fw 190a5 flight model

[Glider]

I agree about learning in a Glider for most if only because in the UK you have to learn how to spin in a number of different scenarios before you go solo. A PPL doesn't get taught how to spin which I always thought was risky.
Your confidence increases as you are taught how to land out and when you go cross country, you can be certain that sooner or later you end up having to find a field or whatever to land in. On average landed out once a year.

I also have a strong belief that as Gliders often fly in close proximity to each other the pilots learn how to keep a better lookout. A small but often ignored point.

PS you are never too old. Our club had one man who went solo aged 84.

[HarryKlein]

Originally Posted by Gaston

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...
Gaston

It's not what the article says.
Learn to read and stop interpreting

[Glider]

Gaston seems to have gone quiet

[K_Freddie]

From one of those articles...

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

With interpretations one should look at what is not said... the bold section is very telling and looks like a Freudian slip in context.
I would think that if the LA5 could out turn the FW190 at this point it would be explicitly mentioned.. but not being mentioned it is possible that the two a/c (in good hands) matched each other turn for turn, and no further.
Now extending from this.. how did the LA5 match against the spitfire in such a situation.... or any other a/c

Gaston may have something..

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by HarryKlein

It's not what the article says.
Learn to read and stop interpreting

First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks...

Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...:

" Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

-On April 29th the regiment completed 28 sorties to escort bombers and ground attack aircrafts and 23 to protect ground troops, with four air battles occuring. The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted to fighting in the vertical plane.


Second quotation : "A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

Translation: "At low and medium altitude, the Mark VB was outperformed by German and Soviet fighters of its time. To try to improve its maneuverability and its speed (?!?: My note: They couldn't have expected much speed increase from that now could they? Obviously this was more about maneuvering), the Soviets lightened it by removing the four machineguns and their ammunition. This variant was evaluated by the VVS test center during the Summer of 1943. Apparently it was not a success, as there was no instruction to standardize the modification"

If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French...

If the turn rate was really satisfactory to the Soviets compared to their own types, why would they change tactics to the vertical for this type alone? And why did they try to lighten it, at no improvement in drag or speed, if not obviously to improve its maneuverability? If the Spitfire really turned with around 17-18 sec turn times (TsAGI), which is every bit as good as the best of their fighters, why did they consider it unsuitable for their ususal turning tactics?

If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming...

Except against slow-turning types like the P-51 or the Me-109G, turning tactics with the Spitfire were simply not very competitive, this worsening with the Mk IX, which is why the Mk IX is always used in dive and zoom tactics (followed by the occasional harsh high G high speed unsustained turn, its performance for which was on the other hand quite good), and this almost without exception: The vertical was what it excelled at...

Gaston

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

From one of those articles...


With interpretations one should look at what is not said... the bold section is very telling and looks like a Freudian slip in context.
I would think that if the LA5 could out turn the FW190 at this point it would be explicitly mentioned.. but not being mentioned it is possible that the two a/c (in good hands) matched each other turn for turn, and no further.
Now extending from this.. how did the LA5 match against the spitfire in such a situation.... or any other a/c

Gaston may have something..

Very good point. I never make any claims about German aircrafts vs the Russians types, or even vs the P-38 or Tempest/Typhoon, because the amount of combat reports is so much smaller than what I have read vs other US/British types.

A lot of Russian quotes are very indicative though: "Experienced FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane"

"There are reports of turning battle with the FW-190A lasting quite some time"

"FW-190A will inevitably offer turning battle at minimum speed"

If it was so poorly suited and unsuccessful in the horizontal, wouldn't you think it would have been used in other ways?

On the other hand, the only fighter type I have ever heard the Me-109G engaging more or less successfully in a turning battle was the P-51, and even then it is barely as a close equal... The Fs and G-2 could sometimes match Spitfires as well, and that is not a good sign for the Spitfire...

I did hear from Steinhoff that the Me-109G's climbing spiral was superior to other fighter types, but this appeared to be useful only against some mid-war Russian fighters, and usually specifically when flying the G-2... A climbing spiral is a rare case in an air battle in any case...

I see still no contestation that KG 200 did say the P-47D needle-tip Razorack did out-turn their Me-109G as a general statement that is always (grossly) demonstrated in real-life combat reports (as in, quite a bit over 90° of gain per 360° of horizontal turning), and this in all circumstances (including left-hand climbing spirals)...

Does that mean we finally have a consensus on that?

Gaston

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Gaston

First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks...

Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...:

" Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

-On April 29th the regiment completed 28 sorties to escort bombers and ground attack aircrafts and 23 to protect ground troops, with four air battles occuring. The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted to fighting in the vertical plane.


Second quotation : "A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

Translation: "At low and medium altitude, the Mark VB was outperformed by German and Soviet fighters of its time. To try to improve its maneuverability and its speed (?!?: My note: They couldn't have expected much speed increase from that now could they? Obviously this was more about maneuvering), the Soviets lightened it by removing the four machineguns and their ammunition. This variant was evaluated by the VVS test center during the Summer of 1943. Apparently it was not a success, as there was no instruction to standardize the modification"

If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French...

If the turn rate was really satisfactory to the Soviets compared to their own types, why would they change tactics to the vertical for this type alone? And why did they try to lighten it, at no improvement in drag or speed, if not obviously to improve its maneuverability? If the Spitfire really turned with around 17-18 sec turn times (TsAGI), which is every bit as good as the best of their fighters, why did they consider it unsuitable for their ususal turning tactics?

If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming...

Except against slow-turning types like the P-51 or the Me-109G, turning tactics with the Spitfire were simply not very competitive, this worsening with the Mk IX, which is why the Mk IX is always used in dive and zoom tactics (followed by the occasional harsh high G high speed unsustained turn, its performance for which was on the other hand quite good), and this almost without exception: The vertical was what it excelled at...

Gaston

The Russians were never really happy with the Spitfires they got. They found the Merlin to be exceedingly troublesome and it had difficulty with the fine dust conditions that were found in the Kuban area. The British found similar situations when operating in Normandy (thus requiring new filters to be fitted). I really don't think the Russians were ever able to get the most out of their Spitfires but as with all fighters during WWII they seemed to be focused on getting the most out of the aircraft by removing unnecessary equipment. Indeed, removing the machine guns may have been an effort to improve maneuverability by increasing the roll rate. Compared to contemporary Russian fighters, particularly the Yak, the Spitfire is quite slow in the roll.

I'm not discounting the report but as with any historical reports it does have to be placed in full context. Indeed, when they first received Spitfires in early 1943 they were operating with one hand behind their back...

We studied the new equipment diligently, but were unable to acquire any practical mastery of the Spitfire in the air because we did not have any instructions on techniques of piloting this airplane. Neither the technical staff nor the regiment instructors knew its most basic flight and tactical data.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Here's an interesting account with the Russians doing test combat near the front.

Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

The conditions for the battle were complicated: our “enemies” were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this ‘enemy’ to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Versus the LaGG it seems the Spitfire had no trouble turning with it. Not that the LaGG was exceptional in the turn but further places in context that the Russians were experimenting with the Spitfires capabilities when they did receive it. Note these are front line pilots.

Now here's the most interesting piece that pretty much goes against the stuff you translated:

One of the most important sources by which one can judge the combat employment of the Spitfires is the testimonials of the pilots themselves about this aircraft. There is hardly a better person to characterize this equipment than a pilot who had to fight in it. Although during Soviet times it was customary to remain silent or curse aviation equipment delivered by Lend-lease, the memoirs of Anatoliy Ivanov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, contain the following description of this aircraft:

The Spitfire was a simple aircraft that permitted significant mistakes in the techniques of piloting. The I-16 was much more demanding. The Spitfire had a radio, not a great radio, but a radio nonetheless. The singular superiority of the Spitfire was the fact that it was very light and, because of its thrust-to-weight ratio, was a good climber. This supported reliable vertical maneuver. However the greatest deficiency was the fact that the weapons were spread out along the wings. The distance between the cannons was approximately four meters. During an attack on the enemy from close range, their lethality was greatly diminished.

Over the short period of time the regiment’s pilots fought in the British aircraft, they managed to overcome the fact that the Spitfire lagged behind the German Bf-109 and especially the Fw-190 fighters in such an important characteristic for a fighter as diving capabilities. The principal explanation for this was the lightness of its construction—the aircraft simply was unable to amass sufficient energy. Therefore “to exit an engagement in a Spitfire by diving was a fatal error, because this aircraft was light and a poor diver. A Messerschmitt could rapidly catch and shoot it down.”

The regiment’s pilots considered the conduct of battles in the horizontal plane to be the optimum method of contesting with German fighters. Despite the fact that, as already noted above, because of its lightness the Spitfire was a quick climber, the pilots of 57th GIAP recommended engaging the Messers and Fokkers in turning battles. Ivanov emphasizes that it was necessary to draw the enemy into a right turn, “because the Messerschmitt’s propeller rotated to the left, and the airplane executed right turns with greater difficulty than left turns.” For this reason, the regiment’s pilots mastered the execution of deep right turns in the Spitfire. In Ivanov’s opinion, this training was no accident, and many enemy fighters were destroyed using this particular method.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here but that horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.

Now would you like to move the goalpost out further?

[lonewulf]

I think there are two issues that should be noted in relation to the performance of Spitfire aircraft transferred to the Soviets during the War.

Firstly, all or most of the Mk Vs that went to Russia were well and truly second hand. The machines were essentially considered obsolete in terms of the WTO when dispatched. In 1943, even if they had all been brand new (which they most certainly were not), they would have struggled with the latest Luftwaffe types.

Secondly, despite the actual condition of the Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union, any official statements and reports prepared during the Soviet era, (about Spitfires or anything else for that matter) must be treated with tremendous scepticism. The simple truth is that any comments that were made by individuals (any individual at all) that could be interpreted as defeatist or in some way critical of the soviet system or the products of soviet industry, could and would get you killed or would be otherwise career threatening. No one in their right mind would be associated with such statements, whether he or she had penned them or not. If you knew what was good for you during this time of intense fear and paranoia, you most certainly didn't go around praising the war equipment of a foreign power, not even an allied foreign power.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Firstly, all or most of the Mk Vs that went to Russia were well and truly second hand. The machines were essentially considered obsolete in terms of the WTO when dispatched. In 1943, even if they had all been brand new (which they most certainly were not), they would have struggled with the latest Luftwaffe types.

The outdated 'slower' machine would (should) be better turners in any case.

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Secondly, despite the actual condition of the Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union, any official statements and reports prepared during the Soviet era, (about Spitfires or anything else for that matter) must be treated with tremendous scepticism. The simple truth is that any comments that were made by individuals (any individual at all) that could be interpreted as defeatist or in some way critical of the soviet system or the products of soviet industry, could and would get you killed or would be otherwise career threatening. No one in their right mind would be associated with such statements, whether he or she had penned them or not. If you knew what was good for you during this time of intense fear and paranoia, you most certainly didn't go around praising the war equipment of a foreign power, not even an allied foreign power.

You just might have shot Icefire's argument down, Note that with that Russian LA5/FW190 report.. it was never mentioned that the FW could out-turn the LA5.. (the reporter might have been shot) More importantly what was left out, was that the LA5 couldn't out-turn the FW190.

[K_Freddie]

With that spitfire conversion.. bringing in the Lagg3 brings in a new set of parameters.Things to note:

1) both spit pilots won their 'combats' with a combination of horizontal and vertical moves
2) Sapozhnikov did a zoom-climb to beat the Lagg3 in the second test

Although and indicator that the Spit could outfly the Lagg3 under circumstances, this is no indication of slow turn performances that Gaston is talking about.

Guess whats wrong with this statement ...

“because the Messerschmitt’s propeller rotated to the left, and the airplane executed right turns with greater difficulty than left turns..."

I found this interesting

It has the capability to adjust the pedals in flight, which gives the pilot the possibility to freely execute pedal control in flight. As a rule, the pilot is able to adjust the aircraft so that if he momentarily loses consciousness, the aircraft will independently re-establish a normal attitude.

I don't think this is in the game.