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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/img30/471...sononfw190.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/m...an-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

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:
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!!!!

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

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/Aircraf...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