fw 190a5 flight model

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

Not being an expert in mechanical engineering, but having some insight after all the years.. I can only imagine that the Merlin's torque is applied over a few feet of engine length, whereas the BMW801 (sorry JTD ) torque is applied within a few inches of length.

This I would think and experienced, if Oleg has modeled it right, caused the FW to screw/hang on the nose... maybe similar to the Camel or Fokker DR1 from WW1, whereas the merlin just pulled the plane over due to it's application of torque over a longer length, making it difficult to control if you walled the throttle

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Glider

.... for practical purposes didn't mush (the normal word for it)

Yes.. he is aware of the term

[Glider]

I suspect it had more to do with the design of the prop. Those on the Spitfire were a lot larger than those on the Fw190. The forces and lift generated by the prop would be magnified on the Spitfire as they were further away from the Fuselage.

I admit to pushing my theory here as these issues are not a real problem in Gliders.

[K_Freddie]

Sorry, I'm talking about about the longitudinal length of the camshaft along the length the the engine, which is longer in the Merlin compared to the BMW801.

But, yes I notice that the Spit props were longer and thinner.. but this is beyond my current knowledge.

Maybe Gaston's mechanical adversary (cannot remember his forum AKA) will chip in here..?

[JtD]

Torque is simply a result of power divided by propeller rpm. The Fw had a prop reduction gear ratio of 1:1.85 = 0.54 with engine rpm 2700, the Spitfire IX a ratio of 0.477 with engine rpm of 3000. This puts the prop at 1458rpm on the Fw, and 1431rpm on the Spitfire. Engine power output of the Fw is higher at low altitude, but somewhat lower at medium and high altitude, and, given the very similar rpm, torque is going to be the same.

However, torque isn't the real problem, the gyro effect of the spinning prop disc is a bigger one. Torque is something you can trim your aircraft for and then can pretty much forget about, but gyro effects are something you'll notice every time you maneuver the aircraft.

To estimate the gyro effects, you'd need prop speed, diameter and weight, which I don't know where to look up from the top of my head, so I'll skip this one, but I doubt there'll be a huge difference.

One of the relative strengths of the Fw compared to the Spitfire were the very well balanced controls, which made handling easier and smoother. This is also a feature that definitely is present in game.

[Glider]

Personally I am waiting for Gaston to take up my challenge.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Glider

Personally I am waiting for Gaston to take up my challenge.

If you have read all the 600 P-47 combat accounts and still don't know the P-47 badly out-turns the Me-109G in all circumstances, then there isn't much point in providing any evidence is it?

I have for years presented all of you out there with the challenge to find one combat example of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47, in any circumstance, but especially at low speeds, and still nothing has come up...

If you don't see that P-47 turning fights outnumber the one dive and zoom example you provided (indeed correctly) by a ratio of about ten or twenty to one, I wonder what is the point in debating the issue further: There are 600 P-47 combat accounts here, and so far you have provided one dive and zoom example and I have provided one more: I have read them all and there isn't a large number of those compared to P-47 turnfighting...

P-47 turnfighting also outnumbers P-51 turnfighting, and especially P-51 turnfighting at medium-low speed turning when decided within less than five-ten 360°s. Within one unsustained 360° at high speeds, the P-51 does excel occasionally at very high Gs.

However I will break it down into the actual numbers and ratios for those 600 combat reports when I have the time.

Gaston

[Glider]

Didn't think you would take up the challange.

Just to avoid any confusion this is the challenge

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

This in relation to your 95% of all combats involved turning combats

I have already disproved your statement about the Slow turning Spitfire combat, you will remember your statement that nearly all high speed turns are stall turns. I also disproved your statement about P47's not fighting in the vertical, remember that you only found one example and it took me four minutes to find another.

So right now your batting average is less than good.
I am confident that I can disprove your statement about 95% of air combat being sustained turns thats what the challange is about.

Why don't you provide the examples. So you can start with the 10-20 examples of a P47 fighting in turning fights.

PS another fire and climb example http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-29april44.jpg
PPS another one http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-29april44.jpg
PPPS And another one http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in-30jan44.jpg
PPPPS Guess what http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e-8april44.jpg

edit Re the P47 turning compapred to the Me109. I have always believed that this differs with speed. At the slower speeds the 109 would have the advantage, at higher speeds the P47 (and P51) gain the advantage. This is down to the simple fact that the 109 control forces become very difficult at speed, a fact reported in a number of pilot statements and generally supported by the combat reports

[K_Freddie]

The P47 was great at altitude and speed, as much as it was good for ground attack, it excelled at high altitudes as well... according to one vet

If battles were high and if it had speed the P47 could win easily, but as soon as it slowed down, it was a sitting duck. In fact nearly all allied a/c were ducks at low speed, with exception maybe of the spit.
The axis planes seemed to be easier to handle at low to medium speeds.

[Glider]

I totally agree with you. Tempest pilots were continually told not to get into a slow turning fight with the 109.
As mentioned before the Tempest had a broadly similar turn performance as the P47/Typhoon/P51 and Fw 190 so it fits