WWII FM Chit Chat

Some FW-190A real-life observations:

 

1-S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Mk XIV vs FW-190A-8):

 

 

I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height.-------The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water--------The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2, being unable to overtake it, broke away.

 

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

 

 

2-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "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."

 

 

3-Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back."

 

 

4-"-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... We lost 8 to their one that day...

 

 

5-Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."

(Jonhson escaped when he abandoned the turn fight, and dived near a Royal Navy ship that fired AAA at his pursuer)

 

 

6-A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

Quote:

 

-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.

 

-They interact in the following manner:

Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

 

-Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers.

 

-A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin.

 

-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed.

 

-In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver.

 

 

 

7-"Dogfights" Episode 16 "Death of the Luftwaffe" dealing with the January 1st, 1945 "Operation Bodenplatte" airfield attacks:

 

"FW-190As fought at lower altitude and engaged in turn fighting, while the Me-109Gs attacked in dives from a higher altitude."

 

 

 

8-Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45:

 

P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt possessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight"

 

P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane"

 

 

 

9-Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G... Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries."

 

 

 

10-In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40:

(Russian experience with lend-lease Spitfire Mk Vs)

Première citation : " 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, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

 

 

[Translation: "The Spitfire V failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."]

 

 

P. 40-41: " 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: To improve the Spitfire Mk VB's maneuverability and speed to the level of contemporary Soviet and German fighters, the four outer .303 machineguns were removed. This attempt at lightening the Spitfire was not conclusive, and the modification was not widely adopted.]

 

 

11-1946 US evaluation of FW-190D-9: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

 

 

12-Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor."

 

 

13-Reichlin assessment team report of Dec 10, 1941 (FW-190A-1 vs Me-109F): "In terms of maneuverability, it (FW-190A) completely outclassed the Me-109. The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed."

 

 

14-Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128:

 

FW-190A: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable."

 

 

 

15-Red Fleet, No. 37, November 4, 1943.:

 

"When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire." [This is in the context of dive pull-outs] -"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up]

 

 

I explain what I think is going on in this video:

 

 

WoA

Edited February 14, 2019 by WrathofAtlantis
legibility

That is rather interesting to say the least.

 

Memories, regardless of how respectable and authoritative the source is, are anecdotes. Are there any aerodynamics based evidence to support these?

 

There are (often primary source) performance charts for all these birds out there, so I'd think this would have been more common knowledge?

 

I mean, there are new built Fw-190s to A8 specs, albeit with a Chinese engine. What are their pilots' reports?

I give more details in these two videos:

 

Details on specific quotes:

 

 

But far more importantly, below, from 16:06 onward, mention of the dive pull out fallacy exposed by the 1989 SETP test, when 6G Corner Speed was found 80 mph higher horizontally than in all those dive pullout-based doghouse charts...:

 

 

The 1989 Society of Experimental Test Pilots test (p-47,p-51d, Corsair and Hellcat) is what really blows all those prop doghouse charts to bits: The real things ALL had minimum 6G turns at/near maximum METO speeds at 10.000 feet: 320 mph ias, NOT 220-240...

 

This proves all the WWII/Korea prop doghouse charts were done with dive pull-outs G measures (safer and easier), unwittingly unloading the prop disc.

 

The SETP did actual G-measured HORIZONTAL turns in 1989: Full asymmetric load on the prop in a REAL turn, not unloaded prop in a dive pull-out like 40 years before...

 

For actual turning with a loaded prop, the doghouse shape is fiction, which is why slow sustained speed turns mattered a lot more than the comparatively unuseable high G energy burning turns... Hence vertical or horizontal fighters, but comparatively very little "energy" turning above 4-5 G: As the SETP points out, very short-lived high G values HORIZONTALLY, since the minimum speed to make them is top level speed...

 

WoA

It's not a wee bit early for complains about the Flight Model of a module without release date? Just wondering :huh:.

 

S!

it doesnt seem like a complain to me. its a rather interesting find and he might be on to something which if correct would be rather huge for all the WW2 birds not only in our beloved DCS.

 

i am really curious to say the least, it would change all i know about these airplanes and their strenghts.

 

i am in no way profound in aerodynamics or anything related.

Edited February 15, 2019 by rogonaut

So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can?

 

Is this the thesis here?

it doesnt seem like a complain to me. its a rather interesting find and he might be on to something which if correct would be rather huge for all the WW2 birds not only in our beloved DCS.

 

i am really curious to say the least, it would change all i know about these airplanes and their strenghts.

 

i am in no way profound in aerodynamics or anything related.

It's not any find, it's something we've been listening about the last 30 years of PC simulation. But exceptional claims requires exceptional proof and I haven't seen any of them for that time.

 

 

So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can?

 

Is this the thesis here?

Yeah, they want to fight the Spitfire turning with them like an a6m, pretty old news :doh:.

 

 

The thing is I think they confuse concepts, Fw190 was faster going over the wider radius turn they could make, which is fact means "outturning" the thinner radius but doesn't mean a similar or tighter actual turning radius. It's the same as F-4 in Vietnam which could "outturn" nimble MiGs due to it's faster speed walking the wider circle, but that requires knowledge and lots of practice if you just pull the stick all the way and expect to keep turning with the MiG/Spit you're just a sitting duck.

 

 

 

S!

The thing is I think they confuse concepts, Fw190 was faster going over the wider radius turn they could make, which is fact means "outturning" the thinner radius but doesn't mean a similar or tighter actual turning radius. It's the same as F-4 in Vietnam which could "outturn" nimble MiGs due to it's faster speed walking the wider circle, but that requires knowledge and lots of practice if you just pull the stick all the way and expect to keep turning with the MiG/Spit you're just a sitting duck.

 

Bingo. Turn Rate vs Turn Radius. When I've read some of these claims I suspect that this is the explanation.

Bingo. Turn Rate vs Turn Radius. When I've read some of these claims I suspect that this is the explanation.

I believe they are misled after reading "manoeuvrable", they always think being more manoeuvrable means turning tighter.

 

 

S!

So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can?

 

Is this the thesis here?

 

50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws.

 

You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome... Energy is affected by force. This is why the Spitfire behaves like it is heavy in low speed turns: The magic of leverage (combined with airflow) makes it fight itself. It does do way better at high speeds, since higher speeds (or dives) unload the prop...

 

And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this...

 

50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws.

 

You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome... Energy is affected by force. This is why the Spitfire behaves like it is heavy in low speed turns: The magic of leverage (combined with airflow) makes it fight itself. It does do way better at high speeds, since higher speeds (or dives) unload the prop...

 

And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this...

 

The SETP 1989 test Corner speeds absolutely confirms this. The older "live data" prop doghouse charts were all made with dive pull outs, and if you (like me) find this hard to understand, you have to realize how much safer and easier it is to gather hundreds of data points while upright (prop unloaded), as opposed to hanging sideways (with the prop correctly overloaded asymmetrically)...

 

Unbelievably, they ignored that diving unloaded the prop... Because the width of the prop, in their minds, was just a narrow trust vector line... Somewhat less unbelievably, given its informal nature, the 1989 SETP test did not trigger further investigation into this.

 

They tried to gather jet-like "energy" theory turn data, and found props just don't fight like this at all. Shaw may have been right for jets, but he was clueless about props.

 

 

WoA

Edited February 15, 2019 by WrathofAtlantis
clarity

And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this...

 

 

WoA

 

OK.

it seems to me likely that pilot reports do count to some extend and underline the "true" flight characteristics of mentioned planes, and that´s the interesting part for me. Are they all a bunch of liers or have some dementia going on?^^

 

Are there any pilot reports that opposition the flight characteristics mentioned by the ones who WoA found? Also there are a lot of them ww 2 birds that are actively flying so shouldn´t be too hard to find out...

 

unfortunatly it seems there isnt a lot of data that would translate nicely into dcs and give proof to concept. guess thats a show stopper right there.

 

guess this thread has been hijacked xD

50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws.

 

You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome...

Well, actually you start saying it doesn't violate the laws of Physics, then you throw a statement violating the laws of thermodynamics to my understanding :noexpression:.

 

 

S!

Edited February 16, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar

it seems to me likely that pilot reports do count to some extend and underline the "true" flight characteristics of mentioned planes, and that´s the interesting part for me. Are they all a bunch of liers or have some dementia going on?^^

 

You can probably find combat reports of any type of aircraft out performing any other type in certain situations.

 

The trouble is it's almost entirely subjective. These are not carefully controlled flight tests - they are the clipped accounts of men who were fighting for their lives.

 

How good was the enemy pilot? What was the condition of his aircraft? How much fuel/ordnance was he carrying? What was the enemy's initial energy state? What was yours? etc.....etc....

 

You cannot build a flight model out of memories.

 

WingsOfAtlantis's post not only cherry picks quotations and takes them out of context, he also conveniently omits the vast amount of available pilot reports and test data that paint a completely different picture to the one he's promoting. Here's an example....

 

WOA would have you believe a Fw-190 could out-turn a Hurricane based on a single report. Well here's a whole raft of combat reports claiming the P-51 could easily out-turn the Fw-190.

 

They started to turn with me but it was fairly easy to out turn them and I started to pull deflection on the No. 4 man.

 

The bogey turned out to be four Fw 190's which went into a tight lufberry to the right. After a turn or so I got on the last 190's tail.

 

I followed him into a Lufberry and after about four turns, was able to draw deflection on him.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

 

Therefore both the P-51 and Fw-190 could turn inside the Hurricane! Who knew?

 

But, the biggest red flag is this....

 

....this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this...

 

So - not only do you have to ignore a huge amount of contrary data, both contemporaneous and modern, you need to accept WOA's revolutionary understanding of flight physics. Step aside Kelly Johnson, Kurt Tank, Reginald Mitchell.....this is a new era!

 

Sadly after many years this amazing scientific revolution has been unable to gain much traction.....

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/mw-50-bf-109s-vs-fw-190-a.32158/#post-880392

it seems to me likely that pilot reports do count to some extend and underline the "true" flight characteristics of mentioned planes, and that´s the interesting part for me. Are they all a bunch of liers or have some dementia going on?

No mate, it's not they're liars, it's just memory is always, always, tricky, fuzzy and deceptive, specially after so many years telling the same stories they tend to vary and get idealized. And I know that as a matter of fact because I've worked with veterans and their stories.

 

 

 

S!

So - not only do you have to ignore a huge amount of contrary data, both contemporaneous and modern, you need to accept WOA's revolutionary understanding of flight physics. Step aside Kelly Johnson, Kurt Tank, Reginald Mitchell.....this is a new era!

Yeah, that statement from WOA is quite History Channel and Aliens :lol: . A new era in which German engineers managed to violate the rules of physics with their aircraft. Still they lose the war.

 

 

 

S!

The thing to understand about this is that you can get more force out of something than you put in...

 

If you don't understand that, you don't understand the difference between FORCE and ENERGY...

 

I should have insisted on this in the video: Extra FORCE is possible through leverage, and those forces in turn impact energy outcomes: You have all seen the multiple pulleys Vs single pulley displays in a tech museum: Leverage affects energy outcomes.

 

The only unknown part is how the wing generates extra lift through the prop's resistance to curving: That is what eluded everyone, and I obviously can't do any better but to see the larger initial outcome... From this greater total, different leverages are then free to substract differently depending on the nose lenght-CL ratio...

 

The greater lift through prop resistance is partly due to the trust angling down, but that does not explain the CL's forward movement.

 

So, yes, you can get more FORCE than you put in: That is High School level physics...

 

WoA

Edited February 16, 2019 by WrathofAtlantis

OK, so you're here now. See if you can influence anyone this time around. Regardless, seen you spouting that same stuff numerous times before.

 

The best of luck babs.

500mph dive with 70 AOA i think every plane would left wings behind

You can probably find combat reports of any type of aircraft out performing any other type in certain situations.

 

The trouble is it's almost entirely subjective. These are not carefully controlled flight tests - they are the clipped accounts of men who were fighting for their lives.

 

The "Red Fleet" 1943 article "190 inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" was a condensed summary of a year's worth of combat across the entire Eastern Front.

 

If you prefer US Navy tests to that, stay in your fantasy world then.

 

WoA

it seems to me likely that pilot reports do count to some extend and underline the "true" flight characteristics of mentioned planes, and that´s the interesting part for me. Are they all a bunch of liers or have some dementia going on?^^

 

Are there any pilot reports that opposition the flight characteristics mentioned by the ones who WoA found?

 

If you keep it to lower speed sustained multiple consecutive turns at lower altitude, there isn't a single one vs the Spitfire. There is one or two Spitfire accounts staying/gaining over one circle, but always after a dive, or at higher altitudes, or both... That is not much over 100s of reports.

 

Keeping in mind the horrible high speed (or high altitude) maneuverability of the 190A, there is one low altitude example of a 190A being out-turned at unknown, but not hugely high, speeds vs a downthrottled P-51, but only when the P-51 uses the "triple trick": Throttle way down, 20 degrees of flaps, prop on full coarse (to unload the prop disc by blade stalling). At least ten Merlin P-51 combat reports describe this "triple trick", always successful, all vs the 109 except that one.

 

This one low altitude, moderate speed P-51D account would seem contradictory, but it is only spread over 1.5 360s with little gain, not multiple turns. Keep in mind Western Front 190As were often loaded with armor and guns for bomber interception, and this usually with no obvious external add ons... It was the general opinion of 8th AF pilots that the FW-190A was more maneuverable than the 109, but this was largely equal or reversed at bomber altitudes, which likely blurs their recollections compared to the much clearer Russian low altitude experience.

 

WoA

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

This magical new aerodynamic effect must also apply to the Spitfire/Mustang, no?

 

I fail to see how a the Fw-190 could so profoundly benefit from an aerodynamic prop effect that must also affect the P-51/Spitfire and do so to such a degree above those two as to not only neutralise it's disadvantage in wing loading (particularly regards the Spitfire) but further provide a superiority?

 

That's a ludicrous argument.

 

Similar to saying you get free energy from a pulley system. The only revelation I have gained from this thread is that you really don't understand physics very well.

The "Red Fleet" 1943 article "190 inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed" was a condensed summary of a year's worth of combat across the entire Eastern Front.

 

If you prefer US Navy tests to that, stay in your fantasy world then.

 

WoA

Where are those tests and magical stuff, we don't see a thing here but nonsense talking about breaking physic's laws.

 

Are you a flatearther by any chance? :lol:

 

 

S!