WWII aircombat.
The list of why the MA's are "la-la" land is endless. But it includes how
players are able to take off, "fly", die, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. And
that the customer base is made up of extremely skilled "computer game
players" at one end of the spectrum and on the other there are "computer
game players" who can't muster enough skill to tie their own shoe strings.
So just be aware that while there may be data errors the main thing you
need to realize is that even in the MA "fantasy world" environment that it
is ALWAYS the computer game player (aka the "pilot") and not the "plane"
that are the reason you see things like a P-51 out maneuvering a Zero
and making a kill.
-
In Aces High a vast majority of the good pilots focus on killing the enemy over personal safety. In WW2 most pilots number one priority was getting out alive, understandably given the stakes.
I don't really agree with this. In my reading many of the pilots put a higher value on their mission, their comrades and defending their countries than they did on their personal survival. There are many acts I can describe that would not have happened if personal survival had been the pilot's #1 priority.
-
maybe there is alot of propaganda around also, for example.." our new P51-D is faster and can out maneuver the Luftwaffe 109 and 190s! now they cant run or turn from us"
just a thought?
-
Its anecdotal at best. P-51 pilots were instructed not to turn with the enemy and the reason is simple. Until you build combat experience (and the same is true in AH) you shouldnt try to fight someone that will obviously have more experience.
AH pilots make fun of the guys in P-51s because a lot of noobs try it as one of the first few airplanes but I can tell you that most noobs that try the 109 for the first time and run into a P-51 of any experience at all will not land.
-
Its anecdotal at best. P-51 pilots were instructed not to turn with the enemy and the reason is simple. Until you build combat experience (and the same is true in AH) you shouldnt try to fight someone that will obviously have more experience.
AH pilots make fun of the guys in P-51s because a lot of noobs try it as one of the first few airplanes but I can tell you that most noobs that try the 109 for the first time and run into a P-51 of any experience at all will not land.
They land just scattered across the countryside in pieces. :aok
-
I agree that in AH pilots are more concerned about killing the enemy rather than getting out alive... they get concerned about getting out alive after they rack up a few kills. 109 and the P-51 are fairly equally matched and when it comes down to it Pilot skill determines the outcome not how many guns your plane has or how well it turns. :salute
-
I'm sure many of you have been to the following website, but this encounter reports are pretty interesting IMO,
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)
Eample:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/364-taylor-24aug44.jpg)
-
If we ignore turns at very high speeds that are less sustainable for most WWII fighters, say above 320 MPH, where the P-51 would shine, it is actually fairly easy to make a sustained turn rate hierarchy at medium-low speeds, and one that agrees with most tests and seemingly contradictory anecdotes.
If you take the A6M5 Zero comparative tests as a benchmark (from Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site), all the U.S. fighters are set in a clear hierarchy.
The A6M5 beats the following U.S. fighters by 360° in the following amounts of sustained turning (roughly the same spiralling up or down);
F6F= in 1260 °
F4U= in 1260°
P-47D-30= in 540° approximately.
P-51D= in 570° approximately.
P-38J-25(same as L)= in 720°.
A U.S. Navy tests FW-190G, fully disassembled and re-built wrong for tests with inferior results= 583°. The FW-190A-4 was tested by the British as being equal in sustained turning to the P-38G, which I think pegs the FW-190A-5 as at least in the class of the P-38J-25, or around the same 700-800° range. There is massive evidence to support this excellent FW-190A low-speed turning performance, and also its poor high speed handling performance. See this Russian evaluation:
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html
Or this Spitfire ace account:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
In 1200 combat reports I have read on Mike William's site, there is massive evidence to support that the earlier P-47D Razorback is superior in turning radius to the Me-109G in almost all circumstances, if less so to right... German tests of a captured Razorback are unequivocal: "The P-47D out-turns the Me-109G". From: "On Special Missions: KG 200".
Against early to mid FW-190As, such as this test of an untampered-with FW-190A-5, the lowly NON-paddle-blade prop Razorback, as in real combat accounts, is inferior to the FW-190A at low speeds, but would be much closer in my view with a paddle-blade prop, as early '44 combat accounts indicate. Even with the inferior needle-blade prop it is an interesting give-and-take close match:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
This in my view would peg the needle-prop Razorback P-47D at 500-600° in low-speed turns, but much higher with a paddle-blade prop, perhaps as high as 700°-800°, which would explain parity with early to mid FW-190As, and the evident superiority to Me-109Gs devoid of MW-50 as the Russian tests say: "The FW-190A is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109".
In the P-51 combat reports section, the same level of turn superiority over the Me-109G is not really there, resulting in long turning matches were the P-51 has difficulty finishing off, probably because it has a wider tuning circle that is maintained faster but requires an extra, and risky, angle when firing from the "cold lag" side (outside the turn). Superior speed retention in turns for the P-51 is very evident against the 109G, or even against the FW-190A IF at high speeds, except against later-'44 period MW-50 boosted 109Gs, which give even more trouble to the Mustang...
I would peg non-MW-50 Me-109Gs in the same 550° class as the Merlin P-51 versus the Zero 52, but the 109 was indeed much better with MW-50: 600 to 800° is possible, which would then surpass slightly early to mid FW-190As. Note that MW-50 required C-3 fuel, and this became a priority later for the FW-190As which could not use anything else: I think MW-50 in 109G/Ks was troublesome, and not as common as is often assumed...
Note also that the FW-190A-8 was widely known among German pilots as a massive improvement in low speed turn performance over earlier 190As, especially with the broad wood prop, and vastly out-turned the less agile bubble-top P-47D (very evident in late '44 combat reports!) that was itself roughly equal to the P-51D. One reliable account from an actual FW-190A-8 ace has the 190A-8 beating the P-51D, shuddering once or twice at the edge, in two right 360° turns to reverse a tail position. This puts the later FW-190A-8 at 1140° versus the Zero A6M5, or slightly below both Navy aircrafts: Quite acceptable.
So the top pack discussed here would be the F6F, F4U and FW-190A-8, all at around or just above 1100° versus the Zero A6M5.
The mid-pack would be the P-38L, P-47D Razorback (paddle-blade), FW-190A-4/5/6 and maybe MW-50 Me-109Gs, all around 700-800° versus the A6M5.
In between that and the bottom maybe the non-MW-50 Me-109G-6?
Then the bottom of the pack would be the Merlin P-51s, Bubbletop P-47Ds and perhaps the gondola-equipped Me-109G-6, all at around 500-570° versus the A6M5... Note these U.S. aircrafts are still the better overall relative turners above 300 MPH...
The air show pilots comments are based on less than full War Emergency power, so at lesser power levels it could be that this would greatly favor the Me-109G. In wartime accounts, turning contests between P-51s and 109Gs can go on for fifteen minutes in the SAME turn to the SAME side... This is unheard of with Razorback P-47Ds, even with pre-Jan '44 needle blades: except to the right, the Razorback always quickly gains the upper hand over the 109G in less than 3X 360s°... The FW-190A, as should be now obvious, is a whole other matter, and was widely accepted by everyone at the time as the better turner, but inferior to the 109G in high speed handling, especially dive pull-outs (see Russian descriptions of the 190A's dive pull-out...).
I think it was Gunther Rall who compared them as such: "The 190 was a broadsword, the 109 a rapier". A Broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curve, while the rapier is used in a forward straight motion... A very apt comparison...
Once prejudices are ignored, the overall picture becomes quite clear.
Gaston
-
Early war 109's had very close to equal performance with the spits, but it took more skill and risk from the pilot to do it. Spit can hang it right on the edge with not much chance of losing it. And quick recovery if they did stall a wing.
If a 109 pilot pushed it that hard, and stalled it chances were he was not going to be able to recover in time. And even if he did recover, the spit he was just turning with would be all over him.
Even in AH the same is true in my opinion.
Spitfire you can dance all day long with CT on, and never get into a situation you can't get out of.
109 can do the same, but it takes a much higher level of pilot skill, more throttle, trim and flaps work.
And if you make a tiny mistake down low, your dead.
The right pilot can make the 109's stand up and dance and do amazing things.
But the skill required is much higher, and the risk level is considerably higher.
-
I also read that the Me-109E was very close to the Spitfire Mk I in turns. It is possible the Me-109F was very close to the Spitfire Mk V, but in the above linked combat with ace Johnny Johnson it is clear the FW-190A-3/4 GAINS in a sustained turn with the Spitfire V, something I have never really heard about the Me-109F...:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
It is true Gunther Rall said: "They told us the new FW-190A would out-turn the Me-109F... However (wry smile), I could out-turn it..."
Rall does not say if to accomplish this he kept a higher speed, say above 250 MPH, where the clean Me-109 maintained a better relative turn compared to the FW-190A, which suddenly got much worse at these speeds. What I gather from his statement is that the early 190As and the Me-109F were quite close, which is still consistent with a later FW-190A superiority over the later 109Gs, because in later models the Me-109G's turn got steadily worser until the sporadic introduction of MW-50, while the FW-190A got steadily better until a further and bigger improvement came with the A-8...
I think much of the current confusion about turn performance comes from the attribution of pilot skill to outcomes that don't fit our pre-conceived notions. I think turn performance is fairly exploitable by most pilots, that they can feel the limit when it comes most of the time. It is the pilot's tactics and choices that make the difference in combat, not the fairly simple use of the maximum turn rate. We don't throw in pilot skill to cloud things up about the roll rate, do we? Though it is different and more complicated than roll rate, I think the same assumption can be made for the turn rate in anecdotes most of the time, if we are ever to get a reasonably accurate notion of comparative performance...
We should be more wary of citing pilot skill all the time to muddy up massive, but contrarian and unexpected, evidence that doesn't fit what we previously assumed.
To be fair, experienced wartime German pilots such as the great ace Walther Oseau also seemed to have trouble believing the heavier FW-190A could out-turn the Me-109G, somehting which made it generally better suited against Western Front aircrafts, while the 109 was probaly a better choice on the Eastern Front because of its vertical performance... (The 109G's altitude performance was also still needed on the Western Front for higher altitude "high cover" missions.)
Leo Shuhmacher of II./JG.1 (relating to Oseau's fatal dogfight, where his non-MW-50 G-6AS out-turned P-51s in a downward spiral until the ground no longer allowed the 109 to dive to compensate for its greater speed bleed) puts it thus: "Several times I had said to Oseau that the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109, but being an old 109 pilot, he preferred it." Jadwaffe vol 5 section 3, p.202.
Pilot skill, no matter how great, cannot turn an apple into an orange...
Gaston