Jump to content

A calculation Flak vs. B-17


dov

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ChocolateCrisps said:

Could you expand a little more on this please? I've tended to find test reports far more useful than combat ones, so I was just wondering where the problems lie, and what the cause is? Thanks!

 

  In USAAF tests the P-51B was considered to have a faster sustained turn rate than the P-47D Razorback. Russian tests have the Razorback even far slower, at a ridiculous 27 seconds per 360!

 

  Yet the Russians have, plausibly, the Me-109G at around 22-23 seconds. In 800 combat reports I’ve read (several times, including all of those on the Mike Williams “WWII Aircraft Performance” site) the P-51 emerges as roughly similar-turning to the Me-109G, and only slightly better in multiple consecutive 360s, at low speed, if reducing power with flaps at 20 degrees (Presumably while the Me-109G mistakenly kept power high). 

 

  The P-47D Razorback, on the other hand, in the near 1000 combat reports I have read (all of them, also several times), will ALWAYS use horizontal turns and ALWAYS reverse a tailing Me-109G in around 4 consecutive 360 turns (or less), especially at low speeds and low altitudes. The only exception is in right turns (rarer, as it is more natural to turn left with the prop rotation and with a right hand), where, when keeping speeds high by steeply spiralling down, the Me-109G can hold its own, barely. But that is much rarer.

 

  The P-47D was known to be more asymmetrical than most types when turning. 

 

  What was Luftwaffe opinion of the P-47D Razorback? Steinhoff said he could escape in a right hand climbing spiral, against the prop again, but more significant is the unequivocal opinion of the KG 200 testing unit, for a captured needle tip prop Razorback: “The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G.”

 

  They did not have the same opinion of the P-51B, noting that its harsh stall killed two of their pilots...

 

  To be reversed in four turns I would place the Me-109G at around 23 seconds per 360 and the P-47D Razorback (to Left) at around 18 seconds. 

 

  No test pilot has ever claimed the results the P-47D Razorback actually achieved in combat. Furthermore, the P-47 in combat will invariably turn, and almost never use the dive and zoom tactics that are supposedly its domain... It can zoom well after a dive (as can the FW-190 if the stick is pulled very gradually), but that is good once, and the P-47’s climb rate remains dreadful, even with the paddle blade prop.

 

  The same thing, even more extreme, can be said of the FW-190A, which out-turns at low speed the P-47D by a small margin, while being massively out-turned by it at high speeds.

 

  The real hit and run types are largely the inline types, especially the Spitfire, but both the Me-109G and the P-51 can probably reduce their turn times by lowering power. But then so can the FW-190 and P-47...

 

  The Spitfire IX could make fairly fast turn times, maybe as low as 20-21 seconds, but only in a much wider circle, and at a higher speed, because it had no mid-position flap. It could stall itself and shoot across to a smaller circle, so that could compensate somewhat, but these would be snapshots, not sustained hits.

 

  What do we see in Spitfire combat reports? A lot of diving at high speeds, zooming back up, and little to no turn fighting... The Russians found it not useable for turn fighting. Against the FW-190A what you see is: “In orbit near water level. Unable to hold orbit, the Spitfire’s gunfire hit the water, and was forced to climb back out” (mark XIV in this case, but same for other marks)

 

  None of this will ever surface in any Allied test of the FW-190A. (Although the lesser turn handling of the D-9 was correctly recognized in at least one post-war US test, agreeing with Luftwaffe combat pilots: “The Dora nine lacked the high roll AND turn rate of its radial engined predecessor”.)

 

  Yes WWII test pilots occasionally did get it right, but that might be because they were transiting back from the front lines, at least in some cases. The picture above looks radically different from most test pilot results, the worst being the two absolutely ridiculous US Navy tests of the FW-190A...

 

  Most important, to my mind, is the absence of mention by test pilots of the sustained low speed turn performance, with reduced power, which you see so often used in real combat. 

 

  Theories based on keeping high speeds at all times were simply at odds with the reality of slow-killing guns, yet kept being taught as the be all end all throughout the war. Capt. Meroney, the 9 kill P-47 ace who advised always chopping the throttle and turning to counter a diving attack, had this to say about the effect of this training on newbies: “Our biggest headache was getting their stateside training out of their heads.”

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WrathofAtlantis Thanks for the thorough reply! What's really got me confused is the turn rate values you mention early on. I'd have fully understood it if, when test pilots came to talk tactics, they were at odds with operational pilots. In this case though, (if I haven't misunderstood), you're saying that actual empirical test data was at odds with what was seen in combat, right?

 

I simply cannot see how that can plausibly be the case, at least without there being some other factor that hasn't been considered. A test pilot's biases may cause some of the tactical conclusions they draw to be incorrect, but they won't have any impact on their ability to pull on the stick and record the time an aircraft takes to turn! I can only see the results being different if either the aircraft being tested were different in some way, or the test data being quoted was recorded in different conditions (speed, altitude, etc.) to the actual combat scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  Well the Russians test pilots have the P-47D Razorback at 27 seconds, and that is clearly absurd...

 

  From memory, they had the Me-109G-2 at 21 seconds, which was the same as the FW-190A-5 which they also had at 21 seconds as well: Just in terms terms of wingloading, that is already inexplicable by current physics...

 

  But as to to test pilots getting the empirical data wrong, you have to factor in what I said about the negative effects of power (not recognized at all by science, even today!): They assume more power will turn you faster (which is true if your thrust is not interacting with the wing), so you can assume this data will be at high power, probably at least maximum continuous.

 

  If a commander at the front line says to all his pilots: “Ignore stateside training and keep the throttle low whenever you turn”: They will have better turn times than test pilots...

 

  That less power turns you faster is not a violation of the laws of physics (it only appears that way). The problem is the test pilots do not feel they have to pull harder on the stick when they add power, so they will not think more power makes them turn slower.

 

   The reason the negative effect of more power is “hidden” is that the wing is beating the prop back like a pulley responds to your pull by making the weight seem smaller. 

 

  Just like the pulley bears the extra weight, so does the wing, unknown to the pilot, who moves his stick at the balance point of forces notably larger than currently understood. 

 

  However the extra “weight” from more power is still there in the wings. But it can only be measured through extra wing flex and in the slower turn time, not by the pilot’s touch. So unless he tries measuring the turn rate of maximum low speed sustained turns at a lower power level (apparently not a common procedure for 1940s test pilot), he will not notice his slow speed turn times are getting better with less power.

 

  The natural tendency is to be more timid with less power. 

 

  Test pilots going slow will tend to raise the power for safety, precisely the safety mentality that P-47 ace Meroney said needed to be weeded out of the head of newbies...

 

  P-47s in combat out-turned Me-109Gs as slow as 140 mph on the deck (at least one combat report of a speed that low, I have it on file). 

 

  As to how does the wing act as pulley, hiding the prop’s turn-resisting forces to the pilot? Obviously it is a major inter-action with the propeller’s flow. My current theory is that the low wing position splits the prop’s airflow, and, when making a turn, the turn curvature causes part of the air going below wing to “bleed” above the wing: This creates a dogleg path, which is longer, so the below wing prop air is accelerated above the wing, depressurizing the outside turn part of the prop, making the prop “fight” the turn.

 

  The prop has about 3000 lbs of thrust, so a loss of 6% below will load up the top 3%, meaning a near 10% imbalance, or 300 lbs.

 

   This should be obvious to the pilot, since the elevator can barely do 600 lbs max., but with a tail twice as long as the nose, maybe 1200 lbs of leverage at the nose... 300 lbs at the nose is already 1/4 of maximum pilot effort just to, in theory, keep the nose from going down towards the outside of the turn...

 

  Obviously, in order to “hide” this, the center of lift from the wing has to shift in front of the center of gravity (when the below air leaked above the wing), which turns the wing into a pulley to lift the nose, with no nose-down resistance felt by the pilot. (And inobservable except for more wing bending at low Gs mostly, and longer turn times than if he cut power)

 

  This at a stroke explains why radials versions of an in-line airframe often seem to turn much better, despite being heavier (Ki-100 from Ki-61, La-5 from Lagg-3) or worse if going from radial to in-line: FW-190 A to D...

 

  The center of lift cannot shift far in front of the center of gravity, inches at most, so an 8 foot nose will tax the wings less than a 10 foot nose. 

 

  And so cutting power will have the same effect as shortening the nose... But first you have to accept that the prop is pulling you out of the turn, which current flight physics doesn’t.

 

I hope this was not too long, but the question was asked why would the test pilots get it wrong. Because the science is wrong, simple.

 

   And just remember how quickly after WWII was this area of investigation shifted to jets, which have no direct interaction between thrust and wing...

 

  

Edited by WrathofAtlantis
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WrathofAtlantis Thank you for the thorough explanation, that's very interesting! I can see why you'd say that the science is lacking in this area - as you rightly say, the effect of propeller flow interactions on aircraft have not been very thoroughly studied, but you're also combining that with intense manuevers, which are possibly the most difficult flight conditions to model even now, on account of the complex and unsteady flows going on.

 

It's not entirely related but you may find it interesting if you haven't already seen it - the Whirlwind Fighter Project came to some interesting conclusions about the impacts of propeller behaviours on flight performance for the Westland Whirlwind - and that was another example of what seems to have been the right answer being entirely missed by science at the time!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A problem I have is the talking in absolutes.  For a start the Bf109 never caught fire in a crash landing, that is a major advance in aviation safety, where is the widespread adoption of the method enabling this?  How, with all the combat reports read, were the Spitfire escorts versus FW190 interceptor combats missed?

 

To start with a story, James Lacey, first encounter with a Bf109, it was below him, he decided the classic bounce, pushed the throttle all the way forward and dived, result was the Bf109 was in the sights for a fraction of a second.  Since he had gone by so fast and below the Bf109 Lacey was not noticed, next approach was to formate from behind.

 

Fighter versus fighter.  When you think you have the initiative you want to close at a speed high enough that enables disengagement if things go wrong but not much more, since the bigger the speed difference the harder the shot.  Of course such a generic rule has plenty of exceptions depending on the numbers, situation and aircraft involved.  When you think you are the target you want to turn or at least change course and possibly height, using the fact you are probably slower so able to turn more tightly, plus changing direction makes and shot harder.

 

If for example you look at the First Team Appendix 5 you will note IJNAF fighters used bounces to attack and turns, even loops, to defend.  And it notes experienced IJNAF fighter pilots did not engage in long turning fights given the risks.  The superior turning, climb etc. were there is the enemy tried to stay, like for example go after a bomber formation.

 

A.  The article is saying the Fw190 comes out of a dive nose up but still falling for quite a while.  Is this correct?  The pilot will experience extra G when the aircraft climbs, not if it is still going down.  If the idea is the Fw190 loses another 220 metres of height between elevator movement set to climb and before pull up begins that is not as surprising.
I looked up Eric Brown's Fw190 evaluation, which notes the results of the evaluations of other pilots as Fw190 vertical, Spitfire horizontal, with no mention of high speed.

 

B. Is it 200 mph indicated or true air speed?  The severely reduced power suggests true, which if so suggests they are at economic cruise before combat few fighters were doing that in Western Europe.  Propellers will by their nature cause asymmetric behaviour.

 

C. Is the flaps report in both editions of the Closterman book? Closterman also noted "usual" vertical Luftwaffe fighting tactics.

 

D. Now a flat statement the test flight data is almost always wrong.

 

E. Yes, you turn, the wings are no longer providing as much lift to counter gravity, either increase the power or start to lose altitude.  One reason why turning fights tend to descend.

 

F. One note, the aircraft sent to the USSR had working two way radio sets, that was very useful beyond just being an aircraft.

 

G.  So the response is we must ignore Robert Johnson.

 

H.  Thanks for the failure rate, a complication is the reduction to 1 group of P-47.  Is the failure rate for air to air combat or all firings, given the strafing done?

 

I.  Please provide a page from First Team for the chopped the throttle quote.  The appendix to First Team makes it clear Zeros could and would turn in combat.  It also only covers to the battle of Midway, before the USN could properly evaluate Zero performance. Extrapolating this to the remaining 4 years of the war is a problem  It does note
plenty of F4F high side attacks and has the USN after Coral Sea battle report noted to use altitude to attack from above, keeping the speed up.  Then we move onto the Ki-43 which everyone notes tried to use turn tactics, and had combat flaps to enable the tactic, the question was given the Ki-100 was said to also be a turn fighter whether the Ki-61 was as well.  The response is how bad the Ki-43 was.

 

J.   No response.

 

K.  The reply is a complete misunderstanding, the claim was fighters turned into an attack and cut throttles, the question was did they keep the throttles closed, the response is how increased power does not improve the turn rate.  However it does stop loss of altitude.  Then comes the claim about a misleading report on one dogfight at low altitude on one day.  

 

L.  the question was did enough of the high scoring pilots use waiting outside fights to pick off damaged aircraft to move the overall results of the different styles of attacks, the reply is 1 pilot did it.

 

M.  The claim was dive tactics were not so safe shown by the number of times Hartman was shot down, when it was pointed out most to all the shoot downs were the result of hitting debris from the target the response is Hartman is over rated, which means he has even less effect on point L.  Then comes the decision Brown is not qualified enough.

 

Again, who is Shaw?  Also how did all the Spitfire escorts versus Fw190 combats get missed?

 

If I read the last paragraph correctly a modern test said the WWII fighters could not reach a 6G horizontal turn, yet they are reported as part of various trials and in particular G-suit work.  Pulling 8 G on a Hurricane resulted in a collapsed pilot seat, pulling 10 G bucked the wing, pulling 10 G in a P-40 buckled the tail.

 

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

 

Incidentally the sustained G allowed by the RAF/RN for the F6F and F4U was 7.5G, based on the formula 0.75N-1 where N was the design G limit.  One of the interesting effects was G-suits could make the pilots better able to withstand G than the airframe, leading to the need for warning devices, though one pilot noted he preferred to be awake if the aircraft broke up, not blacked out.

 

"all we have is WWII pilots obsessively cutting their throttle in turns, and NEVER throttling back up. What picture does that suggest? "
unsustainable as written.  So they cut speed on contact and stayed that way for the entire combat and on the way home?  Multiple attacks and they end up at stalling speed?  At the very least they would go back to their cruise settings, more likely they would head for higher power settings and more height and/or towards enemy aircraft in sight.

 

The Spitfire VIII maximum weak-mixture power setting as 320 mph at 20,000 ft, consuming about 1.1 gallon per minute.  This corresponds with an engine setting of 2,400 rpm, +4 lbs boost (66 gallons per hour). The RAF were allocating 23 gallons for take-off and climb to 20,000 ft, and 36 gallons for 15 minutes of combat, leaving 63 gallons for cruise.  This gives an endurance of 57 minutes, or a range of 304 miles, for an escort radius of 154 miles on internal fuel with no fuel reserves.

 

So the Spitfires were doing slow speeds in combat?  Going from 1.1 gallons fast cruise consumption per minute to 2.4?  Or the RAF did not notice combat dropped fuel consumption?  I see the later claim the Spitfire was the energy fighter but the USSR never received Spitfire XIV.

 

I also note the use of test flight data when it comes to Luftwaffe evaluation of P-47 and P-51, versus the theme test pilots are wrong  Those tests contradict the US findings.

 

Also the findings of Hans-Werner Lerche, one of the Luftwaffe test pilots who noted the Spitfire for turning and climbing, the P-47 for high altitude and diving, not dog fights, the P-51 excelled in turning flight, from memory only the Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9 could match it overall.  The La-5FN, which interestingly states its turning times at ground level are better than the Fw190 but worse than the Bf109G.

 

The impression I received from the reply is a lot of shoot the messenger, Johnson, Hartman, Brown, test pilots generally, the Ki-43

 

On 19/03/2021 at 05:34, dov said:

Speed of sound is defined by √κ*R*T that means that the speed of sound is variable by Temperature.  The true air speed divided by actual speed of sound is the Mach number, you look for.  So: The IAS or TAS may vary each day, that the same critical Mach number is noticed! Got it?

Yes, with the qualification in the formula the atmosphere is assumed a perfect gas and that the presence of water will very slightly up the speed.  The temperature dependence explains the different top speeds of the early jets summer versus winter and the different chances of pulling out of a high velocity dive, summer versus winter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChocolateCrisps said:

@WrathofAtlantis Thank you for the thorough explanation, that's very interesting! I can see why you'd say that the science is lacking in this area - as you rightly say, the effect of propeller flow interactions on aircraft have not been very thoroughly studied, but you're also combining that with intense manuevers, which are possibly the most difficult flight conditions to model even now, on account of the complex and unsteady flows going on.

 

It's not entirely related but you may find it interesting if you haven't already seen it - the Whirlwind Fighter Project came to some interesting conclusions about the impacts of propeller behaviours on flight performance for the Westland Whirlwind - and that was another example of what seems to have been the right answer being entirely missed by science at the time!

 

  Interesting about the Whirlwind... A difference of 2 mm in prop thickness seriously affected the high altitude performance... Amazing...

 

  The mention of the P-factor reminded me to add where this other effect might fit into my theory: The P-factor is also an angle of attack prop effect, and it explains why a right turning prop (from the rear) will turn better to the left. (The spiral hitting on the tail planes at high speeds will also usually make rolls to left slower. The Me-109 had an offset fin and no rudder trimmer for most variants, so the nose drifted right with speed, and required an increasing left foot push as speed went up, which slowed left rolls a bit further. As a further aside, the P-51 had its own trim problem of the nose hunting right-left from 370 mph up, and this required dancing on the pedals to keep the nose straight!: It was called “the walking sticks zone”. This got so bad some tails were damaged, and the rudder trim tab was reversed during B production to inhibit pilot actions: Earlier Bs were often said to be much nicer to fly before this change, as reversing the trim tab action made the rudder heavy.)

 

  The P-Factor is probably one of the reasons why prop power is assumed to help with the turn: It does help left turns. But the key distinction of this effect is that it only affects the blade going down relative to the fuselage attitude, so its effect is not one of pitch (to the fuselage) but only of yaw. The effect I am describing of the nose pulling down is an effect purely of pitch.

 

   Even in sustained 3G turns at 200 mph, the bank angle is around 70 degrees, and with extra aileron deflection might even be around 80 degrees, which means a pitch effect is closer to the horizontal than a yaw effect. 

 

  Another point worth making is that lower speed reduces forward momentum exponentially, so the observed smaller turn radius would NEVER surprise pilots: This is another thing concealing the effect I theorize. What they might miss is that the reduced radius will be forced wider if they power back up: If the speed does not increase after they increase power, this should mean they tightened the turn. But if the turn was not tightened, it is easy to dismiss this as the airplane reaching its lower limits.

 

  It is also worth pointing out aerobatic aircrafts do not behave the same as WWII fighters: It is obvious from films that modern aerobatic types use engine power to create all sorts of crazy maneuvers: The effect of unloading the bottom prop half in a turn-averse way may not scale down, or up, to different weights and configurations.

   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallo

 

Thanks to ChocolateCrisps for the Whirwind information.

To add:

 

Airscrew design, or propeller design, belongs to the most complicated fields in aerodynamic.

As well mathematic as in physical matters.

 

The influence of the airscrew wash for any unintended results in flight characteristic is one side.

The other one are intended results. Which may increase or decrease the performance of any a/c. However intended.

Each a/c in WW2 times was a mixture of clear design philosophy, guessing (lack of automatic calculation), (lack in knowledge of the sound barrier), and time pressure.

Material was not so much the problem in Britain as in Germany or Japan.

The Whirlwind project is from today’s point of view a masterpiece!

Of flaws, not knowing, and with a time gap of creating something else.

The Mosquito and the Whirlwind have something in design in common.

Concerning integrated wing & cooling system and so on. The lessons were learned at the Mosquito.

The interference of the prop wash is a fact.

 

Happy modelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

1-A problem I have is the talking in absolutes.  For a start the Bf109 never caught fire in a crash landing, that is a major advance in aviation safety.

 

A- The article is saying the Fw190 comes out of a dive nose up but still falling for quite a while.  Is this correct?  The pilot will experience extra G when the aircraft climbs, not if it is still going down.  If the idea is the Fw190 loses another 220 metres of height between elevator movement set to climb and before pull up begins that is not as surprising.

 

B-
I looked up Eric Brown's Fw190 evaluation, which notes the results of the evaluations of other pilots as Fw190 vertical, Spitfire horizontal, with no mention of high speed.

 

C. Is the flaps report in both editions of the Closterman book? Closterman also noted "usual" vertical Luftwaffe fighting tactics.

 

 

G.  So the response is we must ignore Robert Johnson.

 

 

I-Extrapolating this to the remaining 4 years of the war is a problem.

 

 

J- The response is how bad the Ki-43 was.

 

 

 

K.  The reply is a complete misunderstanding, the claim was fighters turned into an attack and cut throttles, the question was did they keep the throttles closed, the response is how increased power does not improve the turn rate.

 

1 hour ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

L- If I read the last paragraph correctly a modern test said the WWII fighters could not reach a 6G horizontal turn, yet they are reported as part of various trials and in particular G-suit work.  Pulling 8 G on a Hurricane resulted in a collapsed pilot seat, pulling 10 G bucked the wing, pulling 10 G in a P-40 buckled the tail.

 

 

M-"all we have is WWII pilots obsessively cutting their throttle in turns, and NEVER throttling back up. What picture does that suggest? "
unsustainable as written.  So they cut speed on contact and stayed that way for the entire combat and on the way home? 

 

 

 

  N-I see the later claim the Spitfire was the energy fighter but the USSR never received Spitfire XIV.

 

 

 

O- Also the findings of Hans-Werner Lerche, one of the Luftwaffe test pilots. The La-5FN, which interestingly states its turning times at ground level are better than the Fw190 but worse than the Bf109G.

 

 

 

 

1-The absolute was from the actual German quote. I think we understand that an aircraft never catching fire on crashing is a bit of a hyperbole... 

 

A-You misunderstand both the physics and the quote. Yes the 190 pilot can suffer terrible Gs pulling up while still going down, because his elevator action is just changing his attitude, not his trajectory: The more he pulls the more cross to the wind he is, so his Gs are deceleration Gs, from his speed decelerating while going down at 40 degrees. This is how Kurt Tank could boast 1G per two pounds of stick force up to 7Gs, making everyone think the FW-190A had GREAT high speed handling! NO... The Russian quote is from outside observation: “falls an extra 220 meters” means “extra” is from observed nose level attitude or higher, or else what would it be “extra” to? How would a Russian know where the pilot started to pull? They also describe “when it pulls up, there is a moment where the FW-190A “hangs”: “Hangs” is your clue as to what it looks like: A nose up aircraft going down, elsewhere described as “tail down sinking”; A fundamental FW-190A trait at high speed, implying stable angles of attack beyond 40 degrees while going down. 

 

B-Well the Russians say the exact opposite. Given that the Spitfire doesn’t even have a mid-position flap, I’ll go with the Russians. 

 

C-It was in the French “j’ai lu” édition I borrowed decades ago. French is my first language. Closterman said: “Primary characteristic of 109 is speed” then went on to describe FW-190A use of flaps “to turn a little tighter”. This confirms Russian Red Fleet quotes for a year’s worth of combat and the Bodenplatte episode of “dogfights”, with US pilots interviewed: All describe the FW-190As constantly turning below while 109s do hit and run from above, standard Luftwaffe doctrine I would say.

 

G-Is Robert Johnson the only P-47 pilot of WWII? Why trust a demonstrable liar?

 

I- I never extrapolated Zero behaviour to the rest of the war: I said hit and run was an assumption at the START of the war, which proves it was just that: A pre-war assumption, not based on experience, which is already the exact opposite of everything ever said about this since... The official story is the war started with turn fighting, and evolved to hit and run: The opposite of the truth...

 

J- No, I said how bad was the EARLY Ki-43 I Oscar... Which explains its lack of success against the Flying Tigers. From the Ki-43-II onward it was an excellent aircraft, and even in late 1944 front line commanders asked for it instead of the Ki-84, specifically because it turned so much better. It also had unique explosive ammo that greatly boosted the destructiveness of its 12.7 mms, which the Browning design badly needed because it was slowed from an excellent 900 rpm to 500 by the propeller (which is why it was rarely synchronized on US types). 

 

K-I have a challenge for you: Find me ONE quote of a WWII pilot adding power during a sustained low speed turn fight, and this increase of power causing a turn rate gain. Just ONE. I have never seen a credible one in 25 years of research. 

 

L-The SETP reached those 6 Gs HORIZONTALLY while NOT diving... Their impression: Tough! The pilot manual : Easy!

Yes, easy if you DIVE...

 

M-Hahaha. I reiterate the challenge of point K... 

 

N-I never claimed the Russians got the Mk XIV... The following quote was from a pilot called Pendergast. Doesn’t sound Russian...

 

O- Lerche is the only German source from WWII to claim the Me-109G out-turned the FW-190A at low altitudes. The Me-109 vastly out-turned the FW-190A at both high altitudes (above 23 000 ft.) and (less well known) at high speeds (but then everything did). Maybe Lerche was fooled by sticking only to high speed during low altitude tests? Test pilots are very safety minded, so keeping the speed high near the ground would easily explain it. But have you seen the several pages of sourced quotes I wrote so far? 

 

  Somehow it always is the same usual suspects that are trotted out: Robert Johnson, Lerche, Eric Brown, the two US Navy tests of the FW-190, the British flight tests (not the worst, but not great)... The one thing these sources all have in common, bar one, is that they are all far from the frontlines. What real life experience does the US Navy have of the FW-190? You really want to follow these people?

 

  I know the past is fixed, but knowledge of the past does evolve, because more obscure sources are brought to light. In the above list, Robert Johnson is the only real front line pilot, and virtually nothing of what he says about the P-47 resembles any of the nearly 1000 combat reports I have read. Not even close. This is hundreds of pilots, not just one blowhard. If you don’t know that the P-47, particularly the Razorback, was nearly exclusively flown as a turn fighter, then you don’t know much about how it was actually used: It’s that simple. You have to read all the possible sources to see the overall pattern.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is this video of an Fw-190 in a turning fight chasing a Thunderbolt.

You can see the approaching stall (buffeting, then the P-47 shoots out of frame) while the German pilot is trying to pull lead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday evening I got on Eric Brown’s report log in my shelf.

He claimed for the Fw-190 high stick forces on high speed (530 km/h and above) on the elevator.

Yesterday morning I read the website of a fellow from the Whirlwind.

 

https://www.whirlwindfighterproject.co.uk/arm-waving-aerodynamics/

 

The tail presents two symmetrical airfoils at 90 degrees to each other.

Where they both meet at the same position of their thickest portion the airflow is accelerated by up to 40% and the pressure drops accordingly.

At flying speed there is subsequent flow separation, rapid flow deceleration, and extreme turbulence. This is the classic ‘interference drag’.

In comparison of the tails of some fighters, where the P-47 has a very large movable control surface of the elevator, but consider the tiny CSE of German fighters.

One more thing is to compare: The position of the elevator & rudder.

Here we find some interferences as mentioned in the Westland report.

The tail presents two symmetrical aerofoils at 90 degrees to each other.

Not to 100% but close to get overspeed & low pressure in critical areas.

 

Consequently, attributes mentioned on the Fw-190 can be explained and understood quite well.

 

The cleanest aerodynamic tail obeying all rules has the P-51!

 

So do I think.spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing for sure the Britmodeller edit/posting system is a real obstacle for detailed discussions.  The small window, the need to go through multiple pages to access earlier messages.  In any case rather than me putting together a detailed response there are multiple copies out there already.

 

All flowing from the search string, "  "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" P-51 F4U P-47 "

 

Part of their report is quoted at https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=261798.0  Things like they kept to 6G or less given how irreplaceable the aircraft are.

 

Now would it be correct to say hello Gaston?  And these ideas have been put forward for the last 10 or more years which sort of means why haven't the claimed tests been done by now?  See for example, https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/spitfire-ix-v-fw-190a.542/page-9   A thread which does far more than I could pointing out the flaws in the turning fighter ideas, let alone the use of the data.  In one of the posts, is

 

"For more of Gaston's theories visit the Aces High board and the UBI Il-2 General Discussion forum.

Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
N1K1, Ki-100, Ki-84, and why math is not predictive... - Topic Powered by Social Strata
FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed - Topic Powered by Social Strata"

 

The attempts to tell a P-51 pilot whose father flew them in WWII that Gaston knew more about the P-51 than the pilot.

 

Another visitation is at http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-15392.html

 

I note the similarities of the turning fighter advocy across the years, and here for example,

I note the posting of "never catching fire" was done without qualification, then the walk back as someone else's words.

I note back then whether true or indicated air speeds were being quoted, and not answered.

Asked for Shaw, twice, no reply

Asked where the high speed came from given Eric Brown's description did not have the phrase, no reply

Darwin Spitfires page, no reply.

How were the Spitfire escorts versus FW190 interceptor combats missed? No reply.

Colsterman is a reference for turning Fw190, his reports of diving ones ignored.

The failure to provide the where a quote from "First Team" was located while ignoring the Appendix 5 information.

The way Hartman kept being hit by debris as proof diving tactics had problems.

The failure to explain whether the Ki-61 was a turn fighter, given the Ki-100 was claimed to be one.

The Spitfire combat fuel consumption figure, ignored.

The flipping where test pilots are wrong or right depending on what their data is.

The misreading of text as a method of changing the subject.

I noted Lerche making the report about La-5 versus Fw190 and Bf109.  The reply was another absolute, *only* German source, so someone has read/interviewed all the relevant personnel and reports.  No thought of for example, as the reports tend to use 8-109 and 8-190 that there might be a transcription error, or the way the Bf109G stalled about 20 mph slower that the Fw190A and with much better stall warning, so maybe the Fw190 was not going to push things at low altitude where a stall would be fatal, instead it is an absolute, truth laid down, and later Lerche, having provided contradictory information is attacked as a "usual suspect".

 

Essentially information that does not fit is ignored or alternatively the person (or aerodynamic theory) who presents it is attacked.  All far from the front lines applies even more to all of us today.  The past is most definitely gone and someone has a very fixed idea about it.
 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 21/03/2021 at 13:56, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

One thing for sure the Britmodeller edit/posting system is a real obstacle for detailed discussions.  The small window, the need to go through multiple pages to access earlier messages.  In any case rather than me putting together a detailed response there are multiple copies out there already.

 

All flowing from the search string, "  "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" P-51 F4U P-47 "

 

Part of their report is quoted at https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=261798.0  Things like they kept to 6G or less given how irreplaceable the aircraft are.

 

Now would it be correct to say hello Gaston?  And these ideas have been put forward for the last 10 or more years which sort of means why haven't the claimed tests been done by now?  See for example, https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/spitfire-ix-v-fw-190a.542/page-9   A thread which does far more than I could pointing out the flaws in the turning fighter ideas, let alone the use of the data.  In one of the posts, is

 

"For more of Gaston's theories visit the Aces High board and the UBI Il-2 General Discussion forum.

Johnny Johnson, maths and the 1989 Society of Test Pilot report; revisited.
N1K1, Ki-100, Ki-84, and why math is not predictive... - Topic Powered by Social Strata
FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed - Topic Powered by Social Strata"

 

The attempts to tell a P-51 pilot whose father flew them in WWII that Gaston knew more about the P-51 than the pilot.

 

Another visitation is at http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-15392.html

 

I note the similarities of the turning fighter advocy across the years, and here for example,

I note the posting of "never catching fire" was done without qualification, then the walk back as someone else's words.

I note back then whether true or indicated air speeds were being quoted, and not answered.

Asked for Shaw, twice, no reply

Asked where the high speed came from given Eric Brown's description did not have the phrase, no reply

Darwin Spitfires page, no reply.

How were the Spitfire escorts versus FW190 interceptor combats missed? No reply.

Colsterman is a reference for turning Fw190, his reports of diving ones ignored.

The failure to provide the where a quote from "First Team" was located while ignoring the Appendix 5 information.

The way Hartman kept being hit by debris as proof diving tactics had problems.

The failure to explain whether the Ki-61 was a turn fighter, given the Ki-100 was claimed to be one.

The Spitfire combat fuel consumption figure, ignored.

The flipping where test pilots are wrong or right depending on what their data is.

The misreading of text as a method of changing the subject.

I noted Lerche making the report about La-5 versus Fw190 and Bf109.  The reply was another absolute, *only* German source, so someone has read/interviewed all the relevant personnel and reports.  No thought of for example, as the reports tend to use 8-109 and 8-190 that there might be a transcription error, or the way the Bf109G stalled about 20 mph slower that the Fw190A and with much better stall warning, so maybe the Fw190 was not going to push things at low altitude where a stall would be fatal, instead it is an absolute, truth laid down, and later Lerche, having provided contradictory information is attacked as a "usual suspect".

 

Essentially information that does not fit is ignored or alternatively the person (or aerodynamic theory) who presents it is attacked.  All far from the front lines applies even more to all of us today.  The past is most definitely gone and someone has a very fixed idea about it.
 

 

 

 

  Ignored information, like this for instance?: 


 

 

 

(At 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Ahhh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 or a 190 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

 

 

  Pretty exact translation by the way... Funny how an ace with 18 victories (10 of them on FW-190s) agrees exactly with what I have been saying for years, but Eric Brown (2 kills on 4 engine types) says the exact opposite, and yet he has by far more influence. Yes, Eric Brown wrote books, but so did Clostermann, and his book is considered among the greatest aviation memoirs ever. He was also unique in giving technical conferences on German aircrafts to fellow Allied pilots... He was also a Caltech trained engineer just before the War.

 

  I made over the years an Air Force board game variant, and recently added 4 aircrafts (total 14), with many details: Yak-9T, Ki-84, Ki-43 and P-40N:

 

  https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/97109/advanced-air-force

 

 Except for the Ya-9T and the P-47, all the 1/144 scale profile drawings on the cards are nearly scratch creations, the P-40N, Ki-84, A6M5, and P-51B being fairly rare in how they capture the actual shapes.

 

 I also made a video to explain why a FW-190A out-turning the Spitfire is in no way a violation of the laws of physics...: I begin with an example that explains how an engineless car can be faster than the wind pushing it, and how a professor of physics bet US $10 000 that this was not possible: I then explain how the same general principles apply to all objects with major opposing internal leverages.

 

  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited by WrathofAtlantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing omitted in the explanation above is the rule that you never reduce power in combat - anyone who does becomes a slow target for more sensible pilots.  In a tight turn, the one thing you are doing is losing speed.  The way to avoid this is to lose altitude, until you run out of altitude to lose.  To gain in turn rate you have to pull tighter - until you run out of wing and stall.

 

The specific comment about Spitfire vs 109 omits that in a tight turn the wing slats of a 109 will pop out asymmetrically - which may not throw the aircraft out of the fight but will spoil any chance of a steady shot.  The Spitfire relies upon washout rather than slats, but in the limit will suffer from tip stall, again it will be asymmetric.  Novice pilots on either aircraft will avoid the limits, and fall victim to a more experienced/better pilot behind.  In the end the history of which aircraft can out-turn another is written by the winners on both sides.  And even more so from he on high who sees the other first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the need to wait a year was the difficulty in finding anyone to support the claims.  I suppose you are aware of the many errors in Clostermann's books, which means his claims need some sort of backup?  Its a great read, but not an accurate memoir.  And the roll rate of an Fw190 was superior to the Spitfire, enabling it to initiate a turn quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me about 2 hours to go through this thread from start to finish today.  All of it has been fascinating on many different levels including the wide change in the discussion aspects from flak results to turning ratios of WWII aircraft.  All I can do to add to this is personal experience and the intangibles.  From a grunt perspective on the ground, for the most part, given a choice between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon, the choice will always be for the automatic weapon.  The hardest lesson in combat to learn is conservation of ammunition.  When combat becomes heated, kill ratios go out the window and the survival instinct kicks in and the more ammo that is spewed out in front of you, the less likelihood something on the other side will survive.  I think this can be applied to the flak gunners, the B-17 gunners, fighter pilots, etc.  In a life or death situation, the average soldier will commit overkill to survive.  Kill ratios are something officers do after the carnage somewhere safe and sound.  It is rare to find soldiers that have the discipline and the confidence to limit ammo fired.  So human nature comes into play when discussing the expenditure of ammo to kills.

Regarding turn ratios, the intangible of the pilot to the aircraft always comes into play.  Some individuals just mesh with a weapon as it suits them perfectly.  Those individuals can use the weapon more effectively and can turn, on paper, an inferior weapon, to the one that wins out.  Again, from personal experience, I am, at best, average with an M-16.  However, I approach deadly with an AK-4.  Why; can't tell you more than the AK-4 feels "right" and other hand weapons don't.  By the same reasoning, would Richard Bong or Thomas McGuire, been more effective if they had flown P-51s than P-38?   Just my two cents worth in this highly interesting thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...