fw 190a5 flight model

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Beve3rly

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

He says historically the FW out-turned the Spitfire at low speed something on the order of all the time. That's while avoiding details like were they co-speed or co-alt, a 50-150 ft drop can do wonders for a turn.

This is a plane with 1G stall 110-130 mph (depending on weight) going to turn better than a plane with a 1G stall 80-95 mph. That's the first order difference and it gets wider when you start to turn. The Spits are able to pull 2G's at speeds the FW's can't begin to turn without losing alt. And the difference gets wider with speed. You have to pull more G's at speed to turn tighter, if you go slower your lift will wane faster than the speed reduction would effect any tightening. Go slow enough and you fall. So where under 300 kph will the FW find some turn advantage given both planes in similar, directly comparable situation?

[JtD]

I wish that someone claiming he's researched a plane for fifteen years would at least be able to spell the designation properly: Fw 190 A. I'd excuse a FW 190 because early documents also show the capital W, but there's never been a FW-190A, or a Me-109G, for that matter. German plane designations never used a minus between manufacturer and number.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by JtD

I wish that someone claiming he's researched a plane for fifteen years would at least be able to spell the designation properly: Fw 190 A. I'd excuse a FW 190 because early documents also show the capital W, but there's never been a FW-190A, or a Me-109G, for that matter. German plane designations never used a minus between manufacturer and number.

Although, to be super picky, as far as I'm aware, there never was a 'Me-109 G' or a 'Me 109 G'. The correct designation is Bf 109 G.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by JtD

I wish that someone claiming he's researched a plane for fifteen years would at least be able to spell the designation properly: Fw 190 A. I'd excuse a FW 190 because early documents also show the capital W, but there's never been a FW-190A, or a Me-109G, for that matter. German plane designations never used a minus between manufacturer and number.

I would be interested to know how someone who has studied aircraft and their tactics in aerial combat for 15+ years, had no idea what a stall turn was and thought that a horizontal turn was a vertical manoeuvre.

But maybe I am being picky

[Herra Tohtori]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Although, to be super picky, as far as I'm aware, there never was a 'Me-109 G' or a 'Me 109 G'. The correct designation is Bf 109 G.

Both designations exist and have been used in official German documents.

Before the war, the aircraft type codes were designated by their manufacturer rather than designer. The 109 was designed by Willy Messerschmitt (primary designer, obviously) but originally manufactured by Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, which made it's designation "Bf-109". Same applied to the Bf-110 which was also designed in the inter-war period.

When Willy Messerschmitt founded Messerschmitt AG in 1938, he tried to get the designation changed to Me-109 and Me-110, and sometimes got his wish through, but there was no consistent policy on whether the 109 and 110 should be called Bf or Me. When Messerschmitt started producing new planes (Me-310, Me-410, Me-262 etc.) the tendency in RLM was to mark the 109 and 110 also as "Me-109" and "Me-110".

Of course, these aircraft - especially the 109 - were manufactured by several companies (Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, Messerschmitt AG, Erla Maschinenwerk G.m.b.H.) just like several companies in the US manufactured planes such as F4F (Grumman, General Motors) and F4U (Vought, Brewster, Goodyear), and these sometimes had their own designations on different versions: General Motors Wildcats were marked as FM-1 and FM-2; Goodyear Corsairs were FG and Brewster Corsairs F3A.

I don't really see what the formatting of the name matters as long as we're talking of the same aircraft...

[badatflyski]

Originally Posted by FC99

Please, post this on Aces High board, I'd like to read Dale's comment when he realize that his FM is "Gaston approved"

Structural limit for deformation is the one listed in manual, for fighter planes, safety factor was typically about 1.5 so plane with 8G limit will be expected to survive 12G. Between 8 and 12G plane will suffer permanent damage and in case of repeated over-stressing it will break even at values under 12G.
You can see in attachment where is the expected wing failure for one WWII fighter.


There is no aviation board where Gaston didn't post his alternative aerodynamics theories, if he was capable of learning anything he would learn it long ago. He is not even funny anymore, it's just sad.

Hi FatCat! long time heuh?!

Wurger's wings broke at 14g continous and fuselage at 20g continous.
the full "monocoque" design was one of the strongest or even maybe the strongest of all planes of WW2.

About the low speed turn from Gaston theory : wtf

yes, the 190could turn faster than other planes in certain conditions, but we can't actually talk about a turn in the sense most think of (180° or higher), the 190 was able to START the turn much faster than most planes due to it's aileron effectiveness (roll rate acceleration) and as Gaston should know, a turn bleeds aircraft energy very bad, and semi laminar wing profile is not so good for low speeds, that's why you do not turn make direction changes of more than 90° in combat with a 190 and you keep scissoring and rolling keeping the speed high, if your fysical condition allows it...

A (real veteran)russion pilot said some years ago after seeing IL2: you make continuesly turns of more than 3G, in real life after a few of those turns, your muscles burns, your vision is troubled and you can't handle the stick correctly,what means you're a sitting duck in a combat area.


PS: an A8 at 6000m is faster in a 90° turn than a P51D, not because of the speed, but because the plane has a higher angle and the pilot, due to his seat pisition, is allowed to endure +1G than any other plane

PS2: how are you FC?

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Both designations exist and have been used in official German documents.

Before the war, the aircraft type codes were designated by their manufacturer rather than designer. The 109 was designed by Willy Messerschmitt (primary designer, obviously) but originally manufactured by Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, which made it's designation "Bf-109". Same applied to the Bf-110 which was also designed in the inter-war period.

When Willy Messerschmitt founded Messerschmitt AG in 1938, he tried to get the designation changed to Me-109 and Me-110, and sometimes got his wish through, but there was no consistent policy on whether the 109 and 110 should be called Bf or Me. When Messerschmitt started producing new planes (Me-310, Me-410, Me-262 etc.) the tendency in RLM was to mark the 109 and 110 also as "Me-109" and "Me-110".

Of course, these aircraft - especially the 109 - were manufactured by several companies (Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, Messerschmitt AG, Erla Maschinenwerk G.m.b.H.) just like several companies in the US manufactured planes such as F4F (Grumman, General Motors) and F4U (Vought, Brewster, Goodyear), and these sometimes had their own designations on different versions: General Motors Wildcats were marked as FM-1 and FM-2; Goodyear Corsairs were FG and Brewster Corsairs F3A.

I don't really see what the formatting of the name matters as long as we're talking of the same aircraft...

I tend to agree that once everyone knows what we're talking about the official designations can be relaxed somewhat. For example, we can talk about a "109" instead of a "Bf 109". However, if you're going to go to the extent of actually criticizing someone for not strictly adhering to accepted form, then I think it is just a little rich to then refer to another aircraft type using a designation that isn't strictly correct either. The fact that the abbreviation "Me 109" is included in some official German publications is interesting but only to the extent that it demonstrates that officials and employees make mistakes and are guilty of sloppiness, just like everyone else. Once Bayerische Flugzeugwerke became Messerschmitt A.G., and all new aircraft types were designated with the abbreviation "Me", it is hardly surprising that some people started to describe Bf 109s as Me 109s. Understandable perhaps, but certainly not correct. As far as it is known, all 109 identification plates carry the designation "Bf 109", the correct designation for this type.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

...However, if you're going to go to the extent of actually criticizing someone for not strictly adhering to accepted form, then I think it is just a little rich to then refer to another aircraft type using a designation that isn't strictly correct either...

I quoted another one of Gastons errors, I wasn't referring to anything. What you say is correct, but since Me 109 was used occasionally, it's just odd not wrong to refer to the aircraft as Me 109 (like ME 109, BF 109 or FW 190).

[Derda508]

Actually in all the interviews with the guys, who flew the bird I never heard them adressing them other than Me 109. Same in all the books I read, that were written by Luftwaffe pilots (not too many, alas). My parents, who both experienced the war (my dad as a soldier from 39 to 45) wouldn´t have had an idea what "Bf" could mean, but "Me" was perfectly common. So there is also a difference between a technical correct denomintion and a popular name.

[IceFire]

It's just the world of officialdom conflicting with what was sometimes used on the ground. Many a confused book has mixed up Spitfire official designations with log book information as sometimes the aircraft modification arrived at the field before officialdom had caught up. I.e. the Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) being listed as the IX-B in log books because they needed some way of designating the revised IX.

Bf109 may have been what was stamped at the factory but in the field equipment picks up all sorts of different names. Or two different levels of bureaucracy don't talk to each other WWII is full of these weird little stories.