FW-190A vs Spitfire, Me-109G, P-47D in dogfights [Archive]

Gaston

07-01-2010, 04:47 AM

Hello everyone! Since I rarely post here, I though it would be useful to post here this summary of a debate about the predictive power of maths regarding actual propeller-tracted fighter aircraft performance...

I have made this little summary, in a pastiche of the opposing view, in the context of having read all the 1200 combat reports available in Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance" site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

These reports show clearly the importance of sustained horizontal turn fighting over most other tactics for the late WWII Western Front context. Other surprises: The P-47D easily out-turns, to the left, the Me-109G in all circumstances, while the P-51D can only do the same with much more difficulty, and mostly by reducing power over long periods of several 360s turns, while dropping the flaps and coarsening the prop pitch (a mystery and source of debate in itself)...

The FW-190A easily holds it own with the P-47D in early 1944, and later in 1944 easily out-turns it in sustained turns...

Here is the summary of FW-190A arguments:

Some interesting new quotes have come to my attention on the issue of Spitfires, Me-109Gs and the FW-190A's horizontal turning abilities...

I'll begin by summing up WWII pilot evaluations that are on the side of spotlessly clean mathematical minds so far:

So on "our" side we can count: Two US Navy FW-190A flight tests (A-4 and A-5), Eric Brown and his "curious dogfighting" assertion (despite his own rather disheartening admonishment to go easy on pulling the stick so as not "to kill speed by sinking"...), and last but not least: Some German test pilot saying that the La-5's turn rate is "above the FW-190A but below the Me-109G (w/MW-50)"

So the startlingly mathematically correct conclusions, of these massively experienced FW-190A killers, is that the FW-190A is a fighter that maneuvers well at high-speed and should use its handling in vertical maneuvers...

But then you have to deal with all these mathematically incompetent rubes that obviously, at the time, needed to be sent back to school for some refresher courses on how reality will always exactly correspond to what our calculations tell us in advance it will be: I named Front-line fighter pilots...

First in line of these lost souls: These front-line fighter pilots in Italy, trying to masquerade as real-deal state-side test pilots, only to clearly demonstrate they are out of their depth:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

What do they tell us in this? That the FW-190A out-maneuvers the P-47D in horizontal turns by a wide margin, but only at speeds below 250 MPH... Then, to add insult to injury, they tell us the P-47D has a "decidedly better angle of dive pull-out", meaning the FW-190A has generally inferior high speed maneuverability in the vertical AND the horizontal...

Well, don't fight the P-47D at high speed then, and anyways the P-47D sucks at low speeds anyway, so everything is in order... OK, but then look at these mathematically incompetent German pilots, who throw at us ridiculous generalisations without telling us the speed, altitude, bank angle, fuel level, engine rpm, air humidity, of the test, which their absurdly incomplete statement would absolutely need in order to mean anything as actual advice in the heat of battlè:

"The P-47D (needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"

Mathematically, this can only mean here that this could only occur at high speed, thus unsustainable, with specific air density and fuel loads conditions for it to be true... In those days, saying out-turning without qualification usually meant sustained turns: Look how quickly you can put your foot in your mouth when you know nothing of the math involved... These guys, I swear... What do Krauts know about Me-109s anyway?

But then, there is the Soviets: These guys are the worst, I tell you: Will you just look at this garbage?!?:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-"By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."

Will you just look at this pile of stinking non-mathematical garbage? Jesus, the P-47's test pilots were absolute geniuses compared to these guys... No wonder the Soviet Union is no more... And then look at the other cherries from these fruitcakes:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Look at the nuggets produced by these blockheads:

-"LaGG-3 fighter is a heavy and sluggish plane with poor acceleration.(...) LaGG-3 is more maneuverable than the Me-109 in horizontal fights and it causes some pilots to commit to turning fights. LaGG-3 in a turning fight will bleed off speed very rapidly however and since it accelerates so poorly, it will have difficulty switching to vertical."

-So it is heavy and sluggish but not enough NOT to beat the Me-109G in turns???

And then how does the lightweight Yak-7 perform against the heavier FW-190A?:

-"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn."

But then, they still say they had more success against the FW-190A than against the Me-109... Because the FW-190A couldn't climb... Where was Kettenhunde when they needed him, for Pete's sake!?:

-"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109. FW-190s have never been observed to try to climb away from our fighters. It is due to it’s climb rate being inferior to our fighters and the Me-109G6."

And then the cream of the crop: "FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

Two years later, during Boddenplatte, the Germans were STILL "interacting" their two fighter types in the EXACT same way: See the "Boddenplatte" (Jan 1st 1945) episode of the show "Dogfight" for this brilliant example of successfully NOT adding 2+2 for years on end... Clearly math was not their strong point...

And now for the NEW nonsensical stuff: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

Look at these clumsy Soviets again, concerning a captured FW-190A-4: "They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good horizontal handling in all speed ranges,"

"All the speed ranges" means, apparently, better above 250 MPH than the 6 inch longer-nosed A-5, but when incompetence piles on top of incompetence, who knows? Don't these folks KNOW about the FW-190A's GREAT vertical handling?!? Sheeesh, do we have to explain EVERYTHING to these people!?!

And now, new stuff again(!), the Brit contingent joins the party... As if we weren't deep enough in an abyss of muck already... Never mind their pathetic RAE test that would have you believe a P-51B with FULL drop tanks massively out-turns the Me-109G (but the same P-51B is then only barely equal to the FW-190A, even without those drop tanks!), now look at the ramblings of this poor confused squadron leader...:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 28): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

BECAUSE THEY WERE IDIOTS WHO DIDN'T KNOW THEIR MATHS... That's why...

The final result of that fight was 8 to 1 in favor of the FW-190As, which, probably, this poor confused soul would have us believe, means that it sort of resembled the fight described by this other confused math-challenged ne'er do well, who you can bet didn't hand in his math homework the way he should have when he was a kid...:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Thank Goodness real-life simulation players are now here to sort out all the confusion created by these well-meaning, but math-illiterate, front-line fighter pilots, who obviously couldn't even be counted on to know when they were being gained on in a turn or not... Who could blame them? The education system has made great strides since their days, and it is us who reaped the fruits of this great opening of our minds...

Gaston

engarde

07-01-2010, 06:05 AM

some strong language in there, expect negative feedback.

this is another chop at a well worn topic, the die hards will hold fast to their bible of aircraft performance no matter the alternatives offered.

i like yeagers sum-uppance: the pilot, not the plane.

to a certain extent i believe this is entirely the deciding factor above a basic competance level.

engarde

07-01-2010, 06:09 AM

and to add to that, generally, fighter pilots are reportedly rather shameless self promoters, so i account for just as much boasting as truth in reports.

BadAim

07-01-2010, 11:55 AM

I am still not quite sure what your point is. Your superior knowledge of math has no effect on the way highly trained fighter pilots flew their planes 70 years ago. The math of war goes like this; Those who lived flew their planes well, those who died....not so much. Either way this obsession with statistics is fruitless, it's all bull when you encounter a superior pilot.

Erkki

07-01-2010, 12:28 PM

His point is that he got proven wrong like 20 times at the Ubizoo, and now expects more respect here. Will receive none. Study Physics and History, man. Dont just cherrypick quotes.

Davedog74

07-01-2010, 02:27 PM

they were there mate ,we werent,how can you criticise
your p.c isnt out to kill you
plum

erco

07-01-2010, 05:39 PM

I'll not be too critical of Gaston's post- we're striving to (within certain limits) recreate reality with our computer simulations. It's not unreasonable to expect that a good simulator would be capable of recreating reality. Put another way, if it worked in real life, it oughta work that way in game.

However, there are many factors working against the creation of a good simulator, not the least of which is a lack of usable data. This is further compounded by the effect of pilot ability on performance.

Thus, while it is worthwhile and commendable to try and analyze all pertinent reports, and then compare them to the results in the simulator, we must remember that the FW190 WE fly exists as computer code in a program. We fly that airplane, and ingame pilots have found what tactics work well, with that 190.

Gaston, if it makes you feel any better, I got outmaneuvered in my 109, in the horizontal by a P-47 the other day

Tempest123

07-01-2010, 06:11 PM

I'm pretty sure every pilot that flew these birds was way more qualified than some non-pilot simulator pilots some 60 years later. I know its confusing reading all the conflicting pilot reports (I would kill for a ride in one of the new Fw-190's from Flugwerk, as this seems to be the most mythical aircraft in terms of performance). All these variables depend on aircraft loadout, fuel, altitude (ex. density altitude at the time and season, field altitude of where the testing took place etc.) , possible damage from capture, fuel type etc., translation errors, unfamiliarity with the aircraft etc. Wayy too many factors. I can take one thing away from the quotes you stated: The Fw-190 (BMW) is a heavier low altitude fighter, and the 109 is a smaller lighter high-altitude fighter (which we all knew anyways). If Oleg took every pilot report of every plane the planes in IL2 would be a mess because its all qualitative information. Official flight tests, factory documents and talking with real pilots is the only way to get accurate information. I know your being facetious, but I would be careful about saying that these fellows were idiots ;). They were the real deal, and they get my respect.

Gaston

07-02-2010, 08:47 AM

Yes pilots do make a difference: You only have to look at the disparities between front-line pilots accounts of the FW-190A, and test pilot accounts such as the two US Navy FW-190A tests, which, let's face it, only paint a picture that corresponds exactly to what anyone would have expected by looking at these heavy small-winged aircrats sitting on the ground...

The fact is that the intuitively "easy" picture of the FW-190A: A high-speed fighter that should compensate its lack of turning ability at low speed by high-speed dive and zoom maneuvers, is not only inaccurate, but is in fact the PERFECT opposite of what ALL front-line fighter pilots observed it to do in actual combat:

-An actual FW-190A Western ace described his method of fighting P-51s on the forum of "Aces High" (thread appears to be long gone despite my appeals to those in charge of that site): Downthrottling to reduce speed well before the merge, popping the flaps and fighting exclusively by horizontal turns... NOTHING else... With reduced throttle he described out-turning a tailing P-51D in two horizontal right 360°s on the deck (from the slow merge starting speed since he had reduced his throttle)...

A P-51D proved more competitive against the FW-190A by also reducing its throttle, though I think the FW-190A likely did not itself downthrottle in that instance, and thus lost the turn fight.

The very fact that Karhila, in Me-109Gs, FW-190A pilots, and above all P-51D pilots (in at least a dozen detailed instances), ALL describe reducing the throttle, despite being from the start at low speed in sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, and this in order to gain a huge and immediate advantage in sustained turn rate over prolonged periods, shows that even the most basic methods of fighting with these aircrafts are very poorly understood, probably because the available understanding is derived from jets which are propelled rather than tracted, not to mention their differences with prop/pistons in ability to sustain speed as power is reduced...:

See this clearest of many examples of how downthrottling is the direct cause of winning the sustained low-speed dogfight on the deck, an example which has many other counterparts, for the P-51 mostly, but also other types as well (note how Johnny Johnson gets his ass kicked in a Spit V vs FW-190A horizontal turn fight by remaining at full throttle throughout):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

Note how the pilot TWICE attributes his success in the prolonged on-the-deck turn fight to his action of downthrottling (it is prolonged because the German base fires AAA "every time" the circling got them close to it...)...:

"He stopped cutting me off (from behind!)as I cut throttle"

"I commenced turning inside of him as I decreased throttle settings"

This is unambiguous, as is Karhila when he said, "most pilots increased throttle and then turned, I decreased throttle and found I could turn just as well" "Optimal sustained turn speed for the Me-109G was around 160 MPH(!)"

The very fact that slow-speed turning was not an exception but the rule in most theathers of WWII (due I think to the weakness of a 2% gun striking rate, less pronounced perhaps with a centralized armament or a fragile Japanese target...) shows that typical WWII dogfighting and priorities are in fact very poorly understood, and heavily coloured by post-war jet experience...

Furthermore, an exaustive 1989 test at METO power and 6 Gs (the only serious WWII fighter test in 60 years, made by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", with modern instruments), found the 6 G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D to be as high as 300 MPH IAS, or 64 MPH ABOVE the accepted "calculated" value 2.44 stall, or around 244 MPH IAS.

This higher value means that, in theory, downthrottling is even less useful than anything previously assumed... Yet it was used to advantage in SUSTAINED turns...

All this clearly indicates that predictive calculated methods are not only inaccurate, but the lack of knowledge about prolonged downthrottling in sustained horizontal turns, and of the actual WWII most-prevalent combat tactic (outside the peculiarities of the Pacific Theater): Horizontal turn-fighting, means our current assumed knowledge is in fact entirely fictitious...

Even the two WWII doghouse charts of the Spitfire I and Me-109E have no late-war counterparts (because they were in fact useless): They were calculated from engine output variations with speed alone, most likely, and the 1989 P-51D/F6F/FG-1/P-47D test shows the "doghouse" shape itself is fictional for powerful prop-tracted WWII fighters:

"Corner Speed for all were found to be very close to the maximum level speed" (At Meto this means 6 G for the P-51D at a minimum of 300 MPH IAS, and likely higher with more power in my opinion)

Gaston

janpitor

07-02-2010, 09:00 AM

Downthrottling is a good think to reduce speed when needed, but you lose energy then. It is much better to execute high yoyo, thus reducing speed but gaining potential energy.

AKA_Tenn

07-02-2010, 09:38 AM

the people who flew these planes in real life, not in a test situation, are biased, even most of them couldn't know what the plane is really capable of, there's too many variables to take into account for them to know...

the factory specs are the closest things we have to an idea of what a plane could do, because the plane tested is perfectly built and tuned, and it being tested in a controlled environment, with tests specifically designed to push the plane to its limits.

just a close idea... not the actual thing the plane can do, but the theoretical limits, assuming all the variables are right, it might be achievable, and that's a lot closer than what a few pilots here or there who were hopped up on adrenaline, fighting for their lives, without a geforce guage, and probly not paying too close attention to the speed of their plane could remember.

as to how one plane should fight another... thats all situation dependant, you cant say throttling back is always nessisary to stay behind, but u can't say you'll stay behind your target if u don't... it depends on how fast your target is moving, how good of a pilot your target is, etc... just so many variables...

_RAAF_Stupot

07-02-2010, 11:34 AM

propelled rather than tracted

???

I won't enter the aircraft performace argument, but surely whether an aircraft is 'propelled' or 'tracted' is irrelevant.

Newton's Third Law doesn't care whether the engine is located in front of, or aft of, the center of mass of the aircraft.

I think.

Unless you're referring to the difference propwash over the wings / fuselage makes.

KOM.Nausicaa

07-02-2010, 01:44 PM

FM whining -- posts that start 'objective' and 'mathematical' in the first 30% and finish in flaming and hatred in the last 70%. I have seen thousands of those in the last seven years. Thousands.

JG27CaptStubing

07-02-2010, 03:56 PM

Sounds pretty anecdotal to me...

Gaston

07-02-2010, 07:24 PM

FM whining -- posts that start 'objective' and 'mathematical' in the first 30% and finish in flaming and hatred in the last 70%. I have seen thousands of those in the last seven years. Thousands.

I think you haven't seen enough: I think you failed to perceive in my original post that any reference to the power of mathematics to solve these WWII performance problems was being made fun of...

When confronted with an actual test made in 1989, by actual experimental test pilots (who were conditionned by jet experience to make dubious conclusions about the low-speed performance end, because they could not risk testing it on such valuable aircrafts), mathematics failed utterly to make an even ballpark prediction... (I mistakenly said the disparity was 64 MPH: It was 56 MPH: 300 MPH IAS was the actual P-51D "Corner Speed" vs the "math" of 2.44 X stall speed, which gives about 244 MPH IAS...)

Maximum level speed of the P-51D at METO, at 10 000 ft.
is about 315 MPH IAS... Thus 300 MPH IAS is "very close" to that...

Math theory completely fails to account for power output from the propeller TRACTION to load up the wing's lift, and thus delay the "Corner Speed" 56 MPH higher at METO...

The wing's lift is not significantly loaded up by PROPULSION thrust: I can link a crude graphic that explains why lifting a nose devoid of traction is obviously less taxing for the winglift than one loaded with traction...

METO is equivalent in WWII to "Normal Power", or the maximum power without time limit.

At WEP which is more often discussed for WWII fighters, It could very well be the "Corner Speed" would then be delayed up to 340-360 MPH IAS, or up to 120 MPH higher than math deductions say...

Tractive power has leverage on the winglift, while winglift has leverage on propulsion... That this is ignored shows just how unstudied basic WWII fighter performance is by post-war math: This explains the importance of downthrottling to which post-war math theory is totally oblivious...

Basically, more prop power means more wingloading in a turn...

Hence a full power Spit is "heavier" on its wings than a downthrottled FW-190A:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Gaston

David603

07-02-2010, 07:32 PM

Basically, more prop power means more wingloading in a turn...

Hence a full power Spit is "heavier" on its wings than a downthrottled FW-190A:
So in the simplest possible terms, the prop is trying to drag the aircraft in a straight line, and the more power is applied the more successful the prop will be in doing this, thus reducing turning ability.

Gaston

07-02-2010, 08:07 PM

Downthrottling is a good think to reduce speed when needed, but you lose energy then. It is much better to execute high yoyo, thus reducing speed but gaining potential energy.

This makes perfect sense for jets, and perhaps one-shot rocket aquisition: In WWII the 2% gun hit rate (Luftwaffe study of the average hit rate on bombers) requires you to stay awhile behind your target, so getting out of alignment is always a bad idea...

Spiralling down for the pursued, in WWII, is also often a bad idea, since if he wins the turn contest like this, he will be far too low to raise his nose to fire above himself at the former pursuer... This is why WWII turning contests tend to be horizontal, and a pursued aircraft will spiral down only to compensate the fact that it can't compete in turns with the pursuer: This surrendering of the "high ground" by the pursued usually only delays the inevitable, unless he is lucky...

None of this is of great importance to jets where only speed matters...

It is very clear that "energy-management" tactics like high or low "yoyos" are very rare in WWII, quick short-term downthrottling being more common to avoid overunning... (This is clearly very different from what happens in the link below...)

Second, it is clear that the P-51D in this case did not have excess speed: He was being gained on in the turn from behind!:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

The purpose of downthrottling in this case is obviously to increase the sustained turn rate by reducing its turning radius... Or just reducing the turn radius...

Unlike jets, props do not need more airspeed going into the intakes to generate more power at the rear: On prop/piston aircrafts, the slower they go the more power they have, and this acts as a "floor" that prevents stalling in sustained turns, but it tightens the radius a lot by relieving the traction power off the wings...

The piston/prop "energy" is thus mostly dependent on the engine, and too much power on a powerful prop engine will pull you out of your tight sustained turn.... On a jet, the turn will be tighter with more speed until you reach the "Corner Speed".

These WWII prop aircrafts tended to promote prolonged sustained level turn fighting, unless one side often had the height advantage (Me-109 Eastern Front), a centralised armament that could hit in a concentrated way over a great range of distances: A fast closure brings the target closer rapidly: Me-109 and P-38... Or a very flammable target, as the fast closure rate of Boom and Zoom allows only a brief hit: Japanese aircrafts...

As the actual combat example I linked demonstrates (being on the deck over multiple 360°s, it elliminates all variables), Piston/prop traction power requires completely different thinking from what jets do: The combat knowledge in one area is utterly inapplicable to the other, which is something I am sure post-war theorists like Shaw failed to recognize...

Gaston

Gaston

07-02-2010, 08:23 PM

So in the simplest possible terms, the prop is trying to drag the aircraft in a straight line, and the more power is applied the more successful the prop will be in doing this, thus reducing turning ability.

Sorry we posted at the same time. Your description is exactly correct: This does not happen to the same extent at all on jet propulsion because the wing's lift center is leading the way, and propulsion is not dragging it but pushing it.

There is also the added element of the propeller disc being a broader more stable surface, while the jet propulsion stream is narrower.

Finally, radial engine propeller aircrafts tend to have a shorter nose, which seems to reduce the "leverage" of the propeller to make things want to go straight, which might explain the slow-speed turn performance of the FW-190A (much superior to the FW-190D according to its pilots).

Note also La-5 vs lagg-3, or Ki-100 vs Ki-61: Large unexpected jumps in turn maneuverability: In both cases the radial version was heavier...

Gaston

KOM.Nausicaa

07-02-2010, 11:37 PM

I think you haven't seen enough: I think you failed to perceive in my original post that any reference to the power of mathematics to solve these WWII performance problems was being made fun of...

When confronted with an actual test made in 1989, by actual experimental test pilots (who were conditionned by jet experience to make dubious conclusions about the low-speed performance end, because they could not risk testing it on such valuable aircrafts), mathematics failed utterly to make an even ballpark prediction... (I mistakenly said the disparity was 64 MPH: It was 56 MPH: 300 MPH IAS was the actual P-51D "Corner Speed" vs the "math" of 2.44 X stall speed, which gives about 244 MPH IAS...)

Maximum level speed of the P-51D at METO, at 10 000 ft.
is about 315 MPH IAS... Thus 300 MPH IAS is "very close" to that...

Math theory completely fails to account for power output from the propeller TRACTION to load up the wing's lift, and thus delay the "Corner Speed" 56 MPH higher at METO...

The wing's lift is not significantly loaded up by PROPULSION thrust: I can link a crude graphic that explains why lifting a nose devoid of traction is obviously less taxing for the winglift than one loaded with traction...

METO is equivalent in WWII to "Normal Power", or the maximum power without time limit.

At WEP which is more often discussed for WWII fighters, It could very well be the "Corner Speed" would then be delayed up to 340-360 MPH IAS, or up to 120 MPH higher than math deductions say...

Tractive power has leverage on the winglift, while winglift has leverage on propulsion... That this is ignored shows just how unstudied basic WWII fighter performance is by post-war math: This explains the importance of downthrottling to which post-war math theory is totally oblivious...

Basically, more prop power means more wingloading in a turn...

Hence a full power Spit is "heavier" on its wings than a downthrottled FW-190A:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Gaston

Please feel free to join Team Daidalos if you have anything of value to add. Personally I am completely uninterested to read FM whining and turnrate whining posts. Flight simming since 7 years and countless hours on forums have made that i have read thousands of those and another thousand turn rate flame wars. Yours is no way anymore 'scientific' than the other ones. Not at all interested, sorry.

K_Freddie

07-03-2010, 08:42 PM

WoW.. G that was 'heavy' (just like my FW :grin:)

Don't kill yourself over it... I just go out there and prove it, time and time again - no worries, sport :cool:

Gaston

07-03-2010, 11:17 PM

I "just do it" in my own way, K_Freddie! With links and text...

I am amazed that you say that the Il-2 FW-190A is unlike what everyone says it is: Do you actually downthrottle to sustain tighter slow speed turns?

And everyone says the Il-2 FW-190A high speed handling is great: It should not be so, at least after the FW-190A-4 variant, or before the FW-190D "Dora", I would think, if at all... And even the A-4, in high speed dive pull-outs, should be very poor with a lot of tail-down "sinking" on pull-out if you do not pull very gently...

Gaston

Gaston

07-04-2010, 01:09 AM

Sounds pretty anecdotal to me...

-Well you would be surprised how consistent front-line fighter pilots descriptions are, without most of them having ever gathered in one room to conspire to tell the exact same same story...

Note at the end of my original post how both the British and Russian sources I linked observed the exact same thing: The lighter Me-109G diving and extending away from above, while the heavier FW-190A stayed low and "stayed" in the fight by turning horizontally against lightweight fighters...:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=15392

I have read thousands of combat reports, and most of them make no sense at all if you don't accept that the FW-190A out-turns the Me-109G, and most other Western types also if it downthrottles, during low speed sustained turns...

Surprisingly, side-by-side tests with unfamiliar test pilots are a lot more hit-and-miss than combat anecdotes, and the US Navy's Fw-190A tests in particular do little more than regurgitate what they assumed beforehand to be true... Plus the aircrafts they tested were badly out of tune in the crucial aileron adjustment, since they could not even detect the FW-190A's superior roll rate! This led to an official wartime rebuttal of this test by the British RAE, with a document sent to the US Navy indicating the F4U and FW-190A are in no way equal in roll rate, as the US Navy test claimed!

In addition to roll rate, the ailerons are also a crucial part of the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turn performance: They are used to "catch" the stall's wing drop, and the turn then "rides" on the aileron, as one FW-190A pilot described it...

Note I spent fifteen years researching these issues to create a full colour boardgame simulation based on the Avalon Hill's "Air Force" system: They may be just anecdotes, but I have found over fifteen years of research that they painted an infinitely more coherent picture than any math-based conclusion I ever read...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/5031083708?r=5031083708#5031083708

Sadly, there is one mistake that is left in my game that I will likely never fix: Only the P-47D Razorback is depicted, but I assumed that the paddle-blade propeller made it a better-turning aircraft in sustained turns...

It then occurred to me that from May of 1944 forward, the P-47D no longer seems to be competitive with the FW-190A in sustained level turns in the 600 combat reports I studied here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

I assumed that it was the introduction of the fuel-heavier "Bubbletop" variant that made it somehow less maneuverable, which is why I limited my game Data Card to the Razorback variant... Maybe the different shape worsened the handling? That was my reasoning at any rate...

But now I am having doubts: The Bubbletop variant barely started to be delivered in April of 1944, and the loss of maneuverability in sustained level turns is evident almost simultaneously in that period, when most P-47Ds would still be "Razorbacks"... This noticeable difference in sustained turn performance seemed to be because of something introduced earlier...

It was this Luftwaffe assesment I saw later that increased my doubts: They tested a captured P-47D "Razorback" which, in addition to having the "handicap" of a narrow needletip-bladed prop, could not be run at full War Emergency Power... They only barely got up to "Military Power" on it, and it was sluggish compared to a P-51B in speed and especially in climb performance...

Despite this, this was their surprising conclusion: A flat-out: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G". (Source: "On Special missions: KG 200")The lack of qualification of course means sustained turning, since unsustained high-speed turns are usually accompanied by a turn radius figure, and are often of only 180° of duration for the radius...

This sustained turn performance was puzzling to me for an underpowered P-47D running a needletip prop... It shouldn't have been if I had been logical in applying my "prop load traction loading the wing" theory...

Only then did it strike me that the introduction of the Paddle-blade propeller on the P-47D started in January of 1944, requiring about two to four months to be really generalized: About the same timeline as when poorer sustained turns seems to be observed as a matter of course against the FW-190A...

One P-47D pilot said of the Paddle-blade prop: "It was like having 3 or four hundred extra horsepower pulling"... A significant improvement in climb rate. On the FW-190A I knew a broader prop blade allowed it to sustain speed better when downthrottled "It gave more "bite" in the slow-speed turns", said one FW-190A Western ace pilot who used downthrottling in turns...

So it should also be better on a P-47D... But then I never heard, in those 600 reports linked above, of a P-47D pilot downthrottling, except very briefly to avoid overruns: With such a heavy aircraft it just didn't seem right to downthrottle in sustained level turns I suppose...

But at full power, if you have less power to begin with, and a needletip prop which is like 3-400 horsepower LESS, then you unwittingly sustain tighter slow-speed turns better because the prop disc is less loaded, which in turns means your wing is less loaded...

In other words, the earlier P-47D is downthrottled for you from the start, hence early 1944 P-47D level turnfights that make for very interesting reading: The P-47D absolutely crushes the Me-109G in level left turns, gaining fully in 1 to 3 X 360° turns on average, while the P-51D can often take 15 minutes of continuous turning: 40+ full 360° turns, to do the same thing vs the very same Me-109Gs...

Right turning is apparently not to the P-47D's advantage vs the Me-109G, but right turning is very rare as pilots find right turns unnatural if they are right-handed: The bank side maneuver required feels unnatural to the pilot, according to an Israeli pilot quoted in the show "dogfights". This seems to be true: Right-sided sustained turn fights are a fairly small minority in those 1200 reports...

In any case, it does seem to follow my logic that early P-47Ds, if they are going to be run at full power anyway, will do tighter sustained turns if they have less power and less efficient prop thrust to ruin their wing's lift to begin with...

I wish I had thought of this before I had "finalized" my game's P-47D...

Gaston

K_Freddie

07-04-2010, 07:38 AM

I am amazed that you say that the Il-2 FW-190A is unlike what everyone says it is: Do you actually downthrottle to sustain tighter slow speed turns?
Gaston

Most planes, at certain speeds, can certainly turn better than the FW.
It all amounts to which tactics to use at which speed/situation.

From my experience the FW and ME109 have excellent slow speed characteristics, and on many occassions I have outturned other allied a/c by throttle variation.

At high speed the LH turn favours the FW, but at low speed the FW's niche is the RH turn. This is where the propwash and engine torque pulls the nose up and left, enabling one to use full pitch and rudder to bring it around a lot quicker than other aircraft. This is a fine balance, but very workable.

The FW is also excellent in the vertical, whether it's pulling out or up. It does wash a bit with lots of pitch, but this is very usefull as a deception. The 'washing' if used properly can enable the FW to change direction very quickly.

Using a combination of the above, can make the FW a very dangerous foe for any a/c...

Oh!.. forgot to mention the roll rate :shock:
;)

Gaston

07-04-2010, 10:42 AM

It is an interesting picture: The high speed turn preference to left is correct, as is the low-speed preference to right! (Though I had, perhaps wrongly, assumed that at low speed this reversal of preference was due to the deployment of flaps in low speed fighting: See Eric Brown's description of the landing configuration stall: The stall wing drop direction is reversed from a harsh left to a gentler right wing drop with flaps down: The side of the wing drop is the better turning side)

According to Closterman, FW-190As did not initially use their flaps to turn in combat, but later in the war they did, and it did tighten their turning ability...

At high-speed, use of flaps is very costly in speeds because the engine does not accelerate enough to compensate, at these speeds, for the extra drag, in addition to turning.

Combining downthrottling and flaps should, in real-life, allow out-turning at low speeds, in sustained turns, any major later war Western Front Allied fighter, with only the Spitfire being a question mark and maybe the P-38 at extremely low speeds. The FW-190A Western ace stated, despite his exclusive turning tactic: "I feared no other fighter in my FW-190A-8"

Turning, sustained or not, above 250 MPH MIGHT be about equal or better to the Me-109G if flying an early short-nose FW-190A-3/4, but DEFINITELY not for any later Anton variant (see A-5 test vs P-47:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

). These later variants above 250 MPH IAS should be worse in turns and pull-outs than most other fighters.

So for late war Antons, the Il-2 picture at high speed is wrong: The Me-109G should be superior, as it should be superior to the FW-190A's vertical maneuvering except maybe for the first zoom from a very high speed. The Me-109G's absolute superiority in climb rate is what impressed the Soviets the most, and this made it an essential complement to the Anton on the Eastern Front at least.

Interesting note: Starting the turn fight at high speed, hoping to decelerate into the better lower speed while turning, is a dangerous idea in a Fw-190A... Maybe especially so for later longer-nose Antons: As the Fw-190A decelerates into its more favorable lower speed turn speed region (around 220 knots-250 MPH IAS) it abruptly changes pitch, which has to be compensated by the pilot instantly by pushing forward on the stick... Or it will stall: This is why the FW-190A Western ace described downthrottling long PRIOR to the merge: Decelerating from faster into lower speed while turning was risky... E. Brown also mentions this abrupt change in pitch, but did not find it dangerous on a short-nose Anton. It may have been worse on later Antons, as a few combat anecdotes seem to indicate...

The Me-109G was better in the vertical, but still inferior in zoom or dives to US fighters!

The Me-109G was better off downthrottling into very slow flat turns at 160 MPH against US fighters. The spiral climb might have helped, but it was very rarely used, so it must not have been convenient to use... Downward spirals are a bad tactic for all chased fighters...

The firepower and strenght of the Fw-190A made countering dive and zoom tactics by turning to face head-to-head into the attack worthwhile.

You say throttle variations, but once committed to lower speed turn fights, there is usually no upthrottling except maybe for catching up to a zoomer or a diver...

I don't think it is likely the FW-190A liked abrupt pitch transitions... You had to work the stick gently...

I will post later an English test of the FW-190D-9 that shows it to have far inferior maneuverability to the Anton, to the point of nullifying its climb and speed advantages over the Anton in the opinion of the tester...

Thanks for your picture of the FW-190A's handling in Il-2: It could be reasonably accurate for early shorter-nose FW-190A-3/4s...

Gaston

David603

07-04-2010, 12:39 PM

I was intrigued by your description of the Anton as a low speed turner, so I decided to try some rough tests in Il2 to see if this supported the idea.

They are by no means perfect, but I did my best to keep conditions the same throughout the test and the results are averages of the good turns (ie if I stalled the aircraft or found myself more than 100m above or below my starting altitude I discarded the results).

I used the Fw109A-5 and the Spitfire LF MkIXc for the tests.

Technique used was a flat turn, using rudder where needed to keep the aircraft's nose up, and just trying to see the tightest turn that I could produce, regardless of speed.

Full throttle @ 500m (left turn)
MkIX 17.1 sec
A-5 22.4 sec

80% throttle @ 500m (left turn)
MkIX 16.0 sec
A-5 18.7sec

As you can see, while the Spitfire only gains 1.1 sec by downthrottling, the A-5 gains 3.7 sec, halving the gap from 5.3 sec to 2.7 sec, and the difference between a down-throttled A5 and a full throttle MkIX is only 1.6 sec.

The A-5 turns on a similar radius but at a lower speed, and is noticeably easier to stall, especially if you try to change direction once you have slowed down in the turn. Since both aircraft have props that rotate to the right, I didn't try repeating the tests with right turns.

Ernst

07-04-2010, 02:37 PM

AndyJWest

07-04-2010, 02:59 PM

Gaston

07-05-2010, 01:06 AM

The Spitfire Mk IX at full throttle is still 1.6 seconds faster than a FW-190A-5 at 80% throttle: This could be plausible if the FW-190A-5 does not use an optimal flap setting: The flap setting was critical to low-speed performance.

The Spitfire IX could not use a combat flap setting: 2 position only...

Soviet tests of a FW-190A-4 did show about 19 seconds in turn times, but it was displayed as 19-23 seconds, implying the difference in side of the turn(?).

Note the best Soviet Gustav time for that test, for a clean Me-109G-2, WAS 22 seconds, so right there you have the FW-190A out-turning the Me-109G to one side at least...

Me-109F was 20 seconds.

Note that the longer-nose A-5 was said by the Soviets to shave a second off these figures, which would give about 18-22 seconds.

I assume these real-life tests were all done at full power without flaps...

At partial power it could be all these aircrafts do not do much better in sustained turn TIME, but much better in RADIUS, which gives some advantage in sight lead also...

A FW-190A-8 in sustained low-speed level turns, flaps down, at 70% power(?), can gain nearly 180° per 360° on a P-51D at full power riding on the edge of a stall: If flaps up full power for the P-51D means 23-24 seconds, then the FW-190A-8 with the broad-blade prop could be as low as 16-17 seconds to one side (it was the right side with flaps down), to reverse a tail position in 2.? X 360° turns... The A-8 was said to be better than all previous FW-190As in low-speed maneuverability, especially with the broad-blade prop.

Of note is that the FW-190A riding on the edge of a stall requires the use of the ailerons to catch the stall's wing drop: At low speeds this favoured the choice of the longest chord of three different types of ailerons that could be used. The FW-190A Western ace in AH's forum described adding "spacers" to the hinges of his longest-chord aileron choice, to increase low-speed wing-drop "catch" performance further, this of course at the expense of aileron leverage and performance at high speed...

This choice of his was specifically described by him as being exclusively aimed at low-speed turn performance...

These aileron hinge modifications could explain the out-of-the-ordinary low-speed turn performance he mentions for his P-51D shootdown: 2.? X 360 to reverse a tail position on the deck, the P-51D almost stalling in front of him...

Not clear if the aileron hinge extensions were a field modification, or availabe as a kit...

Interesting tests for the in-game figures... Thanks!

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-05-2010, 02:04 AM

Soviet tests of a FW-190A-4 did show about 19 seconds in turn times, but it was displayed as 19-23 seconds, implying the difference in side of the turn(?).
Nope 19-23 seconds means exactly what any engineer/test pilot would expect it to mean - somewhere between the upper and lower limit, but not accurately measured. Or if it doesn't, it is down to you to provide evidence why, not just assume it means what you want it to.

And as for 'catching the stall's wing drop' with aileron, this is nonsense if you are talking about a sustained turn (along with airspeed, turn rate and altitude, AoA must be constant so either the wing is stalled or it isn't), and dubious as a means to recover from a stall anyway. If a wing is stalled, down aileron is going to make it worse.

Even with the luxury of an autopilot, and no worries about structural/engine failure, fatigue from G forces, instrumentation errors and the rest, practical experience with the few tests I've run tells me that any measurements of turn rates need to be taken with some scepticism. Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know how turn rate was measured? The compass would be useless, and I'm not sure a gyro would be much better - they tended to tumble with extreme manouvering.

JtD

07-05-2010, 05:24 AM

So in the simplest possible terms, the prop is trying to drag the aircraft in a straight line, and the more power is applied the more successful the prop will be in doing this, thus reducing turning ability.

No, it doesn't.

First, the force vector of the prop points inwards, due to the angle of attack the aircraft uses in a turn, it pulls the aircraft to the inside and therefore more power lowers the wingloading and improves turning.

Second, more power increases the airflow over the wing, thus increasing the wings lifting ability and therefore improves turning.

Third, any effect the prop forces might have on turning, will be canceled out by the elevator, which itself only has a minimal impact on drag.

And finally, in a sustained turn, you need speed to do the turning, more speed means more g's, means more turnrate. If you reduce thrust, you lose speed and won't be able to sustain a better turn.

---
The same thing got posted on the ubi-board, and the topic was locked immediately. Take it as a measure for the quality of the original post. It's complete and utter nonsense.

JtD

07-05-2010, 05:26 AM

Nope 19-23 seconds means exactly what any engineer/test pilot would expect it to mean - somewhere between the upper and lower limit, but not accurately measured. Or if it doesn't, it is down to you to provide evidence why, not just assume it means what you want it to.

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots. ;)

AndyJWest

07-05-2010, 05:41 AM

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots. ;)

Interesting. So where did the '19 seconds' come from? Of course, if Gaston can provide a verifiable primary source to validate his figures (does he know what this is?), there might be room for debate.

Actually, I'd still like to know how turn rates were actually measured. With figures being bandied about supposedly accurate to 1/10th of a second per 360 degrees, it would be nice to know how they were arrived at.

And I'm still waiting for a track that can show a sustained turn in a Fw 190 A5 anywhere near 18.7s per 360 degrees. then again, I'd be surprised if you could do that in any true horizontal turn, sustained or not...

Ernst

07-05-2010, 05:47 AM

Reducing powe can or not to help increase turn rate. If you are above your corner speed so reducing power ll help.

In il2 in particular i feel that reduce power to 80 percent in the middle of turn help a little to increase your turn rate for a moment. I am not certain but i feel the aircraft turning faster at cost of some airspeed.

Someway torque of the engine works against your turn, the plane wants to go out and drifts. This way may be setting engine in 80 per cent helps a more stable turn.

JtD

07-05-2010, 06:36 AM

That's true Ernst, above corner speed, if you reduce you speed, you'll turn faster.

But Gaston is focusing on sustained turning and the mechanics behind it, so my reply was directed at that. I should have made that clear.

JtD

07-05-2010, 07:53 AM

And I'm still waiting for a track that can show a sustained turn in a Fw 190 A5 anywhere near 18.7s per 360 degrees. then again, I'd be surprised if you could do that in any true horizontal turn, sustained or not...

Not that hard, with 25% fuel and without ammo you can easily sustain 18s/360 at sea level, tested on the Moscow map (winter). It's just about how much apple the oranges are. Or vice versa.

Real life testing consisted of a number of 360° turns at 1000m altitude, observed and timed from the ground. At least in the SU. Variances of the results were due to aircraft conditions, atmospheric conditions, flying conditions and piloting skills. While an individual test would give you results with as many digits as one liked, these were rarely used for practical purposes. Usually, as with the Fw 190A-4, there'd be a range of numbers given in whole seconds. The more testing had been done, the better the engineers and pilots knew the plane, the more constant the plane performance was, the smaller the range would be.

robtek

07-05-2010, 10:34 AM

Just for the hard number and facts fetishists:

If it is dumb and works it ain't dumb!

It is always much easier to "prove" something wrong.

Gaston

07-05-2010, 11:55 AM

No, it doesn't.

First, the force vector of the prop points inwards, due to the angle of attack the aircraft uses in a turn, it pulls the aircraft to the inside and therefore more power lowers the wingloading and improves turning.

Second, more power increases the airflow over the wing, thus increasing the wings lifting ability and therefore improves turning.

Third, any effect the prop forces might have on turning, will be canceled out by the elevator, which itself only has a minimal impact on drag.

And finally, in a sustained turn, you need speed to do the turning, more speed means more g's, means more turnrate. If you reduce thrust, you lose speed and won't be able to sustain a better turn.

---
The same thing got posted on the ubi-board, and the topic was locked immediately. Take it as a measure for the quality of the original post. It's complete and utter nonsense.

-First of all JTD, it was locked because the same general subject had been discussed in several massive multiple parts threads for over a year there, and the obviously hostile moderators decided it should be kept in those same massive threads... See the reason given by the moderator at the bottom of the locked thread here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8811012078

Do you really want to make statements that are so stupidly easy to disprove?

An indication of the quality of moderating there is that I had to personally contact the moderators to delete obvious and stupid personal attacks instead of them doing their jobs... AND... One OTHER moderator, who explained quite correctly why a "vertical turn" in 1943 parlance is short for a "vertical bank turn", in the context of this SpitV vs FW-190A article:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Meaning therefore a HORIZONTAL turn... This "moderator" later DELETED his OWN explanation that was favorable to my point of view, and REFUSED to re-iterate it, because of course it was far too favourable to my argument, and left no wiggle room whatsoever for the pathetic interpretation of the text that there was an "ever diminishing circle" vertical loop in there-roll eyes-... (I do wish the narrating pilot had not used a term that allowed this sad manipulation, but he certainly could not have anticipated how blind and stubborn, and willing to distort, people would become to the obvious context he meant to convey...)

If someone here is familiar with the WWII lingo "vertical turn" being shorthand for "vertical bank turn", feel free to weight in: The context of the text makes the meaning obvious, in any case, to those with an open mind...

So in short, moderators there deleted things they themselves STATED, and know to be true, in order not to support my arguments, and I had to argue over and over with later posters who clung pathetically to their erroneous and biaised interpretation of this text, perhaps numbering JTD among them, if I am not mistaken?

The actual "technical point" now...:

Your argument that the prop points towards the inside of the turn is particularly sad: First of all, a straight line cannot point inside a continuous curve (circle...): Only a curve can do that: I would think that would be obvious...

Second, you obviously fail to realize that to raise the angle of attack, you have to load up the wing with all the forces that want it to go straight in the first place... And that includes the prop thrust direction, which never stops NOT wanting to go straight for your convenience THROUGHOUT the turn, as long as the elevator is deflected in fact...

Third, an aggravating factor occurs when you raise the prop: The top half of the prop disc is more loaded by this than the bottom half, because it has to go slower on the inside of the turn (the whole purpose of the elevator's raised deflection is in fact to slow down the top half of the aircraft, of which the prop disc top half is, very unfortunately for your argument, part of...), and this DEFLECTS the thrust direction slightly towards the OUTSIDE forward direction of the turn (in the real world, not the mathematical world...), thus pushing down further on the wing, thereby increasing the wing load.

The secondary difference here with a jet is that the prop thrust direction is more deflected because of the prop's large width, and narrow 90° connection to the nose, which provides more of a lever, and this deflection of the thrust line moves its axis AWAY from the point of rotation inside the wings, while on a jet's rear propulsion the same, but more modest, thrust deflection occurs (since the top half of the jet thrust is also slower), but that makes it CLOSER to the center of rotation inside the wing, as you can see in the crude graphic below, thereby reducing rotation resistance leverage, not increasing it as it does for frontal traction rotation...:

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/english-electric-lightning_31-1.jpg

All these points are pretty basic and obvious, and please note that in over a year of argueing over this in two other gaming forums, not even the slightest begining of a sound argument against this has surfaced yet...

The notion that propulsion and traction behave the same on any object is a pure theoretical construct. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I learned in kindergarden that pulling a wheelbarrow behind you made it easier for the one wheel to follow a yellow painted line compared to pushing it...

I really wonder what the problem is in understanding this now...

Gaston

Gaston

07-05-2010, 12:04 PM

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots. ;)

I manipulated THIS data to prove my point?:

http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm

Aren't you tired of making statements that are so stupidly easy to disprove?

I sure would get tired...

Gaston

P.S. It's a historical site with historical data, so I guess the guy invented it just to suit me right?

G.

JtD

07-05-2010, 12:13 PM

Do you really want to make statements that are so stupidly easy to disprove?

I don't see where my statement is inaccurate, wrong or has been proven wrong. But I congratulate you on for once managing to assign the statement to the original poster. Other than that, I don't feel like arguing against your nonsense - considering the difficulties you have with understanding even simple, non-physic statements, I don't think anyone will blame me. I'm just trying to protect younger and lesser educated forum members from being subjected to it without having been warned. I recommend them to pick up a book on very, very basic physics so they can get the same laughs from your posting the majority is already getting from it. Of course, only in case they bother still reading.

JtD

07-05-2010, 12:14 PM

I manipulated THIS data to prove my point?

No, apparently you just used wrong data, sorry. Should have been easy for a top notch researcher like yourself to check against original reports, though.

AndyJWest

07-05-2010, 01:39 PM

I think Gaston's last few posts have demonstrated admirably why his last attempt to peddle his nonsense on the Ubi forum were locked. When anyone questions his 'data', he resorts to pseudo-physics (without any calculations), which is usually unintelligible, and when it isn't, it is either irrelevant to the point under discussion, or just plain wrong.

He's right about one thing though, the Ubi moderators are 'hostile'. Given his insistance on repeating the same gobbledygook every few weeks, without ever backing it up with anything other than more of the same, their hostility is entirely justified.

David603

07-05-2010, 01:57 PM

Two questions, David603:

Were you trying to do a minimum-radius turn, or a best-rate turn? The results would be different. In combat, rate is usually more important than radius.

Are these sustained turn rates? Unless you can maintain speed, altitude and turn rate continuously, the results may be misleading. Even a loss of height of a few meters can make a noticable difference to results.

EDIT ---
I've been doing a bit of experimenting, using my prototype autopilot application (see http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4121016097?r=4121016097#4121016097), and though I need to investigate further, I find it very difficult to believe a Fw 190 A5 will do a 360 degree sustained turn in 18.7 seconds, regardless of throttle settings. IL-2 compare suggests the best turn time will be around 24s, which is much more consistent with the results I'm getting at full throttle, and trying to turn at that sort of rate at 80 % throttle results in a rapid decay in airspeed. My autopilot is struggling to hold a smooth turn in these conditions (it was never designed to do this), but I'd be surprised if a human pilot could do much better - the plane is right on the edge of the stall.

As Ernst says, we need to see a track.
To be honest, I think I shouldn't have put 18.7 as the Fw time. Although the Fw can do between 2-3 360 degree turns with times that are very close to produce this data (18.7 is the average of many turns), it only maintains this turn rate at 80% throttle by losing speed and tightening up the turn, so after 2-3 turns at this rate you run out of speed and either stall out or have to leave the turn to regain speed.

As such it is not a true sustained turn, although 2-3 turns would still be quite useful in a combat situation. By contrast, the Fw @ full throttle and the Spitfire at either setting can maintain the times listed for as long as you wish, so those are real sustained turn times.

Bear in mind I said this was a rough test, and by no means perfect, if you can come up with a better technique I will be happy to accept the figures produced by it.

In the meanwhile I will try to get a good track of the Fw turning @ 80% throttle (will change altitude from 500m to just above the deck so you can more easily see that it is a horizontal turn).

AndyJWest

07-05-2010, 02:19 PM

Thanks for clarifying, David603. That sounds more in line with what I was finding. If you are going to run tests, you really need to specify as much as you can about the conditions: map, fuel load, difficulty settings etc. As has been shown on the Ubi forums, even changes in the 'wind and turbulence' setting can have a measurable effect on performance, in supposedly calm conditions.

If you can provide a track, it is possible to analyse it later using DeviceLink, which is often more useful than trying to make measurements in real time.

I need to do more work with my autopilot to be able to test turn rates accurately, by the look of it, but I think I'm getting somewhere. I'll post a demo of what I've achieved up to now if anyone is interested, though the plane still lacks a little stability.

Kwiatek

07-05-2010, 02:52 PM

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots. ;)

Exacly Russian data for Fw 190 A-4 sustained turn rate at 1000m is 22-23 sec. These confirmed also German raport from captured LA5 FN when they found that LA5 turn better then Fw 190 but worse then 109.

I dont belive that Fw 190 A could turn sustained better at low speeds then 109 or Spitfire. It could be close for P-51 or P-47 but not for 109 and Spit. No way.

Flanker35M

07-05-2010, 03:54 PM

S!

As Kwiatek stated, Spitfire should be able to outturn Fw190 with ease at slow speeds. But the Fw190 might have the advantage at higher speeds due it's far better rate of roll over Spitfire making the change of direction much faster.

Bf109 had excellent slow speed handling due the mild stall characteristics, helped by the slats. I think Spitfire and Bf109 were quite close in turning as a lot depends on the pilot. Hans-Joachim Marseille continuously outturned Spits, Hurricanes and P40's in North-Africa, but again he was an extraordinary pilot knowing his plane and a sharpshooter.

As of Bf109G vs La5FN. Finns fought them all, from LagG-3 to La-5FN flown by 4th GiAP KBF, led by Russian ace of the Finnish Gulf, Golybev. And all accounts verify Finns both outclimbed and outturned their adversaries in the Bf109G-2 and Bf109G-6. Interestingly Finns regarded Yak-9 far more dangerous opponent than Lada, calling it "Mörkö" (boogey). One reason was it's very good rate of roll and high speed.

Again..we are playing in a simulated game with a lot of things lacking: fatigue, fear, G forces etc..So kind of futile to whine/debate/whine some more about FM's in a game. Interesting discussion so far though.

jameson

07-05-2010, 10:50 PM

Gaston's a fantasist. Some people here should know better than to give any credence to anything he says. If as he claims, turn fighting, in any aeroplane, is a good idea, why was the tendency from the end of the First World War to build faster and higher flying aircraft at the expense of turning ability? A trend that advanced exponentially from the beginning to the end of the Second World War.
Why does Gaston never talk about the FW190's Achilles heel, it's vicious snap stall, regularly mentioned in those 1200 combat reports he claims to have read, where the attacking US pilot reports the FW pulling into a turn, flipping over and nosing in without a shot being fired? Why does Gaston think the FW190 was used primarily as a fighter in Reich defence, or anywhere else in Western Europe? Why does he never mention the fact that the Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered from 1944 on? Numbers like a B17 raid of a 1000 bombers accompanied over Germany by up to 2000 P51's, up against, perhaps, on a good day, 500 German aircraft, whose sole purpose was to shoot down bombers, with just a few dozen Bf109's in clean fighter trim to protect them. How does Gaston not grasp the fact that the Luftwaffe were the prey and not the hunters, in the West and in the East by the end of 1943? Gaston, could that explain why an FW190 was on the deck cutting his throttle and pulling hard in a turn, because it was do that or die, being hunted as he was, by perhaps up to 10 P51's? Did that 190 survive? It was the American pilot who lived to tell the tale. Even a IL2 noob understands that being low and slow on the deck is a death sentence and going slower ain't gonna help.

Gaston

07-06-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote, jameson: "Why does Gaston think the FW190 was used primarily as a fighter in Reich defence, or anywhere else in Western Europe?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Because from being a minority fighter in the West in early 1944, it represented 70% of the Western front-line fighter strenght in late 1944...

If you don't know the facts, why argue the point?

Quote jameson: "Why does Gaston never talk about the FW190's Achilles heel, it's vicious snap stall, regularly mentioned in those 1200 combat reports he claims to have read, where the attacking US pilot reports the FW pulling into a turn, flipping over and nosing in without a shot being fired?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-If you don't read my posts about this in THIS very thread, why do you comment on them? In addition to the fact that I ALWAYS said handling of the FW-190A above 250 MPH was very poor, especially from the A-5 forward, and specifically because of this:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

, you might also want to make the terrible effort of perusing this which I wrote two pages back:

"Interesting note: Starting the turn fight at high speed, hoping to decelerate into the better lower speed while turning, is a dangerous idea in a Fw-190A... Maybe especially so for later longer-nose Antons: As the Fw-190A decelerates into its more favorable lower speed turn speed region (around 220 knots-250 MPH IAS) it abruptly changes pitch, which has to be compensated by the pilot instantly by pushing forward on the stick... Or it will stall: This is why the FW-190A Western ace described downthrottling long PRIOR to the merge: Decelerating from faster into lower speed while turning was risky... E. Brown also mentions this abrupt change in pitch, but did not find it dangerous on a short-nose Anton. It may have been worse on later Antons, as a few combat anecdotes seem to indicate..."

Quote, AndyJWest: "He's right about one thing though, the Ubi moderators are 'hostile'. Given his insistance on repeating the same gobbledygook every few weeks, without ever backing it up with anything other than more of the same, their hostility is entirely justified."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Yes, and their intellectual honesty is clearly demonstrated when they delete their OWN explanation why Johnny Johnson's "vertical turn" lingo is in fact a horizontal turn, and won't re-iterate what they themselves said about it (you can't make this stuff up!)...: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Quote, Ernst: "Reducing power can or not to help increase turn rate. If you are above your corner speed so reducing power ll help."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Yes, but if according to the only modern-instrument test of WWII fighters EVER (in 1989), 4 US types had their 6G Corner Speed "Very close to the maximum level speed (METO?: 315 MPH IAS at 10.0 on P-51D)", what room does that leave to your argument about temporary downthrottling? Not much! Not many 360°s to do between 350 and 315 MPH, trust me... Which is why prolonged flaps-down downthrottling accounts, on the deck(!), show this theoretically correct explanation to be more confusion than help:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

Quote, Flanker35M: "Bf109 had excellent slow speed handling due the mild stall characteristics, helped by the slats. I think Spitfire and Bf109 were quite close in turning as a lot depends on the pilot. Hans-Joachim Marseille continuously outturned Spits, Hurricanes and P40's in North-Africa, but again he was an extraordinary pilot knowing his plane and a sharpshooter."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-Yes it could turn quite tightly at low speed, maybe tighter than a FW-190A, but what you guys persistently fail to get it that it lost more speed than most other fighters in doing so: Oseau shoot-down witness (G6AS vs P-51D): "Each turn became tighter, and Oseau's aircraft lost speed, more so than his adversaries" (Peculiar aerodynamic behaviour to the 109 I would guess)

A fellow officer commented on this: "Many times I had said to Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109, but he was an old Messerschmitt pilot, and he preferred it"

And then of course: "-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

Quote, Kwiatek: " These confirmed also German raport from captured LA5 FN when they found that LA5 turn better then Fw 190 but worse then 109."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-True, but easily explained by sustained turns at FULL power above 250 MPH: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

As I said from the very first post, this La-5 report is the only German WWII source to say this: Do you really want to pin your hopes entirely on this, as I did for fifteen years? Or, -roll eyes-, the US Navy reports? Or do you want to at least consider what front-line pilots actually said?: Johnny Johnson : "190 out-turns Bf-109"
Russian experience evaluation: "Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight." etc.. etc.. ad nauseam...

Quote, JTD: "Third, any effect the prop forces might have on turning, will be canceled out by the elevator, which itself only has a minimal impact on drag."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-Ok, basic physics time... Last time I looked, the elevators were not off on their own, but rigidly connected to the main wings...

First of all, the load of the turn is not borne mostly by the tailplanes: I would think that would be obvious...

Second, the elevator has a 18 foot lever (the tail) to start an imbalance in the wing's angle of attack: A few hundred pounds of down force at the tail translates into maybe thousands of pound of force directed at changing the wing's angle of attack...

Third, upon the wings angle of attack being changed, the wing itself assists further changes because the leading edge is higher and higher, causing more and more upward drag on the wing, but this being prevented from going out of control by the prop's thrust AND other drag forces, all of which does not stop the wing's load from being increased... The wing's leading edge higher position acts in effect as a "power assist" to defeat the thrust force of the propeller, allowing the angrily pulling forward prop to be tilted back ever so slightly, so the pilot is not pulling back on the prop directly with his own muscle because the wing's increasing load is helping him by taking up the load, and in addition he has the 18 foot lever, with pulley assistance, to help initiate the tilt....

This is basic leverage physics: Just because, at the end of a 18 foot long lever, you are not using a lot of strenght to lift something, doesn't mean the loads are EASIER on the the pivot point...

You lift 1000 pounds with an 18 feet lever it might feel like 100 pounds to you, but unlike what JTD is suggesting with his "minimal drag" statement, this does not mean the pivot point is not lifting 1000 pounds...

I hope the vacuity of the JTD's argument is obvious, though the wing's leading edge nose-lift "power-assistance" issue was indeed less evident...

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-06-2010, 04:52 PM

A few hundred pounds of down force at the tail translates into maybe thousands of pound of force directed at changing the wing's angle of attack...

No it doesn't.

Utter garbage. You clearly know nothing about even basic physics Gaston.

And as has already pointed out to you several times, 'corner speed' doesn't mean the same thing as best turn speed. As usual, you are ignoring everything that doesn't fit in with your fantasy world, and then assuming that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or actually part of some ludicrous conspiracy to shut you up. We aren't, we just think that discussions on aircraft performance should be based on rational argument, not endlessly-repeated drivel. You don't understand simple physics, you don't seem to know what a 'primary source' is, and you are incapable of interpreting any 'evidence' you do have except in whatever way best suits your gobbledygook:
... upon the wings angle of attack being changed, the wing itself assists further changes because the leading edge is higher and higher, causing more and more upward drag on the wing, but this being prevented from going out of control by the prop's thrust AND other drag forces, all of which does not stop the wing's load from being increased... The wing's leading edge higher position acts in effect as a "power assist" to defeat the thrust force of the propeller, allowing the angrily pulling forward prop to be tilted back ever so slightly, so the pilot is not pulling back on the prop directly with his own muscle because the wing's increasing load is helping him by taking up the load, and in addition he has the 18 foot lever, with pulley assistance, to help initiate the tilt....

Does anyone actually understand this? Since when has drag been considered to act 'upwards'? And since when have fighter aircraft been equipped with a pulley!
ROFL!!!!

Novotny

07-07-2010, 02:44 PM

Typical. I have just acquired a bumper pack of popcorn and you all suddenly stop squabbling :D

Gaston

07-08-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote, AndyJWest: "Does anyone actually understand this? Since when has drag been considered to act 'upwards'? And since when have fighter aircraft been equipped with a pulley!"

-------------------------------------------------------------

-Well drag is considered to act upward in the case of flight for instance...

As for pulleys being present, they seem to be in most mechanical flight controls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system

Quote: "Mechanical or manually-operated flight control systems are the most basic method of controlling an aircraft. They were used in early aircraft and are currently used in small aircraft where the aerodynamic forces are not excessive. Very early aircraft used a system of wing warping where no control surfaces were used.[2] A manual flight control system uses a collection of mechanical parts such as rods, tension cables, pulleys, counterweights, and sometimes chains to transmit the forces applied to the cockpit controls directly to the control surfaces."

For those who still have some doubts about the general validity of my points, please take note the following items:

1-Only ONE WWII-stated instance exists of a pilot actually saying the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A: The La-5 test evaluation. (Versus uniform combat pilot opinion to the contrary: Johnny Johnson's crystal clear post-war conclusion about this, TWO Soviet combat evaluation summaries, British and Russian observed combined Me-109/FW-190A tactics, innumerable German FW-190A and US 8th Air Force pilot opinions, including official Rechlin evaluations conclusions "Out-turns and out-rolls at any speed", etc... ect... Oh, and the shape of a "Saber" vs the shape of a "Floret", from none other than Gunther Rall...)

In a year of discussing this, several new evaluations and pilot quotes have been added to my side of the argument (few found by me!), while the La-5 test is still all alone: Expect this to continue...

2-No intelligible explanation how you can tilt backward a running propeller in flight, which is necessary to make it go in a curve, without applying to it at least more than half of its total thrust...

3-No explanation on how the distance of a point of thrust that is near the nose has NO negative leverage effect on the wing's center of lift, which is the only pivot point available to achieve the previous point...

I think that sums it up nicely...

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-08-2010, 02:10 PM

drag is considered to act upward in the case of flight for instance...
No it isn't:
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/redplane.jpg
The four forces
When a well-trimmed aircraft is cruising (i.e. flying at a constant speed, and maintaining a constant heading and a constant altitude) in non-turbulent air, there are two sets, or couples, of basic forces acting on it. The two forces in each couple are equal and approximately opposite to each other otherwise the aircraft would not continue to fly straight and level at a constant speed; i.e. the aircraft is in a state of equilibrium where all forces balance each other out so there is no change in motion.

The couple that acts vertically is the lift, generated by the energy of the airflow past the wings and acting upward, and the weight acting downward. So, being equal and approximately opposite, the lifting force being generated must exactly match the total weight of the aircraft.

The couple that acts horizontally is the thrust, generated by the engine-driven propeller, and the air resistance, caused by the friction and pressure of the airflow, or drag, trying to slow the moving aircraft. The thrust, acting forward along the flight path, exactly equals the drag. The thrust provides energy to the aircraft and the drag dissipates that same energy into the atmosphere. The forces are not all equal to each other. In fact, an aircraft in cruising flight might generate ten times more lift than thrust.
http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/index.html

No intelligible explanation how you can tilt backward a running propeller in flight, which is necessary to make it go in a curve, without applying to it at least more than half of its total thrust...

That's right, no explanation, because none is needed. This entire idea that you can't tilt a propeller without generating such huge forces is based on nothing but the pseudo-physics that lurks inside your addled brain, Gaston. Or if it isn't can you provide a link to a source that actually explains where this magical force is coming from? I'm not the slightest bit interested in you repeating your drivel about 'compound levers', 'stress risers' and whatever else you seem to think explains anything. Of course you won't provide a link, because you won't find one. You can't. It doesn't exist.

Try studying physics, and basic aerodynamics. You might learn something...

Gaston

07-09-2010, 04:45 AM

Flight involves climbing at some point...

That the lift might be ten times as much as the thrust confirms that the pitch pivot point of the whole aircraft is in the wings and not near the nose...

This inevitably means leverage issues comes into play to tilt the prop...

Tilting the prop does require beating over half of the prop's thrust... Otherwise one half of the disc will not move back compared to the other half to allow what is called a tilt from the original path...

Note that on a high wing aircraft, the "pitch pivot point" could be nearly above the prop disc, which could change the leverage issues significantly...

David603 still put it in the simplest, clearest way:

"So in the simplest possible terms, the prop is trying to drag the aircraft in a straight line, and the more power is applied the more successful the prop will be in doing this, thus reducing turning ability."

BTW, I've noticed you've suddenly dropped your indignation at my suggestion that fighters might have pulleys...

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-09-2010, 11:23 AM

So you've not found a source that confirms your delusional pseudo-physics then, Gaston? All you've done is repeat the same old nonsense.

JtD has already responded to David603's comment here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=168462&postcount=30. I see no need to repeat a perfectly clear explanation of why he is incorrect. A response which as usual you ignored because you don't understand it.

As for fighters having pulleys, this is the context in which you mentioned them:
The wing's leading edge higher position acts in effect as a "power assist" to defeat the thrust force of the propeller, allowing the angrily pulling forward prop to be tilted back ever so slightly, so the pilot is not pulling back on the prop directly with his own muscle because the wing's increasing load is helping him by taking up the load, and in addition he has the 18 foot lever, with pulley assistance, to help initiate the tilt....

Since you referred to 'pulley assistance' in creating a force, I assumed you meant that this 'pulley' was attached to something. Since all you claim now to be referring to is part of the control system, perhaps you'd care to explain what the heck it has to do with increasing the wing loading? On second thoughts, don't bother. I'm not the slightest bit interested in reading any more of your crackpot fantasy physics.

Case closed.

David603

07-09-2010, 04:17 PM

Just for reference, my summing up made sense to me when I posted it, but JtD's explanation makes much more sense while contradicting my statement.

As such the only explanation I can think of for why reducing throttle could increase turn rate is that it could bring speed down to an aircraft's optimum turn speed, thus producing an increased turn rate. In the case of the Spitfire I tried this with, this is useful, because the Spitfire can maintain this turn rate at this throttle setting without the speed dropping (I would put this down to the Spitfire's high power to weight ratio and low wing loading).

The Fw190 can't maintain this (High power to weight ratio but high wing loading), but lowering the speed can produce an immediate and noticeable improvement in turn rate, hence the impression that down-throttling boosts the Fw190's turn rate. If the opponent was something like a P51, which is less manoeuvrable horizontally (and vertically) than a Spitfire, then you might well be able to out turn it.

AndyJWest, I noticed your description of trying to turn the Fw190 at reduced throttle involved the words "on the edge of the stall", and when I tried this myself it resulted in immediate and massive speed loss. You need to be turning somewhat outside the stall zone to avoid this and make it possible to turn at reduced throttle.

JG27CaptStubing

07-09-2010, 04:35 PM

Wow this thread lost me with all the silly rantings and notions of a person that doesn't understand aerodynamics...

Are we still talking about TURN RATE or TURN Radius? Reducing power can decrease your turn radius to allow for a gun solution. It doesn't always mean a better turn Rate that's a factor of wing loading. They're two different things and of course everything has to do with where the plane is within it's own flight regime or envelope if you will.

Can we leave some of the Magical ideas out of this thread for a moment?

AndyJWest

07-09-2010, 05:33 PM

David603, unless you are above best-turn-rate speed, downthrottling a Fw 190 seems to me to have no measurable improvement in sustained rate - in fact it seems to make it worse, as theory predicts. If you've got real evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Arguments about turn rates based on subjective opinions don't really get us far. I've managed to do some basic testing, using my autopilot, but this needs modification to do this properly. I'll try to get around to this soon, but meanwhile any other evidence will be welcome.

At a given sustained power setting, airspeed and turn rate, the AoA will be whatever it needs to be - that the Fw 190 gives better results at a lower AoA than the edge of the stall seems evident from testing - hence the fact that the best rate is faster than the minimum radius. With the Spitfire, the difference is less, suggesting that the best rate is at a higher AoA.

JG27CaptStubing, I see no reason why downthrottling would reduce turn radius, if you are already at best radius speed - again, I'd ask for evidence for this.

It is just possible that downthrottling is temporarily helping the turn through a reduction in torque and in gyroscopic forces (though this shouldn't be a factor with a constant-speed prop), but I can't really see how. As I see it, the best turn rate at a given speed will otherwise be constant, regardless of power setting - all changing power does is determine whether the plane will accelerate or decelerate at that point in time. As has been pointed out, in the real world, extra power increases the local airspeed in the prop slipstream, which should help a little in high-power turns, but I doubt that IL-2 models this effect (we need to be careful about distinguishing between 'real-world' results and IL-2 ones, while discussing this subject).

And as for 'magical ideas', I'd be happy never to see another word on the subject from Gaston.:rolleyes:

Erkki

07-09-2010, 05:38 PM

I think only WW2 era fighter that turns the best without full power is Me 163 LOL

Gaston

07-10-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote AndyJWest:

"David603, unless you are above best-turn-rate speed, downthrottling a Fw 190 seems to me to have no measurable improvement in sustained rate - in fact it seems to make it worse, as theory predicts."
-------------------------------------------------------------

-LOL... And what was the serial number of the FW-190A you flew that "proved" this??? That was funny though...

And if you listen to an actual serious test, by actual test pilots using modern instruments (the only such test ever made in fact), you will find the "best unsustained turn rate" speed in WWII fighters is most often "very close to the maximum level speed" (1989 test of 4 types by "The Society of Experimental test Pilots")...

So basically, downthrottling is only helpful while above level speed in a dive?!? 'Scuze me: I think your logic demonstrably sucks...

But let's not listen to what actual pilots say about downthrottling: Like I said before, what do these guys know compared to simmers for God's sake!:

""I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one [2-4 full 360° circles in another interview about the same dogfight], but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Yes you are correct: 250 km/h (160 MPH) is a terribly high speed that does make downthrottling helpful: You just know the wings are about to fall off right then...

As to why engineers and propeller aircraft designers don't know about downthrottling, excuse me, but last time I looked, these guys were not experts at putting bullet holes in other people's aircrafts...

Even Hartmann never mentions downthrottling, and was hostile to turn fighting, so it seems it was one of those counter-intuitive things that never got universally acknowledged, even among those who DID put bullet holes in other people's aircrafts...

But I have to agree: Simmers put a lot more combat flying hours than those people ever did: What could they possibly have to learn?!?

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-10-2010, 04:31 PM

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Fruitcake.jpg

Erkki

07-10-2010, 04:50 PM

Love it how the same quotes get misunderstood, removed from their context and cherry picked, on and on, to support a claim(note, something that can be solved with Physics and Maths alone) that nothing else does. Veterans cant be wrong, no way, they were there, even if one would take whatever they said completely out of context.

I see no reason to repeat the 150 pages of Ubizoo here.

By the way, perhaps go and see your own post, Gaston, I dont think even YOU would think a turning radius can be quick, do you? Karhila didnt. ;):grin:

EDIT: by the way, 250kmph IAS is well below 109's speed for best rate of turn. ;)

TheGrunch

07-10-2010, 04:53 PM

Haha, is he still comparing a poor low-speed turnfighter with no high-lift devices to the 109 as a turnfighter and concluding that its poor performance at said speeds makes the 109's best turn speed really low? Booooring! If you're turn-fighting in the sense of just flying circles you don't necessarily fly at your best turn speed, but the speed which maximises your advantage relative to the opponent. Against the laminar-wing Mustang's poor low-speed turn rate and lack of leading edge slats and so on, the 109's advantage probably IS maximised at much lower speeds than you'd expect. That doesn't make this situation universal, though, does it? Mainly since the whole tactic still relies on the Mustang pilot committing to the turn instead of just pulling high and laughing at the 109 pilot's inability to follow because he's now going at a hair over walking pace.

Gaston

07-10-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote Erki: "EDIT: by the way, 250kmph IAS is well below 109's speed for best rate of turn."

Yes, the best UNsustained turn rate (Corner Speed) for the Me-109G, especially if trimmed tail-heavy, is probably in line with what was found by the only modern-instrument test ever made of WWII fighters, for the P-51D, F4U, F6F and P-47D, as found by "The Society of Experimental test pilots" in 1989: "VERY close to the maximum level speed"...

Which confirms that Karhila is NOT talking about that: He is talking about the best SUSTAINED turn rate, and since 160 MPH is well below some of the highest sustained turn speeds the Me-109G can pull (it can probably sustain quite tight turns up to 280 mph at least, if not more) it demonstrates, as he intends to say in the clearest way possible, that the fastest speed the engine will allow in sustained turns is not the best way to go...

In other words, this demonstrates that being as close as possible to the 320?-400 MPH "Corner Speed", while sustaining level turns, is NOT helpful to the cause of sustaining the highest possible sustained turn rate, or at least the best sustained turn rate/radius combination.

Therefore full power is NOT helpful, and he contrasts very clearly his method to that of fellow pilots: "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

In WWII combat "turning" typically lasted at least 2-3 full 360° circles, AT A MINIMUM, and 45(!) full 360°s not being unheard of (15 minutes + of continuous turning to one side), but that sounds unfamiliar to simmers who are obsessed with unsustained turns that were meaningless in real-life WWII combat with real, non-magical guns...

This is why he felt the need to emphasize the need for downthrottling in SUSTAINED turns, quite apart from the issue of brief overrun avoidance that was mostly a preoccupation of some of the faster US fighters while in dives...

In any case, the REAL best UNsustained turn rate (Corner Speed), is so high in most WWII fighter types, that downthrottling to it would practically be limited to being in a dive...

So again, downthrottling is obviously not meant here for a quicker turn while in a dive or in a high-speed overrun, despite the best efforts here of those who would muddy up everything with imaginative fiction...

Poor Karhila tried to be clear about what he was saying, and his general purpose is perfectly obvious, but then he is up against quite valiant efforts to confuse everything he says into a pile of mush...

I greatly admire this argument that says the quotes I made are taken out of context, but then doesn't ellaborate on what the intended context is...

I'll give it a try...;

Get this: The intended context here is that when Karhila is at 400 MPH while in combat (typical in-combat speed when you light up the twin JE after-burners you know...), then this COMMON situation requires that he downthrottles to his "Corner Speed" of 350 MPH where he will THEN throttle back up to maintain speed as close as possible to this best unsustained turn speed...

Oh, he forgot to mention anything about throttling back up? Well it's understandable: Old age you know...

But throttling back up IS part of the "context" you know, when you reach the "right" speed: It's just that this "context" is invisible in this particular case...

Trust them... Not!

Gaston

AndyJWest

07-10-2010, 07:52 PM

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Nuts.jpg

Erkki

07-10-2010, 10:49 PM

Gaston, if you want to know what I think of that, re-read my posts at the ubizoo.

I'm not going to translate the interview one more time. Perhaps if you find 10-20 more quotes that support your opinion. ;)

Meanwhile, have fun in the fantasy land.

EDIT, by the way, dont you have anything else to do? How come only one single ill-quoted veteran "supports" your view? Get a life.

TheGrunch

07-11-2010, 03:41 AM

In other words, this demonstrates that being as close as possible to the 320?-400 MPH "Corner Speed", while sustaining level turns, is NOT helpful to the cause of sustaining the highest possible sustained turn rate, or at least the best sustained turn rate/radius combination.

Oh my JESUS SEBASTIAN CONRAD ALEX LLOYD CHRIST will you pleeeeeeeeasse learn the difference between corner speed and best sustained turn speed. We've had this discussion over at Ubi already and not a single word has gone in, stiiiilll, for crying out loud. How is sticking near corner speed ever going to be relevant in sustaining level turns? Who said that? That's because it's not the best sustained turn speed. Sticking near corner speed as an entry speed to a turning fight is useful because it's the best instantaneous turn speed, AND the best sustained turn speed is just a slightly more lengthy yank of the stick away (and maybe the throttle if you REALLY want to get down to best sustained turn speed quickly for some unexplained reason).

Therefore full power is NOT helpful, and he contrasts very clearly his method to that of fellow pilots: "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

He was fighting P-51s HEWASFIGHTINGP-51SHEWASFIGHTINGP-51S!!

In WWII combat "turning" typically lasted at least 2-3 full 360° circles, AT A MINIMUM, and 45(!) full 360°s not being unheard of (15 minutes + of continuous turning to one side), but that sounds unfamiliar to simmers who are obsessed with unsustained turns that were meaningless in real-life WWII combat with real, non-magical guns...

That's because pulling 50+lbs and experiencing the 2-3Gs involved in turnfighting all the time is very strenuous. Please consider all of the factors. That's the reason for the difference in the speed of resolution of turning battles in sims vs. reality. Pulling 2lbs and experiencing 1G for a couple of minutes is rather easy by comparison.

This is why he felt the need to emphasize the need for downthrottling in SUSTAINED turns, quite apart from the issue of brief overrun avoidance that was mostly a preoccupation of some of the faster US fighters while in dives...

No, it was because he was fighting a type with poor low-speed turning performance (HEWASFIGHTINGP-51SJJR!£LR)

So again, downthrottling is obviously not meant here for a quicker turn while in a dive or in a high-speed overrun, despite the best efforts here of those who would muddy up everything with imaginative fiction...

NO, it's meant to maximise the difference in turn rate.

Get this: The intended context here is that when Karhila is at 400 MPH while in combat (typical in-combat speed when you light up the twin JE after-burners you know...), then this COMMON situation requires that he downthrottles to his "Corner Speed" of 350 MPH where he will THEN throttle back up to maintain speed as close as possible to this best unsustained turn speed...

The intended context is that he starts at whatever speed he wants and then by whatever method necessary reaches the speed that maximises his turn rate advantage. Because that means he wins the turning battle while exposing himself to the least risk. People like to do that so that they don't DIE.

Gaston

07-11-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote, TheGrunch: "Originally Posted by Gaston
Therefore full power is NOT helpful, and he contrasts very clearly his method to that of fellow pilots: "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

He was fighting P-51s HEWASFIGHTINGP-51SHEWASFIGHTINGP-51S!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No he wasn't: He had ONE doubtfull P-51 encounter that was likely with similar-looking (and maybe performing in sustained turns) P-40s...

Nearly ALL his encounters were with Soviet-built fighters, and that was certainly the intended context... Soviet types are NOT poor low-speed fighters... (Neither is the P-51, compared to the Me-109G, when the "trick" of downthrottling, coarse prop pitch and dropped flaps is used)

Quote, The Grunch: "How is sticking near corner speed ever going to be relevant in sustaining level turns? Who said that? That's because it's not the best sustained turn speed. Sticking near corner speed as an entry speed to a turning fight is useful because it's the best instantaneous turn speed, AND the best sustained turn speed is just a slightly more lengthy yank of the stick away"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-How about reading what Karhila actually said? :

"I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

Decrease power as a preparation to ENTER the turn: Otherwise he would say he reduced the engine throttle DURING the turn, not waste speed BEFORE the turn even started... ("In the same situation" means: Also before the start of the turn)

Same with the FW-190A ace on "Aces High": Downthrottling took place before the merge even began....

In any case, getting back to stalwart math advocates (who think applying pathetically presumptive math formulas to real-world complexities has more validity than obvious reality-based conclusions), IF their warped view of WWII turn-fighting had any validity, then the necessity to UPTHROTTLE after downthrottling would be equally emphasized by those pilots involved...

This is because the "math presumptive supremacy" mantra is: Best sustained turn rate is only available at full power...

You would think then that UPTHROTTLING is equally important when the needed result of DOWNTHROTTLING has been achieved...

Well Karhila peeps not a word about UPTHROTTLING... Neither does the "Aces High" FW-190A Western ace... And finally the most obvious case of P-51 downthrottling I have found (if that one doesn't do it nothing will..): It mentions Downthrottling TWICE. Upthrottling ? A big fat zero...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

So let's see all those numerous downthrottling accounts that are followed by life-saving UPTHROTTLING to INCREASE the turn rate...

If you want to get an idea of the likelyhood of THAT... Consider these sentences following several hard 360s on the deck...:

"Every time I got to the edge of the airdrome they opened up with light AA guns. Gradually I worked the Me-109 away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I decreased throttle settings"

That was the Second mention of downthrottling, first was:

"At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch"

Jeez, this thing is just crawling with mentions of throttling back UP, is it not?!?

He obviously felt throttling UP was an important factor to his success in sustained turns... He just conveys the info in this report by hiding the meaning BETWEEN THE LINES you know...

You guys are too much fun...

Gaston

K_Freddie

07-11-2010, 09:06 PM

Hope that you guys notice that I mentioned 'throttle variation' to get a better turn to the right to out-turn an opponent.
The FW performs better in yoyo type turns (ie: the vertical) and can outturn a spit, if you're not careful.
;)

TheGrunch

07-12-2010, 04:34 AM

No he wasn't: He had ONE doubtfull P-51 encounter that was likely with similar-looking (and maybe performing in sustained turns) P-40s...

Similar-looking P-40s?! Have you seen those two aircraft? They couldn't be harder to misidentify if you tried. Let's look at the features which jump out at a pilot when he's identifying an aircraft type...P-40 - round wingtips, P-51 - square wingtips, P-40 - deep, rounded rudder and tailplane, P-51 - tall square rudder and square tailplane, P-40 - deep chin radiator, P-51 - belly radiator....the list just goes on. Really the only similarities between these aircraft are the armament and the cockpit (possibly). Unless you count the fact that they are both American-built single-engined fighter aircraft as a similarity. In any case, where would he encounter US P-40s? Unless you're suggesting he was colourblind as well.

Nearly ALL his encounters were with Soviet-built fighters, and that was certainly the intended context... Soviet types are NOT poor low-speed fighters...

Most of them are poor low speed turnfighters. The Yak series aircraft weren't bad but they were definitely very much more comfortable at slightly higher speeds, the MiG-3 was poor, and the Lavochkins were a touch better or worse, entirely depending on who you ask! All subject to differences in pilot skill, of course. The main difference is that none of these aircraft had high-lift devices as the 109 did, so they were nowhere near as docile and controllable near the stall and the training of Soviet pilots was unequivocally poor, so there's not a great deal of point in considering combat reports as some kind of bible in this case particularly.

As for your favourite quote:
"I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."
Does it say that he could turn better? No. It says "equally well". No doubt he could, if the enemy aircraft took the bait and decided to follow him into a really low-speed turn rather than using any kind of vertical aspect. Not many rookie pilots would have considered air-fighting in a very 3-dimensional manner, I'd imagine. All that you seem to have achieved via Karhila's quote is to highlight the utility of the high-lift devices the 109 was fitted with, which was not in question to begin with. If that was what maximised his turn-rate advantage, he'd use it. At the end of the day, why do you think he says "they usually applied full power and then began to turn"?

Essentially it comes down to a question: Do you think that every other pilot apart from Karhila is a moron?

The only way you can draw a universal trend from your one explicit anecdote about throttle settings during turns (that turning at super-low throttle settings is GRRRRRREAT!) is if you answer this question with 'Yes'.

You guys are too much fun...

You're really boring. You've got a couple of anecdotes that say what you want to say if interpreted REALLY narrowly and with prior intent to find the meaning you want in REALLY specific situations that cannot be used to derive any kind of universal trend, and that kind of cherry-picking reaaallly doesn't account for the differences in pilot skill and aircraft condition that affect an aircraft's turning performance, does it? There are big gaps in your information, for example, in the Hanseman report, he doesn't say how much he decreases the throttle setting, does he? It could be as little as 0.5-1" Hg, so that he could maintain a comfortable position pulling the stick and still get down to the best sustained turn speed for the aircraft's condition (which would be rather lower once he'd dropped flaps). If the 109 pilot failed to follow suit with the flaps it's very possible that the P-51 could out-turn it at low speed, especially given that Hanseman was a relatively well-trained and experienced pilot - notice that the 109s didn't even notice him until he'd opened fire on the landing aircraft, clearly the creme-de-la-creme. You really do never consider the human factors involved, do you? That's why you can't use combat reports as a guide to an aircraft's performance, because the pilot makes such a difference that there are reports of such-and-such an aircraft out-turning one type on one occasion and not on another all over the place in combat reports.
I notice you didn't reply to the section of my post about pulling Gs and pulling against control forces for extended periods of time, like you never do on any occasion when you can't answer a point. The annoying thing is, you'll bring up the same load of tripe in a later post as if no one has ever answered it before.

Erkki

07-12-2010, 10:13 AM

Even funnier is, that Karhila wrote a diary through the war. You can find a lot about his career and many combat stories in Tuomo Soiri's book Iskulaivue (unfortunately not translated.

In July 43, some 10km North of Lavansaari(Moshnay) Island where the Soviet 3. GvIAP was, he was surprised by an La-5, that stuck right in his tail. He made a "Hartmann escape" and then outturned the La-5 in nearly pure vertical fight, using full power, and no flaps - La-5 turned too tight initially, lost his energy and found itself in the 109's bravure area, low speed turn/climb and acceleration. Karhila's first burst cut the La-5 in half, and the kill had 2 confirmers. La-5 pilot bailed out and was picked up from the sea by a torpedo boat.

And yes, after I-16 and I-153 none of the Soviet fighters is really good at low speed, they dont have very good power-to-weight-to-wing area ratios. Jak-9 was considered even more dangerous than La-5 thanks to its high speed turn and especially roll. It could also follow the 109s longer in the dive, unlike La-5s that had to either break or fly to the sea, as happened a couple of times.

winny

07-12-2010, 11:11 AM

but that sounds unfamiliar to simmers who are obsessed with unsustained turns that were meaningless in real-life WWII combat with real, non-magical guns...

Gaston

I read this forum but don't post on here.. until I read that.

Let me guess, you're getting your ass handed to you regularly whilst employing what you see as 'real' tactics and it's getting to you?

Combat reports are exactly that, reports of combat, as remembered by men who were desperatley trying not to die at the time.. You can't use them to 'prove' anything because they are incomplete, you don't know the condition of the aircraft or pilots or weather or wind speed at the time. They are narritives.

By the way I'm a BoP PS3 player (feel free to laugh) but this thread was annoying me!

I'll go back to my arcade game now.

JG27CaptStubing

07-12-2010, 03:52 PM

JG27CaptStubing, I see no reason why downthrottling would reduce turn radius, if you are already at best radius speed - again, I'd ask for evidence for this.

Fact: Reduced airspeed results in a smaller radius... Don't confuse Turn Rate with radius or compare it to Best Cornering Speed. Two different things.

The SR71 takes over 70+ miles to turn around when it was slowing for landing. That's also turning when it was at a very high Mach number. It's a gross example but I think you get the idea.

is just possible that downthrottling is temporarily helping the turn through a reduction in torque and in gyroscopic forces (though this shouldn't be a factor with a constant-speed prop), but I can't really see how. As I see it, the best turn rate at a given speed will otherwise be constant, regardless of power setting - all changing power does is determine whether the plane will accelerate or decelerate at that point in time. As has been pointed out, in the real world, extra power increases the local airspeed in the prop slipstream, which should help a little in high-power turns, but I doubt that IL-2 models this effect (we need to be careful about distinguishing between 'real-world' results and IL-2 ones, while discussing this subject).

Having a constant speed prop has nothing to do with Gyroscopic effects... Torque is reduced at a lower power setting and it does effect the turn but it's usually countered with rudder...

Power and elevator is used during a turn to make up for the loss of Vertical Lift Component. When you turn you're vectoring the vertical component of lift into the horizontal. You will need more lift to keep the plan level hence power and back pressure.

Remember airplanes can fly in various flight regimes.. You can be in different places in the power curve. Very high power low speed versus very high power high speed. You still have the same power setting but your in a different place in the curve.

The point in illustrating this is to show why there is so much confusion with some of these discussions.

JtD

07-12-2010, 04:00 PM

Fact: Reduced airspeed results in a smaller radius... Don't confuse Turn Rate with radius or compare it to Best Cornering Speed. Two different things.

No it doesn't. Corner speed gives you the best turn rate and turn radius, though the turn radius does not get significantly larger until the plane reaches very low speeds. Of course, this is the plane limit. It might be easier for a pilot to fly a tight turn at 3 g's than at 6 g's.

If I take your SR71 example seriously, you might be confusing the effects of different designs with the effects of changing speed.

AndyJWest

07-12-2010, 04:22 PM

Fact: Reduced airspeed results in a smaller radius... Don't confuse Turn Rate with radius or compare it to Best Cornering Speed. Two different things.

Um, no. there is an optimum speed (the 'best radius speed' I referred to) which results in a lowest-radius turn. Go slower than this and the radius increases again.

With a constant-speed prop, both the rate of rotation and the mass are constant, so gyroscopic forces are constant, over any power range the prop can maintain its 'constant-speed' setting. Torque isn't the same thing at all.

And yes, I'm fully aware of 'power curves'. This is what the debate is about. All I'm saying is that I can see no reason why one will get either a tighter sustained minimum-turn-radius, or a quicker sustained best-turn-rate with a reduced power setting. Again, I'd ask for verifiable evidence of this, either in real life (accurately measured, not mistranslated anecdotal evidence...), nor in the IL-2 sim.

JtD, I think you are mistaken about what 'corner speed' means. As I understand it, as the phrase is used in modern terms it is the highest speed at which you can safely apply any control input without risking structural failure. At lower speeds the wing will stall before G limits are reached, but any higher than corner speed and you may rip the wings off or whatever. Given the necessary safety margins, 'corner speed' is thus more a limit on what the pilot is supposed to do than a limit on what the plane actually can do.

JG27CaptStubing

07-12-2010, 04:43 PM

No it doesn't. Corner speed gives you the best turn rate and turn radius, though the turn radius does not get significantly larger until the plane reaches very low speeds. Of course, this is the plane limit. It might be easier for a pilot to fly a tight turn at 3 g's than at 6 g's.

If I take your SR71 example seriously, you might be confusing the effects of different designs with the effects of changing speed.

I think I mistated in my last post. That's correct Corner Speed gives the best Rate and Best turn Radius but they are two very different things when talking about a fight. It get's confusing because we are all trying to gain angles to put the bad guy withing a firing solution. If you're above Corner Speed this will result in a larger Radius period end of discussion. You will quickly come up against the G limits of the plane at higher speeds. That's why the SR71 at Mach 3 takes up that much space to TURN.

Here some definitions everyone... This is a cut and past from BFM basics.

Turn rates are further divided into:

1.Instantaneous turn rate: the max turn rate at any given airspeed (energy depleting).

2.Sustained turn rate: the max turn rate available while sustaining energy.The fixed and variable factors begin to interrelate. G is the ratio of lift to weight. As you know,in turns or directional changes, lift must exceed weight, and you must apply G loads greater than one. At a constant TAS, to increase "G", you must increase AOA. Radial "G" will dictate the turn radius and rate. Maximum instantaneous g is the maximum lift a wing may generate at agiven airspeed. Maximum instantaneous g is dependant upon the aircraft airframe capabilities.

@Andy

Corner Speed
Corner speed is an important factor of maximum turn performance. Corner speed is defined as the minimum airspeed at which the maximum allowable g can be generated. At corner speed,the aircraft can attain its maximum turn rate. For our purposes, 280 KIAS is the T-2C cornerspeed. Below this speed, if you attempt to pull more "G", the aircraft will enter buffet and stall at its aerodynamic limit. This results in an increase in the turn radius and a decrease in the turnrate. On the other hand, if the aircraft is maneuvered above the corner speed, the max allowable"G" becomes the limiting factor. The excess airspeed (above corner speed) will result in a turnradius increase and a turn rate decrease. Knowing and flying the corner speed and the appropriate AOAs will give the fighter the mostbang for the buck: the best turn performance for the minimum amount of energy loss.

JtD

07-12-2010, 04:58 PM

JtD, I think you are mistaken about what 'corner speed' means.

I don't think I am, and actually think the three of us are on the same page now, just using different words for the same thing or looking at it from a different point of view.

Essentially, below corner speed the plane stalls before it breaks, above corner speed it may break before it stalls. Flying at corner speed gives you best rate and radius of turn. That's about it.

Note: WW2 warbirds are in general not capable of maintaining corner speed.

AndyJWest

07-12-2010, 05:08 PM

@Andy

Corner Speed
Corner speed is an important factor of maximum turn performance. Corner speed is defined as the minimum airspeed at which the maximum allowable g can be generated. At corner speed,the aircraft can attain its maximum turn rate. For our purposes, 280 KIAS is the T-2C cornerspeed. Below this speed, if you attempt to pull more "G", the aircraft will enter buffet and stall at its aerodynamic limit. This results in an increase in the turn radius and a decrease in the turnrate. On the other hand, if the aircraft is maneuvered above the corner speed, the max allowable"G" becomes the limiting factor. The excess airspeed (above corner speed) will result in a turnradius increase and a turn rate decrease. Knowing and flying the corner speed and the appropriate AOAs will give the fighter the mostbang for the buck: the best turn performance for the minimum amount of energy loss.
Thanks for that - more or less what I've already written.

As for turn rates/turn radii, I've only ever been commenting on sustained turns - no WWII fighter is capable (as far as I'm aware) of achieving its best sustained turn rate, or minimum-radius sustained turn, at anything approaching its corner speed - though I'm not sure that 'corner speed' was even a design consideration at the time. I don't recollect seeing this speed being given in the pilots' notes etc I've seen. I'm sure that most pilots were aware that you could cause structural damage by pulling back hard enough in a high speed manoeuvre, but was this ever explicitly stated as a manoeuvring speed limit?

JG27CaptStubing

07-12-2010, 10:16 PM

Thanks for that - more or less what I've already written.

This is true... What is interesting is that corner speed is the Minimum speed needed to pull max G.

Moving forward... I agree I don't think Corner Speed was a consideration given the power to weight ratio they have. We aren't talking about a F16...

I think IL2 gives a pretty good representation of what we are all concerned about. Getting that gun solution. I don't look at my airspeed all that much except when I'm at limits like dive and stall. I look for angles and of course picking when to spend to make a shot. Flying around in circles isn't going to get you very far with someone that will counter with a reversal or an extension.

AndyJWest

07-13-2010, 01:07 AM

Flying around in circles isn't going to get you very far with someone that will counter with a reversal or an extension.
Absolutely. And even in a turn fight, one can use yo-yos etc to take advantage when appropriate. The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant - and of course anyone engaging in it is a sitting duck to an outsider...

It probably helps to know things like best-sustained-turn-rate speed etc, but as TheGrunch has pointed out, you need also to take into account the performance of your adversary.

Gaston

07-13-2010, 05:49 AM

Absolutely. And even in a turn fight, one can use yo-yos etc to take advantage when appropriate. The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant - and of course anyone engaging in it is a sitting duck to an outsider...

It probably helps to know things like best-sustained-turn-rate speed etc, but as TheGrunch has pointed out, you need also to take into account the performance of your adversary.

-Excuse me but let me quote this again as this is too unbelievable: "The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant"

Have you ever read a SINGLE WWII fighter combat account in your entire life?!?

I will post a few here that went on for 15 minutes to one side:Most of them go on for at least a full minute (2-3 360s), two minutes being extremely common also: 4-6 360s... Almost none of them last for less than over one full 360°, regardless of the types involved...

By comparison with turn fighting, "Boom and Zoom" is far less significant, except mostly by P-38s against Japan, and on the Eastern and Desert Front by Me-109s (apparently a centralized armament helps). Even then, turn fighting is at least as important as anything else anywhere, and "Boom and Zoom" is virtually non-existent on the 1944 Western Front, which was the most technically advanced front of WWII...

You need to actually read a few WWII combat reports now and then...

For the Me-109G, vertical maneuvers are clearly a compensation for its deficient turn performance, until superior US vertical performance in 1944 forced it out of its stereotypical "see-saw" (the reason Rall called it a "floret")...

I guess you don't realize that once you have committed to a turn fight, and the enemy is close enough behind, you cannot just "step out" of it at will: Any slackening of the turn will give the pursuer an easy kill...

The trouble with Il-2 may be that the roll and especially the pitch response has too little inertia delay ("mushing") to impose a life-like turn contest "lock".

Or it could be that the issue is that the restricted in-game field of view angle is giving too much escape possibilities with a large maneuver...

Once the turn fight has slowed you down (which could be as quick as after 180°), the real-life pitch response may no longer be crisp enough for a fast enough split-s (remember that in WWII fighters, "Corner Speed" is mostly near maximum level speed)... That's why they tend to go on forever unless the pursued uses the pursuer's under-nose "blind spot" (necessary to gain enough sight lead for the pursuer) to push down on the stick and "disapear" at the very moment it was about to be hit...

Even then, you'll note from Hartman's description of this tactic that there is no time for a much more confortable split-s...

In addition, any downward escape (and by definition, most of the time, an escape from a turnfight can only really be downward: Zoom or spiral climb escapes are very rare and require a very large climb performance disparity) will put you in a lower position, which is usually catastrophic: In real-life you cannot easily raise your nose fast and accurately while turning from a lower position: Simply by virtue of being higher, the pursuer can lower his nose easily and accurately while tracking your movements...

Losing the "high ground" is probably not represented severely enough in Il-2, as it meant everything in real-life WWII combat, and is likely the main reason why horizontal turn battles where so common and so prolonged.

(BTW, Anybody outside the turn were offered only limited high-deflection shots that were of not so great value to a real-life 2% gun hit rate, until the introduction of gyro-sights, and maybe even then...)

In jet combat, being lower can actually be an advantage, but that is far removed from the reality of WWII propeller combat...

As to the comment about the real-life guns versus the "magical" ones in-game, it has nothing to do with me complaining about my playing Il-2: I have never played Il-2 and don't intend to do so in the near future. I am playing little enough as it is my own air combat simulation, which I have to admit also fails to reproduce those 15 minutes turn battles, but for reasons of boardgame mechanics.

At least a full 360° is common enough...:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/5031083708?r=5031083708#5031083708

The research took 14 years, and all the profile drawings except the P-47D were made especially for it, given inaccuracies in most drawings...

Gaston

P.S.: The "weakness" of actual guns is based on Luftwaffe assesments of a 2% average hit rate in real-life...

G.

AndyJWest

07-13-2010, 10:23 AM

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Crackers.jpg

Erkki

07-13-2010, 10:48 AM

How about trying the game before trying to "prove" its wrong?

I can demonstrate the 109's abilities to you. ;)

Crumpp

07-13-2010, 11:06 AM

Flying at corner speed gives you best rate and radius of turn.

In regards to the airframe limited performance, yes....

JG27CaptStubing

07-13-2010, 03:20 PM

@Gaston

Your post clearly indicates several misconceptions about the game and real life. It's pretty obvious you put up quite a few straw man arguments for sake of getting a rise out of people.

I suspect you aren't very succesful in the game and you want to blame the game and it's short comings for your lack of skill.

Moving forward let's drop this dead horse discussion.

TheGrunch

07-13-2010, 03:49 PM

The sheer blinding idiocy of him making complaints about a game that he hasn't played just continues to baffle me. Does Gaston know that a hit rate of 5% against fighters in Il-2 is pretty damn good? Apparently not. Most people don't get that. Most of the players that haven't put hundreds or thousands of hours into this game are in the vicinity of 0.5-3%. Clearly these are magically accurate guns. :rolleyes: Still, even with such low hit ratios, BnZ fighting is not impossible or ineffective, especially on no icons/no padlock servers.

Igo kyu

07-13-2010, 04:57 PM

I wish I still had the manual from Falcon on the ST.

That showed radius under constant g declining rapidly with reducing speed, and radius decreasing rapidly with increasing g at constant speed.

The idea I gathered from that was that the minimum radius possible does not necessarily give the best rate possible, because the speed needed for the smallest radius can be too low to pull enough g to get the best rate (erm, I think).

AndyJWest

07-13-2010, 05:48 PM

I think for sustained turns, IL-2 Compare shows the relationship well:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/FanPlot.jpg

JG27CaptStubing

07-13-2010, 10:23 PM

I don't know what Falcon ST modeled but I do know that Falcon 4 best corner speed is 350 Knotts Indicated. Even the follow up addons like Open Falcon and FreeFalcon that number seems to work even with all the different block versions. Don't try it with your CAT limiter and fully loaded.

AndyJWest

07-13-2010, 10:46 PM

Falcon 4 best corner speed is 350 Knotts Indicated.
I don't think that 'best corner speed' can be what you mean. There is only one corner speed, from the definition you gave earlier - an aerodynamic/structural limit, though it may vary with loadout - I don't know whether Falcon 4 would allow for this.

JG27CaptStubing

07-14-2010, 03:38 PM

Actually it did... F4's FMs were quite good and even updated in later versions with declassified information. It would give you the best rate and smallest radius for a turn. Get above the speed and your turns would be much lager in terms of radius with a smaller rate on the nose. Get below and you were wallowing and easy prey.

I haven't flown F4 much since Nvidia dropped support for DX7. Their latest drivers on Win7 breaks both FreeFalcon and OpenFalcon which are arguably the best versions of the sim.

I've heard and have see rumors about BMS4 which is supposed to be a version that supports DX9. If that's the case we will be back in business one day.

KOM.Nausicaa

07-14-2010, 04:29 PM

Losing the "high ground" is probably not represented severely enough in Il-2

I have never played Il-2 and don't intend to do so in the near future.

Wow.....I'm speechless!! :D:D:D

ZaltysZ

07-14-2010, 04:48 PM

I've heard and have see rumors about BMS4 which is supposed to be a version that supports DX9. If that's the case we will be back in business one day.

You probably wanted to say BMS5 :grin:

JG27CaptStubing

07-14-2010, 05:09 PM

That may be the right number but any search has always pulled up BMS4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBd1ZGep34

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Falcon-40/22284732944

Scroll down on the facebook site and you will see several pics I certainly hope that it's real. Not much compares to flying F4 online in the campaign mode. Open Falcon is pretty impressive and quite fun.

imaca

07-16-2010, 07:57 AM

Exacly Russian data for Fw 190 A-4 sustained turn rate at 1000m is 22-23 sec. These confirmed also German raport from captured LA5 FN when they found that LA5 turn better then Fw 190 but worse then 109.

I dont belive that Fw 190 A could turn sustained better at low speeds then 109 or Spitfire. It could be close for P-51 or P-47 but not for 109 and Spit. No way.
From "Wing Leader" by Johnny Johnson:
"Whatever these strange fighter were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than a 109....and they turned better than a Messerscmitt"

"The 190 bore strange markings.. this pilot is an Italian!...With wide open throttle (note Gaston) I held the Spitfire in the tightest of shuddering vertical turns...the brute was gaining on me and in another couple of turns would have me in his sights"

TheSwede

07-16-2010, 08:34 AM

That 190 that attacked Johnny was probably a early A1/A2 with less weight and was known when it appeared in -41 to be a excellent dogfighter both in horizontal and vertical manouvers. And those ill concieved circus operations were primary excecuted at medium/low altitude where the 190 had a field day against the Spit 5s.

If the spits and the bombers would have kept their operational altitude above 20k feet the 190s would be more of a dog and suffer more losses. But the brittish bombers at that time suffered from bad ceiling so their recomended combat altitude resulted in the 190s initial advantage in -41.

JtD

07-16-2010, 09:55 AM

A vertical turn is a looping, by todays definition as well as by RAF slang back in those days.

Kwiatek

07-16-2010, 03:56 PM

From "Wing Leader" by Johnny Johnson:
"Whatever these strange fighter were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than a 109....and they turned better than a Messerscmitt"

Probably Johnson thought about manouverbility of Fw 190 - it mean that at all range speed Fw 190 could make bank turn more rapidly then 109. So initial turn in Fw 190 was better then 109. In sustained turn Fw 190 had no chance with 109. At high speed Fw 190 had adventage in turn over 109 but when speed drop 109 would be better. These is confirmed by other German reports ( also German Raport about Captured LA5FN).

"The 190 bore strange markings.. this pilot is an Italian!...With wide open throttle (note Gaston) I held the Spitfire in the tightest of shuddering vertical turns...the brute was gaining on me and in another couple of turns would have me in his sights"

Johnson made some "vertical turns" in his Spitfire Mark V with "Fw 190" on his tail. We dont know if it was loops or maby high yoyo manouvers but definitly he didnt turn horizontaly. If he would do horizontal turns 190 would have no chance with Spitfire. Also at high speed things look little different. Fw 190 with his possibility to change direction of turn much quickly at high speed then Spit could turn initialy better but again when turn would be continued Spitfire would eat Fw 190 with easy.

Other British Ace Alan Deere reported that in some raid over France when his squadron of Spitfires Mark V was attacked by group of Fw 190 he said that the only thing what he could do was horizontal turns against Fw 190.

Also strange in Johhny story is that these "Focker" had italian marks? I wonder if during Diepe invasion there were Italian Fw 190s?

Gaston

07-17-2010, 07:19 PM

A vertical turn is a looping, by todays definition as well as by RAF slang back in those days.

-I'll note what you have provided to back up your assertion: ...

Besides Il-2 Moderator Xiolabu3 defined perfectly well what a "vertical turn" was in those days: Quote (from memory because in a flash of comprehension this "objective" moderator DELETED his own statement...):

"90° bank turns were refered to in those pre-energy days (he then quotes my own "pre-energy" statement in bold here), as "Vertical bank turns" WHICH WAS LATER SHORTENED TO JUST "VERTICAL TURN" IN PILOT SLANG...

Besides that, the context of the text makes it pathetically obvious that this could not be a vertical loop: Here is the ACTUAL text:

"Then we both turned hard TO THE LEFT and whirled round on what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle. With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of VERTICAL TURNS."

Please note there is NOTHING OMITTED between those two sentences in this quote: Verify here: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

In those days anything vertical was not called a turn, period. So JTD, would you care to revise your erroneous statement?

Besides, doesn't Johnny Johnson state at the beginning of the same text: "(FW-190As) They also turned better than the Me-109"?

Also Russian evaluations:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

So ALL these guys are wrong because your kindergarten math disagrees?

Besides, I still think it could have been 19-23 seconds...

And what about this Spitfire pilot?:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

Result of that fight?: 8-1 for the FW-190As...

FW-190A combat pilot: "It was MUCH better than the Messerschmitt. You could do anything with it: You could CURVE IT, go fast, go high, go low"

But against all that you'd rather take the word of test pilots, especially those of the US Navy right?

Gaston

P.S. As far as opining on a game I have never played, note I have been watching tracks and reading all the forums since 2002, and that I attached "probably" to all my statements regarding the game...

G.

KG26_Alpha

07-17-2010, 08:30 PM

-

P.S. As far as opining on a game I have never played, note I have been watching tracks and reading all the forums since 2002, and that I attached "probably" to all my statements regarding the game...

G.

Then you know that in the IL2 series of releases since 2001, the FW series have undergone many changes, all for the worst.

The Antons were the Butcher Birds in the early years of IL2 but soon become the butchered after the various patches/updates, and is now a shadow of its former self.

IMHO
IL2 has been "balanced" to make the online experience "fairer" in the aircraft's year time scale.
You wont see Me 262's in most of these online servers because "its not fair".

As far as the rest of the thread goes ..............

:)

Gaston

07-17-2010, 08:45 PM

Yes I was aware of that, but still never heard of the FW-190A out-turning lightweight aircrafts, so they must have been porked very early on... Most of what I read on the FW-190A involved endless threads about the cockpit visibility through the lower "bar" (the game design was later proved wrong in later posts with photos taken from an actual cockpit)...

The FW-190A's Low-speed sustained turn rate was much more rarely discussed than its high speed turn rate, which pretty much says everything...

Gaston

KG26_Alpha

07-17-2010, 10:51 PM

Erkki

07-17-2010, 11:09 PM

However most amusing is that Gaston has not even given the game a try, nor is he interested in playing now or in the future either Il-2 or any other flight sim.

Hes just a troll.

Gaston

07-18-2010, 05:38 AM

All early discussion was related to Eastern front A's

Predominantly these were the complaints.

Poor sustained turn rate.
Poor climb rate.
Lower armoured glass bar, no refraction.

All pilot references in books I have read contradict some of the modelling with the FW's In IL2.

I wont diverse as you are somewhat aware of the failings of this aircraft already in this sim from more expert past forum members that went to great lengths with correct data presentations.

-Thank you for your information.

Assuming the character of the FW-190A, as it stands right now, is indeed as "most" Il-2 players (except K_Freddie) say it is:

-Poor low speed horizontal maneuvers. (Less sustained turn rate than Me-109G)

-Good high speed maneuverability, especially so on the vertical.

Conclusion:

-A specialized "Boom and Zoom" fighter (a "floret" in Rall's words)

Then confront that to the reality:

-Very good low-speed horizontal maneuverability. (Lesser initial turn start likely, but better than Me-109G when sustained)

-Poor high speed maneuverability on the horizontal, at least after the A-4 model, and poor to extremely poor on the vertical for all Antons... (220 m extra drop after nose-level from 1500 m 45° pull-out: Soviet summary)

Conclusion:

-A specialized low-speed horizontal turn fighter that mostly avoids vertical maneuvers. (Indeed a "Sabre" in Rall's actual words)

The current simulated FW-190A does not just have FAILINGS: It is the near-exact OPPOSITE of the real thing, if "most" players here are to be believed...

So KG26_Alpha is saying that despite people with better sources than me presenting a similar case years ago, the better initial FW-190A moved AWAY from where it should have gone?

I have a hard time believing that play balance is a major commercial argument over accuracy for such an elaborate game.... Isn't accuracy a major selling point of Il-2? (Given what I know of miniature modeling, and how my accuracy concerns are treated, I must be naive...)

And people are wondering why I am not interested in playing this game?

FYI, I am also a miniature modeler for some years now, spending a LOT of effort on correcting various awful 1/48th scale WWII kits by Hasegawa and Tamiya, even some of the best not being in fact much better than the worst, and I have also spent a LOT of time (14 years total) on my boardgame to ensure it captures as closely as possible the true character of each type:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/5031083708?r=5031083708#5031083708

And so you will have to excuse me if my time is not so unlimited as to play a game that makes the flight models go worse as time goes on, and is vague enough to get things precisely upside-down as to their basic character...

Read what the pilots have to say, and don't worry so much about how I spend my time...

And JTD still has to explain why a LEFT turn is a vertical loop...

Gaston