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

[Gaston]

Quote, TheGrunch: "Originally Posted by Gaston
Therefore full power is NOT helpful, and he contrasts very clearly his method to that of fellow pilots: "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

He was fighting P-51s HEWASFIGHTINGP-51SHEWASFIGHTINGP-51S!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No he wasn't: He had ONE doubtfull P-51 encounter that was likely with similar-looking (and maybe performing in sustained turns) P-40s...

Nearly ALL his encounters were with Soviet-built fighters, and that was certainly the intended context... Soviet types are NOT poor low-speed fighters... (Neither is the P-51, compared to the Me-109G, when the "trick" of downthrottling, coarse prop pitch and dropped flaps is used)


Quote, The Grunch: "How is sticking near corner speed ever going to be relevant in sustaining level turns? Who said that? That's because it's not the best sustained turn speed. Sticking near corner speed as an entry speed to a turning fight is useful because it's the best instantaneous turn speed, AND the best sustained turn speed is just a slightly more lengthy yank of the stick away"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-How about reading what Karhila actually said? :

"I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

Decrease power as a preparation to ENTER the turn: Otherwise he would say he reduced the engine throttle DURING the turn, not waste speed BEFORE the turn even started... ("In the same situation" means: Also before the start of the turn)

Same with the FW-190A ace on "Aces High": Downthrottling took place before the merge even began....

In any case, getting back to stalwart math advocates (who think applying pathetically presumptive math formulas to real-world complexities has more validity than obvious reality-based conclusions), IF their warped view of WWII turn-fighting had any validity, then the necessity to UPTHROTTLE after downthrottling would be equally emphasized by those pilots involved...

This is because the "math presumptive supremacy" mantra is: Best sustained turn rate is only available at full power...

You would think then that UPTHROTTLING is equally important when the needed result of DOWNTHROTTLING has been achieved...

Well Karhila peeps not a word about UPTHROTTLING... Neither does the "Aces High" FW-190A Western ace... And finally the most obvious case of P-51 downthrottling I have found (if that one doesn't do it nothing will..): It mentions Downthrottling TWICE. Upthrottling ? A big fat zero...

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

So let's see all those numerous downthrottling accounts that are followed by life-saving UPTHROTTLING to INCREASE the turn rate...

If you want to get an idea of the likelyhood of THAT... Consider these sentences following several hard 360s on the deck...:

"Every time I got to the edge of the airdrome they opened up with light AA guns. Gradually I worked the Me-109 away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I decreased throttle settings"

That was the Second mention of downthrottling, first was:

"At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch"

Jeez, this thing is just crawling with mentions of throttling back UP, is it not?!?

He obviously felt throttling UP was an important factor to his success in sustained turns... He just conveys the info in this report by hiding the meaning BETWEEN THE LINES you know...

You guys are too much fun...

Gaston

[K_Freddie]

Hope that you guys notice that I mentioned 'throttle variation' to get a better turn to the right to out-turn an opponent.
The FW performs better in yoyo type turns (ie: the vertical) and can outturn a spit, if you're not careful.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Gaston

No he wasn't: He had ONE doubtfull P-51 encounter that was likely with similar-looking (and maybe performing in sustained turns) P-40s...

Similar-looking P-40s?! Have you seen those two aircraft? They couldn't be harder to misidentify if you tried. Let's look at the features which jump out at a pilot when he's identifying an aircraft type...P-40 - round wingtips, P-51 - square wingtips, P-40 - deep, rounded rudder and tailplane, P-51 - tall square rudder and square tailplane, P-40 - deep chin radiator, P-51 - belly radiator....the list just goes on. Really the only similarities between these aircraft are the armament and the cockpit (possibly). Unless you count the fact that they are both American-built single-engined fighter aircraft as a similarity. In any case, where would he encounter US P-40s? Unless you're suggesting he was colourblind as well.

Originally Posted by Gaston

Nearly ALL his encounters were with Soviet-built fighters, and that was certainly the intended context... Soviet types are NOT poor low-speed fighters...

Most of them are poor low speed turnfighters. The Yak series aircraft weren't bad but they were definitely very much more comfortable at slightly higher speeds, the MiG-3 was poor, and the Lavochkins were a touch better or worse, entirely depending on who you ask! All subject to differences in pilot skill, of course. The main difference is that none of these aircraft had high-lift devices as the 109 did, so they were nowhere near as docile and controllable near the stall and the training of Soviet pilots was unequivocally poor, so there's not a great deal of point in considering combat reports as some kind of bible in this case particularly.

As for your favourite quote:
"I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."
Does it say that he could turn better? No. It says "equally well". No doubt he could, if the enemy aircraft took the bait and decided to follow him into a really low-speed turn rather than using any kind of vertical aspect. Not many rookie pilots would have considered air-fighting in a very 3-dimensional manner, I'd imagine. All that you seem to have achieved via Karhila's quote is to highlight the utility of the high-lift devices the 109 was fitted with, which was not in question to begin with. If that was what maximised his turn-rate advantage, he'd use it. At the end of the day, why do you think he says "they usually applied full power and then began to turn"?

Essentially it comes down to a question: Do you think that every other pilot apart from Karhila is a moron?

The only way you can draw a universal trend from your one explicit anecdote about throttle settings during turns (that turning at super-low throttle settings is GRRRRRREAT!) is if you answer this question with 'Yes'.

Originally Posted by Gaston

You guys are too much fun...

You're really boring. You've got a couple of anecdotes that say what you want to say if interpreted REALLY narrowly and with prior intent to find the meaning you want in REALLY specific situations that cannot be used to derive any kind of universal trend, and that kind of cherry-picking reaaallly doesn't account for the differences in pilot skill and aircraft condition that affect an aircraft's turning performance, does it? There are big gaps in your information, for example, in the Hanseman report, he doesn't say how much he decreases the throttle setting, does he? It could be as little as 0.5-1" Hg, so that he could maintain a comfortable position pulling the stick and still get down to the best sustained turn speed for the aircraft's condition (which would be rather lower once he'd dropped flaps). If the 109 pilot failed to follow suit with the flaps it's very possible that the P-51 could out-turn it at low speed, especially given that Hanseman was a relatively well-trained and experienced pilot - notice that the 109s didn't even notice him until he'd opened fire on the landing aircraft, clearly the creme-de-la-creme. You really do never consider the human factors involved, do you? That's why you can't use combat reports as a guide to an aircraft's performance, because the pilot makes such a difference that there are reports of such-and-such an aircraft out-turning one type on one occasion and not on another all over the place in combat reports.
I notice you didn't reply to the section of my post about pulling Gs and pulling against control forces for extended periods of time, like you never do on any occasion when you can't answer a point. The annoying thing is, you'll bring up the same load of tripe in a later post as if no one has ever answered it before.

[Erkki]

Even funnier is, that Karhila wrote a diary through the war. You can find a lot about his career and many combat stories in Tuomo Soiri's book Iskulaivue (unfortunately not translated.

In July 43, some 10km North of Lavansaari(Moshnay) Island where the Soviet 3. GvIAP was, he was surprised by an La-5, that stuck right in his tail. He made a "Hartmann escape" and then outturned the La-5 in nearly pure vertical fight, using full power, and no flaps - La-5 turned too tight initially, lost his energy and found itself in the 109's bravure area, low speed turn/climb and acceleration. Karhila's first burst cut the La-5 in half, and the kill had 2 confirmers. La-5 pilot bailed out and was picked up from the sea by a torpedo boat.

And yes, after I-16 and I-153 none of the Soviet fighters is really good at low speed, they dont have very good power-to-weight-to-wing area ratios. Jak-9 was considered even more dangerous than La-5 thanks to its high speed turn and especially roll. It could also follow the 109s longer in the dive, unlike La-5s that had to either break or fly to the sea, as happened a couple of times.