Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[Milosh]

Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.

Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13.

The Germans had a habit of saying they were shot down by Spitfires instead of an lesser a/c. The P-51 was considered a better a/c than the P-38 by the Germans.

.................................

I would suggest you read 'The Long Reach'.



In it, P-47 pilots tell of doing yo-yo turns to stay with 109s in a turn. It also says in a horizontal turn engagement not to turn more than a half turn with the EA.

Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

[Glider]

Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

Very Selective. My personal favourite is where he states that because a Hurricane has a smaller turn radius than an early Spitfire. It follows that as a result, this apparently proves:-

a) beyond any doubt that a P47 can turn inside a Spitfire.
b) It also proves beyond any doubt that the Spitfire is obviously hopelessly incapable of matching sustained turns against a Fw.

I admit that these two leaps of logic are beyond me.

Any inconvenient things such as flight tests by test establishments that say otherwise are disposed of by simply saying ' but formal tests are so capricious and unreliable across types it is the only thing that makes sense'.

I will now leave it and let independent readers make their own minds up.

[Gaston]

Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):

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."

-Gee wiz... If the above isn't even "interesting", it's pretty hopeless...

I get the distinct impression somebody out there doesn't get it...

I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...

Gaston

[Jabberwocky]

Quote: "So here is a quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (John Weir link won't work for some reason):

I also thought the Spitfire Mk V sustaining turns equally well as the Mk IX at 30 000 ft. (or 15 000 ft.), despite a drastically slower climb rate, would also be a clue as to the slight "perils" of maths...

Gaston

The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:

"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. "

[Jabberwocky]

Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.

Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.

RAF testing with a clipped wing Spitfire Mk V showed that the aircraft had a 40% smaller sustained turn radius than the FW 190A4 at 20,000 ft.

Soviet testing of a LF MK IX (again with clipped wings) shows a 45% smaller sustained turn radius than a FW 190 A5, this time at 1000 m (3,300 ft).

Soviet turn time testing shows that the FW-190 did a sustained circle in 22-23 seconds at 1000 m, worse than any other fighter they test, bar the P-47D and the Mustang.

Testing by four air forces: RAF, USN, Luftwaffe and VVS all indicate that the FW 190 is not a turn fighter.

What is it that you believe makes the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter?

Is it the very high stall speed (125-130 mph)?
The very high wing loading?
The tendency to go into snap stalls at low speed?
The tendency to reverse aileron control at low speed?

[claidemore]

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.

Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn.

The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035.

Jabberwocky? Could you provide a link to the Soviet turn tests?

Claidemore

[Glider]

This might be of interest. The voice over by a Tempest pilot makes it clear that the Fw would nearly always try to escape by diving.

YouTube - Hawker Tempest gun camera

[drgondog]

Which is in direct contradiction to the theory that de-rating (less power) is an asset to sustained turn.

The Spitfire illustrates this point very well. The tactical trial reports (that we all have access to) show quite clearly that each successive Mk of Spitfire was heavier (higher wing loading ), but that manueverability stayed pretty much the same (albeit with a different 'fee'l as reported by pilots). We have the Mk I, II, V, and IX, with the same airframe, but increasingly powerful engines, and similar turn performance. Mk VIII and Mk XIV with same airframe, and same manueverability. Thats an increase from 6000 lbs to 8400 lbs from Mk I to Mk XIV and no appreciable loss in turn performance. And that would be attributed to horsepower increasing from 1030 to 2035.

Jabberwocky? Could you provide a link to the Soviet turn tests?

Claidemore

Claidmore - as you know, decelerating while in a high g sustained turn, reduces energy and leads to a descending spiral - and opponent has all the advantages. You are not confused - but somebody is.

[Gaston]

Hard to dispute gun camera footage Gaston.

Doyle noted bullet damage in the cockpit area and his gun camera footage showed that it was Oesau's Green 13.

The Germans had a habit of saying they were shot down by Spitfires instead of an lesser a/c. The P-51 was considered a better a/c than the P-38 by the Germans.

.................................

I would suggest you read 'The Long Reach'.

In it, P-47 pilots tell of doing yo-yo turns to stay with 109s in a turn. It also says in a horizontal turn engagement not to turn more than a half turn with the EA.


Unfortunately you are very selective in what you post to support your agenda.

And you are not?!?


Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the actual wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang...

It is true the two can be easily confused...

Anyway if the footage is clear, then did you know they stupidly put the P-38's gun camera in the nose near the guns, which when firing obscured everything by vibration and smoke? If when firing the image is clear, then you'll know the footage comes from a P-51...

The guncam footage must be online somewhere...

As for the P-47 yo-yo quote, how about backing up this general pilot opinion with an actual combat account? Then we would know if he was turning to the RIGHT or to the LEFT, as you'll note I ALWAYS make the distinction...

If you find me ONE combat account of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT, in SUSTAINED multiple 360° horizontal turns, a P-47D prior to January 1944, I'll concede defeat for the P-47D (not the 190 of course). How's that?

I have about 250-400 of those combats going completely the other way, including down to 4 consecutive 360° climbing spirals down to 140 MPH at 5000 ft.(Admittedly against a likely Gondola Me-109G, but still...).

I know, I know, it's all about the levitating powers of the pilot you know...

Read those 600 reports and get back to us with your super-turning Me-109Gs combat accounts...

Like this one for instance...:

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



If you had read even one tenth of the 600 P-47D combat reports on Mike William's "WWII aircraft performance", you would realize how absurd is your notion of a Me-109G out-turning to the LEFT a late 1943/early 1944 Razorback in sustained turns, or even ANY P-47 for that matter... There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used). Read the combat reports and see for yourself: The only aircraft putting the P-47D in trouble in sustained turns is the FW-190A... And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...

But of course, according to you, the Hurricane pilot doesn't know what he is talking about when he says the FW-190A "kept coming" when the Spitfire and Me-109 could not...

And Johnny Johnson...

And the combined Russian frontline experience...

And British RAE tests, since YOU like formal tests...

Gaston

[Gaston]

Gaston, you keep claiming that the Fw-190 has a tighter sustained turn radius than any other fighter in the West.

Yet, the RAF tests and the Soviet test both say that it had a larger sustained turn radius than just about any fighter of the war, with the possible exception of the P-47D. Even the Typhoon and Tempest in RAF tests are noted as having better turning circles than the FW 190.

RAF testing with a clipped wing Spitfire Mk V showed that the aircraft had a 40% smaller sustained turn radius than the FW 190A4 at 20,000 ft.

Soviet testing of a LF MK IX (again with clipped wings) shows a 45% smaller sustained turn radius than a FW 190 A5, this time at 1000 m (3,300 ft).

Soviet turn time testing shows that the FW-190 did a sustained circle in 22-23 seconds at 1000 m, worse than any other fighter they test, bar the P-47D and the Mustang.

Testing by four air forces: RAF, USN, Luftwaffe and VVS all indicate that the FW 190 is not a turn fighter.

What is it that you believe makes the FW 190 a good low speed turn fighter?

Is it the very high stall speed (125-130 mph)?
The very high wing loading?
The tendency to go into snap stalls at low speed?
The tendency to reverse aileron control at low speed?

I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...

I keep saying this over and over, and people still get it wrong....

RAF tests of the Me-109G vs P-51B vs FW-190A (Source: Le Fana de l'Aviation Hors Serie #38, p.102):

"Turn Rate P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is vastly superior to the Me-109G.

Turn Rate P-51B vs FW-190A: Not much to choose between them.

Turn rate P-51B with FULL UNDERWING DROP TANKS:

P-51B vs Me-109G: P-51B is still vastly superior to the Me-109G.

P-51B vs FW-190A: Still roughly equal."

Page 102, check it out, but it is translated in French...

Now I think the combat report evidence of 700 P-51 combat reports on the Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site is somewhat different.... The unfamiliar aircrafts in the RAF test here are both underestimated, as you would expect:

Combat evidence (700 reports): The Me-109G can be roughly equal to the Merlin P-51 in sustained low-speed turns, usually mainly on the deck, especially vs the P-51D, but is almost always slightly inferior in all other circumstances... Even on the deck, the Me-109G is inferior in sustained turns if the Merlin P-51 uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method (but this only if the Me-109G stays itself at full power??)...

FW-190A is often "lost" by P-51, but the P-51D can out-turn it at low speeds only if it uses the "downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/20° of flaps" method in sustained turns.

There is only one case in the 700 reports of low-speed out-turning by the P-51 of the FW-190A, and the P-51 in that case uses this "downthrottling" method, all three elements of it, continuously over two and a half 360°s... (After a very long dive speed might still have been above 250 MPH on the third 360°, but it does seem the P-51 is unusually competitive when downthrotllted over several 360°s. Note the FW-190A was also recommended to be downthrottled by one of its pilots, who always used his FW-190A-8 like this in combat, and used horizontal turns only... "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8" he said. And indeed he described gaining 360° on a TAILING P-51D, turning flat on the deck, in TWO consecutive 360° turns, and shooting it down. This incredible rate of gain of 180° per 360° turn was made possible by the use of downthrottling, flaps, the broader wood prop, and most of all the use of the widest chord of 3 aileron types offered, widened further in the field by the use of field-mounted hinge "spacers" to enhance further the low-speed turn rate, this of course at the expense of the high speed roll rate... Of course the P-51D in this case did not downthrottle...)

At high speeds (above 250 MPH) in descending combat, the Merlin P-51 is vastly superior in all maneuvers except roll to the FW-190A, and the FW-190A cannot sustain turns to one side without snapping out or mushing, and is forced to constantly shift turn direction as often as possible as it dives.... The FW-190A also blacks out its pilots even in "elongated curve" looping maneuvers... (Suggesting harsh nose-up tail down deceleration)

As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were not done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...

These are tests done for wind tunnel evaluation procedures, they were intended to calibrate wind tunnel test results; They have nothing to do with actual test comparisons and were never intended to be used as such by anyone...

Furthermore, many of the numbered results could be calculated extrapolations... The fact that these results were never used in VVS pilot training (Quite unlike my "Russian Experience" evaluation with "FW-190A turns better horizontally than Me-109, and inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed", which originates from the front-line combat pilots themselves, with the intention of informing their fellow combat pilots...).

This information on the background of the TsAGI tests was relayed by another poster on this site (I will link his quote). There are other issues of aircraft unfamiliarity as well, plaguing all these formal tests, and barring seeing the original documents, I saw one Russian-language site quoting the TsAGI turns times for the FW-190A-4 as 19-23 seconds (?), one second below the Me-109G-2 or F for the 19 seconds side of the quote...

Like all formal tests, TsAGI tests are more misleading than the near-perfectly coherent picture of a large number of combat reports and front-line observations...

Gaston

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...)

Oh, and are you really sure Karhila's 160 MPH "optimal" sustained turning speed can be at full power? Tsk-Tsk...

G.

[Gaston]

The RAF tactical trails suggest nothing of the sort, and to state otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

The Mk IX vs Mk V trails state:

"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. "

Funny, the report says the Spit Mk V had trouble staying at altitude while matching turns at 30 000 ft., and the Spitfire Mk IX had no trouble keeping altitude.

Yet there is still little to chose between the two aircrafts in the sustained turn rate, despite the HUGE difference in power and climb rate at that height...

At 15 000 ft. did the Spitfire Mk V have trouble maintaining height while matching the horizontal turn rate of the Spitfire Mk IX? Apparently not...

Yet, were the two equal in horsepower at 15 000 ft?

Yes I will concede, on the Spitfire, an increase of 400 horsepower (25%) will compensate for an increase in weight from 6700 lbs to 7400 lbs (10%)...

So an increase of 15% in the power-to-weight ratio yielded 0% of increase in the sustained turn rate... Even at extreme altitudes, with a two-stage supercharger optimized for high altitudes that likely increased the 30 000 ft. power-to-weight ratio by 30%, still a 0% increase resulted in the sustained turn rate...

It would seem the power-to-weight ratio has little relationship to the sustained turn rate performance...

Which is exactly why we have Hurricane pilots telling us the Spifire couldn't sustain turns with them, while the FW-190A could...

How about a quote of the Me-109G out-sustaining turns with something?

A P-47D Razorback to the left for instance... ...

Gaston

[Njaco]

Just a reminder not to let this get any louder in here.

Don't know if this will help the conversation but this is from Dr. Alfred Price's book, "Fw-190 At War".

The first capturd Fw 190 was tested by the Air Fighting Detachment Unit at Duxford in July/August 1942 and this is what they reported. An Fw 190A-3 was used.

[Milosh]

Let me see: Gun camera footage is in COLOR now, and the actual wingman German pilot cannot tell the difference between his leader being chased by a P-38 and chased by a P-51 Mustang...

It is true the two can be easily confused...

Anyway if the footage is clear, then did you know they stupidly put the P-38's gun camera in the nose near the guns, which when firing obscured everything by vibration and smoke? If when firing the image is clear, then you'll know the footage comes from a P-51...

The guncam footage must be online somewhere...

What color is the tail band of this 109 Gaston?



Do you see any gun smoke in this video Gaston?
Do you see any vibration in this video Gaston?

YouTube - WW II - Lt HF Grenning, Jr. in p-38 Straffing German Airfield, 434th fighter squadron

The 434th FS flew P-38s.

P-38J May 1944 to 27 Sep. 1944
P-51D 13 Sep. 1944 to Sep. 1945

Also the gun camera was in the lower portion of the nose cap and the guns were above.

[claidemore]

Quote from Gaston:

And you would realize too that the P-47D Razorback almost certainly out-turns in sustained turns the Spitfire, since the P-47 can match sometimes the FW-190A, which the Spitfire, it is now clear from the Hurricane pilot quote, had no hopes of doing...

Quote from AFDU trial on P47-C (yeah I know it's not a D)

25. Manoeuvrability – The good aileron control gives the P-47 an excellent rate of roll even at high speeds, and during mock combats it was considered to roll as well as, if not better than the Spitfire at about 30,000 feet. At lower altitudes there is nothing to choose between them. The rate of turn of the Spitfire is naturally superior to the heavier P-47 and in turning circles it was found that after four turns the Spitfire could get on the P-47’s tail and remain there with a chance of shooting with correct deflection....

As far as the Spit vs FW 190 goes, here are some quotes from AFDU Tactical Trials of Spitfire XIV:
Comparing to Spitfire Mk IX:

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Comparing to FW190 : Turning Circle

41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

[drgondog]

I did not say a TIGHTER turn, I said a FASTER turn rate...

As for the Soviet turn times: These are not comparative tests at all... They were not done on the same day, which can lead to 10-20% discrepancies in numbers according to the humidity...

That comment is simply not true. All test results analyzed by competent engineers first normalize the data to STP. The Soviets were extremely competent engineers.

These are tests done for wind tunnel evaluation procedures, they were intended to calibrate wind tunnel test results; They have nothing to do with actual test comparisons and were never intended to be used as such by anyone...

Wind tunnel tests are about predicting behavior for level flight and developing Drag and Lift and Moment data. Flight tests are all about determining what 'reality' brings to the table.

This information on the background of the TsAGI tests was relayed by another poster on this site (I will link his quote). There are other issues of aircraft unfamiliarity as well, plaguing all these formal tests, and barring seeing the original documents, I saw one Russian-language site quoting the TsAGI turns times for the FW-190A-4 as 19-23 seconds (?), one second below the Me-109G-2 or F for the 19 seconds side of the quote...

Like all formal tests, TsAGI tests are more misleading than the near-perfectly coherent picture of a large number of combat reports and front-line observations...

Pilot skill and a/c condition are the plague of flight test results for manuevering..
Gaston

P.S Still waiting for those super-out-turning Me-109G combat reports... I mean by that, the Me-109G out-turning ANYTHING (Karhila's downthrottling to 160 MPH quote is the only one I am aware of: I eagerly want to find more...)

Oh, and are you really sure Karhila's 160 MPH "optimal" sustained turning speed can be at full power? Tsk-Tsk...

G.

The Mustang best turn rate at highest CLmax and load factor, lowest turn radius is ~159mph... at full power at SL.

What you do not know is that to achieve the best sustained turn rate you have to increase the local AoA to the near stall point to keep the bird in the air for the bank angle attained. Your engine must be pulling as hard as it can to overcome the enormous induced drag for that condition.

Once there, if you pull power, you either reduce the bank angle to reduce the load factor or you descend into a spiral turn - or you stall out trying to maintain the bank angle.

PS - nobody in a dogfight has his eyes on his instruments so being able to state 'constant altitude turn' is absurd. The guy in trail is focused on the guy in front, the guy in front is trying everything necessary with stick and rudder and throttle to change the circumstances - he ain't looking at his instruments either.

Most Encounter reports in which a turn is involved is one where the shooter starts shooting at say 300 yards, the target turns one way or the other or dives, the trailer has a lot of room to cut inside and get deflection even in the case where the target tries to turn and dive... game over if he can shoot.

The encounter reports are submitted by the winner based on his recollection of a fight that occurred hours or days before.