fw 190a5 flight model

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Gaston

First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks...

Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...:

" Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

-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 The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted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.


Second quotation : "A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

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"

If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French...

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?

If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming...

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...

Gaston

The Russians were never really happy with the Spitfires they got. They found the Merlin to be exceedingly troublesome and it had difficulty with the fine dust conditions that were found in the Kuban area. The British found similar situations when operating in Normandy (thus requiring new filters to be fitted). I really don't think the Russians were ever able to get the most out of their Spitfires but as with all fighters during WWII they seemed to be focused on getting the most out of the aircraft by removing unnecessary equipment. Indeed, removing the machine guns may have been an effort to improve maneuverability by increasing the roll rate. Compared to contemporary Russian fighters, particularly the Yak, the Spitfire is quite slow in the roll.

I'm not discounting the report but as with any historical reports it does have to be placed in full context. Indeed, when they first received Spitfires in early 1943 they were operating with one hand behind their back...

We studied the new equipment diligently, but were unable to acquire any practical mastery of the Spitfire in the air because we did not have any instructions on techniques of piloting this airplane. Neither the technical staff nor the regiment instructors knew its most basic flight and tactical data.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Here's an interesting account with the Russians doing test combat near the front.

Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

The conditions for the battle were complicated: our “enemies” were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this ‘enemy’ to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

Versus the LaGG it seems the Spitfire had no trouble turning with it. Not that the LaGG was exceptional in the turn but further places in context that the Russians were experimenting with the Spitfires capabilities when they did receive it. Note these are front line pilots.

Now here's the most interesting piece that pretty much goes against the stuff you translated:

One of the most important sources by which one can judge the combat employment of the Spitfires is the testimonials of the pilots themselves about this aircraft. There is hardly a better person to characterize this equipment than a pilot who had to fight in it. Although during Soviet times it was customary to remain silent or curse aviation equipment delivered by Lend-lease, the memoirs of Anatoliy Ivanov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, contain the following description of this aircraft:

The Spitfire was a simple aircraft that permitted significant mistakes in the techniques of piloting. The I-16 was much more demanding. The Spitfire had a radio, not a great radio, but a radio nonetheless. The singular superiority of the Spitfire was the fact that it was very light and, because of its thrust-to-weight ratio, was a good climber. This supported reliable vertical maneuver. However the greatest deficiency was the fact that the weapons were spread out along the wings. The distance between the cannons was approximately four meters. During an attack on the enemy from close range, their lethality was greatly diminished.

Over the short period of time the regiment’s pilots fought in the British aircraft, they managed to overcome the fact that the Spitfire lagged behind the German Bf-109 and especially the Fw-190 fighters in such an important characteristic for a fighter as diving capabilities. The principal explanation for this was the lightness of its construction—the aircraft simply was unable to amass sufficient energy. Therefore “to exit an engagement in a Spitfire by diving was a fatal error, because this aircraft was light and a poor diver. A Messerschmitt could rapidly catch and shoot it down.”

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.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...spit/index.htm

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.

Now would you like to move the goalpost out further?

[lonewulf]

I think there are two issues that should be noted in relation to the performance of Spitfire aircraft transferred to the Soviets during the War.

Firstly, all or most of the Mk Vs that went to Russia were well and truly second hand. The machines were essentially considered obsolete in terms of the WTO when dispatched. In 1943, even if they had all been brand new (which they most certainly were not), they would have struggled with the latest Luftwaffe types.

Secondly, despite the actual condition of the Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union, any official statements and reports prepared during the Soviet era, (about Spitfires or anything else for that matter) must be treated with tremendous scepticism. The simple truth is that any comments that were made by individuals (any individual at all) that could be interpreted as defeatist or in some way critical of the soviet system or the products of soviet industry, could and would get you killed or would be otherwise career threatening. No one in their right mind would be associated with such statements, whether he or she had penned them or not. If you knew what was good for you during this time of intense fear and paranoia, you most certainly didn't go around praising the war equipment of a foreign power, not even an allied foreign power.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Firstly, all or most of the Mk Vs that went to Russia were well and truly second hand. The machines were essentially considered obsolete in terms of the WTO when dispatched. In 1943, even if they had all been brand new (which they most certainly were not), they would have struggled with the latest Luftwaffe types.

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

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Secondly, despite the actual condition of the Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union, any official statements and reports prepared during the Soviet era, (about Spitfires or anything else for that matter) must be treated with tremendous scepticism. The simple truth is that any comments that were made by individuals (any individual at all) that could be interpreted as defeatist or in some way critical of the soviet system or the products of soviet industry, could and would get you killed or would be otherwise career threatening. No one in their right mind would be associated with such statements, whether he or she had penned them or not. If you knew what was good for you during this time of intense fear and paranoia, you most certainly didn't go around praising the war equipment of a foreign power, not even an allied foreign power.

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.

[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 ...

“because the Messerschmitt’s propeller rotated to the left, and the airplane executed right turns with greater difficulty than left turns..."

I found this interesting

It has the capability to adjust the pedals in flight, which gives the pilot the possibility to freely execute pedal control in flight. As a rule, the pilot is able to adjust the aircraft so that if he momentarily loses consciousness, the aircraft will independently re-establish a normal attitude.

I don't think this is in the game.

[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... ??

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

I know that is the claim of Eric Hartmann for his victims, but, in fact, if one reads often and a lot about aerial combat, one is always immediately struck how well aware of their environment even Me-109G pilots were, despite the supposedly poor visibility of this aircraft: Hardly ever in these accounts is the victim unaware of the attacker...:

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

Furthermore, in the above 1200+ combat accounts, I can recall exactly one account that I remember specifically involving a P-47 dive and zooming his target (unsuccessfully, but at least helping him evade this FW-190A that was badly out-turning him, achieving this by zooming above it from low altitude)...

I know you haven't read them, because if you had you would know how absurd is your notion that the Me-109G can turn with the P-47D...

As for the Spitfire, given that current theory gives it a 50-60% wingloading advantage over the FW-190A, you have to wonder where are all these combat accounts displaying this advantage at low speeds... (And why only examples and statements to the contrary have surfaced, aside the TsAGI numbers).

For the Spitfire, a lot of diving at target, and never any sustained turning...

You ask for evidence but evidently you won't read it...

Gaston