Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 21249 times)

Debonair · « **Reply #255 on:** November 28, 2005, 12:24:35 AM »

Wow, what a donnybrook this one turned out to be.
Wheres Sid Ceasar?

Wilbus · « **Reply #256 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:31:06 AM »

What I think we have to remember with "far superior" during war time and in real life is not the same as "far superior" in AH.

The Fw 190 A3 (the one captured by RAF) was far superior to the Spit Vb in a climb between 0 and 20k. The average climb rate was about 450 ft/min better. (Of course this was quite a bit better down low as the 190's engine power fell off with altitude).

So 450 ft/min was considered far superior. 450/min makes a big difference in AH aswell (specially in longer climbs) but due to icons people can, and do, take much longer range shots and hit them much easier. We also have the ability to re-up once we've sprayed away all the ammo from 600 yards.

Also due to the fact that many planes in AH can easily be pulled up to near vertical even at low speeds throw away a few 20mm's makes it more dangerous. While they probarly could do that in R/L nobody would be as stupid as to do it.

So I expect the "far superior" of the F6F to be about the same over the Zeke as it was Fw 190 A3 vs Spit 5.

Wilbus · « **Reply #257 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:33:53 AM »

Quote

It's common knowledge that to shake off a Zero, all an F6F pilot had to do was execute a diving turn. In fact, the same NATN states to do exactly that.

Well, the same thing was said about the Fw 190 vs Spit 5 (even vs the Spit 9 actually) in the RAE test report. Best way was to dive into a turn and then change direction, by the time the spits had rolled into the new direction the 190 would be too far away to catch or even shoot.

Acording to the report. Let's understand that such things do not work in AH, not for the 190 neither the F6F.

Far Superior is most likely the same thing on those two planes as Crumpp and Karnak have already said.

Wilbus · « **Reply #258 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:34:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?

Correct when it comes to AH combat.

moot · « **Reply #259 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:37:22 AM »

This keeps going anymore and the only leverage Crumpp will have is the yet-to-be-made ultimate FW190 post.

Wilbus · « **Reply #260 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:37:45 AM »

Not sure if anyone is trying to argue against this, I might have missunderstood some posts above but...

In vacum, and in vacum only, objects of different mass and different shape (such as a feather and a bullet) accelerate at the same speed.

As soon as air resistance comes into play the game changes.

The acceleration is still constant but depending on shape of objects (aerodynamics) the objects will accelerate faster/slower.

Karnak · « **Reply #261 on:** November 28, 2005, 04:06:09 AM »

Widewing,

Must have been a different report as the one I am thinking of gave actual separation distances. I seem to recall that the distance was measured either in ten second increments or after 30 seconds. Something like that in any case, but it did not give a vague "Far Superior" type of response.

Miliian's last post gave some idea of what it looked like. In his example an airfraft with twice the weight was a mere 27mph faster after 10 seconds. Now the A6M and US aircraft tested wouldn't fit into that simplistic a model, but it gives an idea.

The dive for an F4F or Fw190 was not an instant, automatic, free escape.

Crumpp · « **Reply #262 on:** November 28, 2005, 04:27:21 AM »

Quote

The dive for an F4F or Fw190 was not an instant, automatic, free escape.

Neither was turning for the Spitfire. The classic FW190 engagement was to turn with the Spitfire until it started gaining ground in the circle. Flick out of the turn circle, dive, zoom above, and start again.

Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a chance of following.

The FW-190 did not need an altitude advantage to take on the Spitfire with equal terms, either.

All the best,

Crumpp

Karnak · « **Reply #263 on:** November 28, 2005, 04:36:26 AM »

Unless there is simply some massive performance difference I don't really think there are any automatic escapes for any fighter.

The Me262 has some things that are pretty much automatic escapes.

The Ki-43 probably comes pretty close to being able to use turning as an automatic escape from a fighter that tries to turn with it.

FYI, I don't think the Fw190s in AH turn as well as they should.

Angus · « **Reply #264 on:** November 28, 2005, 05:12:47 AM »

Hehe Crumpp:
"Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a chance of following.

The FW-190 did not need an altitude advantage to take on the Spitfire with equal terms, either."

This will need to be looked into and you may well expect this to be answered.
Firstly there was the XII which could follow.
Secondly, the clipped and boosted ones could glue on pretty well.
Thirdly the 190 was shining in the medium to low altitudes. It could not expect to deal with Spitfires nor the U.S. fighters at very high altitudes.
Why do you think that Spitfires were clipped and boosted?

zorstorer · « **Reply #265 on:** November 28, 2005, 06:16:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

Why do you think that Spitfires were clipped and boosted?

Because they look so damn sexy?

Crumpp · « **Reply #266 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:45:43 AM »

Quote

This will need to be looked into and you may well expect this to be answered.

Feel free to look into it, Angus.

Quote

Firstly there was the XII which could follow.

Maybe.

Quote

The manoeuvrability of the Spitifre XII is considered to be excellent. It was compared with the Spitfire IX (R.M. 10 SM engine), also designed as a high performance low-altitude fighter, over which it has an advantage in speed but not in climb, and found to be much better in rate of roll. Above 20,000 feet however, the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips has a better all-round performance and was able to out-manoeurvre the XII. It was unfortunate that in the trials the Spitfire IX was only an average aircraft on controls and was inferior to both of the Mk. XIIs flown. It is considered that when used below 20,000 feet it will be able to out-pace, out-turn and roll as well as the FW.190. The general manoeuvrability for dog-fighting is slightly limited by the fact that the engine cuts under negative acceleration forces.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit12afdu.html

However no actual test flight was ever made even with the few FW-190G2/3's the RAE captured and flew.

The clipped wing spits according to the Spitfire pilots were not the answer the RAE "considered" them to be in actual combat.

This is most likely due to RAE 1231 being the main reference for RAF measured roll rates on the FW-190. A good example of why foreign testing should not be held up as anything but "at least" performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #267 on:** November 28, 2005, 08:04:44 AM »

You'll see Guppy peking at this very soon I expect.
I figure you HAVE seen his entries on the XII's running down 190's?

Crumpp · « **Reply #268 on:** November 28, 2005, 08:19:06 AM »

Quote

You'll see Guppy peking at this very soon I expect.

Sure Guppy and I had some great discussions on this subject. Managed to run down a couple of the the encounters and match them up with Luftwaffe reports.

In general for WWII airbattles you will find positional advantage means much more than aircraft type. Whoever has altitude, numbers, or both comes out on top.

The claims of "my aircraft was so superior" just do not turn out to be true when the facts are examined from both sides.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #269 on:** November 28, 2005, 09:11:17 AM »

Exactly. And the 190 being so fast down low as well as sporting a phenomenal roll-rate forced the RAF to mod their Spitfires to keep up.
But in the same timeframe say 1943/44 you often have similar performance so it is the position that counts more.