fw 190a5 flight model

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

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'.


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 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

[lonewulf]

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

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 ...

[Janosch]

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.

[IceFire]

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.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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.

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

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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

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.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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

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...

Originally Posted by IceFire

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..

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?

Originally Posted by IceFire

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."

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?

Originally Posted by IceFire

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."

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

Originally Posted by IceFire

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.

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...

Originally Posted by IceFire

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.

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)...

Originally Posted by IceFire

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

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

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

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 ...

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.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

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?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

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.

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.