fw 190a5 flight model

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by 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 ...


I found this interesting

I don't think this is in the game.

Interesting stuff eh? Much less black and white than some would have believe but this is why first hand accounts are so fascinating. We just have to accept that there is historical background required to interpret the comments.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

The outdated 'slower' machine would (should) be better turners in any case.


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.

I was trying to find that report again and I wasn't able to dig it up. Have the link handy? There is that Russian patriotism thing that gets trotted out a fair bit and I suspect some of it's true but there were pilots who quite liked their lend lease aircraft. Pokryshkin spoke highly of the P-39. I guess that didn't set off enough alarm bells for his Political Officer He quite liked the La-7 after that so maybe that equalled out somewhere in the grand scheme of things. I suspect that the Russian pilots liked their aircraft despite whatever official proclamations were in place and kept their comments largely to themselves until much later.

The interesting thing about the La-5 is that because it was initially a LaGG-3 with a new engine the aircraft went through stages of development where it was initially just a retrofit and then it became it's own model, shedding weight in the process. The early La-5 was a slower turner than the refined 1944 La-5FN (22 seconds is quoted in places... similar to FW190). In-game I suspect that the weight for the La-5 reflects the later model series while the La-5F reflects the early F model and the FN reflects a very late model FN.

That's a very long way of saying that depending on the La-5 model tested the FW190 and La-5 might have a very similar turn time. We'd have to look very closely at what they tested to see what sort of information we can glean from it.

[Gaston]

Thanks for the link about Eastern Front Spitfires!

"During this period the regiment’s pilots (57th-Spitfires) destroyed 41 enemy aircraft in 44 combats.

Thus, the 16th GIAP flying P-39 Airacobras destroyed 40 aircraft in 41 engagements. For the 42d GIAP in Yaks, 49 aircraft are counted in 56 engagements.


For example, the 57th GIAP (Spitfire Mk Vs) is credited with 21 victories as confirmed by ground forces and the vectoring station; 16th GIAP (P-39) is credited with 13 downed aircraft; 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—27 enemy aircraft.


There were unrecoverable losses in this period: in 57th GIAP (Spitfires)—13 aircraft and 8 dead pilots; in 16th GIAP (P-39)—9 aircraft and 6 pilots; and in 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—8 aircraft were destroyed and 5 pilots did not return."


In general the Spitfires achieved the second highest amount of confirmed kills over the month of May 1943 for the 3 types, but had by far the highest losses, and this over a smaller amount of sorties.

The Russians seem to insist a lot that the "spread out" British armament was less effective, but in my opinion that is questionnable, especially in view of their Spitfire's good results in kills: Each of the two Hispanos was probably noticeably deadlier than the single hub mounted Russian 20 mm, and the fact that one would be off-center did not change the fact that the british gun was excellent and would produce fast kills.

Sustaining turns is more of a defensive maneuver than an offensive maneuver, and the much higher Spitfire losses certainly don't point towards a superiority in turns...

I remember reading the following sustained radiuses for the following types: Me-109E: 850 feet, Spitfire Mk I: 1050 feet, Hurricane 800 feet. The source is too distant to recall but I know from this that the two complicated Me-109E/Spitfire Mk I "Doghouse" charts (often offered in rebuttal to this) is certainly all calculated data... The radiuses above are probably the real thing, as flown...

I really doubt in sustained turns the Spitfire had any sort of large superiority over much of anything else but the later Me-109Gs and P-51s...

It does seem in the linked LaGG-3 fly-off that it had horizontal turn parity with the LaGG-3, but not that it out-turned it: He puts his sight on it by rolling under it during a spiral climb...

The La-5 was widely known as hugely better than the LaGG-3 (regardless of what TsAGI turn times say), and, as K_Freddie points out, it was not conclusively said that even that out-turned the FW-190A...

As for the 57's pilots conclusion that they have to use the Spitfire in horizontal turn:

"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."

Well if that is so, why did they later have to change their tactics to the vertical to be more effective, why was the Spitfire tested with outer guns removed, and why did they suffer such disproportionate losses?

In any case, the recommendation of horizontal turn-fighting made sense in the early 1943 period, when the majority of the opposition on the Eastern Front was probably still the Me-109G.

I'll grant you it is contradicting, but not quite as convincing as several combat accounts citing gradual gains in sustained turns...

Gaston

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Gaston

-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.

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. Height in combat is a vital advantage and the Spit was good in both climb and turn.
You can of course support the 95% comment?

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"

Nothing unexpected here the Mk V was outclassed by the Fw190 and the 109G

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?

The Russians didn't consider the Spit unsuitable for turning combat as proved by your own words which I will quote later

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...

As mentioned before this is wrong the SPit was good at the turn and the climb.

Your Russian quote
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.

Which you translated as
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.

I am sure you meant to say
It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here and horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit.
Because Horizontal is left and right
So to sum up the Russians also recognised that the Spit was good in a turn and shot down many enemy aircraft using that tactic.

[K_Freddie]

Err Glider

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.

The Me109 prop rotates to the right - clockwise unless Oleg has completely stuffed it up, which simply means :-
1)At high speed
Left turns are faster than right - that's if you don't down throttle and if you do this, you turn faster in the right turn !!

2)At low speeds
Right turns are tighter and more controllable (same as the FW190)

So where has the dis-information penetrated... ??

[Glider]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Err Glider


The Me109 prop rotates to the right - clockwise unless Oleg has completely stuffed it up, which simply means :-
1)At high speed
Left turns are faster than right - that's if you don't down throttle and if you do this you turn faster in the right turn !!

2)At low speeds
Right turns are tighter and more controllable (same as the FW190)

So where has the dis-information penetrated... ??

Those were not my words, they were the ones from the Russian source quoted by Gaston

My point was to point out that the Russians liked to use the turn ability of the SPitfire and clarify Gastons statement. RAF pilots were happy to go left or right.

[K_Freddie]

I am just pointing out the error in the 'document', which does not seem to come from a pilots POV. Pilots can be dimwits, but to get the prop-rotation wrong, is from a pongo/groundhog/political commissar.
And... yes I read that doc, and have highlighted this error elsewhere!

[K_Freddie]

I think what really is lacking is a serious counter-argument (with circumstantial evidence/docs) to gaston's story.
His 'evidence' is purely documentary and he is definitely well read on the topic, but he provides a really convincing argument that no one here can really refute (it's like religion)

What I can say, IL2 gamewise, is that Oleg's modelling does come close to what Gaston's hypothesis - In a FW190 I can outturn a spit in a right turn at stall speed - I have done it online many a time..

When I get my pedals working again.. you're all dead meat

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

I am just pointing out the error in the 'document', which does not seem to come from a pilots POV. Pilots can be dimwits, but to get the prop-rotation wrong, is from a pongo/groundhog/political commissar.
And... yes I read that doc, and have highlighted this error elsewhere!

The part that is missing is exactly when the pilots were consulted on this. Since left/right is a 50/50 thing it's easy enough for the pilot to remember that they were always catching 109s in a left or right handed turn but mixing up the direction. Plausible.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

I think what really is lacking is a serious counter-argument (with circumstantial evidence/docs) to gaston's story.
His 'evidence' is purely documentary and he is definitely well read on the topic, but he provides a really convincing argument that no one here can really refute (it's like religion)

What I can say, IL2 gamewise, is that Oleg's modelling does come close to what Gaston's hypothesis - In a FW190 I can outturn a spit in a right turn at stall speed - I have done it online many a time..

When I get my pedals working again.. you're all dead meat

Unless I'm missing something, Gaston is arguing against IL-2s modelling of the situation. Previously the FW190 was a much more difficult aircraft to turn. With 4.11 it's turn rate was increased and it's easier to extract a better turn at all speeds.

Gaston has provided as much argument as there has been counter argument IMHO. Choices have been made to accept some of the information and there is a degree of interpretation required but I think IL-2 is essentially right at this point (although it's never perfect) and I haven't seen anything damning that suggests otherwise.

What kind of pedals and whats wrong with them or just not plugged in yet?