FW-190A vs Spitfire, Me-109G, P-47D in dogfights

[AndyJWest]

Soviet tests of a FW-190A-4 did show about 19 seconds in turn times, but it was displayed as 19-23 seconds, implying the difference in side of the turn(?).

Nope 19-23 seconds means exactly what any engineer/test pilot would expect it to mean - somewhere between the upper and lower limit, but not accurately measured. Or if it doesn't, it is down to you to provide evidence why, not just assume it means what you want it to.

And as for 'catching the stall's wing drop' with aileron, this is nonsense if you are talking about a sustained turn (along with airspeed, turn rate and altitude, AoA must be constant so either the wing is stalled or it isn't), and dubious as a means to recover from a stall anyway. If a wing is stalled, down aileron is going to make it worse.

Even with the luxury of an autopilot, and no worries about structural/engine failure, fatigue from G forces, instrumentation errors and the rest, practical experience with the few tests I've run tells me that any measurements of turn rates need to be taken with some scepticism. Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know how turn rate was measured? The compass would be useless, and I'm not sure a gyro would be much better - they tended to tumble with extreme manouvering.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Nope 19-23 seconds means exactly what any engineer/test pilot would expect it to mean - somewhere between the upper and lower limit, but not accurately measured. Or if it doesn't, it is down to you to provide evidence why, not just assume it means what you want it to.

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by JtD

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots.

Interesting. So where did the '19 seconds' come from? Of course, if Gaston can provide a verifiable primary source to validate his figures (does he know what this is?), there might be room for debate.

Actually, I'd still like to know how turn rates were actually measured. With figures being bandied about supposedly accurate to 1/10th of a second per 360 degrees, it would be nice to know how they were arrived at.

And I'm still waiting for a track that can show a sustained turn in a Fw 190 A5 anywhere near 18.7s per 360 degrees. then again, I'd be surprised if you could do that in any true horizontal turn, sustained or not...

[JtD]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And I'm still waiting for a track that can show a sustained turn in a Fw 190 A5 anywhere near 18.7s per 360 degrees. then again, I'd be surprised if you could do that in any true horizontal turn, sustained or not...

Not that hard, with 25% fuel and without ammo you can easily sustain 18s/360 at sea level, tested on the Moscow map (winter). It's just about how much apple the oranges are. Or vice versa.

Real life testing consisted of a number of 360° turns at 1000m altitude, observed and timed from the ground. At least in the SU. Variances of the results were due to aircraft conditions, atmospheric conditions, flying conditions and piloting skills. While an individual test would give you results with as many digits as one liked, these were rarely used for practical purposes. Usually, as with the Fw 190A-4, there'd be a range of numbers given in whole seconds. The more testing had been done, the better the engineers and pilots knew the plane, the more constant the plane performance was, the smaller the range would be.

[robtek]

Just for the hard number and facts fetishists:

If it is dumb and works it ain't dumb!

It is always much easier to "prove" something wrong.

[Ernst]

Reducing powe can or not to help increase turn rate. If you are above your corner speed so reducing power ll help.

In il2 in particular i feel that reduce power to 80 percent in the middle of turn help a little to increase your turn rate for a moment. I am not certain but i feel the aircraft turning faster at cost of some airspeed.

Someway torque of the engine works against your turn, the plane wants to go out and drifts. This way may be setting engine in 80 per cent helps a more stable turn.

[JtD]

That's true Ernst, above corner speed, if you reduce you speed, you'll turn faster.

But Gaston is focusing on sustained turning and the mechanics behind it, so my reply was directed at that. I should have made that clear.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by JtD

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots.

I manipulated THIS data to prove my point?:


http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm

Aren't you tired of making statements that are so stupidly easy to disprove?

I sure would get tired...

Gaston

P.S. It's a historical site with historical data, so I guess the guy invented it just to suit me right?

G.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Gaston

I manipulated THIS data to prove my point?

No, apparently you just used wrong data, sorry. Should have been easy for a top notch researcher like yourself to check against original reports, though.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by JtD

Actually the numbers are 22-23 seconds. So 19-23 means the author has manipulated original data to prove his point, nothing else. Don't blame the engineers / test pilots.

Exacly Russian data for Fw 190 A-4 sustained turn rate at 1000m is 22-23 sec. These confirmed also German raport from captured LA5 FN when they found that LA5 turn better then Fw 190 but worse then 109.

I dont belive that Fw 190 A could turn sustained better at low speeds then 109 or Spitfire. It could be close for P-51 or P-47 but not for 109 and Spit. No way.