fw 190a5 flight model

[Mustang]

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.


.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

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

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.

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..

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

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.

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.

[K_Freddie]

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.

[JtD]

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

[ElAurens]

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

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by JtD

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.

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.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

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.

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.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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

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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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".

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)