FW-190A vs Spitfire, Me-109G, P-47D in dogfights

[Gaston]

Hello everyone! Since I rarely post here, I though it would be useful to post here this summary of a debate about the predictive power of maths regarding actual propeller-tracted fighter aircraft performance...

I have made this little summary, in a pastiche of the opposing view, in the context of having read all the 1200 combat reports available in Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance" site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html

These reports show clearly the importance of sustained horizontal turn fighting over most other tactics for the late WWII Western Front context. Other surprises: The P-47D easily out-turns, to the left, the Me-109G in all circumstances, while the P-51D can only do the same with much more difficulty, and mostly by reducing power over long periods of several 360s turns, while dropping the flaps and coarsening the prop pitch (a mystery and source of debate in itself)...

The FW-190A easily holds it own with the P-47D in early 1944, and later in 1944 easily out-turns it in sustained turns...

Here is the summary of FW-190A arguments:

Some interesting new quotes have come to my attention on the issue of Spitfires, Me-109Gs and the FW-190A's horizontal turning abilities...

I'll begin by summing up WWII pilot evaluations that are on the side of spotlessly clean mathematical minds so far:

So on "our" side we can count: Two US Navy FW-190A flight tests (A-4 and A-5), Eric Brown and his "curious dogfighting" assertion (despite his own rather disheartening admonishment to go easy on pulling the stick so as not "to kill speed by sinking"...), and last but not least: Some German test pilot saying that the La-5's turn rate is "above the FW-190A but below the Me-109G (w/MW-50)"

So the startlingly mathematically correct conclusions, of these massively experienced FW-190A killers, is that the FW-190A is a fighter that maneuvers well at high-speed and should use its handling in vertical maneuvers...

But then you have to deal with all these mathematically incompetent rubes that obviously, at the time, needed to be sent back to school for some refresher courses on how reality will always exactly correspond to what our calculations tell us in advance it will be: I named Front-line fighter pilots...

First in line of these lost souls: These front-line fighter pilots in Italy, trying to masquerade as real-deal state-side test pilots, only to clearly demonstrate they are out of their depth:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

What do they tell us in this? That the FW-190A out-maneuvers the P-47D in horizontal turns by a wide margin, but only at speeds below 250 MPH... Then, to add insult to injury, they tell us the P-47D has a "decidedly better angle of dive pull-out", meaning the FW-190A has generally inferior high speed maneuverability in the vertical AND the horizontal...

Well, don't fight the P-47D at high speed then, and anyways the P-47D sucks at low speeds anyway, so everything is in order... OK, but then look at these mathematically incompetent German pilots, who throw at us ridiculous generalisations without telling us the speed, altitude, bank angle, fuel level, engine rpm, air humidity, of the test, which their absurdly incomplete statement would absolutely need in order to mean anything as actual advice in the heat of battlè:

"The P-47D (needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"

Mathematically, this can only mean here that this could only occur at high speed, thus unsustainable, with specific air density and fuel loads conditions for it to be true... In those days, saying out-turning without qualification usually meant sustained turns: Look how quickly you can put your foot in your mouth when you know nothing of the math involved... These guys, I swear... What do Krauts know about Me-109s anyway?

But then, there is the Soviets: These guys are the worst, I tell you: Will you just look at this garbage?!?:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-"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."

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."


Will you just look at this pile of stinking non-mathematical garbage? Jesus, the P-47's test pilots were absolute geniuses compared to these guys... No wonder the Soviet Union is no more... And then look at the other cherries from these fruitcakes:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

Look at the nuggets produced by these blockheads:

-"LaGG-3 fighter is a heavy and sluggish plane with poor acceleration.(...) LaGG-3 is more maneuverable than the Me-109 in horizontal fights and it causes some pilots to commit to turning fights. LaGG-3 in a turning fight will bleed off speed very rapidly however and since it accelerates so poorly, it will have difficulty switching to vertical."

-So it is heavy and sluggish but not enough NOT to beat the Me-109G in turns???

And then how does the lightweight Yak-7 perform against the heavier FW-190A?:

-"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn."

But then, they still say they had more success against the FW-190A than against the Me-109... Because the FW-190A couldn't climb... Where was Kettenhunde when they needed him, for Pete's sake!?:

-"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109. FW-190s have never been observed to try to climb away from our fighters. It is due to it’s climb rate being inferior to our fighters and the Me-109G6."


And then the cream of the crop: "FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

Two years later, during Boddenplatte, the Germans were STILL "interacting" their two fighter types in the EXACT same way: See the "Boddenplatte" (Jan 1st 1945) episode of the show "Dogfight" for this brilliant example of successfully NOT adding 2+2 for years on end... Clearly math was not their strong point...

And now for the NEW nonsensical stuff: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

Look at these clumsy Soviets again, concerning a captured FW-190A-4: "They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good horizontal handling in all speed ranges,"

"All the speed ranges" means, apparently, better above 250 MPH than the 6 inch longer-nosed A-5, but when incompetence piles on top of incompetence, who knows? Don't these folks KNOW about the FW-190A's GREAT vertical handling?!? Sheeesh, do we have to explain EVERYTHING to these people!?!

And now, new stuff again(!), the Brit contingent joins the party... As if we weren't deep enough in an abyss of muck already... Never mind their pathetic RAE test that would have you believe a P-51B with FULL drop tanks massively out-turns the Me-109G (but the same P-51B is then only barely equal to the FW-190A, even without those drop tanks!), now look at the ramblings of this poor confused squadron leader...:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

BECAUSE THEY WERE IDIOTS WHO DIDN'T KNOW THEIR MATHS... That's why...

The final result of that fight was 8 to 1 in favor of the FW-190As, which, probably, this poor confused soul would have us believe, means that it sort of resembled the fight described by this other confused math-challenged ne'er do well, who you can bet didn't hand in his math homework the way he should have when he was a kid...:


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/471...sononfw190.jpg

Thank Goodness real-life simulation players are now here to sort out all the confusion created by these well-meaning, but math-illiterate, front-line fighter pilots, who obviously couldn't even be counted on to know when they were being gained on in a turn or not... Who could blame them? The education system has made great strides since their days, and it is us who reaped the fruits of this great opening of our minds...

Gaston

[engarde]

some strong language in there, expect negative feedback.

this is another chop at a well worn topic, the die hards will hold fast to their bible of aircraft performance no matter the alternatives offered.

i like yeagers sum-uppance: the pilot, not the plane.

to a certain extent i believe this is entirely the deciding factor above a basic competance level.

[engarde]

and to add to that, generally, fighter pilots are reportedly rather shameless self promoters, so i account for just as much boasting as truth in reports.

[BadAim]

I am still not quite sure what your point is. Your superior knowledge of math has no effect on the way highly trained fighter pilots flew their planes 70 years ago. The math of war goes like this; Those who lived flew their planes well, those who died....not so much. Either way this obsession with statistics is fruitless, it's all bull when you encounter a superior pilot.

[Erkki]

His point is that he got proven wrong like 20 times at the Ubizoo, and now expects more respect here. Will receive none. Study Physics and History, man. Dont just cherrypick quotes.

[Davedog74]

they were there mate ,we werent,how can you criticise
your p.c isnt out to kill you
plum

[erco]

I'll not be too critical of Gaston's post- we're striving to (within certain limits) recreate reality with our computer simulations. It's not unreasonable to expect that a good simulator would be capable of recreating reality. Put another way, if it worked in real life, it oughta work that way in game.

However, there are many factors working against the creation of a good simulator, not the least of which is a lack of usable data. This is further compounded by the effect of pilot ability on performance.

Thus, while it is worthwhile and commendable to try and analyze all pertinent reports, and then compare them to the results in the simulator, we must remember that the FW190 WE fly exists as computer code in a program. We fly that airplane, and ingame pilots have found what tactics work well, with that 190.

Gaston, if it makes you feel any better, I got outmaneuvered in my 109, in the horizontal by a P-47 the other day

[Tempest123]

I'm pretty sure every pilot that flew these birds was way more qualified than some non-pilot simulator pilots some 60 years later. I know its confusing reading all the conflicting pilot reports (I would kill for a ride in one of the new Fw-190's from Flugwerk, as this seems to be the most mythical aircraft in terms of performance). All these variables depend on aircraft loadout, fuel, altitude (ex. density altitude at the time and season, field altitude of where the testing took place etc.) , possible damage from capture, fuel type etc., translation errors, unfamiliarity with the aircraft etc. Wayy too many factors. I can take one thing away from the quotes you stated: The Fw-190 (BMW) is a heavier low altitude fighter, and the 109 is a smaller lighter high-altitude fighter (which we all knew anyways). If Oleg took every pilot report of every plane the planes in IL2 would be a mess because its all qualitative information. Official flight tests, factory documents and talking with real pilots is the only way to get accurate information. I know your being facetious, but I would be careful about saying that these fellows were idiots . They were the real deal, and they get my respect.

[Gaston]

Yes pilots do make a difference: You only have to look at the disparities between front-line pilots accounts of the FW-190A, and test pilot accounts such as the two US Navy FW-190A tests, which, let's face it, only paint a picture that corresponds exactly to what anyone would have expected by looking at these heavy small-winged aircrats sitting on the ground...

The fact is that the intuitively "easy" picture of the FW-190A: A high-speed fighter that should compensate its lack of turning ability at low speed by high-speed dive and zoom maneuvers, is not only inaccurate, but is in fact the PERFECT opposite of what ALL front-line fighter pilots observed it to do in actual combat:

-An actual FW-190A Western ace described his method of fighting P-51s on the forum of "Aces High" (thread appears to be long gone despite my appeals to those in charge of that site): Downthrottling to reduce speed well before the merge, popping the flaps and fighting exclusively by horizontal turns... NOTHING else... With reduced throttle he described out-turning a tailing P-51D in two horizontal right 360°s on the deck (from the slow merge starting speed since he had reduced his throttle)...

A P-51D proved more competitive against the FW-190A by also reducing its throttle, though I think the FW-190A likely did not itself downthrottle in that instance, and thus lost the turn fight.

The very fact that Karhila, in Me-109Gs, FW-190A pilots, and above all P-51D pilots (in at least a dozen detailed instances), ALL describe reducing the throttle, despite being from the start at low speed in sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, and this in order to gain a huge and immediate advantage in sustained turn rate over prolonged periods, shows that even the most basic methods of fighting with these aircrafts are very poorly understood, probably because the available understanding is derived from jets which are propelled rather than tracted, not to mention their differences with prop/pistons in ability to sustain speed as power is reduced...:

See this clearest of many examples of how downthrottling is the direct cause of winning the sustained low-speed dogfight on the deck, an example which has many other counterparts, for the P-51 mostly, but also other types as well (note how Johnny Johnson gets his ass kicked in a Spit V vs FW-190A horizontal turn fight by remaining at full throttle throughout):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg

Note how the pilot TWICE attributes his success in the prolonged on-the-deck turn fight to his action of downthrottling (it is prolonged because the German base fires AAA "every time" the circling got them close to it...)...:

"He stopped cutting me off (from behind!)as I cut throttle"

"I commenced turning inside of him as I decreased throttle settings"

This is unambiguous, as is Karhila when he said, "most pilots increased throttle and then turned, I decreased throttle and found I could turn just as well" "Optimal sustained turn speed for the Me-109G was around 160 MPH(!)"

The very fact that slow-speed turning was not an exception but the rule in most theathers of WWII (due I think to the weakness of a 2% gun striking rate, less pronounced perhaps with a centralized armament or a fragile Japanese target...) shows that typical WWII dogfighting and priorities are in fact very poorly understood, and heavily coloured by post-war jet experience...

Furthermore, an exaustive 1989 test at METO power and 6 Gs (the only serious WWII fighter test in 60 years, made by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", with modern instruments), found the 6 G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D to be as high as 300 MPH IAS, or 64 MPH ABOVE the accepted "calculated" value 2.44 stall, or around 244 MPH IAS.

This higher value means that, in theory, downthrottling is even less useful than anything previously assumed... Yet it was used to advantage in SUSTAINED turns...

All this clearly indicates that predictive calculated methods are not only inaccurate, but the lack of knowledge about prolonged downthrottling in sustained horizontal turns, and of the actual WWII most-prevalent combat tactic (outside the peculiarities of the Pacific Theater): Horizontal turn-fighting, means our current assumed knowledge is in fact entirely fictitious...

Even the two WWII doghouse charts of the Spitfire I and Me-109E have no late-war counterparts (because they were in fact useless): They were calculated from engine output variations with speed alone, most likely, and the 1989 P-51D/F6F/FG-1/P-47D test shows the "doghouse" shape itself is fictional for powerful prop-tracted WWII fighters:

"Corner Speed for all were found to be very close to the maximum level speed" (At Meto this means 6 G for the P-51D at a minimum of 300 MPH IAS, and likely higher with more power in my opinion)

Gaston

[janpitor]

Downthrottling is a good think to reduce speed when needed, but you lose energy then. It is much better to execute high yoyo, thus reducing speed but gaining potential energy.