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

[AndyJWest]

@Andy

Corner Speed
Corner speed is an important factor of maximum turn performance. Corner speed is defined as the minimum airspeed at which the maximum allowable g can be generated. At corner speed,the aircraft can attain its maximum turn rate. For our purposes, 280 KIAS is the T-2C cornerspeed. Below this speed, if you attempt to pull more "G", the aircraft will enter buffet and stall at its aerodynamic limit. This results in an increase in the turn radius and a decrease in the turnrate. On the other hand, if the aircraft is maneuvered above the corner speed, the max allowable"G" becomes the limiting factor. The excess airspeed (above corner speed) will result in a turnradius increase and a turn rate decrease. Knowing and flying the corner speed and the appropriate AOAs will give the fighter the mostbang for the buck: the best turn performance for the minimum amount of energy loss.

Thanks for that - more or less what I've already written.

As for turn rates/turn radii, I've only ever been commenting on sustained turns - no WWII fighter is capable (as far as I'm aware) of achieving its best sustained turn rate, or minimum-radius sustained turn, at anything approaching its corner speed - though I'm not sure that 'corner speed' was even a design consideration at the time. I don't recollect seeing this speed being given in the pilots' notes etc I've seen. I'm sure that most pilots were aware that you could cause structural damage by pulling back hard enough in a high speed manoeuvre, but was this ever explicitly stated as a manoeuvring speed limit?

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Thanks for that - more or less what I've already written.

This is true... What is interesting is that corner speed is the Minimum speed needed to pull max G.


Moving forward... I agree I don't think Corner Speed was a consideration given the power to weight ratio they have. We aren't talking about a F16...

I think IL2 gives a pretty good representation of what we are all concerned about. Getting that gun solution. I don't look at my airspeed all that much except when I'm at limits like dive and stall. I look for angles and of course picking when to spend to make a shot. Flying around in circles isn't going to get you very far with someone that will counter with a reversal or an extension.

[AndyJWest]

Flying around in circles isn't going to get you very far with someone that will counter with a reversal or an extension.

Absolutely. And even in a turn fight, one can use yo-yos etc to take advantage when appropriate. The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant - and of course anyone engaging in it is a sitting duck to an outsider...

It probably helps to know things like best-sustained-turn-rate speed etc, but as TheGrunch has pointed out, you need also to take into account the performance of your adversary.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Absolutely. And even in a turn fight, one can use yo-yos etc to take advantage when appropriate. The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant - and of course anyone engaging in it is a sitting duck to an outsider...

It probably helps to know things like best-sustained-turn-rate speed etc, but as TheGrunch has pointed out, you need also to take into account the performance of your adversary.

-Excuse me but let me quote this again as this is too unbelievable: "The whole sustained round-and-round dogfight scenario is so unlikely that I don't think it is even worth considering as historically significant"

Have you ever read a SINGLE WWII fighter combat account in your entire life?!?

I will post a few here that went on for 15 minutes to one side:Most of them go on for at least a full minute (2-3 360s), two minutes being extremely common also: 4-6 360s... Almost none of them last for less than over one full 360°, regardless of the types involved...

By comparison with turn fighting, "Boom and Zoom" is far less significant, except mostly by P-38s against Japan, and on the Eastern and Desert Front by Me-109s (apparently a centralized armament helps). Even then, turn fighting is at least as important as anything else anywhere, and "Boom and Zoom" is virtually non-existent on the 1944 Western Front, which was the most technically advanced front of WWII...

You need to actually read a few WWII combat reports now and then...

For the Me-109G, vertical maneuvers are clearly a compensation for its deficient turn performance, until superior US vertical performance in 1944 forced it out of its stereotypical "see-saw" (the reason Rall called it a "floret")...

I guess you don't realize that once you have committed to a turn fight, and the enemy is close enough behind, you cannot just "step out" of it at will: Any slackening of the turn will give the pursuer an easy kill...

The trouble with Il-2 may be that the roll and especially the pitch response has too little inertia delay ("mushing") to impose a life-like turn contest "lock".

Or it could be that the issue is that the restricted in-game field of view angle is giving too much escape possibilities with a large maneuver...

Once the turn fight has slowed you down (which could be as quick as after 180°), the real-life pitch response may no longer be crisp enough for a fast enough split-s (remember that in WWII fighters, "Corner Speed" is mostly near maximum level speed)... That's why they tend to go on forever unless the pursued uses the pursuer's under-nose "blind spot" (necessary to gain enough sight lead for the pursuer) to push down on the stick and "disapear" at the very moment it was about to be hit...

Even then, you'll note from Hartman's description of this tactic that there is no time for a much more confortable split-s...

In addition, any downward escape (and by definition, most of the time, an escape from a turnfight can only really be downward: Zoom or spiral climb escapes are very rare and require a very large climb performance disparity) will put you in a lower position, which is usually catastrophic: In real-life you cannot easily raise your nose fast and accurately while turning from a lower position: Simply by virtue of being higher, the pursuer can lower his nose easily and accurately while tracking your movements...

Losing the "high ground" is probably not represented severely enough in Il-2, as it meant everything in real-life WWII combat, and is likely the main reason why horizontal turn battles where so common and so prolonged.

(BTW, Anybody outside the turn were offered only limited high-deflection shots that were of not so great value to a real-life 2% gun hit rate, until the introduction of gyro-sights, and maybe even then...)

In jet combat, being lower can actually be an advantage, but that is far removed from the reality of WWII propeller combat...

As to the comment about the real-life guns versus the "magical" ones in-game, it has nothing to do with me complaining about my playing Il-2: I have never played Il-2 and don't intend to do so in the near future. I am playing little enough as it is my own air combat simulation, which I have to admit also fails to reproduce those 15 minutes turn battles, but for reasons of boardgame mechanics.

At least a full 360° is common enough...:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...708#5031083708

The research took 14 years, and all the profile drawings except the P-47D were made especially for it, given inaccuracies in most drawings...

Gaston

P.S.: The "weakness" of actual guns is based on Luftwaffe assesments of a 2% average hit rate in real-life...

G.

[AndyJWest]

[Erkki]

How about trying the game before trying to "prove" its wrong?

I can demonstrate the 109's abilities to you.

[Crumpp]

Flying at corner speed gives you best rate and radius of turn.

In regards to the airframe limited performance, yes....

[JG27CaptStubing]

@Gaston

Your post clearly indicates several misconceptions about the game and real life. It's pretty obvious you put up quite a few straw man arguments for sake of getting a rise out of people.

I suspect you aren't very succesful in the game and you want to blame the game and it's short comings for your lack of skill.

Moving forward let's drop this dead horse discussion.

[TheGrunch]

The sheer blinding idiocy of him making complaints about a game that he hasn't played just continues to baffle me. Does Gaston know that a hit rate of 5% against fighters in Il-2 is pretty damn good? Apparently not. Most people don't get that. Most of the players that haven't put hundreds or thousands of hours into this game are in the vicinity of 0.5-3%. Clearly these are magically accurate guns. Still, even with such low hit ratios, BnZ fighting is not impossible or ineffective, especially on no icons/no padlock servers.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Gaston

Losing the "high ground" is probably not represented severely enough in Il-2

Originally Posted by Gaston

I have never played Il-2 and don't intend to do so in the near future.

Wow.....I'm speechless!!