especially since he is relaying the experiences of people with real world experience in these aircraft. i.e. you may be able to dismiss gaston's conclusions, however his historic references should at least peak some interest if at least just to figure out why they possibly do not seem to jive with the game's representation of the A/C in question.
Firstly, I don't want to labor the obvious, basic and persistant errors in posts that so many others have already corrected, but I would like to say something about the interesting historical references that have been used to support flawed conclusions about sustained turns.
A quick review of some of the anecdotal evidence can reveal how mistakes may have been made.
For example, the combat report by Hanseman, describes how the 109 stopped cutting him off as he cut throttle, and this can be perfectly consistent with aerodynamics and the flight model in AH, but only under certain conditions. For example, Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed, and if he was above corner velocity reducing throttle would have allowed him to increase his turn rate and reduce his turn radius more quickly. Once he employed flaps, his turn radius would have reduced even further. Nothing was said that is not entirely consistent with real world physics, and Aces High. The mistake would be to make the assumption that Hanseman continued the fight with reduced throttle, and that was somehow responsible for his continued ability to out turn the 109. There is a circumstance where even that is conceivable, and that might be if the aircraft were in a descending low G spiral turn, but Hanseman describes this engagement as occurring at 500ft so that is not the case, because there wasn't room. So, under the conditions described, the assumption that fight was continued with reduced throttle and that this improved the turn, is clearly false because it is in conflict with basic aerodynamic principles. A much more reasonable assumption would be that once Hanseman had reduced his airspeed below corner, and employed flaps, he would have then increased power as necessary to achieve the best sustained turn.
Another example from the article by Johnson where he describes being out turned by a 190 and where the poster states:
FW-190A beating in sustained low altitude flat turns a Spitfire Mk V that is running at "wide-open throttle", WITH post-war hindsight:
However, if you read Johnson's article it presents a very different picture of what really happened, that is also perfectly consistent with aerodynamics. Firstly, when Johnson describes turning hard to the left and whirling around on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle, he gave no indication or details of that phase of the fight, other than to say they were on opposite sides of the circle, which indicates that during that time the fight may have remained neutral. With no indication of how long that phase lasted, we can only speculate, but it is possible that if both aircraft were at high speed, and they both pulled the same G, they would have been able to match each others turns for a time while their speeds were decreasing. However, where Johnson initially describes being out turned by the 190 they were not at low altitude, and they were not in flat turns, as indicated in the quote above. They were high enough that Johnson was able to enter a near vertical dive after he conceding the fight, and the turn was not flat, Johnson actually said he was in the "tightest of vertical turns" and that he was at full throttle and greying out. What difference does that make? Firstly, you would expect the 190 to be superior in the vertical so no real surprise there, but he also describes being at full throttle and greying out, which indicates that at that time the fight was occurring at the relatively high speeds and load factors. Bearing in mind that two aircraft at the same speed and load factor will turn at exactly the same rate and radius, this fight may have been determined partly by the superiority of the 190 in the vertical, and possibly by differences in the G tolerance of the pilots. After all, for all we know, Johnson may have had a bad night and been greying out at relatively low G, while the German stud flying the 190 was able to pull harder, generating the rate and radius necessary to give Johnson the scare he needed to beak off into a near vertical dive. When Johnson says "My over-confidence of a few seconds before had already given way to irritation at losing my opponent" he gives us the clue that this phase of the fight was infact brief, and that his perception of being out turned was arrived at quickly, and not after sustained turning. Once he had broken off into a dive the 190 was in trail and in the control position, any further turning by Johnson appears to have only been used to align himself with the Ships.
I would say that this combat report says a lot more about the survival instincts and perception of a great Ace, than it does about the performance of the aircraft involved. It is also possible to see from both reports that anecdotal evidence, typically sparse in fundamental detail and lacking any basic technical facts, or information about the condition or configuration of the aircraft involved, can very easily be misinterpreted.
Badboy
