Gold-Clash

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Spitfire pilot doesn't have to follow. The speed will drop, the D-9 isn't going to be able to hold up all day. Especially if he's repeating the same move time and time again, the Spitfire pilot will learn and adjust accordingly.

And the exact same goes for the D-9

The only thing the Spit can do is to run in circles, wich is pretty predictable and easy to adjust to.

[FLYBOYJ]

FUEL FOR THE FIRE:

1) I don't believe the Dora will sustain maneuvering speed above 400 mph if our Spit starts turning (mainly in the horizontal) and the Dora starts following it. I think you're over-estimating how rapidly a Dora will not loose airspeed in a high speed turn. Unless the Dora is going to keep its airspeed up and use its airspeed to "dive and climb" into the attack, its going to find itself under 400mph pretty quickly once maneuvering starts, even at high power settings. I think a split-s is the Dora's best maneuver above 400 mph.

2) Engine overheating will not be a problem IF the pilot enriches fuel mixture as required, the ambient air temperature is low (winter is GOOD), the engine is not detonating and the engne is not being overboosted, easier said than done especially in combat and especially with lower time pilots.

I do believe the Dora was one of the best, if not the best single engine fighter produced during WW2, and as Les brought up earlier, if Tank had his engine 2 years earlier, things over Europe might of wound up very different!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

FUEL FOR THE FIRE:

1) I don't believe the Dora will sustain maneuvering speed above 400 mph if our Spit starts turning (mainly in the horizontal) and the Dora starts following it. I think you're over-estimating how rapidly a Dora will not loose airspeed in a high speed turn. Unless the Dora is going to keep its airspeed up and use its airspeed to "dive and climb" into the attack, its going to find itself under 400mph pretty quickly once maneuvering starts, even at high power settings. I think a split-s is the Dora's best maneuver above 400 mph.

Hold on ! I wasnt saying the D-9 should keep following a Spit in a turn, no what I said (Also), was that it should try and follow only until speed drops below 400 or 380mph at least. If the Fight starts at 420mph, the D-9 is almost guaranteed finishing off the Spit before the speed drops to 380mph.

Bottom line is the D-9 should only follow a Spit's turn if its speed is at or above 400mph, below that it wont have enough time to finish off the Spit and will have to brake of the attack to soon.

But if directly behind the Spit, the speed suddenly doesnt matter no more, as the D-9's initial turn rate is MUCH faster than the Spits, and that will be enough to finish off the Spit if its tries to turn in this situation.

So the D-9's goal for a almost sure victory over the Spit, is to get close and behind the Spit, wich it will be able to do with a combination of three very effective maneuvers.

And the Spits goal is to not let the above happen, wich I would suggest requires alot of climbing, as turning is too predictable. If you start turning all the D-9 has to do then is to make one right guess on wich direction you will turn and your pretty much dead, and if it doesnt succeed on its first try the odds have increased it will the next time.

2) Engine overheating will not be a problem IF the pilot enriches fuel mixture as required, the ambient air temperature is low (winter is GOOD), the engine is not detonating and the engne is not being overboosted, easier said than done especially in combat and especially with lower time pilots.

I do believe the Dora was one of the best, if not the best single engine fighter produced during WW2, and as Les brought up earlier, if Tank had his engine 2 years earlier, things over Europe might of wound up very different!

Agreed.

[Erich]

I am finding these posts on the Spit and Dora quite interesting

am curious if you have interviewed Dora 9 pilots to get these assumptions or facts ? or is this from research through ? what books please.

If you are going by what Englishman Eric Brown has to say then it is bunk as Eric never came up agasint a Dora let alone flew one for the Luftwaffe in combat

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

so you're suggesting that for the entire dogfight the D-9 simply does split Ss or reverse cubans?? and that's gonna get the spit shot down?? eventually the D-9'll have to do something else, and eventually the speed'll come down, and they wouldn't stay at full speed for long anyway, i can think or more appealing situations than being out of fuel or having a overheated engine..........

No the Split S are mostly used for defensive purposes to keep from getting shot down.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Erich

I am finding these posts on the Spit and Dora quite interesting

am curious if you have interviewed Dora 9 pilots to get these assumptions or facts ? or is this from research through ? what books please.

If you are going by what Englishman Eric Brown has to say then it is bunk as Eric never came up agasint a Dora let alone flew one for the Luftwaffe in combat

Is it me your refering to ?

Well in that case, yes much of it is from reading, and alot from years of depating the issue.

In any case you should tjek out these books: "Focke-Wulf FW 190 Aces of the Western Front" by John Weal, "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front" also by John Weal, and "Focke-Wulf Fw 190" by Malcolm V. Lowe.

And NO im certainly not going by what Eric Brown is saying, as he's a bloody lier in my eyes.

[Erich]

U haven't quoted from Ospreys book have U ? arg.........

think we should definately wait for Crandalls operative book on the Dora coming out later this year or even ............ eeeeeeeeek I am going to say it. Schiffers attempt at the Dora 9.

you're right about E.Brown. although it would have been fun being in his shoes testing a/c after war's end.

[Soren]

U haven't quoted from Ospreys book have U ? arg.........

Osprey books are good quality books Erich. The reason I picked these three was because their short and very informative. I have lots of other books on the Fw-190, but most are relatively old ones, and some not souly about the Fw-190.

think we should definately wait for Crandalls operative book on the Dora coming out later this year or even ............ eeeeeeeeek I am going to say it. Schiffers attempt at the Dora 9.

And why is that ?

you're right about E.Brown.

Yes. However his hardest, most false and most stupid critiques were not against the 190, but the 109.

although it would have been fun being in his shoes testing a/c after wars end.

Definitely.

[Erich]

this is the reason why Osprey books are in demand............they are cheap. Some of the text is quite wrong and the WW 2 profiles esepcially for German a/c are horrid and incorrect. When the ehck did Willi Reschke release his definitve markings for his supposed Fw 190A-8 in the western front aces that he flew ? there is no known pic of his a/c, esepcially the sought after Fw 190A-8/R2. The book on the Afrika units is terrible with 8/10ths of the profiles a fantasy as well as the camo for the German nf aces another book sadly that I own. For Osprey books stick to the Napoleonics although they are trying with their elite series of US fighter ace books, the profiles again area bit loud.

A friend and I have been asked repeatedly to release our version of the SturmFw units for Osprey. We have declined...........

[Nonskimmer]

I agree that the Osprey books aren't exactly the best sources of info, but I wouldn't call them cheap.
At least not around here.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Erich

this is the reason why Osprey books are in demand............they are cheap. Some of the text is quite wrong and the WW 2 profiles esepcially for German a/c are horrid and incorrect. When the ehck did Willi Reschke release his definitve markings for his supposed Fw 190A-8 in the western front aces that he flew ? there is no known pic of his a/c, esepcially the sought after Fw 190A-8/R2. The book on the Afrika units is terrible with 8/10ths of the profiles a fantasy as well as the camo for the German nf aces another book sadly that I own. For Osprey books stick to the Napoleonics although they are trying with their elite series of US fighter ace books, the profiles again area bit loud.

A friend and I have been asked repeatedly to release our version of the SturmFw units for Osprey. We have declined...........

I wasnt really aware of that I must admit, but my answer to that would be "Go buy a modellers book".

The Osprey books mostly concentrates themselves on the a/c's performance stats and history, and I find their info on a/c's performance stats very correct and detailed, both in a scientific view-point and a common sense one. The Historic parts I regard as reliable aswell.

Btw are you a writer yourself ?

[Glider]

Soren Can I ask on what basis you call Eric Brown a 'bloody liar'. He was British and therefore Eric a little unlikely to have flown a 190 of any type in combat. On this basis you would discount any test pilot who flew any captured foreign plane on the same basis.
However he was a test pilot who flew almost every captured axis aircraft as well as nearly all the USA and UK aircraft extensively. This gave him a unique oppertunity to compare the latest planes against one another.
In addition he did have combat experience and was a fighter pilot first and a test pilot second. Most test pilots had no combat experience although some were given limited combat experience to assist with their evaluations.
You have I take it, read his evaluation of the 190 that landed in the UK and his comparision in mock dogfights against the latest Spits. Where he is full of praise for the 190 and its abilities.

Soren, Can I end with a request that you put up your evidence that he is a liar.

Feel free to disagree with him but if you get personal, be aware that he is an acknowledged expert in his field, from all corners of the globe, and you, are not.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Soren Can I ask on what basis you call Eric Brown a 'bloody liar'. He was British and therefore Eric a little unlikely to have flown a 190 of any type in combat. On this basis you would discount any test pilot who flew any captured foreign plane on the same basis.
However he was a test pilot who flew almost every captured axis aircraft as well as nearly all the USA and UK aircraft extensively. This gave him a unique oppertunity to compare the latest planes against one another.
In addition he did have combat experience and was a fighter pilot first and a test pilot second. Most test pilots had no combat experience although some were given limited combat experience to assist with their evaluations.
You have I take it, read his evaluation of the 190 that landed in the UK and his comparision in mock dogfights against the latest Spits. Where he is full of praise for the 190 and its abilities.

Soren, Can I end with a request that you put up your evidence that he is a liar.

Feel free to disagree with him but if you get personal, be aware that he is an acknowledged expert in his field, from all corners of the globe, and you, are not.

We have a 'Eric Brown supporter' I see ! (Almost as bad as supporting Kit Carson ! )

First off read my posts a little more carefully before you shoot back:

However his hardest, most false and most stupid critiques were not against the 190, but the 109.

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

As to why he is a lier (either that or just 'Stupid'), I assume you havent read his view points on the 109 ? And if you have, and you agree with them, you havent read A SINGLE other test with the 109 or much info about it either.

Now im not gonna go into the details at this moment as there is simply so many stupid and false comments made by him about 109, that it would take ages to quote. But in short Brown was VERY biased. And if you don't know why, you simply havent read enough books or articles about this particular subject.

Fact is Brown was so wrong about the 109 that German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais and many other German pilots highly disagreed with his statements. Beauvais even tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to meet him, Brown refused to listen to a pilot who'd flown more in the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested in believing his own negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert !

[Glider]

Soren
I have only read his comments on the G6 which make sense to me, with a balance of positive and negative comments. However, you have obviously seen others and have the advantaqe on me so I give way to you on his view of the 109.
However to say that he is a liar and or stupid is very rash of you. It implies that you know better than a highly experienced test and combat pilot.
You also cannot deny that he is an expert in the field recognised by other professionals and that also seems to hurt you.

So I repeat what I said. Feel free to disagree that is what these forums are about, but you are not in a position to get personal.

[lesofprimus]

I gotta leave 4 work now, but i will comment later... My Grandfather, who flew with VMF-214, called this man a liar as well....