fw 190a5 flight model
 

in version 4.11.1, is ..at least fw 190 a5.. set in an historical real one in turning characteristics (compared to flugwerk videos from real fw a8 flights)
now turns like in reality. until version 4.10.1 was turning characteristics of fw very poor, unreal poor.

why it takes so long?? or i hope..next versions will again never make fw an airplane thats is designed only to fly straight.DD

I am thoroughly and completely confused.

The answer is 42.

What the I don't even.

I think that's a good response?

But seriously... I'm not sure if he's saying the FW190 doesn't turn well enough or if it turns too well.

Remember that the Flugwerk FW is made of modern materials and is unloaded, making it much lighter than a wartime FW.

You can also complain about the P51s turning ability, and if you're looking for an aircraft that can turn like a Zero, you won't find it in the latter war aircraft.
The idea of combat fighting had changed from slow dogfights to high speed strike aircraft.
;)

fw was ok in turns..but in 4.10.1 cannt turn generaly:))
 

i dont care what i complain, i care about little bit of realism.
think about, when they were designed in reality fw like here in 4.10.1, with turning capabilities like in 4.101. do you sure know..from basic logic, that test pilot will be complain, thats is not flyiable constructed because for that absurd turnig (or they wil call it..deadly stall airplane....but historicaly you dont find such a complains, opposite ..fw was an exelent plane)

so, it was little bit stupid to set this flyight model in the game.

but, in 4.11.1 looks like reality and its OK.

Well since the FW-190A was an excellent aircraft, and did out-turn any mark of Spitfire, but at at low speeds and in prolonged sustained horizontal turns only, NOT at high speeds, I guess it finally dawned on the development team just how absurd their flight model was...

My guess is they still did not go far enough. But the straight-line comments I hear underline the absurd lengths to which they thought reality would slavishly follow their grade-school math...

And the FW-190A was crap at dive and zoom, and was never used that way... But I guess the're only so much reality simmers and sim-builders can take at one time...

Gaston

Prove it, I mena its one thing to say "its this way!" but another to show data.
EDIT: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I just responded to a necro thread. Go me.
But while Im here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf
http://imageshack.us/a/img221/1775/1...comparison.jpg

Sounds REALLY close to what we have in game really.

I tend to agree with "Beginner". I think the FM on the A series is at present poorly executed and has more in common with a free falling brick than the real world aircraft.

Despite such issues (eg a too great a tendency to stall, very poor acceleration and the complete absence of any sort of instantaneous turn), I don't agree that the 190 should in future be morphed into something that it was not (a turn fighter). One thing is sure, the FW 190 did not have a particularly good sustained turn rate when compared with the opposition. It was and shall always be, an energy fighter. If you want to dog-it-out with Spits down on the deck riding the edge of a stall with your flaps extended, well good luck. But no real world 190 pilot would ever consider such foolishness unless of course, he had no other option. All I can say is, you'd really want to be bloody confident that there were no other E/As in the vicinity because if there are, you'll very soon to be dead.

The real world 190 was very nimble with an exceptional roll-rate. This roll-rate issue is very important because although everyone seems to know and talk about it, few 190 flyers that I have seen actually take advantage of it. Roll rate is not about spinning the aircraft around on its axis as bad guys stand-off your six and shoot you full of holes. Roll rate is used as a means of very quickly changing the direction in which your aircraft is pointing. In essence after entering a sustained turn you quickly roll your aircraft through approx 180 degrees and pull the stick back towards you. If you do that and you are being chased by something like a Spit, you will find that he can't follow. If you're at altitude and he has a relatively low energy state you may even find that you manage to escape:grin:.

I admit I'm super confused right now. I'm a big fan of the FW190 and first started flying it when it had a crippled FM in Forgotten Battles 1.0. For a long time it's never had a very good turn. The stall was fine IMHO as the FW190 was described in many tactical trials and evaluations as having a brutal stall (a fact that killed many pilots early on). I always felt the turn rate was a little low... Not as good as it should be. That was until 4.10 when the turn rate was improved... But it sounds like some think it was made worse? What?

It is much better now. I suspect it reaches near historical sustained turn rate values now (although I haven't tested).

It sure does...: The conclusion of these "Geniuses" was that: "In general [the FW-190] is an interceptor-type aircraft that is at a disadvantage against airplanes designed for the purpose of "in fighting""...

But these US Navy "Geniuses" were at least smart enough to recognize the FW-190A HATED high speed turning and high speed combat in general (putting them far ahead of all simmers since apparently), as was widely known to the Russians:

From the same US Navy report (identical to another one for an earlier FW variant):

"It [FW-190A-5] has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes, which can force it to fly near the stalling speed"

My God! They actually figured out the FW-190 preferred low-speed fighting!

Yipeeeeeeeeeee!

That must have been a strain... Yet their conclusion is "excellent interceptor-type aircraft"... Hmmm...



But you are right: If THIS Russian evaluations:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html



says "Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed." that apparent disagreement in the final outcome on how to use it can only be because the US NAVY has much more combat experience with the FW-190A, and knew how the FW-190A should be flown far better than those poor brain-washed Germans...

Of note is that the Russian found the FW-190A to be equal to their excellent Yak-7 in left turns, but the FW-190 is apparently easily beaten in right turns:

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

(This indicates flaps up for the FW-190A by the way: Clostermann reported that later in the war, around late '43 or early '44, appeared the novel use of flaps ("volet") on the FW-190A, which he described as significantly improving the turn performance. If turning was flaps down, the wing drop would be reversed and the aircraft would turn tighter to the right at low speeds, not the left)

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

But the Russians claim the Yak-1 will outmaneuver it even better, though not specifying if that included the vertical plane (vertical maneuvers are of course very poor on the FW-190A)

You gotta love below how the "excellent interceptor" was used by those foolish Germans who knew nothing about flying their own aircrafts:

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

"The following information about German tactics is derived from experience of our pilots that fought the FW-190.

Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. 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."

Gosh! That last bold quote couldn't be a clue that they held their own against "superior-turning" Russian fighters now could it?

Hey! That Me-109/FW-190 relationship sort of jives with this, thousands of miles away doesn't it?:

-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... We lost eight to their one that day..."

But it must all be a coincidence you know...

But my favourite of all among all, has got to be my old RCAF friend John Weir, who obviously doesn't know anything about true wingloading performance, being just, you know, an experienced fighter pilot fighting for his life and all... (What the hell's that compared to being a glorious theoretically-correct simmer?):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03

"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."


Obviously the poor man remembers wrongly what actually happened, and the congruence with all the others who had to face it in actual combat is just a vast world-wide collective hallucination...

Or maybe it was just magical "pilot experience", always there to throw everything into confusion: We all know that Germans in those days were mystical-oriented, and thus gained levitation powers with "pilot experience": That could be it you know...

If they had measured the wing-bending of theses things in flight, they would know what the actual wingload of these things is (Ie: What John Weir meant by "heavier Spitfire wingloading": Actual in-flight observation, not theory)...

But they only bent the wings on the ground and called it "knowledge"...

And yes, if they had done that, in-flight (recording in-flight continuous stress-gauge info, which would have been real tricky before the late 40s at least), they would have found out that, unlike jets, even at the same exact amount of Gs during a turn, an old warbird's wingload actually varies with power during the turn, as reported clearly by many WWII pilots, and used routinely as a "trick" by 8th AF P-51s, FW-190 pilots and some Me-109 pilots...

But what do these guys know...

Gaston

:smile:
Love your post Gaston, made my sunday breakfast haha

+1 on that :D

Gaston, while I admire your revisionist zeal, your conclusions about the 190 are simply wrong.

Your analysis of the Al Deere incident is a case in point. There is no doubt that Al Deere was caught out by the 190s that day and in the resulting bloodbath lost a number of his squadron mates. However, it had nothing to do with 'turning circle'. On this occasion the 190s bounced his Mk Vs and then used their superior speed and climb to decimate the hapless formation. It is true that the attack was sustained in nature and that the pilots in the 190s demonstrated great confidence in their aircraft; but that was more to do with their ability to outperform the Spitfires (in everything BUT sustained turn) and to enter or break off the combat at will. The 109 Fs in use at this time were not in a position to do this, of course, as they had little or no performance margin over the Mk 5 and typically did not linger in combats with Spitfires for any longer than necessary. At this point is the war most of Germany's fighter force had been moved to the Eastern Front. With relatively few fighters left in France, the LW tried to offset their numerical inferiority in the west by strictly limiting the engagements between its fighter force and Fighter Command.

The advantage that the 190 had over the Spit soon to evaporate away with the introduction of the Mk 9.

Ya I'm calling you info BS.
What the pilots say about their own and enemy aircraft ate of NO VALUE when discussing FM's.
Combat is a very emotionally charged event, and what you remember and what actually happened are two very, very different things. The fact that the body and mind are experiencing stressors unlike anything else in the annals of human experience make any recollection of combat events suspect from the get go.

Then there is the comparison to soviet fighters. You mean the same soviet fighters that are overmodeled in nearly every aspect? This has been accepted by a large percentage of the community since day 1. No point in the comparison.

Now compare them in a standardized test environment, against well known and documented competitors, and you get the best data. Hence the navy tests.
If it couldn't out turn a Corsair or Hellcat then it isn't much of a turn fighter.

So if you have something other than tests against air raft that we know are porked, or the recollections of old men, post it.

No doubt?

Where's your evidence that the battle that day happened the way you claim? Do you have other accounts of that particular day?

My bet is that you don't, and that you simply placate a meaning that is not present in a single word in there...

The fact that he contrasts "a quick pass and away" 109 tactics with "never before did the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing" illustrates clearly what he meant: STAYING means you don't build up speed but fight at low speeds. And that means mostly staying on the horizontal.

If you want to ignore that, then you are just reading what you want into it: He clearly states the Me-109 tactics were a contrast to the FWs, in perfect concordance with the Russian observation of how they always interacted in 1943 (up to Boddenplatte in January 1945: Read any of the "Boddenplatte" accounts as well)...

Remember Rall's quote: "The Me-109 a floret (straight and edgeless), the FW-190 a sabre (curved and used in curved motion)"

He also said: "Rechlin told us the FW-190A out-turned the Me-109F, however, I could out-turn it":

Like many Eastern Front Me-109 pilots, he was clinging to a false concept of how they compared: By dropping the throttle it was probably true he could reverse the tables... But then the 190 could do it also, if the pilot knew about the counter-intuitive "trick" of downthrottling permanently in sustained low speed turns...

Another 109 pilot thought the same wrongheaded thing, just like simmers today...:

Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G........ Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries. He was probably shot down near the ground"

(Implying this would not have happened with the FW-190A. BTW, period tests have show the D-9 was a much inferior fighter in horizontal turns to the A, and indeed the D was not used in the same way)

Rechlin quote: "The FW-190A out-turns and out-rolls the Me-109 at any speed"

General US 8th Air Force fighter pilot opinion was that the FW-190A turned tighter than the Me-109. Just ask any veteran P-51 pilot the next time you see one...

Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45:

P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt posessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight"

P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane"

Weirner Steiz: "The 190 was a much better aircraft than the 109: You could curve it"

I don't know, is there something like a trend here?

You want side-by-side comparisons by pilot opinion of their own aircrafts?:

AFDU

Air Fighting Development Unit, R.A.F. Station DUXFORD

Report No 46 on Tactical Trials -SPITFIRE IX



From 26 April 1942

Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding."

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

So the Spit Mk IX doesn't out-turn the Spit Mk V, by the reckoning of its own pilots....

Furthermore, I have it directly from a mechanic at the "Planes of Fame" flying museum that the Spitfire Mk V they have been flying for decades always turns faster than the best the Spitfire Mk IX can do: Exactly what I would expect...

Despite those contradicting Russian turn times (17.5 to 18.8 sec, but all of these Russian figures don't seem very indicative of anything to me), there is no evidence the Spit Mk IX turns any faster than the Mk V, and considerable evidence to the contrary...

In the above AFDU quote, the emphasis is on Mk IX vertical performance, diving and zooming, and in actual combat the Spitfire Mk IX could do sharp high speed turns, but could not survive in close-in slow speed dogfighting, just as John Weir says, and if you've read actual combat accounts you will see the Spitfire IX always use dive and zoom, while the FW-190 always used horizontal turns...

The Mk V was such a poor turn-fighter in Russian hands they removed the outer guns to try to lighten it, but it had little effect:

Russian opinion of the Spitfire (Mk V): It is unsuitable for prolonged horizontal combat (meaning short unsustained horizontal combat is probably better), and it is excellent at combat on the vertical plane... In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40: " Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

Translation: "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting"

In that same article, the Soviets even tried to remove the outer guns to improve the Spitfire's turn performance, to no avail...

Even the Spitfire Mk V was completely hopeless in prolonged low-speed turns against the FW-190A (just like John Weir says), and bear in mind it DOES turn faster than the Mk IX (same thing or even worse vs the Mk XIIs and XIVs):

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/471...sononfw190.jpg

Quote: "Opposite sides of an ever diminishing circle... I asked the Spitfire for all she had... It was just a matter of time and he would have me in his sights..."

Also, Johnny Johnson opines here the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109... Hey, this article was just after the war, and I wasn't there to wisper in his ear you know!

Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back."

S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Mk XIV vs FW-190A): "I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water--------The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2 being unable to overtake it broke away."




Just for laugh, try finding ONE counter-example without steep high speed dives just before a single harsh 360° turn, or not above 20 000 ft....: Try counter-examples with multiple turns down low... Good luck!:-P

And there is a very easy way to prove me (and almost all WWII pilots) wrong: Show me in-flight wing-flexing strain gauge data that shows the wingloading really does match the "calculated" values... So far I have found only wing bending tests on the ground...

The reality is that for these old machines it was never done in-flight...

You guys are simply incapable of seeing there is virtually no first hand combat experience that things work the way theory (and thus simulations)says they do: I have hundreds of P-47 combat accounts where the P-47 at low altitude and low speeds reverses in horizontal turns a tailing Me-109 in 3-4 360°turns or less: A big fat ZERO the other way around: Just how many to ZERO would it take?

Can you find ONE example here of a Me-109 out-turning a P-47?:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html

In right side turns they were more equal: One account does show some P-47/Me-109 parity in late 1943 against probably a sleeker G-2 in a prolonged right hand diving spiral. The P-47 then wins in a left hand diving spiral...

I defy anyone to find in this link above (600+ P-47 combat accounts) a single 1944 account of a P-47 having the slightest trouble beating in any kind of sustained multiple 360 turns the Me-109G, or even taking more than five 360° turns to reverse a tailing 109...

Yes at very high speed there is one Me-109 that briefly beats the P-47 in turns at very high speeds: The Me-109's wings then immediately break off... Not low-speed I would think....

Read these accounts, and see the obvious nothing you are clinging to... I think a six year old could see the light...

Gaston

My information about the fight between No 403 Canadian Squadron and I and II/JG 26 on 2 June 1942 comes from Mick Spick's 1996 book entitled, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces

If that account is correct, Al Deere's squadron (he was a NZer of course, not a Canadian) was first attacked from the rear at high speed by a single staffel and, as the Canadians turned to engage, they were then attacked from above and through cloud by two more staffeln, and then again from above by the whole gruppe. In essence Al Deere was compelled to engage the first attack which was about to overtake his formation, and then when he turned, he was flattened by the 190's waiting above. Tactics, and the speed advantage of the 190, won the day for the Germans.

I used to be a bit like you in that I was always trying to reconcile the IL-2 190 with the historical record. The IL-2 190 just never seemed to be as good as I expected. In truth I think the 190 enjoyed a brief window of superiority in 1942 when it was fast enough to dominate the Mk5. I also think that in part, this happy time' has quite a bit to do with the German's ability to fight the war over France on their terms, and to engage Fighter Command when and if the circumstances were favourable. Once the speed and climb advantage of the 190 was equaled or exceeded by the Mk 9, the contest between the two aircraft was much more equal.

Simply consider that the gross mistmatch of all flight sims with the historical record is [B]not[/] the result of ignoring flight physics theory...

The mismatch comes from precisely the fact that they all followed current flight physics to the letter (not a hard thing to do), and it simply illustrates perfectly how wrong our basic flight physics assumptions are for these types of aircrafts (which I believe have specific characteristics compared to jet fighters)...


Your account is very fragmentary for a fight that involved 8 British losses (which is quite a big fight, even in those days).

There is no difference in the tactics in your quote with what he describes being the tactics of the Me-109s (the whole point of my quote).

The whole point he makes is that he observed something different from the FW-190s that day, specifying that the difference was related to the fact that Me-109s usually feared the Spitfire's turning circle, and this is not apparent from the brief description you have: Ie, it is not the same aircrafts that hit them twice, but another group of FW-190s.

There is really not much of an element of "staying" in the fight in the more detailed account you have... In addition, the FW-190 didn't outclimb the Spitfire V by much, especially with its engine de-rated by the Luftwaffe at the time...

As an interesting side note, the same Al Deere reacted in this way when he was told the Spitfire had a superior turning radius to the FW-190A (from a captured example):

"Well turning doesn't win battles."

This is a rather cryptic statement which is commonly interpreted as meaning most "real world" fights involved diving and zooming, not turning...

However, contrary to the received wisdom, the reality of much WWII combat, if you read a large number of accounts, is that the wing-mounted guns have a convergence point, and thus are not even designed for dive and zoom attacks: They are designed for firing for some time at a target that is at a fixed distance: Wing guns are really optimized for turn fighting, because the location and convergence of the guns means you will have trouble placing enough rounds on a slower target if you are closing fast on it...

The only routine exception to this was the Pacific Theater where the Japanese fighters were fragile enough to make diving at them pay off, even with converging wing guns. With most other fighters, you had to pepper them a while to get them to go down (a fact poorly represented in sims I think), so turnfighting was the predominant rule, not the exception... Turnfighting was far more predominant in Western Europe, and grew more prominent still as the end of the war approached: This was because the opponents were similar in performance: For P-47s and P-51s the predominace of turn-fighting is on the order of 90%+ of all combats, this increasing towards the end...

Even the Eastern Front was mostly turn fighting, but more flexible in tactics, with many types having centralized armaments (Yaks, La-5s, P-39s, Me-109s), and the climbing performance being more unequal in favour of the Germans until mid-44.

The P-38 also had a centralized armament, and thus tried to use dive and zoom tactics as well, but the dominance of horizontal turnfighting in Western Europe, from late 1943 onwards, is generally a little appreciated fact of late WWII warfare...

The late war Spitfire, by the time the Mk IX came around, was by contrast almost exclusively used in dive and zoom attacks (in combat accounts): Its wing armament was not well-suited for that, but the velocity and destructiveness of the Hispano 20 mm seemed to obtain a lot instant explosions even on FW-190As, so it seemed to have compensated for the use of dive and zoom tactics.

Such tactics were helped on the Spitfire Mk IX by its world-beating climb rate (the +25 lb/80" Mk IX was the best piston-engined climber of WWII below 20 000 ft.), and its poor sustained low-speed turning performance (which still allowed a better unsustained speed radius at high speed after a dive)...

Consider that when Eric Brown reported he engaged a FW-190A by turning, while the FW dived and zoomed, and claimed this practice remained the war-wide character of both aircrafts for years, it is hardly an impressive account that either pilots were flying their machines at their best: They failed to even get a bead on each other...

A lot of early FW-190A combat accounts show the use of dive and zoom by the FW-190 (precisely in the period of supposed greatest FW-190 superiority): By late 1943 such accounts mostly disppear, because the more intuitively correct way to use the FW-190A (dive and zoom) turned out to be poorer despite the more favourable 1942 circumstances...

Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45:

P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt posessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight"

P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane"


What is intuitively correct and self-evident rarely turns out that way in real life: That is why many WWII pilots will swear by things that are entirely false.

Yes the Spitfire could carve A- a tighter radius at high speeds than a FW-190A: But B- it never gained gradually on it in a slow turning fight: Not one instance of this I have unearthed so far...

There is physical reason why it happens in this counter-intuitive way, and I think it does relate to prop load leverages on the CL and whatnot: Things that have yet to be examined (I actually hope to do so one day). But the basic issue is that counter-intuitive complicated things do happen, and the easy-to-grasp intuitive stuff often turns out to have been sadly mistaken, no matter how widely believed it is or for how long.

Gaston

Odd, if Al Deere believed the 190 could stay with, or even out turn the Spit V, isn't it strange that he didn't tell his colleague so when the bloke tried to convince him that the Spit still had a few tricks up its sleeve. Fact is he didn't, did he. He didn't for instance say "Hey, hang on a minute there chum, actually the Spit won't out turn a 190". He just said "turning doesn't win battles". Now of course, that isn't strictly true in any case. If you're engaged by another fighter with less climb, dive and turn than you, chances are, he will be forced eventually to try and out-turn you and die in the process.

You mention Eric Brown. I've read his book Wings of the Luftwaffe several times and I don't remember him ever suggesting that the 190 was a 'turner' (I'm not suggesting you said he did by the way). He loved the aircraft as I recall but regarded it as an energy-fighter pure and simple. Don't you think it strange that if the 190 could out-perform the Spit in sustained turns that Eric Brown would have mentioned it? After all, the Spit was known for its ability to turn. If the 190 out-turned it, surely he would have mentioned it. After all, he flew examples of both aircraft many times.

Maybe I'm missing something here but as we both know, the 190 was evaluated by the RAF and other allied air forces on numerous occasions. The whole purpose of those evaluations was to test the capabilities of enemy aircraft against allied fighters so appropriate measures could be taken to counter their strengths. In all those reports, is there one that suggests the 190 could outperform the Spitfire in sustained turn? If there is, I certainly haven't seen it. However, those reports do mention the 190s advantages in speed and roll etc. Why would they remain silent on any turn advantage it might have if they happily identify its other advantages? These were secret reports after all so what was the problem? Why wouldn't this be mentioned? Or are we to believe these test pilots weren't very bright?

lonewulf, from experience I can tell you it is best to ignore Gaston. The forum has an ignore function, so you can let it ignore him for you.

There's no smoke without a fire.
Gaston has some good points that a lot around here wish to ignore, as his hypothesis doesn't agree with the theorists (we were not there), or the indoctrinated (the P51 won the war) ;) so therefore he's 'shot down'.
:grin:

The obvious point he's making is that while the theoretical aeronautical formulae and calculations do play a role in the FMs, it's not the final say in the matter and there is a small percentage of unknown flight characteristics that are only known by the pilots themselves - some errant observations like canned flight tests, and others real. A trend is what one should look for, to get a fair idea.

an experienced pilot uses this small percentage to his advantage..
:)

I don't usually ........... but ............

+1

As a mission builder from v1.0 days watching the game change with the patches and new updates,
its clear "game balance" has been a factor in the strange FM's DM's in the present configuration of IL2 1946.

If the game is capable of running real world data if so then let it have it, will the game be fun anymore with this data, I doubt it.

The strange wing pylon loadings and other bomb mg/cannon data etc found in the past in the SFS files bemused many but made sense for "game balancing".

Lets just say the FW190 in IL2 has been the most "adjusted" for FM & DM over the years,



Butcher Bird or Butchered Bird ?





.

Maybe someone would put the 'real' numbers into the FMs and bring reality to the benign term Full Real. ;)

When IL2 came out the axis a/c were the underdogs and the allied superior. The challenge for me was to dedicate my time to the axis a/c an prove to myself that they can beat the allied ones - it was a challenge I enjoyed and for the most part, succeeded.

It the FM numbers were changed for the real, then it'll become a challenge for the Allied jockeys to enjoy. It will not make the game less attractive, but more so.

From most of my readings of WW2 DFs, all pilots crapped themselves on seeing opposition fighters, from then it was down to experience, tactics and FMs. Spitfires wear feared, FW190's simply made pilots sh1t themselves.
The distortion of allied superiority only occurred due to the greater numbers of a/c (and pilots) they had - as Stalin was noted for saying on the 'inferiority' of his a/c 'quantity has a quality of it's own'.

Here's one vote for a new game 'real' FM
:grin:

Just some online thoughts..

With current FMs I find the FWs best turning ability between 325-400kph.
When a spit, tempest.. etc uses the vertical I don't follow, but stay level/horizontal and build up my speed, then flip vertical for a quick burst, then down again for speed.

There are times I cut throttle back and play around at stall speed as the allied aircraft do have major difficulty in this area - But I've always said this... and like Gaston I've been 'shot down' verbally for 'heresy'... but many allied a/c have died at this point :-P

you work it out ;)

I do agree most WWII fighter pilots could probably use effectively a 5% advantage in turning performace. Maybe even a lot less, but certainly their flying skill would not erase more than about a 5% advantage.

An often forgotten fact is that all fighter pilots were the very best available among the whole pool of available pilots...

A race car driver probably routinely uses up to less than a fraction of 1% below the actual limit of the car in a turn, on a machine where the "stall" has virtually no warning or "rumble" other than a precise sensation of lateral load he learns to recognize.

If you accept that you take the wingloading of a Spitfire at 140 lbs/square feet, and that of a FW-190A at 215 lbs/sq ft. or even 230 lbs/sq ft. (similar power in the engine), then, for a fighter pilot to mishandle such an advantage to the point of losing a low-speed sustained horizontal turn contest, you would have to assume that a pilot of the caliber of Johnny Johnson is so incompetent that he can lose a competitive edge of over 60%: About 12 times the outer edge of what is even remotely possible...

That is 1200 % over anything plausible.

Yet not only are there several (if not numerous) disparate account of this impossible thing happening (with, additionally, one credible witness stating the FW-190A's superiority in low speed turns was an iron-clad rule vs the Spitfire: John Weir), but there are actually no first person examples anywhere of the "theoretically" more plausible outcome ever occurring...

I have been asking litterally for years now for a low-speed low-altitude turning battle where the Spitfire defeated the FW-190A in a series of sustained horizontal turns: In years nothing has surfaced...

A few examples were provided (by one of the more honest online detractors of mine, since all the others have always provided zip), but these examples where all at very high altitudes or preceded by a massive dive (suggesting high speed on the part of both the Spitfire and its target), and in fairness to him he did accept these objections as valid...

So this monstrous 60% advantage in wingloading somehow escaped all first person narration in actual low-speed combat...

And in the years of reading combat accounts since, only the strongest endorsement ever of my position has so far surfaced: John Weir's unequivoval statement that the Spitfire was out-turned easily by the Hurricane, and the Hurricane in turn was slightly out-turned by the FW-190A...

For the opposite view?: A whole lot of nothing.

The enormity of the Spitfire's 60% wingload advantage is only equalled by the utter discretion from witnesses: And after several years of searching, you have to wonder when something agreeing with current flight physics is ever going to come up...

The mistake is not small: I estimate up to 40% of the actual wing bending during a turn (dive pull-outs don't count) of some these machines (particularly the Spitfire) is not even acknowledged as happening, and the cause is completely unknown even if it was known to happen (which it isn't)...

And it would be very easy to blow my assertion out of the water: All you have to do is provide in-flight strain gauge wing bending data in level turns for WWII fighter types.

Guess what: There isn't any: The strain gauge values were done on the ground...

I would be delighted to be proven wrong by such in-flight WWII data, but my bet is the detractors will come up short on hard data, like they do on everything else...

Gaston

Yes, yes, that makes sense doesn't it. I mean, what would be more difficult to manage, a large bomber with 4 engines and a crew or 7 or 10 men or a little single seat fighter. Hmmm ... umm ... hold on a minute ...

Maybe this Johnnie Johnson dude actually did encounter a more maneuverable P-36. Or maybe the Spits that supposedly turned worse than Fws had manufacturing defects.

Anyway, Fw has tons of fuel, guns and ammunition and the said high wingloading... of course it's going to turn worse than its opponents. I trust what TD has in the game now. There's no need to change the flight models: Fw has advantage in firepower, roll rate and dive (usually), let the Spits have advantage in everything else.

If you want to have a proper argument about FW190 performance levels it's probably best to dig up some materials.

So I've started...with this:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/fw190a5.html

Appears to be based on original documents with the information translated on the page for easy reading. If the numbers in this example are correct then the speed of our FW190A-5 (standard boost) is dead on at sea level and at critical height. The climb rate as represented here is somewhat less than what the IL-2 version has in IL-2 compare suggesting it may infact be over modelled if this report is accurate. I think a closer look at the aircraft represented in the game and in the test are probably important too.

I also found this RAF report very interesting:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-47-1658-D.pdf

The notes remark about how excellent the FW190 manoeuvrability in the roll plane is but how the elevator tightens at speed (ours does not appear to) and how easy it is to stall the aircraft in tight turns and at stall speed. Interestingly they talk about 10 degrees of flaps to help tighten the turn. I've long since stopped using combat flaps on the FW190 in IL-2.. does anyone else?

You could argue that the RAF report is biased. It might be... is there a similar pilots notes comparison out there from a German source? I know the comments in my FW190A-5 Aces of the Eastern Front from Osprey have the same notes with one translation from somewhere (its not referenced which gives me pause) suggesting that FW190 pilots should employ the same tactics on the East Front as they are finding effective on the West Front - that is to say the high speed hit and zoom as a group tactic avoiding Spitfires or Yak's alike in the horizontal.

I took out a FW190A-5 and a A-8 online yesterday. It's good fun and with the improved turn rate in 4.11 it's even easier to draw a bead on a manoeuvring aircraft.

Try this one. It took a bit of looking but I found it again: http://books.google.ca/books?id=HofA...20turn&f=false

The action describes an early Typhoon Mark IB in a low level escort run with other Typhoons. In the battle a Typhoon and FW190 end up in a sea level turn fight and although descriptions of the battle is light... it illustrates that the FW190 and Typhoon had fairly similar turn rates. In this case the Typhoon pilot was still attempting to pull lead when the FW190 stalled with it's legendary wing drop and crashed in to the sea.

By all rights the RAF considers the Spitfire to be much more manoeuvrable in the horizontal than any model of Typhoon or Tempest. It's not a direct comparison (I'll have a look in some other books) but I remembered this story and I think it illustrates that the FW190s high wing loading, powerloading, and other aerodynamic features that make it such a great hunter do not provide for great turn rate at sea level. Particularly with an aircraft as heavy as the Typhoon was. So to lay it out. If a Spitfire is better in the horizontal than a Typhoon by a significant amount and the FW190 and Typhoon are roughly even (slight edge to the Typhoon?) then the Spitfire is going to be better in the horizontal. In my mind almost unquestioningly so given any number of battle accounts from either side on any front where the two clashed.

On a side note the FW190 is much more manoeuvrable than the Typhoon in all other regards. The Typhoon has a slight sea level edge in speed and a slightly better turn, however, it's roll response is one of the worst of the WWII fighters (note: The Tempest much improved on this with an excellent roll rate particularly in Series II models).

From the German side there is no direct comparison with the Spitfire I am aware of, but the P-47D was recognized by KG 200, with a captured Razorback, as superior-turning to the Me-109G in low-speed sustained turns, while the same thing was not said of the FW-190A vs the P-47.

Also the P-51B was not described as out-turning the Me-109G by KG 200, while the P-47D definitely was. (source "On special missions" KG 200)

In combat the P-47D never took more than four-five 360° turns to gain the upper hand vs the Me-109G, while the FW-190A was always roughly equal to the P-47D, or slightly better, in early 1944, and for some reason the FW-190A grew much better in later 1944, the later Bubbletops P-47Ds being clearly inferior to the later FW-190As in sustained turns... All this agrees 100% with KG 200's evaluation.

Tests in Italy by the Allies show the FW-190A as slightly superior-turning to the Razorback P-47D below 250 MPH, and drastically inferior turning above 250 MPH.

FW-190A dive pull-out was also drastically inferior to the P-47D, the nose-up loss of altitude of the FW-190A ("mushing") on pull-out being described as a "tendency to black-out the pilot".:

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

The best FW-190A comparisons are all with the Me-109G or P-47D: Significant RAE comparisons with the Spitfire all refer to the Spitfire's tighter "radius", but to my mind, in those days, "radius" means an unsustained 6 G+ turn in which the Spitfire will undoubtedly be superior to the FW-190A: See the P-47 comparison which underlines the poor high speed turn performance of the FW-190A (confirmed by the abyssmal dive-pull-out "sinking" noted even by Eric Brown as well, making rather nonsensical his conclusion to use it in the vertical: Russian sources mention a 220 m (660 ft.) nose-up drop after levelling out from a 40° dive of 1200 m... One fifth of the short dive's momentum expended in brutal nose-up deceleration: Hence the "Tendency to black-out the pilot"...)

Note that the RAE found the P-51B with full drop tanks in place to vastly out-turn the Me-109G, while the same P-51B without drop tanks was considered only equal in turn rate to the FW-190A.

The RAE test thus make it abundantly clear the FW-190A was the better sustained turn fighter vs the Me-109G, but in my opinion the tests exaggerates the issue in disfavour of the Me-109G: This might have been due to a misunderstanding of the use of the leading edge slats, or of those slats being in poor condition.

Combat accounts show the Me-109G generally inferior to the P-51 in unsustained high G turns (5 G+), but the Me-109G is, despite this, more responsive initially when speed locks the controls in steep high speed dives (due to its advantage of a fully mobile tail trim which overcomes aerodynamic forces more efficiently for the initial pull-out in dives for instance)

In sustained turns, the P-51 is slightly better but they are fairly close. However sometimes on the deck, when they are forced into horizontal turns, they are very close to the point of a prolonged stalemate of 15-30 minutes (45 to 90 horizontal turns!). But this only before MW-50 was widely available, not so much after May of 1944.

The P-51 however will gain a marked sustained low-speed turn edge if it reduces its throttle, which has the -unrecognized by flight physics- effect of reducing its wingloading in low-speed sustained turns:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg

But then the Me-109G here might not have done the same throttle reduction, and could have gained as much... (This throttle reduction trick was not widely accepted by pilots)

The FW-190A (also by downthrottling) was better than either at low altitude and low speeds, while being very poor in high speed unsustained turns, especially to the right(!).

The Me-109G's inferiority in turns vs the FW-190A is recognized correctly by the RAE, but to an excessive extent.

After the first few months of the FW-190A's introduction, I think we can go with Russian pilot opinions on the way it was handled: "Experienced FW-190 pilots never use the vertical"...

In any case if you take comparative evaluations and "evaluate" them, the best are by the Germans, as are also front-line Russian observations, the worst are by the US (except that absolutely superb P-47D/FW-190A Italy front-line evaluation -linked above- made by Front-Line US pilots, not test pilots: A real masterpiece of its kind), with the UK being somewhere in the middle, and using these (the first two being perfectly consistent), a clear hierarchy becomes apparent if you correlate with thousands of combat accounts:

Best low speed sustained turn rate on the late-war Western European Front (P-38 excluded): FW-190A/P-47D Razorback (needle-tip prop) are both at the top (P-47D higher speed/FW-190A lower speed), then the Hurricane, then further out the Spitfire, then last the Me-109G and P-51 close to each other.

Later in the war the Bubbletop P-47D seems to drop back quite noticeably, as seem to do the later Spitfires.

Gaston

This is a very interesting account, and I appreciate that this kind of comparison is sought and brought to light rather than the usual arguments.

Note I never said anything about the Typhoon: The Typhoon was the final development of the ... Hurricane(!) in the words of its designer.

I would not 100% assume the Typhoon is by necessity inferior in sustained turns to a Spitfire, given the clear superiority of the Hurricane to the Spitfire.

However in this account I would note two things: The FW-190As dived away from 10 000 ft. to sea level, and the Typhoon dived down in pursuit: They are above sustained turn speed throughout the turning engagement, and this is evidenced by the Typhoon pilot having "to lay off" because he was blacking out: Maximum sustained turn speed Gs are about 3.2/3.4 Gs in WWII, too low for the pilot to require a "relief" of this kind.

Another thing is that Eric Brown and many others have noted a "change in trim" on the FW-190A as speed decreased and the turn went from 230 knots to below 220 knots (or just around the 250 mph "change" in turn performance of the P-47D comparison): The change in trim is felt in the stick and can surprise the pilot (making him suddenly pull up into a stall as the stick "lightens") if he becomes nervous: Eric Brown even mentions this effect, but maybe, being a high hours test pilot, he underestimates its effect during the tension of a turning battle, saying it should not cause an accident).

I have read several Allied accounts of FW-190A pilots holding their own in a turn after a steep dive (vs P-47Ds), and then, as speed decreases below the 250 MPH treshold, suddenly nosing up and dropping a wing as the stick no longer requires as much pull-back to keep the turn, something which can be confusing (as noted by E. Brown).

For this and better turn performance reasons, one FW-190A ace describes dropping the throttle long before the merge (popping flaps as well), as a preparation for battle with P-51s, and never throttling back up, preferring always horizontal turning to go head-to head if the P-51s would (wisely) not turn with him...

Gaston

I'd first like to ask why the German and Russian reports are better than the British and American ones?

Moving along... as far as sustained turn information goes what you've got seems to be contradicted by other sources although it does seem that the RAE tests for the Bf109 suggest a horrible turn rate in all related tests with a variety of different aircraft.

I would like to point this one out: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-47c-afdu.html

All kinds of interesting statements about the P-47C versus other types. Unfortunately not a later model being used but best I can do right now.

Versus the Mustang Mark X (P-51B prototype)
"The rate of roll of the P-47 is considerably better than that of the Mustang, which cannot follow sudden changes in direction. In rate of turn, howeverm the two aircraft are practically identical."

Versus the Spitfire IX
"The rate of turn of the Spitfire is naturally superior to the heavier P-47 and in turning circles it was found that after four turns the Spitfire could get on the P-47’s tail and remain there with a chance of shooting with correct deflection."

And then this:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/TacticalTrials.htm

Comparing the Tempest Mark V (Series I, unboosted ailerons)

Versus the Typhoon:
"Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics."

Versus the Spitfire XIV:
"The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest. "

Versus the Mustang III:
"The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III. "

Versus the FW190:
"There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest."

Versus the Bf109:
"The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. " <---- I honestly don't believe that the Bf109G would be worse than a Tempest, Typhoon, Mustang or FW190... but this is what is said here.

So by all of these tests it would suggest the Spitfire is easily the top contender in all turn rate comparisons beating everything tested against it. Then you have the Mustang and Thunderbolt which are on similar levels. Then you have the Tempest and Typhoon and FW190A which all seem to inhabit the same turn abilities. Then, for whatever reason, the Bf109G which seems to have the worst... which is counter to what I've read from a German pilot account:

This is from Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #6: FW190 Aces of the Russian Front by John Weal:

Hauptmann Heinz Lange:
"I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazma in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Focke-Wulf was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmidt - although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well."

So at least one German pilot seems to think that the Bf109 was better in the horizontal. His point of comparison may be Bf109E or F series as he was with 3./JG 51 and with I./JG 54 previously according to the book.

I don't understand why wing loading is reduced when throttled down? Please explain.

No you did not reference the Typhoon, however, you were looking for some sort of comparison between the Spitfire and the FW190 at low altitude sustained turn rate.

The Typhoon may be the ultimate development of the Hurricane but they should not be confused as the same aircraft. The Typhoon is a totally new design and related to the Hurricane in the same way that the Wildcat was the forebear to the Hellcat and Bearcat. Superficially similar but always totally new designs.

Going by the Tempest tactical trials... if the Typhoon turns similarly to the Tempest and the Tempest turns similarly to the FW190 and the Spitfire out turns the Tempest then logic would then preclude that, on the basis of these tests, the Spitfire out turns all of the previously mentioned aircraft in sustained turns.

If we go by the P-47C trials then we can add some additional fuel to that fire in that the P-47C is out turned by the Spitfire as well (again, already quoted). Since your telling me that the P-47D is similar in turn to the FW190... we can then go by a basic point of comparison that the P-47C is probably better in the turn than the P-47D-25 as the D-25 has a wing loading of 58.3 lb/ft² and the P-47C has 43.3 lb/ft². I'm not sure if there was great variation between turn rates but the P-47C was a lighter aircraft with nearly as much power but no paddle prop (Not sure if that would have any effect on turn... climb yes). So the P-47C may slightly out turn the FW190 but is out turned by the Spitfire handily.

Not buying that the FW190 would in any way have a superior turn to the Spitfire. I would accept that the P-51B, P-47D, FW190, Typhoon, and Tempest have fairly similar overall turn rates.

Now bringing the IL-2 1946 4.11.1 experience to bear... I would say that the game shows us basically the same thing. The P-51B is closest to the FW190A-5 with the Tempest having maybe a slight edge and P-47 perhaps a slight disadvantage going by IL-2 Compare 4.11. Going by a more anecdotal route versus these planes online... I do use the throttle down method but mostly to contain my speed, prevent overshoot, and increase my turn abilities. I feel confident engaging a P-51 in a horizontal fight at any speed although I would of course prefer to have the energy advantage.

The only area that I have real difficulty with is the Bf109G versus FW190A. Why the reports of turn abilities vary so much between various testing and pilot reports I'm not sure. Others have speculated that RAE testing with the Bf109G may not have achieved full turn potential as they felt the slats opening in the turn were a negative event rather than something that may help with the turn. Perhaps they were malfunctioning. We'll probably never know.

IceFire, don't waste your time. You can bring up all sorts of evidence, and as soon as they don't fit the theory, they'll be ignored. For instance we have the Russian tests that give ~18s sustained turn time for the Spitfire vs. ~22s for the 190, but because they used black magic during these tests they are no valid argument.

Sarcastic but convincing.

Come admit it you lot...
Gaston's evidence is more convincing than yours !! :grin:

Because German tests by stating the obvious: IE: the P-47 turns better than either the Me-109G or the similar performing P-51, they get something that matches the blindingly obvious from all air battles.

I defy you to find any WWII air battle anywhere where the Me-109G was even in the same league in low speed sustained turns vs the P-47: That very notion is laughable... This gives you an idea what the US tests a are worth when they claim: P-51 gets on a P-47's tail in four turns...

WWII Test pilot conclusions are generally laughable, with even one German one assuming as a matter of course that the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A when comparing to a La-5. Laughable...

Bullets flying apparently inject a lot of objectivity into comparative flying...

Russian front-line observations are that: Observations of combat, so they rank far above what any test pilot says. And what do you know, the Russian's combat observations don't conclude the FW-190A is out-turned by the Me-109G...

Well horrible if the P-51 was considered horrible by them too, which it wasn't, so the British conclusions here can be safely be considered as bunk as well... Which is why I don't worry at all to see Typhoons holding their own with FW-190As: Have you ever read any British tests concluding the Hurricane easily out-turns the Spitfire? No? Why not? It was completely and utterly true, and widely known among combat pilots...

Gosh, why the discretion about the Hurricane's sustained turn superiority over the Spitfire all of a sudden? Not iconic enough maybe? Or not fitting flight physic theories?

See why I'd rather ignore whatever test pilots in those days have to say?

Well for the rate of roll it's bunk, since roll rate charts show little difference, though you hear about the P-47's roll reversal being good...

You know what to think of the consistency of test pilots when here they are equal, and then on later models the P-51 supposedly reverses a tailing P-47 in four turns...

Four turns... Think about it: Going from roughly equal to gaining 90° for each 360°...

Vs the Model 52 Zero the P-47 was also reversed in ONE 360° turn from a full 360° tailing position (.5 turn to .75 turn from the tested 180° opposite merge), P-51 nearly one full 360° turn from 180° opposite merge, (or a bit below 2 X 360 turns for a full 360° tailing reversal), and a full turn for the P-38 from 180° opposite merge, (or a full two 360° turns from a full 360° tailing position), making it the best "turner" of the 3...

Unsustained turns have nothing to do with sustained, so these results are meaningless for more closely matching European types, assuming they even got the hierarchy correct for sustained turns (gravely doubtful here since these may not even be sustained)...

Note I have no idea what the P-38 can do in turns. For Europe it is not important enough for me.

The P-47 coming dead last behind the P-51 is just a laughable conclusion when you've read any amount of P-47 combat reports, and compared them to a similar number of P-51 combat reports, as the Mike Williams site lets you do.

So what if its only 600-700 reports apiece: Do I have to take your whole blood to know what's in it?

I know all the reports that are contrarian to what I say, including the one vs the Zero: Either the late Bubbletop is really much worse than a Razorback, or it's typical test pilot nonsense you will find not a clue of in real battles.

I go with the real battles because after 17 years of looking at this, I noted they have one huge advantage over test pilots: They all say the same things, while those guys go all over the place...

Find me ONE P-47D out-turned in sustained low speed turns by a Me-109G...

Find me ONE FW-190A out-turned in sustained low speed/low altitude turns by any Mark of Spitfire...

See what I am getting at?



My advice to them is: Put bullets and cannon shells in those things, with orders to shoot, and see what happens with their theories...8-)

They also said the Spit Mk XIV generally out-rolled the P-51 Mustang, but then in the pilot notes of that specific test you can read:

"The Spitfire's ailerons were defective, but will be fixed in production..."

Hmmmm...

I estimate the actual Wartime top roll rate of a Mk V to be around 78-80°, reduced to 50° on the Mk IX/Mk XII, and a paltry 40-45° on the Mk XIV...

I know there are Mk Vs quoted at 100°+, but I think this could be helped by high altitudes, where on some types roll did get faster.

This Jives with a Supermarine factory pilot who said the Mk IXs was only 2/3rds as fast rolling as the Mk Vs, and the Mk XIVs worse still...

The peak roll speed on all Spits is also much lower being around 160-200 MPH, while on the P-51 at 90° it is closer to 300 MPH...

Don't rely on what the Spits can do today in airshows: They are much faster today because the aileron hinges have been completely re-done mechanically, and they have no guns or ammo...

So you can see how unlikely it is to say the Spit "generally" outrolls the P-51during wartime, especially with "defective" ailerons...

Just take what the period's test pilot say with a grain of salt is my motto: Every battle matters more to me than whatever they say...

Heinz Lange partly confirms what I say all along:

To understand him, you have to have prominent in your mind the distinction between high speed unsustained 6G + turns (In which no doubt the Me-109G can beat the FW-190A, despite its much heavier elevator controls: The lightness of the FW-190A's elevators not translating into actual turn or dive pull-out performance: Nose-up sinking, remember?), and sustained low-speed 3 Gs turns, which is what I am talking about:

"although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn": IE: A tighter unsustained high G radius, "if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well." That is, in the long run, if you were patient in sustained turns, you would find them about equal (but not with the FW-190A's flaps down I'll bet, a trick that came later)...


One aircraft being better at high Gs will not necessarily be better at low Gs. This is because depending on aircraft types, the engine loads the wing with different proportions of leverages according to speed, which the geniuses of those days don't know about, since they never actually measured the wing bending in turning flight in those types of nose-pulled machines...

A long nose type with big wings may have nearly 50% of its lift caused by the engine alone, putting the wingloading higher than a short nose small wing type at 3 Gs (actual turn 3G on pilot), since the big wing type bends its wings nearly like 6 Gs when the smaller wing type only get one extra G from the engine's shorter nose, so 4Gs of wing bending for the same 3 Gs of turning...

But at 6 Gs the big wings regain the advantage, since they still get only an extra 3 G of engine-caused wing bending over the 6 Gs of actual turning, so 9 Gs of bending (they can typically take 13-14 Gs without deformation), while the small wing short nose type has now to take 6 Gs plus one: 7.

9 to 7 Gs of wing bending (at 6 Gs of actual turn) is a lot closer than 6 to 4 Gs of bending (at 3 Gs of actual turn)...

Now if the small wing short nose also happens to be a lot heavier, then 9 to 7 is close enough for the big wing to beat it easily, when it couldn't do so by a wide margin at a 6 to 4 Gs wing bending ratio in the lower sustainable 3 Gs...


I understand now how this leap from engine power to wingloading was done, but it is much more complicated than it first seemed to me when I realized this about ten years ago: The CL must shift in front of the CG to relieve the pilot from the forces of curving the prop's trajectory. The amount of this prop "turn curving" effort depending on the surface of the prop pulled below potential forward speed: The larger the surface, the larger the slanting of the thrust, the larger the slanting of the thrust the more lift is generated through the actual induced angle of attack: 7° is worth 20 000 lbs of extra lift?, add 6° of thrust slanting (13° total) and you could be close to 40 000 lbs of extra lift, but maybe all that extra force is now working only with a four inch "forward shifted" lever to lift the nose's 10 foot distant unwilling prop...

For all that extra lift to be there, in addition to the thrust angle slanting down, the airflow "void" above the wings must deform throughout the turn and increase in depth to lift things more up by the same amount, which is why wing bending measurements during turning flight would show if this is going on (this measuring never done in flight and in turns, AFAIK, on these types of WWII fighters)...

In theory the CL is always behind the CG for stability (but the prop now resisting you pulling back on it makes this moot for stability in a turn: The prop's resistance creates stability far more forward), but I think this is not true while turning: The airflow's void above the wing changes shape -in a curved turn's airflow- and moves the CL forward, which is why the pilot never feels like he is fighting, with his elevators, hundred of pounds of force on a prop that wants to go straight and not in a curve: The effort is taken over by the reversing direction of the "scissor action" when the CL shifts in front of the CG.

Otherwise, with, say, a tail as long as the nose, the elevator's action would be only a 1:1 lever to defeat what I think is about 100+ lbs of resitance per 1° of AoA increase at the prop (which does not like assymetrical incoming airflow, because it wants to go straight), or 700 lbs total at 7°: Beyond structural tail strenght almost...

The wing's lift is greater but operates with maybe a 30:1 lever agaisnt the prop on some types, depending how far the CL has moved forward and how long the nose is. (Exactly why the Dora can't compare to the Anton in sustained turns...)

All that "induced" extra lift would produce extra drag, but two objections come forward: Extra drag compared to what? Other nose prop types? No. To a similar size and wingloading jet, yes.

You will then find the jet out sustained-turning the prop aircraft despite the jet having a much lower climb rate and acceleration, which is exactly the case of a Vampire vs a Spitfire Mk XIV... Despite nearly identical wingloading, the Vampire gains in low-speed sustained turns to the tune of 90° to every 360° vs a Spit XIV... Four turns to reverse a tailing position, despite a far lower climb rate and acceleration...

The other "masking" factor of the extra lift/drag of nose props in turns is that when the prop fights being made to curve in a turn, its thrust is not reduced but actually increased on the inside-turn part of the prop: It's increased inside-turn efficiency is actually what cause the thrust to slant in the first place. So an increase of prop efficiency on the inside-turn part of the prop disc (because of slower incoming air in that area) could mask some of the extra drag with extra thrust...

Mind you, the only pusher prop fighter to see front-line service was not that great a turner: Maybe the SAAB 21 had a balance problem that did not affect the Vampire... This does strike against the notion that a pusher prop should have enjoyed a "real" wingloading advantage... All sides tried and tried to make a pusher during WWII, but this was the only one to ever see some service...

That's my "proploading" theory anyway, and it does jive nicely with this doesn't it?:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg

Gaston

Hey just to add a little fuel to the fire :-P:-P

Somewhere I've seen a link to the report Icefire refers to (or at least scanned pages) From memory I'm sure the 109G that was used in the test had gun pods fitted. Hence high wing loading and poor turn capability.

Cheers

Leady

(PS Gaston, how many times and on how many forums can you flog that poor dead horse of yours??)

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell an agenda in this thread, and it smells a lot like knackwurst.

Just sayin'.

So to sum up you agree that all the test reports, from all nations, disagree with you, but you insist that you are right.
Also you don't have any evidence but you don't hesitate to twist what a real pilot said to make it fit your fantasy in particular Hauptmann Heinz Lange.

And as for the one example

P/O J. Stewart (Rhodesian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942:

I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron. I shouted a warning and stall-turned to port to attack the rear two F.W. 190's. They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one.

That should do it

Hi there,

well I do not think that anyone here wants to be convinced by arguments. But I would still like to share something that might be considered interesting for those who wonder about the differences between FM, test results and pilot accounts.
I always loved the FW 190 but, alas, this love is not really returned in IL2. I find it much harder to fly than other aircraft. In the beginning I used to blame the game, since all German fighter pilots I heard in interviews (Rall, Krupinsky etc.) agreed that the FW was "much easier to fly, and especially to land". Naturally these are highly subjective personal points of view, but most pilots seem to have felt the same. Now, why don´t we (or maybe just bad pilots like me) experience this in the game? A possible answer is given in the book "Feindberührung" by the late Julius Meimberg. I don´t know whether this brilliant book was translated into English, so here I try to present some relevant paragraphs (translating as good as I can). Meimberg was a fighter pilot from ´39 to ´45, flying in France, Africa, France again and during the last month of the war in Germany. He scored 59 confirmed kills. After being severely wounded in summer ´41 he returned to the channel front May 4th 1942, and was brought up to date by his commanding officer Walter Oesau:
"But there were good news as well, and they all had the same name: Focke-Wulf Fw 190. ... Immediately (after its introduction) kill scores went up considerably, especially against the British Spitfire V, which is inferior to the FW 190 in all respects, with the possible exception of turn-fights."
May 5th Meimberg for the first time tests his 190 in flight:
" I climb up to my workplace ... and slide into the seat, which allows an almost lying position: thus the pilot is better equipped to endure the impact of forces during aerial combat. The cabin is narrow as in the Messerschmitt, but you do not feel cramped. On both sides of the seat there are panels with switches for landing gear, flaps, trim, radio, oxygen supply and the electrical fuses. Nothing of all this is protruding annoyingly into the cockpit (as in the BF 109); everything is arranged in such a way that, given some routine, it can be felt and operated blindly. Coarse mechanical contraptions are completely absent. Were in the Messerschmitt you had to turn big wheels and small cranks, here you push a switch and everything is done by a servomotor. Trim, gear, flaps - all electric.
This airplane, you see it with every detail, was constructed by people who fly themselves and know what a fighter-pilot needs most: a clear head for the fight. In accordance with this special care was given to engine management. On the left side of the cockpit, were I am used to three different operating levers for power, mixture and prop pitch, there is only one. According to its position and the atmospheric conditions a so-called Kommandogerät is optimizing the engine management. This disburdens the pilot enormously. He can fully concentrate on flying, aiming and shooting. In the air as well the Focke-Wulf is pure joy. Controlling is smooth and harmonic; its roll-rate is breathtaking and it dives like a stone. ..."
To illustrate his point Meimberg, little later in the book, quotes the very same passage by Alan Deere that was referred to earlier in this thread, not least because it was an encounter of Deere´s 403rd squadron with Meimbergs own 3./JG 2.
Meimberg himself shot down six Spitfires with his FW 190 A-2, nine more from August to December 1942 flying a Bf 109 G-1.

Now, all the things he praises most about the Focke-Wulf that make it superior or "easier to fly" than the Messerschmitt (the feeling of being save and comfortable and the ergonomics of the controls) is not and cannot be modelled in our beloved flight sim. Such a pity! But that´s what we have got.

(@ ElAurens: no idea if Meimberg liked Knackwurst, such as I do. But neither of us is or was a Nazi ... while Hitler was a vegetarian).

This forum is hijacked by self-appointed experts who don't even know how to do reasoning correctly. Don't try to argue with them, otherwise your post will be deleted eventually.

My whole squadron (Flying German fighters) has stopped supporting the newly released patches which severely porked the already undermodeled German planes and will stay on UP3 from now on.

I'm afraid Oleg need to do something to stop his game being tinkered by some unprofessional bigots any longer.

Oh, please don't think I am calling anyone a Nazi.

Not my intention at all sir.

I've just seen this tactic used over and over again in the 10 years I've been involved with the IL2 series.

There are folks that fly for both sides that are so wrapped up in their aircraft that any way to get an edge is OK with them. It's been like this since the dawn of online combat flight simulation.

That's funny, since there's no shred of professionalism or accuracy to be found in UP3.

@ ElAurens

No sweat :)

I know what you mean.

congratulations for joke post of the thread.

impressive, considering some of the other contenders.

It is frustrating... definitely.

Wow.

Well I find Gaston's points refreshing.

The process for any debate is to back up your argument with facts. The trouble is facts can often be interpreted many ways.

It would be interesting to see if we can get any flight data of the currently restored FWs

I think it's fairer to say that fighter pilots were selected for certain attributes - notably aggressiveness, aerobatic skill and g-tolerances - from the pool of available pilots.

There are plenty of examples of WW2 era pilots who started off in fighters and then ended up in other sorts of planes (notably, many AVG members), as well as pilots who started off flying attack planes or bombers and who switched to fighters.

Current newly built FW-190A-8Ns are said to be mid-way in turn rates between a P-51D and Yak-3 with VK-107... This might be when ballasted to similar combat weights, or if not then maybe similarly underweight for all...

This would be without flaps, downthrottling or without the P-51's coarse pitch at low speed "trick", so the actual ultimate performance could be more or less radically separated... The order seems about right... The FW-190A's upper cowl shape is very different on the Ns than on the the real thing (no tapering), so aerodynamically they are not the same, and the FW-190A-8Ns also don't always use correct props...

Gaston

Well KG 200 did do tests and they did say "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", but you do choose to ignore them don't you?

Or maybe I misunderstood your position, and you actually understand the Me-109G is ridiculously out-turned by the P-47D?:cool:

You also choose to ignore what all combat reports are saying, including your own quote:

"I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me"

Well, if you want to make sure it is not high speed, you better exclude diving from the equation don't you?

On top of that we don't know how far below, or how fast they were going...:

"in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron."

"Attacking" and "opposite direction" implies they are neither slow nor, more importantly, turning...

Maybe "Stall-turned" confused you: It does not mean that the turning was close to level flying speed stall, but it could instead very well be close to a 350-400 MPH 6 G "stall-turn"... In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns"...

Finally: "They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one."

Well "several" burst is good for your argument, but still there is no suggestion of low speed or multiple level turns is there?

In fact, "broke and turned with me", combined with "attacking" and "opposite direction", pretty much implies they were previously going fairly straight, which in turn suggests fairly fast...

But maybe you don't quite get the distinction I make between high G turning performance and low-G sustained turning performance? Well, consider that just because it's all the same for our "sophisticated" current flight physics (assuming similar needed stick effort per G at high speeds), it doesn't mean it's all the same for my theory...

But since you don't accept, not even momentarily for the sake of an argument apparently, the basics of my theory, that explains the unconvincing example you chose...

Hey, have you heard of the multiple turns level fight by Johnny Johnson? "Opposite side of an ever diminishing circle"?: That's more like the ticket...

"It was only a matter of time", and one will come up...

Gaston

Well they also quoted the Spitfire Mk IX at a best turn rate of 17.5 seconds, while the best for a Spitfire Mk V is 18.8 sec...

Apparently "Planes of Fame" thinks the reverse is more plausible. It's only a 1.3 second implausibility mind you, but then they come up with the P-47D: 27 seconds best turn time... Bf-109G: 22 seconds...

So what did KG 200 mean when they said "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G?" ("On Special Missions: KG 200")

That was with an underpowered needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback by the way: Same exact thing as the Russians had...

If they can get it wrong by more than FIVE whole seconds, then why could the FW-190A not just as easily be at 18 seconds?

In the real world, the Front-Line Russians found the Spitfire Mk V so inadequate for turn-fighting they changed their tactics to dive and zoom just for its benefit, and they even tried to remove its outer guns to help it turn, to no avail... (Source: Le Fana de l'Aviation #496 p.40.) The Spitfire Mk IX was in fact no better for turns and probably slightly worse...

So what I am asking you is to cite here your reasons for choosing the Russian test values over the KG 200 evaluation conclusion:

Insert reasons here: _________________________________________

Mind you all 600 P-47D combat reports here are completely on the German side, with no exceptions...: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html

Insert Reasons for ignoring them here:___________________________.



My reason for ignoring the Russian turn rate values is they have no counterparts in real life combat for the heavier types... Ever. And that shows an apparent bias that is understandable, but still a bias. Mystery of mysteries, the bias completely disapears when bullets are flying...

Gaston

Oh DearI wasn't talking about the P47


I ignored nothing, you asked for an example I gave you one. You are the one ignoring the test reports, test pilots and so on.

I give you credit for recognising that one side was attacking.

I know what a stall turn is. In brief you put the nose of the aircraft up to kill speed and then I used to turn the glider using the rudder before the speed drops to a level where you lose control authority. I have done these a number of times and it has absolutely nothing to do with speed or high G. If you have been to an air show you will have seen a tail slide which is an extension of this where the aircraft lets the speed drop to zero and slides back before turning.

If you believe for a moment that quote In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns" it proves beyond any doubt your level of understanding on this subject

The important part is that the speed is lost As covered by my pevious statement it has everything to do with low speed. Also note that the 190 turned with him, so the 190 must have been going slowly or he would have overshot. Also note several bursts, not one or two, which means that this went on for some time. All this proves is that you have no idea about the manoeuver you are talking about. It is about losing speed, which turned into a turning fight and the 190 was lucky to get away with it

Oh I do


Just a small reminder, you asked for one example and I supplied it. Now I recognise that you may not like your challange being taken up but be fair, you did ask for it and it is a good example.

Yes I have, the Johnny Johnson in a Mk V who was up against the 190 which was a much better aircraft almost certainly being flown by a very experienced pilot and it was JJ who was the lucky one.

Yes, I agree that some people did transfer between Commands; sure. However, I think it nonsense to suggest that fighter pilots were carefully selected because they somehow demonstrated an aggressiveness, or offensive spirit found lacking in other, less plucky pilots. Just how this offensive spirit would be demonstrated in training I'm not really sure. Perhaps they selected cadets who got into fights down the pub or who were caught 'raking' opposition players during inter-squadron rugger matches. Not sure. Anyway, when you think about it, isn't it more likely that pilots with demonstrable leadership skills and technical ability would be assigned to the more arduous and complex responsibility to be found in aircraft with more than one engine. Do you for example believe that the Dams Raid would have been more successful if fighter pilots had been drafted in to fly the operation?

I have always understood that for the RAF basic training was for all pilots, and the ones who didn't do so well in that became bomber pilots or even transport pilots.

Bomber pilots were needed, as were coastal patrol pilots etc, but my feeling was always that they were second class citizens compared to the fighter pilots.

That's probably from comics when I was a kid I suppose, but I am sure I've never heard of bomber pilots as elite above fighter pilots.

Re the selection the best pilots went to Bomber command and then Coastal Command. Fighter Command generally had the worst pilots.

Now you've put the cat among the pigeons.. :grin:

But before you claim that... we need formulae, test reports (false or otherwise), combat reports and or tracks ;)

I've always maintained that slow speed turning is best done with full elevator and only rudder. The ME109 and FW190 are best suited for this as they are the more stable low speed platforms, compared to the allied a/c.

Depending where and how you execute these moves they can have a high-G component if the move is sustained long enough. Remember that this is powered flight whereas in a glider you will slow down such as to make G forces much less effective.
;)

People often mistake a glider which clearly goes slower in level flight than a powered aircraft with corresponding low G forces.

I was taught advanced aerobatics in a Fox glider which I was told had a higher performance/stress limits than a Cessna areobat. Most gliders at least match most private aircraft and in a climb depending of course on conditions, easily exceed the average. When in the Navy one of our gliding club members won a bet against an F4 crew as to which could get to 2,000ft from a standing start, which on a winch launch he achieved in 30 seconds. Air tows are for wimps.

I suspect you knew this, but there may be some people on the forum with limited experience in a glider. My advice to one and all is go to a gliding club and have a few trial flights, but it comes with a health warning. Its very, very addictive.

Re the best way to turn, in a glider you always, always use all the controls. If you don't the secondary control effects will turn you inside out. At 18 I was young to take up people on air experience flights and sometimes experienced PPL pilots would look at me, think they knew it better and not listen to what I was saying. All I used to do was take them up, which normally shook them up and then ask them to make a turn. Almost always we ended up doing the most alarming things in the sky at which point I would take control back and after that, they listened.

I did have a few flights with a friend in a Cherokee and didn't like it at all. I eventually left the rudder well alone and flew using the elevators and the ailerons. In the Hunter you used all the controls and that was a pretty agile aircraft, so I tend to be in its best to use all the tools available to you. The designers put them in for a reason

As to the best way who knows but it probably differs by aircraft. One thing though, the best fighters were those which are considered to be borderline unstable. To be too stable is a disadvantage and modern fighters are of course designed to be unstable and its only computers that keep them in the air.

My son is close to CPL.. and of course he gets upset when i explain to him how to fly on the edge.
I mean, really, I'm only an experienced parent who knows sweet f-all :rolleyes: BUT.. he is an excellent pilot. Must have the same attitude like the old man ??

One must consider that in a glider you do not have to worry about any engine and it's side effects, but at the same time you're more experienced at the finer points of flying with regard to non-powered flight(or pure flight), which is something that should be taught at PPL level on powered a/c.

Maybe PPLs should start with gliding :) after all .. the Luftwaffe aces all started here !!

Edt: there have been some raised eyebrows here, when I've mentioned cross-the-controls to get the best turn performance out of a FW .. i just laugh away.

Computer systems.... only as good as the goons that program them.
NEVER rely on any computer/system... always have an EXIT 'procedure'
Always keep a copy of your financials offline or more importantly, on paper.
:)

I agree about learning in a Glider for most if only because in the UK you have to learn how to spin in a number of different scenarios before you go solo. A PPL doesn't get taught how to spin which I always thought was risky.
Your confidence increases as you are taught how to land out and when you go cross country, you can be certain that sooner or later you end up having to find a field or whatever to land in. On average landed out once a year.

I also have a strong belief that as Gliders often fly in close proximity to each other the pilots learn how to keep a better lookout. A small but often ignored point.

PS you are never too old. Our club had one man who went solo aged 84.

It's not what the article says.
Learn to read and stop interpreting

Gaston seems to have gone quiet

From one of those articles...
With interpretations one should look at what is not said... the bold section is very telling and looks like a Freudian slip in context.
I would think that if the LA5 could out turn the FW190 at this point it would be explicitly mentioned.. but not being mentioned it is possible that the two a/c (in good hands) matched each other turn for turn, and no further.
Now extending from this.. how did the LA5 match against the spitfire in such a situation.... or any other a/c

Gaston may have something.. ;)

First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks...

Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...:

" Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

-On April 29th the regiment completed 28 sorties to escort bombers and ground attack aircrafts and 23 to protect ground troops, with four air battles occuring. The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted to fighting in the vertical plane.


Second quotation : "A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

Translation: "At low and medium altitude, the Mark VB was outperformed by German and Soviet fighters of its time. To try to improve its maneuverability and its speed (?!?: My note: They couldn't have expected much speed increase from that now could they? Obviously this was more about maneuvering), the Soviets lightened it by removing the four machineguns and their ammunition. This variant was evaluated by the VVS test center during the Summer of 1943. Apparently it was not a success, as there was no instruction to standardize the modification"

If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French...

If the turn rate was really satisfactory to the Soviets compared to their own types, why would they change tactics to the vertical for this type alone? And why did they try to lighten it, at no improvement in drag or speed, if not obviously to improve its maneuverability? If the Spitfire really turned with around 17-18 sec turn times (TsAGI), which is every bit as good as the best of their fighters, why did they consider it unsuitable for their ususal turning tactics?

If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming...

Except against slow-turning types like the P-51 or the Me-109G, turning tactics with the Spitfire were simply not very competitive, this worsening with the Mk IX, which is why the Mk IX is always used in dive and zoom tactics (followed by the occasional harsh high G high speed unsustained turn, its performance for which was on the other hand quite good), and this almost without exception: The vertical was what it excelled at...

Gaston

Very good point. I never make any claims about German aircrafts vs the Russians types, or even vs the P-38 or Tempest/Typhoon, because the amount of combat reports is so much smaller than what I have read vs other US/British types.

A lot of Russian quotes are very indicative though: "Experienced FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane"

"There are reports of turning battle with the FW-190A lasting quite some time"

"FW-190A will inevitably offer turning battle at minimum speed"

If it was so poorly suited and unsuccessful in the horizontal, wouldn't you think it would have been used in other ways?

On the other hand, the only fighter type I have ever heard the Me-109G engaging more or less successfully in a turning battle was the P-51, and even then it is barely as a close equal... The Fs and G-2 could sometimes match Spitfires as well, and that is not a good sign for the Spitfire...

I did hear from Steinhoff that the Me-109G's climbing spiral was superior to other fighter types, but this appeared to be useful only against some mid-war Russian fighters, and usually specifically when flying the G-2... A climbing spiral is a rare case in an air battle in any case...

I see still no contestation that KG 200 did say the P-47D needle-tip Razorack did out-turn their Me-109G as a general statement that is always (grossly) demonstrated in real-life combat reports (as in, quite a bit over 90° of gain per 360° of horizontal turning), and this in all circumstances (including left-hand climbing spirals)...

Does that mean we finally have a consensus on that?:)

Gaston

The Russians were never really happy with the Spitfires they got. They found the Merlin to be exceedingly troublesome and it had difficulty with the fine dust conditions that were found in the Kuban area. The British found similar situations when operating in Normandy (thus requiring new filters to be fitted). I really don't think the Russians were ever able to get the most out of their Spitfires but as with all fighters during WWII they seemed to be focused on getting the most out of the aircraft by removing unnecessary equipment. Indeed, removing the machine guns may have been an effort to improve maneuverability by increasing the roll rate. Compared to contemporary Russian fighters, particularly the Yak, the Spitfire is quite slow in the roll.

I'm not discounting the report but as with any historical reports it does have to be placed in full context. Indeed, when they first received Spitfires in early 1943 they were operating with one hand behind their back...

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Here's an interesting account with the Russians doing test combat near the front.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Versus the LaGG it seems the Spitfire had no trouble turning with it. Not that the LaGG was exceptional in the turn but further places in context that the Russians were experimenting with the Spitfires capabilities when they did receive it. Note these are front line pilots.

Now here's the most interesting piece that pretty much goes against the stuff you translated:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here but that horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.

Now would you like to move the goalpost out further? :)

I think there are two issues that should be noted in relation to the performance of Spitfire aircraft transferred to the Soviets during the War.

Firstly, all or most of the Mk Vs that went to Russia were well and truly second hand. The machines were essentially considered obsolete in terms of the WTO when dispatched. In 1943, even if they had all been brand new (which they most certainly were not), they would have struggled with the latest Luftwaffe types.

Secondly, despite the actual condition of the Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union, any official statements and reports prepared during the Soviet era, (about Spitfires or anything else for that matter) must be treated with tremendous scepticism. The simple truth is that any comments that were made by individuals (any individual at all) that could be interpreted as defeatist or in some way critical of the soviet system or the products of soviet industry, could and would get you killed or would be otherwise career threatening. No one in their right mind would be associated with such statements, whether he or she had penned them or not. If you knew what was good for you during this time of intense fear and paranoia, you most certainly didn't go around praising the war equipment of a foreign power, not even an allied foreign power.

The outdated 'slower' machine would (should) be better turners in any case.

You just might have shot Icefire's argument down, Note that with that Russian LA5/FW190 report.. it was never mentioned that the FW could out-turn the LA5.. (the reporter might have been shot) More importantly what was left out, was that the LA5 couldn't out-turn the FW190.

With that spitfire conversion.. bringing in the Lagg3 brings in a new set of parameters.Things to note:

1) both spit pilots won their 'combats' with a combination of horizontal and vertical moves
2) Sapozhnikov did a zoom-climb to beat the Lagg3 in the second test

Although and indicator that the Spit could outfly the Lagg3 under circumstances, this is no indication of slow turn performances that Gaston is talking about.

Guess whats wrong with this statement ...:)
I found this interesting
I don't think this is in the game.

Interesting stuff eh? :) Much less black and white than some would have believe but this is why first hand accounts are so fascinating. We just have to accept that there is historical background required to interpret the comments.

I was trying to find that report again and I wasn't able to dig it up. Have the link handy? There is that Russian patriotism thing that gets trotted out a fair bit and I suspect some of it's true but there were pilots who quite liked their lend lease aircraft. Pokryshkin spoke highly of the P-39. I guess that didn't set off enough alarm bells for his Political Officer :) He quite liked the La-7 after that so maybe that equalled out somewhere in the grand scheme of things. I suspect that the Russian pilots liked their aircraft despite whatever official proclamations were in place and kept their comments largely to themselves until much later.

The interesting thing about the La-5 is that because it was initially a LaGG-3 with a new engine the aircraft went through stages of development where it was initially just a retrofit and then it became it's own model, shedding weight in the process. The early La-5 was a slower turner than the refined 1944 La-5FN (22 seconds is quoted in places... similar to FW190). In-game I suspect that the weight for the La-5 reflects the later model series while the La-5F reflects the early F model and the FN reflects a very late model FN.

That's a very long way of saying that depending on the La-5 model tested the FW190 and La-5 might have a very similar turn time. We'd have to look very closely at what they tested to see what sort of information we can glean from it.

Thanks for the link about Eastern Front Spitfires!

"During this period the regiment’s pilots (57th-Spitfires) destroyed 41 enemy aircraft in 44 combats.

Thus, the 16th GIAP flying P-39 Airacobras destroyed 40 aircraft in 41 engagements. For the 42d GIAP in Yaks, 49 aircraft are counted in 56 engagements.


For example, the 57th GIAP (Spitfire Mk Vs) is credited with 21 victories as confirmed by ground forces and the vectoring station; 16th GIAP (P-39) is credited with 13 downed aircraft; 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—27 enemy aircraft.


There were unrecoverable losses in this period: in 57th GIAP (Spitfires)—13 aircraft and 8 dead pilots; in 16th GIAP (P-39)—9 aircraft and 6 pilots; and in 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—8 aircraft were destroyed and 5 pilots did not return."


In general the Spitfires achieved the second highest amount of confirmed kills over the month of May 1943 for the 3 types, but had by far the highest losses, and this over a smaller amount of sorties.

The Russians seem to insist a lot that the "spread out" British armament was less effective, but in my opinion that is questionnable, especially in view of their Spitfire's good results in kills: Each of the two Hispanos was probably noticeably deadlier than the single hub mounted Russian 20 mm, and the fact that one would be off-center did not change the fact that the british gun was excellent and would produce fast kills.

Sustaining turns is more of a defensive maneuver than an offensive maneuver, and the much higher Spitfire losses certainly don't point towards a superiority in turns...

I remember reading the following sustained radiuses for the following types: Me-109E: 850 feet, Spitfire Mk I: 1050 feet, Hurricane 800 feet. The source is too distant to recall but I know from this that the two complicated Me-109E/Spitfire Mk I "Doghouse" charts (often offered in rebuttal to this) is certainly all calculated data... The radiuses above are probably the real thing, as flown...

I really doubt in sustained turns the Spitfire had any sort of large superiority over much of anything else but the later Me-109Gs and P-51s...

It does seem in the linked LaGG-3 fly-off that it had horizontal turn parity with the LaGG-3, but not that it out-turned it: He puts his sight on it by rolling under it during a spiral climb...

The La-5 was widely known as hugely better than the LaGG-3 (regardless of what TsAGI turn times say), and, as K_Freddie points out, it was not conclusively said that even that out-turned the FW-190A...

As for the 57's pilots conclusion that they have to use the Spitfire in horizontal turn:

"The regiment’s pilots considered the conduct of battles in the horizontal plane to be the optimum method of contesting with German fighters. Despite the fact that, as already noted above, because of its lightness the Spitfire was a quick climber, the pilots of 57th GIAP recommended engaging the Messers and Fokkers in turning battles."

Well if that is so, why did they later have to change their tactics to the vertical to be more effective, why was the Spitfire tested with outer guns removed, and why did they suffer such disproportionate losses?

In any case, the recommendation of horizontal turn-fighting made sense in the early 1943 period, when the majority of the opposition on the Eastern Front was probably still the Me-109G.

I'll grant you it is contradicting, but not quite as convincing as several combat accounts citing gradual gains in sustained turns...

Gaston

Wrong
Horizontal combat was not the norm in the real world and to say it covered 95% of combats is a farce. Also it was in many ways outdated. Turning is mainly a defensive tactic and fighters are designed to attack, most combats were in and out and a high proportion of pilots who were shot down never knew what hit them. Height in combat is a vital advantage and the Spit was good in both climb and turn.
You can of course support the 95% comment?
Nothing unexpected here the Mk V was outclassed by the Fw190 and the 109G
The Russians didn't consider the Spit unsuitable for turning combat as proved by your own words which I will quote later

As mentioned before this is wrong the SPit was good at the turn and the climb.
Which you translated as
It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here but that horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.

I am sure you meant to say
It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here and horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.
Because Horizontal is left and right
So to sum up the Russians also recognised that the Spit was good in a turn and shot down many enemy aircraft using that tactic.

Err Glider
The Me109 prop rotates to the right - clockwise unless Oleg has completely stuffed it up, which simply means :-
1)At high speed
Left turns are faster than right - that's if you don't down throttle and if you do this, you turn faster in the right turn !!

2)At low speeds
Right turns are tighter and more controllable (same as the FW190)

So where has the dis-information penetrated... ?? ;)

Those were not my words, they were the ones from the Russian source quoted by Gaston

My point was to point out that the Russians liked to use the turn ability of the SPitfire and clarify Gastons statement. RAF pilots were happy to go left or right.

I am just pointing out the error in the 'document', which does not seem to come from a pilots POV. Pilots can be dimwits, but to get the prop-rotation wrong, is from a pongo/groundhog/political commissar. ;)
And... yes I read that doc, and have highlighted this error elsewhere!

I think what really is lacking is a serious counter-argument (with circumstantial evidence/docs) to gaston's story.
His 'evidence' is purely documentary and he is definitely well read on the topic, but he provides a really convincing argument that no one here can really refute (it's like religion)

What I can say, IL2 gamewise, is that Oleg's modelling does come close to what Gaston's hypothesis - In a FW190 I can outturn a spit in a right turn at stall speed - I have done it online many a time..

When I get my pedals working again.. you're all dead meat :!:

The part that is missing is exactly when the pilots were consulted on this. Since left/right is a 50/50 thing it's easy enough for the pilot to remember that they were always catching 109s in a left or right handed turn but mixing up the direction. Plausible.

Unless I'm missing something, Gaston is arguing against IL-2s modelling of the situation. Previously the FW190 was a much more difficult aircraft to turn. With 4.11 it's turn rate was increased and it's easier to extract a better turn at all speeds.

Gaston has provided as much argument as there has been counter argument IMHO. Choices have been made to accept some of the information and there is a degree of interpretation required but I think IL-2 is essentially right at this point (although it's never perfect) and I haven't seen anything damning that suggests otherwise.

What kind of pedals and whats wrong with them or just not plugged in yet? :)

??? - I'm trying not to laugh
My pedals :)

Totally serious... load up IL-2 Compare from 4.07 and 4.11 and check.

FW190A-5 in 4.07:

Best turn speed: 370kph
Turn time at best turn speed: 24+ seconds

Turn time at 280kph: 33 seconds
Turn time at 420kph: 25+ seconds

In 4.11:

Best turn speed: 310kph
Turn time at best turn speed: 23 seconds

Turn time at 280kph: 26+ seconds
Turn time at 420kph: 27+ seconds

So you can see the turn parameters are different and largely better. There is a slightly slower turn rate at the higher speeds but it's a 2 second difference while at lower speeds there is a 7 second advantage. Overall the chart shows a wider spread in 4.11 meaning there is a better overall turn rate for the FW190 across the speed range than there was previously.

It also works seat of the pants... which is why I checked in the first place.

I'm not sure if he's saying the FW190 doesn't turn well enough or if it turns too well.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

He is saying that it is turning better than it used to prior to the FM overhaul. And he is right.

Are you seriously saying that there is no evidence that the Spit turns better than the Fw190?

...at low speed, just above the stall. This is where Gaston is making his point.

Everyone is going 'No ways, it can out turn them as all the flight comparison tests have been done' - I'm also yet to see an official WW2 low speed turning comparison. That Russian report might be the closest that we'll ever get..
:)

BTW .. online the one time I had a Spit, probably a IX, on my tail when I slowed down to full flaps and 50-100ft above the ground. I went into a gentle right bank and he followed, I then threw it into a full hard RH turn at full throttle and right rudder. The Spit couldn't follow - maybe the pilot or maybe the FMs might be correct.

The Spitfire stall speed is lower and therefore it turns better at low speed. In fact it can still turn at speeds at which the Fw 190 can't even fly straight any more.

my 2 cents
About maneuverability and turn rate ..

PLEASE Do not think about "HISTORICAL DATA" and turn rate and dont think about the mathematics and measures..
Think about the pilot!
and think about what you do not know

In the stick P-51D, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's.
The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander".


The turn rate is less important for a dogfight..

Look at other things ..

You have a good point.. it probably made the difference which is not mentioned in combat reports

Radial-vs-Inline which can have a marked effect on turning ability.. ignored also (and mentioned in some report which I forget) is the FW190 ability to hang by it's prop... which looks like a Radial characteristic.

:)

Another example I can come up with on the radial vs. inline comparo is the P36 vs. P40.

The Army Air Corps P36 C had 1200bhp with 100 act fuel, whereas the P40s that replaced it only had 1000bhp.

The P 40 was faster in level flight, but, the P 36 could out turn it (from pilot accounts), and the P 36 was significantly faster in the climb. (3 to 4 minutes faster to 20,000ft. depending on model of P 40).

Sorry for my off topic

Turn Rate... "the golden rule of IL2" ??
close to misconception

Many things are not pure mathematics
One plane turns better ... but if the pilot must do a huge force in the stick at 5 g´s.
The pilot will be with broken arms and breathless in two minutes.
Will be very difficult aim and shoot to other plane, or do a good dogfight.

A plane maybe can turn worse, but if it's light on the stick in two minutes that pilot easy win the combat.


Another misconception

The "power" of the engine , "other golden rule of IL2" ??... 1+1=2 ??

Many times we say this engine has
1000 HP
2000 HP
2500 HP
or
1.000.000 Horse power

Another thing is not purely 1+1=2

About.....
The design of the propeller??

How many horsepower the prop will give to you gripping the air?
How many power is output to the air by the prop, for each horse power increment ??

Put in the same plane a new engine with 500 HP more and the prop maybe give you only 100 Hp more.. is no direct mathematical
Only a small part of that 500hp will be going to thrust of the plane.

Maybe a plane with engine with 1600 HP, performs better than other plane with 1900 hp engine ..the aerodynamics, the propeller .. many many Things..

Is 1950 hp engine in Turkish plane better than 1600 HP engine in indian plane?.. mmm.. depends on each plane
How many HP are exploited by each plane and prop?


Not everything goes directly to the thrust of the plane.
If you use a prop .. not is the same as using a jet.


.

The problem here is that its only Gastons point. No one else of any nation including the Luftwaffe agree with him. No pilot, no test result, no one, its only Gastons point.

Any continious turn will develop into a slow speed turn as the aircraft bleed energy

Interestingly you did the one thing that I would expect to work. One area that the 190 had a clear and significant advantage over the Spit is in its roll rate. By suddenly increasing your turn the SPit would find it difficult to keep up. You would be well into your turn while he is still trying to get into a position to begin to turn. You may want to try reversing your turn in a barrel roll by barrel rolling to the right, going over 270 degrees and then turn in the opposite direction to the one the Spit would expect.
In all these cases you would gain a few precious seconds and possibly get the drop on him.

Actually there was not much rolling to do.. I think it's more about the torque effect (not the prop-wash) of the inline vs the radial. I vaguely remember in one documentary that a P51 pilot mentioned that if you wall the merlin throttle it could flip the aircraft over while still on the ground, he over-emphasized gentle throttle application - such was the power of inline torque effects.

The game merlin gets very touchy at slow speeds where as the DB801 is quite tame and easier to control. I've seen many an unsuspecting Spit pilot plough into the ground behind me... ;)

It is controllable, but seemingly not at the FW190s turn rate at stall speeds.
:cool:

K_Freddie, please - BMW801. Do not insult the 801. ;)

Meh, it's just a copy of a Pratt and Whitney anyway...


:o

Well my theory, assuming you understand it, explains perfectly well why stalling speed is unrelated to the maximum low-speed sustained turn rate (which is not found by trying to turn near the straight-line stall speed: The maximum sustainable turn rate is quite a bit above that in all aircrafts)...

It seems stalling speed is unrelated to low-speed sustained turns (which is why the Ki-100 performs so dramatically better than the Ki-84 in sustained turns), just like high speed dive pull-outs are unrelated to low-speed turning, but on the other hand high speed dive pull-out performance does correlate with stall speed quite well. It should; the prop disc load is reduced in the dive by faster incoming air, reducing its influence, and, like the straight-line stall, there is is no slower incoming air in the top prop disc portion to create an assymetrical load...

The FW-190A has exactly the pathetic dive pull-out performance that one would expect for its stall speed, which also correlates well with its high wingloading.

The FW-190A is the only fighter for which Eric Brown states "Killing speed by sinking imposes a Tactical restriction when pulling out from low-level dives".

It is also the only fighter for which I have ever read: "Will fall another 220 m after leveling out from a 40° dive of 1200 m"... In other words, falling hundreds of feet nose level or nose up, causing a huge vertical deceleration and thus "a tendency to black-out the pilot" (P-47 front-line test)...

It also happens to have one of the highest stall speeds of all WWII single engine day fighters...: 120 MPH...

High speed horizontal unsustained 6G turns are slightly less correlated with stall speed, but still correlates very well because higher Gs "drown out" the effects of the prop's assymetrical load in turns, in the case of the FW-190A emphasizing its heavier airframe weight proportionately to an unchanging or reducing prop load effect (faster speeds mean more air hitting the front of the blades, thus reducing the blade load)...

To the left, the FW-190A's high speed turn is acceptable, but still poor in high speed/High G left turns, but its turn performance is truly abyssmal in high speed/high G right turns. The assymetrical wing drop and prop rotation high speed spiral has a bigger effect at high speeds.

At high speed the FW-190A is thus barely acceptable in hard left turns, but often snaps out entirely in hard right turns.

That this high speed's poor turn/dive pull-out performance is so clearly consistent with the FW-190A's high wingloading does not explain why at low speeds its sustained turn performance is so much better, at least if you ignore my theory.

Also, if you ignore my theory, there is no explanation why the the FW-190D has a much poorer sustained turn performance, or why laying off the throttle will improve wingloading, in a curve, but not in a straight line stall. (In a dive pull-out, the faster incoming air has the effect of reducing the prop load, and thus the comparative effect of the pull-out's curve compared to a "real" curve from a horizontal turn)

Gaston

P.S.

The FW-190A's flaps, when down, reverse the effect of the prop spiral airflow at low speeds, probably because being closer to the prop they have more effect than the impact on the more distant tailplanes, and their location has a different leverage on the airframe.

Also at low speeds, in the effort of maintaining speed in a turn, the engine torque has more effect compared to the airflow, and acts opposite the prop's airflow spiral rotation, not with it.

Unlike at high speeds, at low speeds the FW-190A's turn stall assymetry is thus less, given the lesser prop spiral airflow influence at low speeds.

G.

I know that is the claim of Eric Hartmann for his victims, but, in fact, if one reads often and a lot about aerial combat, one is always immediately struck how well aware of their environment even Me-109G pilots were, despite the supposedly poor visibility of this aircraft: Hardly ever in these accounts is the victim unaware of the attacker...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

Furthermore, in the above 1200+ combat accounts, I can recall exactly one account that I remember specifically involving a P-47 dive and zooming his target (unsuccessfully, but at least helping him evade this FW-190A that was badly out-turning him, achieving this by zooming above it from low altitude)...

I know you haven't read them, because if you had you would know how absurd is your notion that the Me-109G can turn with the P-47D...

As for the Spitfire, given that current theory gives it a 50-60% wingloading advantage over the FW-190A, you have to wonder where are all these combat accounts displaying this advantage at low speeds... (And why only examples and statements to the contrary have surfaced, aside the TsAGI numbers).

For the Spitfire, a lot of diving at target, and never any sustained turning...

You ask for evidence but evidently you won't read it...

Gaston

I certainly could be wrong here but there is no difference in the torque in a WW2 figher with a radial engine compared to a WW2 inline powered engine and because of this had no impact on turn.
There was in WW1 because on a WW1 radial engine was normally a rotary engine where the prop was fixed to the engine and the engine went round.

Actually I have read them, as proven by the example I found previously and I am not afraid to use them to prove my point.

I have a challange for you. Pick any combat, from any of the lists you like, be it a Spitfire, P47, P51 whatever, totally your choice. And we will analyse the ten combats either side of the one you picked and see how many of those involved involved a turning horizontal combat.

I repeat the choice of aircraft, list and combat is totally yours. I don't think I can be fairer than that.
Lets see if you are willing to use those combat reports to prove your point

Its Totally your choice

PS while you are at it can you find an example of the P47 not being able to turn with the Fw 190, that might help prove your point.

PPS Looking at the P47 list of combats, look at the fourth on the list key points, I dived onto him, closed to 50 yards, broke over him and climbed into the sun. It took me about 4 mins to find an example http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...on-14jan44.jpg

The Fw 190 may well have been the only example Eric Brown comments on about the sink involved in pulling out resulting in a tactical restriction. However it wasn't the only aircraft that had a tactical restriction becasue of height loss when pulling out of a dive.

The P51, Spitfire and P47 all had restrictions on pulling out when attacking ground forces. The only exception seems to be the Hurricane which in the Far East were allowed to pull out at tree top height as they for practical purposes didn't mush (the normal word for it)