Real world: Fw-190 VS. BF-109

[Gaston]

He does say, right after "much better than the Me-109", that "you could curve it"... And he also adds that the "the only handicap" was the poor big nose visibility on take-offs and landing...

Rall says he could barely out-turn the 190A in the Me-109F (900 lbs lighter than G) when the first 190A models came out, and that most 109F pilots couldn't do it according to Rechlin: "They told us it out-turned the Me-109F"

A Russian large-scale combat evaluation summary has the FW-190A described as a "stereotyped" low-speed turn-fighter that will "inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed".

"The 190 does not like vertical maneuvers" they also add... "Keep speeds as high as possible against the FW-190"

The predominant opinion of 8th Air force pilots was that the FW-190A sustained turns better than the Me-109 (probably in a slightly wider radius than the Me-109 could do downthrottled very slow). This also was the opinion of British ace Johnny Johnson who describes in a post-war recollection being out-turned by a FW-190A in his Spit V, and adds that it was also known to turn better than the Me-109...

British tests have the 190 as superior turning to the 109, but US navy test follow what is the current consensus on the 190's character: No 190A combat experience for the US Navy, fortunately...

Also, a Sabre is an edged weapon shaped like a curve and creates large wounds when slicing in a curve... (Slicing being here an illustration of the firepower)

While a floret is light, straight, narrow, has no edge and can only be used in straight strokes to make a small, if deeper, hole: Pretty illustrative... It could very well refer to the 109's better high-speed handling when pulling out of dives after a diving attack, as the Russian evaluation has the FW-190A dropping 220 M (660 ft.) AFTER being nose-level during a 45° dive pull-out...

Trimmed tail-heavy, the Me-109G's 420-500 MPH dive pull-out was superior to a fabric-elevator P-51D...

Calculated conventional wisdom is simply in this case at 180° from the actual FW-190A reality. Note however the Me-109G could likely out-turn and out-perform the Anton above 7 or 8 KM, or at speeds above 250 MPH, which covers a lot of scenarios...

Formulas based on jet flight behaviour simply don't give good results with prop fighters...

Gaston

[ButcherBird]

Some good information presented here. I've read alot about the Luftwaffe over the years and the BF-109 and FW-190 are my two favorite aircraft of all time.

From 1st hand accounts reported from allied and axis pilots i've always considered multiple variants of the 190 to be the best all around fighter for Germany and maybe the entire WWII.

[bobbysocks]

matt...take a look at these...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...p-11sept44.jpg

maybe this might help you make you your mind. remember..devs dont jump in the seats of the real planes when they make these games. and actually real combat would not sell games. many boys flew over 60, 70, 80+ missions and never achieved ace.....

[kozzm0]

If the Russians figured the 190 was a low-speed turner, I think they kind of had it wrong. Its wing loading is way too high.

In training I've got the 190d9 to work better than 109k4 now, against b17's. it climbs more efficiently, and its quick roll allows you to dive on the targets in a curved slashing motion that is nearly impossible to hit. Since it climbs better, it usually has better closing speed at the pass, combined with the quick roll and jink ability the b17 gunners don't even start firing until you've already passed them, then they have about 1 to 2 seconds to try to pick the right direction and lead before you're out of range. Good armament too, plenty of it, and high rate of fire.

I wonder if the d9 could bnz as well as a k4 in online free-for-alls.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by bobbysocks

matt...take a look at these...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...p-11sept44.jpg

maybe this might help you make you your mind. remember..devs dont jump in the seats of the real planes when they make these games. and actually real combat would not sell games. many boys flew over 60, 70, 80+ missions and never achieved ace.....

-This 11 sept combat report is very interesting, but does not contradict in any way the FW-190A being a low-altitude turn fighter that handles poorly at high speeds or high altitudes: They encounter the P-51 at 23 000 ft., and are out-turned in sustained turns starting from a fairly high speed (6G turn): If the FW-190As kept full throttle, which as a group they would tend to do, then they were at a further didadvantage compared to the individual initiative of downthrottling below the 250 MPH speed that appear to be the critical speed below which sustained turn performance improves greatly for the FW-190A (see Italy test with front-line pilots vs P-47 in 1944, and inumerable other sources...).

In addition, at 23 000 ft it is tempting to spiral down, which would keep speeds above 250 MPH IAS even after 5 X 360° turns. At high speeds, the FW-190A could not match turns with the P-51 without spiraling down: Its high speed turning performance was too poor, and this in effect "locked" it in a downward spiral because lowering the speeds towards 250 MPH makes things noticeably worse before they get better below that...

Note the dive to low altitude reaches extremely high speeds, 600 MPH, and the P-51 pilot says: "I am convinced he was more out of control than I was", this despite spotty stability that is endemic to the P-51 at much above 400 MPH. (Just like the Me-109G's twitching, and the Gustav in addition has a slower top dive speed of about 500 MPH, but still a better pull-out trimmed tail-heavy than either the P-51 and even more so the FW-190A...)

At low altitudes the P-51 escapes the 190As with a shallow dive and speed alone.

Below 250 MPH, and at low altitudes, the real FW-190A was unexpectedly excellent in sustained turns, especially downthrottled, but its high-speed handling was truly terrible, leading many US pilots to say it went out of control easily in "snap-stalls" compared to 109s... Despite this, it could generate high Gs at high speeds with little stick effort, this because this aircraft could "stall" towards the inside of the turn, with full three-axis control, a condition which I call "mushing": The nose abruptly "pitched-up", suddenly sharpening the turn even more at first, but then the aircraft carried on past the theoretical circular turn in a decelerating and less curved line, and that deceleration created "false Gs": Punishing severely the pilot while decelerating and carrying past the ideal curve in an "elongated" turn...

This was most obvious in dive pull-outs, but could occur in some horizontal turns, though in turns the aircraft tended more to drop a wing and snap out of the turn right after the abrupt "pitch-up" (because of usually less symmetrical wing loads in a turn than in a dive pull-out)...

It took me several years of research to untangle all this while I was designing my re-design of the old "Air Force" boardgame system, which you can download for free here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...708#5031083708

Gaston

P.S. The Me-109 "D" file is the good one of 3...

G.

[kozzm0]

to contradict the 190 being a low-speed, low-altitude turner, all you need is estimates of its wing loading. The d9 is usually estimated at just a hair under 40 lbs/ft^2 clean, and above 50 fully loaded. It may have had its disadvantages at high speed, but that didn't make it a star at low speed either.

Anyhow, sustained turn rate is a misleading figure for maneuverability. A pilot that stops to do extended circles with an opponent is either wasting valuable mission time, or has no other potential targets, and little danger of being bounced and finished off by an unnoticed enemy.

1 on 1 duels are pretty rare, particularly in ww2 where the combat was focused on running battles between interceptors and escorts of bombers and ground-attack aircraft. When the combat moves in one general direction, extended turning becomes a liability - you have to keep up with the moving area of engagement. Energy management is much more important. Rolling manages energy better than turning most of the time - the 190's big advantage. The snap rolls allow it to quickly adjust its guns plane, and quickly evade the guns planes of both fighters and gunners.

Even in head-on passes, better tactics are to rely on turning as little as possible, instead to maintain speed and energy and set up targets for your wingmen. You don't have to outturn a bogey to shoot it down - you just have to maneuver until it's in front of you, or better yet, in front of one of your wingmen, and too slow from turning to dodge their fire (too slow a roller to jink out of plane is a bonus)

[CRANNY]

Sweet!! Thankyou Gents I have tried these tactics and I find the 190's to be great when used properly. I still can't shoot but I get shot down much less often, LOL.

[gbtstr]

In the game, I think the 109s outperform the 190s all around. If the 190 flight models were a bit better, I think they would do as well or better than the 109s most of the time.

Seems like the consensus on the 109 vs 190 is a mixed bag. Depending on which pilot you ask, you'd get a different opinion. Seems like the 109 was a more complex machine, due to being older technology, but overall more forgiving of a inexperienced pilot, while still being a deadly tool for the expert. The 190 on the other hand, was newer and simpler, but it had some dark corners where an inattentive/novice pilot could get in a bad spot.

Interesting reads, though.