fw 190a5 flight model

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by JtD

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.

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

[Glider]

Oh Dear

Originally Posted by 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?

I wasn't talking about the P47

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

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 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...

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

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"...

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

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?

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.

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...

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

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...

Oh I do

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...

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.

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...

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.

[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.

[Glider]

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

[K_Freddie]

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

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

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

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.

[Glider]

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.

[K_Freddie]

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 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.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

... 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.

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.