Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[Glider]

-Quote: "Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.

Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-Please refer to everything I have posted so far, particularly the Russian front-line evaluation quote:

-"The Fw-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" (and is more maneuverable on the horizontal than the Me-109)

-Johnny Johnson "The Fw-190A turns better than the Me-109"

-Heinz lange:"The FW-190A could do just about as well"

Russian Front Line report is interesting, the J Johnson I covered in my previous posting and you misquoting of the third has been noted.

So far it is YOU who hasn't addressed directly any of the evaluations I presented, and I have presented far more than you...

The last quote above doesn't square well with your contention that a FOUR minutes turn fight of Tempests with FW-190As would have ended worse with Me-109Gs...

I Disagree, I quoted from a source that you know Closterman that the Tempest should not get invovled in a slow turning match the the Me109 as the 109 could turn better. I also gave you a live example of a low speed turning battle where the Tempest performed better than the Fw190 in a turning fight.

Four minutes by the way means around 10-12 consecutive 360° turns: See, these fights are not that hard to find... Try now and duplicate that on a computer game based on current "theory"...

This is the only one that I found, I notice that you haven't quoted any despite your belief that they were the bread an butter type of combat

The Tempest is not known for its agility? Never heard of anything along those lines,

I don't like saying this but if you have read as much as you seem to by Closterman then you must have forgotten. He flew both extensively, you may also want to read up on Beumount a pilot who knew the Tempest best.

but why don't you check the Britsh RAE evaluation of the Me-109G vs the P-51B WITH FULL DROP TANKS? "The P-51B easily out turns the Me-109G even with full drop tanks." Against the FW-190A the same P-51B WITHOUT DROP TANKS: "there is little to choose between them" (Source: Le Fana de L'aviation.)

You must be slipping, quoting flight tests by establishments, those same people you are quick to put down as being out of touch. If you could supply a link to this it would be appreciated. If the tests were undertaken at high speed then I could understand it as the Me109 locked up badly whereas the Fw didn't. If the tests were done at low speed then I admit I would need to think again.

Again, the Me-109G performance in sustained turns benefited from downthrottling: According to Fin Me-109G ace Karhila, the optimal speed to sustain turns (downthrottled) in the Me-109G-6 was... All the way down to 160 MPH (250 km/h)!

I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ which you quote so frequently.

Against the Me-109G the Tempest was found to be superior turning to the Messeschmitt fighter, but about equal to the FW-190A, which kind of fits well with the 4 minutes 12 X 360° turns example provided by Clostermann, wouldn't you say?

Where on earth did you get this from?

Quote, Glider: "As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109."

My favourite quote all thread! Hohooo... Have you read a SINGLE ONE of the 600 combat accounts on the P-47 "encounter reports" I linked?

P-47 Encounter Reports

Maybe you have never said that because you know nothing of the relative turn performance of the P-47D vs the Me-109G?

Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47

On the subject of combat reports I notice that you haven't taken up my offer regarding the subject of slow turning combat being the bread and butter of air combat up to 80%.

I repeat it just in case you missed it.
I suggest that you can pick ANY of those combat reports in the links you gave and I will analyse the ten either side of it. If the result is even 50% of the combat reports involve sustained turning combats then I will apologise. Note that I am not even saying 80% but 50%, and am giving you the option of selecting the start point. You will not get a better chance than this. All the evidence will be in the open and I will not be able to manipulate the information.

[Gaston]

Russian Front Line report is interesting, the J Johnson I covered in my previous posting and you misquoting of the third has been noted.



I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ.



Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47

[/I].

-Explain "your misquote of the third"....?!?

-I find it funny you question the 80% figure not having read the full collection of reports which you know I have... I include in "turning combat" anything involving a likely one full turn... Also note the bottom of the P-51 column is 100% turning combat with quotes next to them, including two 15 minutes long ones to one side (vs Me-109G of course): 40-45 consecutive 360°s...

Quote, Glider: "I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:

"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). 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. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one [2-4 full 360° circles in another interview about the same dogfight], but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association."


Link: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


Quote, Glider: "Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Well since the Germans themselves say otherwise from testing a captured needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback in the KG 200 book I quoted, you are very hopeful about the Me-109G in sustained NON-DOWNTHROTTLED turns (as test pilots usually test them)...

How about this for low-speed? Note that to the right the P-47D Razorback wasn't as good as that, and the Me-109G was probably about even in right turns and maybe even versus the later Paddle-blade Bubbletops generally: BUT to the left against the Razorback, particularly one with needle-tip props, as the Germans themselves indicated in their own tests, it was hopeless:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tt-25may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ey-19may44.jpg

Note the 140 MPH speed at the end of the first one, after 3 consecutive spiral climb 360°s...

Also note the climbing and turning of the second...

In fact, I would go further: Show me the Me-109G surviving sustained turning combat with ANYTHING other than a Merlin P-51 that does not downthrottle: I would be very curious to see a Me-109G win against anything in prolonged sustained turns if the Me-109G pilot does not downthrottle in sustained turns...

Again, the Me-109G could carve a tighter initial turn than even what a FW-190A could, but was extremely "draggy" while sustaining prolonged turning for some reason...

Oseau demise witness, Quote: "Each turn became tighter, and his Bf-109G-6AS lost more speed in the turns than his P-51D adversaries. He was probably shot down near the ground. Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Me-109G, but being an old Me-109 pilot he preferred it..." "Defence of the Reich" Jagdwaffe series...

So am I to understand you accept that the Me-109G needs to be downthrottled in order to survive in sustained turning combat? That IS what an "optimal" turn speed of 60 MPH above stall entails...

If downthrottling is accepted for reaching the optimal sustained turn performance, we might be getting somewhere...

Gaston

[Glider]

-Explain "your misquote of the third"....?!?

Full quote

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well.

-I find it funny you question the 80% figure not having read the full collection of reports which you know I have... I include in "turning combat" anything involving a likely one full turn... Also note the bottom of the P-51 column is 100% turning combat with quotes next to them, including two 15 minutes long ones to one side (vs Me-109G of course): 40-45 consecutive 360°s...

Since when does one turn equal sustained turning combat? However if you are so confident then pick an example, the offer is still open, despite you changing the basis.

Quote, Glider: "I totally agree however this tactic applies to any aircraft and is my best estimate as to what happened in the combat with JJ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:

Don't put words into my mouth. Any aircraft that reduces its speed will improve its turn radius.

I am aware of the following quote .- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association." and that supports my statement that any aircraft that reduces its speed will improve its turn radius

Quote, Glider: "Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Well since the Germans themselves say otherwise from testing a captured needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback in the KG 200 book I quoted, you are very hopeful about the Me-109G in sustained NON-DOWNTHROTTLED turns (as test pilots usually test them)...

I have asked for a link to that quote I notice that you have not supplied one

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tt-25may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ey-19may44.jpg

Note the 140 MPH speed at the end of the first one, after 3 consecutive spiral climb 360°s...

The first is intertesting but in the second I notice that the ammunition exploaded in his wing. This being the case this must have been an Me109 with the wing mounted guns which had much worse handleing which would explain this one. In both cases the Me109 is out of energy being at the top of a slow speed spiral. You can keep your speed below 250 and maintain energy.
My main experience is flying gliders and in a stack with a number of other gliders energy conservation is everything. It’s more relevant than at first glance as we are in a tight turning situation whilst climbing as well as being in competition with each other trying to get the best out of the machine.

So am I to understand you accept that the Me-109G needs to be downthrottled in order to survive in sustained turning combat? That IS what an "optimal" turn speed of 60 MPH above stall entails...

If downthrottling is accepted for reaching the optimal sustained turn performance, we might be getting somewhere...

No you can take it that the Me109 needs to keep its speed below 250mph. from the start.

[drgondog]

-
-IF you accept that 160 MPH is the best sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6, then by definition YOU JUST ACCEPTED THAT DOWNTHROTTLING IS NECESSARY FOR THE OPTIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE: This is BARELY 60 MPH above stall speed: Do you really think the Me-109G can turn hard enough at these low speeds to lose 140 MPH of forward speed at FULL POWER?!? Karhila's quote of this speed is in the context of describing downthrottling... Here's the quote:

Actually you are comparing apples with oranges - or more explicitly banked turn with straight and level flight, full power versus low power conditions.

The stall speed for the 109 (and 51 and F4U and Fw 190, etc, etc.) is much higher in max G, banked turn at full power. If you 'downthrottle' as you approach this speed you can NOT maintain your altitude - you will enter a descending spiral.


"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). 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.

This is a manuever tactic which has nothing to do with maximum turn rate. As long as you have more thrust available than required for the bank angle and speed envelope you are in, you can decrease the radius but you won't improve the turn rate. Furthermore, aerodynamically speaking he will not achieve his max turn rate by decreasing power

I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one [2-4 full 360° circles in another interview about the same dogfight], but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."

This is simply two equal a/c in a turning manuever, with one making a mistake trying to out turn the other. What you do not know from this account is a.) the airspeed, b.) the applied power, c.) climbing, sinking or level flight,d.) the relative flying skills, e.) the condition of the airframe and powerplant, etc

In other words, an anecdotal account written by the winner.

" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association."




Link: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


Quote, Glider: "Oh yes, I have and believe that at slow speed the 109 would have a good advantage over the P47"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Well since the Germans themselves say otherwise from testing a captured needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback in the KG 200 book I quoted, you are very hopeful about the Me-109G in sustained NON-DOWNTHROTTLED turns (as test pilots usually test them)...

How about another quote from Luftwaffe test pilot Lerche? "One thing was certain: the strong points of the Thunderbolt did not lie in dogfighting at heights under 6,000 m (19,700 ft). It was excellent in higher altitudes, in diving attacks and flying with maximum boost". Page 113 of "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans-Werner Lerche.

The tested P-47D-10, former YF-U 'Beetle', was lost when it ran out of fuel on Nvember 7, 1943. I know that this particular ship (42-22490) from the 355th FG had less than 60 hours on the airframe and engine.

In fact, I would go further: Show me the Me-109G surviving sustained turning combat with ANYTHING other than a Merlin P-51 that does not downthrottle: I would be very curious to see a Me-109G win against anything in prolonged sustained turns if the Me-109G pilot does not downthrottle in sustained turns...

Again, the Me-109G could carve a tighter initial turn than even what a FW-190A could, but was extremely "draggy" while sustaining prolonged turning for some reason...

The Me 109G was 'draggy' - period. The only reason a Mustang could turn with (not better - just near equal) the 109 is that the 109G had about 50% more flat plate drag to offset the advantage the 109 had with lower wing loading and leading edge slats for nearly 30% more CLmax. The Mustang did not bleed energy as fast as any other fighter it flew against.

Oseau demise witness, Quote: "Each turn became tighter, and his Bf-109G-6AS lost more speed in the turns than his P-51D adversaries. He was probably shot down near the ground. Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Me-109G, but being an old Me-109 pilot he preferred it..." "Defence of the Reich" Jagdwaffe series...

So am I to understand you accept that the Me-109G needs to be downthrottled in order to survive in sustained turning combat? That IS what an "optimal" turn speed of 60 MPH above stall entails...

No, it doesn't.

As the bank angle increases, the AoA increases to provide an increase to CL (and necessary Lift vector to offset weight). The limit to sustained flight at constant altitude and velocity is when CL reaches CLmax. This limit (high G/steep bank angle) is at a significantly higher speed than a level flight stall.

If downthrottling is accepted for reaching the optimal sustained turn performance, we might be getting somewhere...

You must have a mouse in your pocket - because you aren't convincing anybody regarding anything - other than you do not know the slightest aspect of aerodynamics or the mechanics of flight.

Gaston - when you finally get around to doing the math, you will discover that thrust and drag, lift loading and CLmax are the key variables - and then when you look at the free body equations you will discover that turn rate capability ALWAYS decreases with 'downthrottling'

ONLY turn RADIUS can be reduced by downthrottling - but tactically speaking you give up energy trying to pull deflection..

[timshatz]

Man, you guys really get into the weeds on this stuff.

[drgondog]

Tim - it is a complete waste of time.

Gaston is 'theory espousing' with no facts to support his belief systems..he has done the same thing on other forums.

[vikingBerserker]

Where did I put the popcorn at......

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets not let this get out of hand. Just a reminder, warnings in other threads carry over.

Everything is still fine, just reminding everyone not to let it get out of hand.

[Gaston]

Full quote

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well.


Since when does one turn equal sustained turning combat? However if you are so confident then pick an example, the offer is still open, despite you changing the basis.

D


I have asked for a link to that quote I notice that you have not supplied one

Well I "notice" too there is no link to your last question: The quote by the Germans of KG 200's test is from a book: "On Special Missions. KG 200". Find the book and look it up...

The quote in full, from German testers, is: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G"

What was the German comment in that same book, about the P-51B, immediately after that? No mention of the P-51B out-turning the Me-109G, but only that its stall was very dangerous and had killed one of the German pilots...



I will re-iterate here I never denied the Me-109G or Spitfire could cut a tighter unsustained turn RADIUS than a FW-190A, and this likely at any speed: In sustained turns past a 1 full 360° however, it is another matter and neither the Spitfire or the Me-109G had much hope against a FW-190A... The Me-109G was confirmed by the Germans themselves as slower-turning than a P-47D, and admittedly the early P-47D Razorbacks with needle-tip props could match in left turns late 1943 FW-190As (FW-190A-6 most likely).

The P-47D in late 1944 with Paddle-blade prop was easily defeated in turns by later FW-190A-8s.

For the early P-47D Razorback, the proven performance of out-turning the Me-109G flown by experienced German pilots , and especially of matching, sometimes, in sustained left turns the FW-190A, indicates the following (despite contradictory later Bubbletop P-47D tests, and some early Razorback tests as well):

The P-47D Razorback with needle prop in left turns could out sustain turn the Merlin P-51. It could very likely out sustain turn the Spifire Mk V and likely the Mk IX as well (which was near identical to the Mk V in turns)...

Note that none of this is related to the minimum unsustained radius: I mean the SUSTAINED horizontal turning...

Now for a more detailed sourcing of a previous quote: From Robert Forsyth's "Jagdwaffe", "Defending the reich 1944-45" P. 202:

"Ofw Leo Suchmacher of II/JG 1 recalled: "Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109.... Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced it into a turning dogfight. Each turn became tighter, and the Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) slowed down, more so than his adversaries. Oseau was probably shot down near the ground."

Well slowing down doesn't appear to have been much help now does it?

Again, the 160 MPH "optimal turn speed" quoted by Karhila is quoted in the context of downthrottling. Here is again the quote:

"
"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). 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......When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
"

-Again I would simply note here that, despite the use of "radius" (which I said myself was usually a reference to unsustained turns), in WWII this term of radius was more specific in its use in flight test reports: In test reports "radius" is almost always a reference to unsustained turns. However, when WWII fighter pilots speak, the word is more indifferently used. What is important then is that when WWII fighter pilots say "out-turned", the time it takes to pepper a target long enough to bring it down (with the average 2% hit rate) means that "out-turned" for fighter pilots is almost always a reference to sustained turns, even when the term "radius" is used...

Sustained turns have a radius too... But if you want to continue being in the dark be my guest...

I noticed that whenever I bring material that demolishes the preconceived notions you have, you always dismiss it as "interesting"...

For instance the entire "Russian experience" evaluation... It is very "interesting" isn't it?

I still haven't heard you say what you think they mean by: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"...

It would be very "interesting" to hear what you have to say about it...

Stay tuned for my next post: There is a few more "interesting" quotes and links that surfaced recently that should be enlightening...

Gaston

[Gaston]

So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (click on John Weir link):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03

"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

Yes the Hurricane had a lighter wingloading than a Spitfire...

You don't say! "They kept catching up you know..." My oh my...

Doesn't that remind you of a certain "ne'er do well" Johnny Johnson?!?:

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

By the way, have you already met my unfortunate friend Alan Deere? here is an "interesting" quote from Osprey's series:

-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..."

Final result of that fight? 8 to one in favour of the FW-190As...

You know, I'll bet these British/Canadian guys just didn't know their math...

It's all very "interesting" isn't it?

Gaston

[Milosh]

"Ofw Leo Suchmacher of II/JG 1 recalled: "Many times I had told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109.... Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced it into a turning dogfight. Each turn became tighter, and the Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) slowed down, more so than his adversaries. Oseau was probably shot down near the ground."

Well slowing down doesn't appear to have been much help now does it?

While being outnumbered. What a surprising outcome.

Actually he was attacked by P-38s of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF) and the fight is said to have lasted 20 minutes.

Walter Oesau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oesau was chased by 1st Lt. James Leslie Doyle, 1st Lt. Wilbur L. Jarvis III and 1st Lt. James C. Austin, of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF). All three were experienced pilots and chased Oesau from 28,000 feet to tree-top level. In the ensuing 20 minute dogfight, Oesau defended skillfully, though his aircraft was damaged by gunfire. While attempting an emergency landing, his Gustav received a final burst of fire in the cockpit area and crashed into the ground 6 miles south west of St. Vith. His body was thrown clear of the aircraft some yards away.

[Glider]

Well I "notice" too there is no link to your last question: The quote by the Germans of KG 200's test is from a book: "On Special Missions. KG 200". Find the book and look it up...

The quote in full, from German testers, is: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G"

What was the German comment in that same book, about the P-51B, immediately after that? No mention of the P-51B out-turning the Me-109G, but only that its stall was very dangerous and had killed one of the German pilots...

I will try to get a look at the book in question. I have asked if the British Library have one that I can look at. I am interested a the USAAF considered the P47 and P51 to have almost identical rates of turn so either the USAAF don't know their own aircraft, or the Germans have a problem. You have to admit this difference is 'Interesting', you can belittle the use of this word but it is 'Interesting'.
The reason why its important to me to see the whole quote as it depends on details you have not bee able to supply such as speed, height or condition of the aircraft. Were these aircraft shot down and repaired and if so to what degree. Or are they aircraft such as the German Fw 190 and some of the Me109s that landed by accident at RAF bases without any damage at all or were caputured in their crates straight from the factory.

I will re-iterate here I never denied the Me-109G or Spitfire could cut a tighter unsustained turn RADIUS than a FW-190A, and this likely at any speed: In sustained turns past a 1 full 360° however, it is another matter and neither the Spitfire or the Me-109G had much hope against a FW-190A...

This you have stated a number of times and the only evidence that you can provide is one repeat one combat report.
I find this interesting and have suggested that the FW may well have done this by reducing its speed and its turn radius. I have said that this is a suggestion but you don't know why this has happened either. You have hung your hat on this one combat and made the assumption that in sustained turns the Fw was at least as good as the Spit V. Any flight tests that say otherwise or the advice that was given to RAF pilots you dismiss, and insist you are right.
Your dogged insistance that the Fw had a better sustained turn then almost anything in the air, despite all the evidence and your treatment of the test pilots, engineers and establishments says a lot.

The Me-109G was confirmed by the Germans themselves as slower-turning than a P-47D, and admittedly the early P-47D Razorbacks with needle-tip props could match in left turns late 1943 FW-190As (FW-190A-6 most likely).

The P-47D in late 1944 with Paddle-blade prop was easily defeated in turns by later FW-190A-8s.

Re the Me109 being out turned by the P47 I find interesting but believable if the tests were undertaken at hig speed as the 109 controls became very heavy at high speed. Which is why the details of the test need to be explored. As I have already said if those tests ere undertaken at slower speeds then I would need to change my mind. There is nothing wrong in that approach.
Re the Fw190 turning inside the P47 easily, I have seen nothing to prove that but do have flight tests that say the opposite.

The P-47D Razorback with needle prop in left turns could out sustain turn the Merlin P-51. It could very likely out sustain turn the Spifire Mk V and likely the Mk IX as well (which was near identical to the Mk V in turns)...

The P47 had no chance of turning inside the Spitfire, no way at all. Have you anything to say this is the case. It goes against everything that I have read be it flight tests, personal memories, nothing. Suppport this or withdraw it.

Note that none of this is related to the minimum unsustained radius: I mean the SUSTAINED horizontal turning...

You have this fixation about sustained turns which were so rare its of no importance and even so you have nothing to suport this statement except your one combat report.
That reminds me, I am still waiting for you to take up the challenge of giving an example from the hundreds listed and I offer to analyse the ten either side to get a feel as to how common they were. After all you did say it was the bread and butter of air combat and 80% of combats. I do find this reluctance to accept this very fair challange 'Interesting'.
I should add I did look up the example you gave of a 15 minute sustained turn combat and found that it was 15 minutes but of all the tactics described as being used by the Fw pilot, sustained turn was the one tactic Not mentioned.

Again, the 160 MPH "optimal turn speed" quoted by Karhila is quoted in the context of downthrottling. Here is again the quote:

I know the quote

-Again I would simply note here that, despite the use of "radius" (which I said myself was usually a reference to unsustained turns), in WWII this term of radius was more specific in its use in flight test reports: In test reports "radius" is almost always a reference to unsustained turns. However, when WWII fighter pilots speak, the word is more indifferently used. What is important then is that when WWII fighter pilots say "out-turned", the time it takes to pepper a target long enough to bring it down (with the average 2% hit rate) means that "out-turned" for fighter pilots is almost always a reference to sustained turns, even when the term "radius" is used...

Sustained turns have a radius too... But if you want to continue being in the dark be my guest...

Where on earth did you get this idea that a turn radius is unsustained in a flight test and something else in combat? I do hope you can support this statement.

I noticed that whenever I bring material that demolishes the preconceived notions you have, you always dismiss it as "interesting"...

I find a lot of your contributions 'Interesting' that I will admit.

For instance the entire "Russian experience" evaluation... It is very "interesting" isn't it?

I still haven't heard you say what you think they mean by: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"...

It would be very "interesting" to hear what you have to say about it...

I would want to see the entire statement and your inability to supply it is 'Interesting'. However in combat with the Russians it nearly always took part at low to medium low altitude and the Fw isn't a good climber. If the Russians have the advantage the best thing the Fw would do is go head on where its formidable firepower would give it a considerable advantage and to do that you need to turn into the attack.
That is my guess.

Stay tuned for my next post: There is a few more "interesting" quotes and links that surfaced recently that should be enlightening...

Gaston

I read it and am still trying to work out how quoting a Hurricane Pilot has any bearing on the case. Its hardly news that the Hurricane had a lower wing loading than an Me109

As for the rest you have hung a lot on the one combat report of Johnny Johnson which we have covered many times. The fact that you are unable to find a second example I do find 'Interesting'.

As for Alan Deere its hardly news that the Spitfire could turn inside and generally outmanoeuver the Me109, so that the 109 tended to make a pass and get away for a second pass. They would be stupid to do otherwise given a choice. The Fw 190 could out manoeuver the Spitfire V and given aggressive pilots all credit to those German pilots for staying in the fight. Again this is hardly news.

[claidemore]

GAston: George Beurling was a Canadian, who flew with the British, and he was ok at math. He used trig to compute deflection shots during combat..... pretty good for a Brit/Canadian boy..... you lose that bet, buckwheat.

The Hurricane did not have a lower wingloading than the Spitfire.
Hurricane Mk1 and Spitfire Mk1 had identical wing loading of 25 lbs/sq ft.
Hurricane MkIIc was 29.8lbs, Spit Vb was 27 lbs.
Hurricane MkIV, 31 lbs/sq ft, Spit FMk IX, 30 lbs/sq foot.

IF as you say the FW190's in late 41 early 42 were shooting down MK V Spitfires by 'sustained turning', (rather than by using their 50 mph speed advantage like everyone else in the world has been led to believe), then how did the emergence of the MK IX Spitifre (Mk V airframe, Merlin 61 or better engine) change that? The only difference between the Mk V and the Mk IX is the more powerful engine which gave the Mk IX comparable climb and speed to the FW190. How did that extra horsepower (rather than de-rating) tip the balance in favor of the Spitfire against the FW190?

[Gaston]

GAston: George Beurling was a Canadian, who flew with the British, and he was ok at math. He used trig to compute deflection shots during combat..... pretty good for a Brit/Canadian boy..... you lose that bet, buckwheat.

The Hurricane did not have a lower wingloading than the Spitfire.
Hurricane Mk1 and Spitfire Mk1 had identical wing loading of 25 lbs/sq ft.
Hurricane MkIIc was 29.8lbs, Spit Vb was 27 lbs.
Hurricane MkIV, 31 lbs/sq ft, Spit FMk IX, 30 lbs/sq foot.

IF as you say the FW190's in late 41 early 42 were shooting down MK V Spitfires by 'sustained turning', (rather than by using their 50 mph speed advantage like everyone else in the world has been led to believe), then how did the emergence of the MK IX Spitifre (Mk V airframe, Merlin 61 or better engine) change that? The only difference between the Mk V and the Mk IX is the more powerful engine which gave the Mk IX comparable climb and speed to the FW190. How did that extra horsepower (rather than de-rating) tip the balance in favor of the Spitfire against the FW190?

This is a very valid point: You often hear how the Spitfire Mk IX "redressed the balance" vs the FW-190A and the Spitfire Mk V... And since this originates widely from combat veterans you won't find me questioning their judgement...

I think the answer to our current confusion lies in over-reliance on Eric Browns's speculations as to how this was done as a practical matter.

No test I have ever seen indicate that the Spitfire Mk IX is vastly superior in sustained turning than a Spitfire Mk V, so the logical conclusion is that it was other advantages that brought equality between the Mk IX and the FW-190A:

Spitfire IX Tactical Trials

Quote: "Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive."

The portion I outlined in bold describes perfectly how I think the the Spitfire Mk IX redressed the balance.

Note also how the hugely improved climb rate did not improve significantly the sustained turn rate, even when the difference in climb rate at 30 000 ft. was huge, contrary to what all the math theories would have you believe...

Gaston

[Gaston]

While being outnumbered. What a surprising outcome.

Actually he was attacked by P-38s of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF) and the fight is said to have lasted 20 minutes.

Walter Oesau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oesau was chased by 1st Lt. James Leslie Doyle, 1st Lt. Wilbur L. Jarvis III and 1st Lt. James C. Austin, of the 428th Fighter Squadron (474th FG, 9th AF). All three were experienced pilots and chased Oesau from 28,000 feet to tree-top level. In the ensuing 20 minute dogfight, Oesau defended skillfully, though his aircraft was damaged by gunfire. While attempting an emergency landing, his Gustav received a final burst of fire in the cockpit area and crashed into the ground 6 miles south west of St. Vith. His body was thrown clear of the aircraft some yards away.

Milosh, the account in my book was related by Leo Shuhmacher of II./JG1, : "As I was later told by his wingman, a young Oberfahnrich, Oseau was attacked by P-51s which forced him into a turning dogfight. Each turn became tighter, and his Bf-109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries." p.202 in Robert. Fosyth's Jagdwaffe, vol. 5 section 3 of "Luftwaffe colours", "In defense of the Reich 1944-45".

I would say there is virtually no chance a Luftwaffe pilot would confuse a P-38 with a P-51, no matter how inexperienced... This was after all directly relayed from Oseau's actual wingman, who observed large stretches of the combat...

Very likely the P-38s pursued another German they took for Oseau....

As to my "claim" that the early P-47D Razorback, with needle-blade prop, could out-sustain left turns with Spitfires, I agree it seems incredible, but I can only go by the totality of its superiority in turns to the Me-109G, which is absolute in sustained left turns, all the way down to the deck in repeated spiral climbs down to 140 MPH, as I have already demonstrated with the linked combat reports, and agreed to with no qualifications by the German themselves in their own tests (which I think is a big deal), and the Germans also not saying the same thing about the P-51B (which is an even bigger deal, and again matches a lot of combat without downthrottling)...

Although the Spitfire is indeed generally superior to the Me-109G in sustained turns, I did not see such a pronounced superiority as with the P-47D over the same Me-109G... And this is confirmed by several accounts of the P-47D Razorback matching left turns on the deck with late 1943 and early 1944 FW-190As, which the Spitfire is obviously hopelessly incapable of doing (an obvious conclusion if you read the Canadian Hurricane pilot interview a few posts above), even though, I repeat again, that the Spitfire AND the Me-109G will both cut a smaller unsustained radius than the FW-190A OR the P-47D...

It does seem a stretch, but formal tests are so capricious and unreliable across types it is the only thing that makes sense, and also I don't claim that the superiority in left turns of the early P-47D is large over the Spitfire: Likely very small, and possibly within production variations.

It is clear from the Hurricane pilot account I overestimated the Spitfire, and might have to re-design my game's Data Cards for it and the P-47D, to make them at least a little closer... Sigh...

Gaston