|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: do you know flugwerk company a her real one fockewulf a8? | |||
| yes |
   
|
2 | 33.33% |
| no |
  
|
4 | 66.67% |
| Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-02-2012, 07:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
IceFire, don't waste your time. You can bring up all sorts of evidence, and as soon as they don't fit the theory, they'll be ignored. For instance we have the Russian tests that give ~18s sustained turn time for the Spitfire vs. ~22s for the 190, but because they used black magic during these tests they are no valid argument.
|
|
#2
10-03-2012, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
|
#3
10-04-2012, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow.
Well I find Gaston's points refreshing. The process for any debate is to back up your argument with facts. The trouble is facts can often be interpreted many ways. It would be interesting to see if we can get any flight data of the currently restored FWs |
|
#4
10-04-2012, 06:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This would be without flaps, downthrottling or without the P-51's coarse pitch at low speed "trick", so the actual ultimate performance could be more or less radically separated... The order seems about right... The FW-190A's upper cowl shape is very different on the Ns than on the the real thing (no tapering), so aerodynamically they are not the same, and the FW-190A-8Ns also don't always use correct props... Gaston |
|
#5
10-04-2012, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Apparently "Planes of Fame" thinks the reverse is more plausible. It's only a 1.3 second implausibility mind you, but then they come up with the P-47D: 27 seconds best turn time... Bf-109G: 22 seconds... So what did KG 200 mean when they said "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G?" ("On Special Missions: KG 200") That was with an underpowered needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback by the way: Same exact thing as the Russians had... If they can get it wrong by more than FIVE whole seconds, then why could the FW-190A not just as easily be at 18 seconds? In the real world, the Front-Line Russians found the Spitfire Mk V so inadequate for turn-fighting they changed their tactics to dive and zoom just for its benefit, and they even tried to remove its outer guns to help it turn, to no avail... (Source: Le Fana de l'Aviation #496 p.40.) The Spitfire Mk IX was in fact no better for turns and probably slightly worse... So what I am asking you is to cite here your reasons for choosing the Russian test values over the KG 200 evaluation conclusion: Insert reasons here: _________________________________________ Mind you all 600 P-47D combat reports here are completely on the German side, with no exceptions...: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html Insert Reasons for ignoring them here:___________________________. My reason for ignoring the Russian turn rate values is they have no counterparts in real life combat for the heavier types... Ever. And that shows an apparent bias that is understandable, but still a bias. Mystery of mysteries, the bias completely disapears when bullets are flying... Gaston Last edited by Gaston; 10-04-2012 at 08:45 AM. |
|
#6
10-05-2012, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Learn to read and stop interpreting |
|
#8
10-07-2012, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From one of those articles...
Quote:
I would think that if the LA5 could out turn the FW190 at this point it would be explicitly mentioned.. but not being mentioned it is possible that the two a/c (in good hands) matched each other turn for turn, and no further. Now extending from this.. how did the LA5 match against the spitfire in such a situation.... or any other a/c Gaston may have something.. 
__________________
Last edited by K_Freddie; 10-07-2012 at 08:41 PM. |
|
#9
10-07-2012, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Very good point. I never make any claims about German aircrafts vs the Russians types, or even vs the P-38 or Tempest/Typhoon, because the amount of combat reports is so much smaller than what I have read vs other US/British types. A lot of Russian quotes are very indicative though: "Experienced FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane" "There are reports of turning battle with the FW-190A lasting quite some time" "FW-190A will inevitably offer turning battle at minimum speed" If it was so poorly suited and unsuccessful in the horizontal, wouldn't you think it would have been used in other ways? On the other hand, the only fighter type I have ever heard the Me-109G engaging more or less successfully in a turning battle was the P-51, and even then it is barely as a close equal... The Fs and G-2 could sometimes match Spitfires as well, and that is not a good sign for the Spitfire... I did hear from Steinhoff that the Me-109G's climbing spiral was superior to other fighter types, but this appeared to be useful only against some mid-war Russian fighters, and usually specifically when flying the G-2... A climbing spiral is a rare case in an air battle in any case... I see still no contestation that KG 200 did say the P-47D needle-tip Razorack did out-turn their Me-109G as a general statement that is always (grossly) demonstrated in real-life combat reports (as in, quite a bit over 90° of gain per 360° of horizontal turning), and this in all circumstances (including left-hand climbing spirals)... Does that mean we finally have a consensus on that?  Gaston Last edited by Gaston; 10-07-2012 at 10:19 PM. |
|
#10
10-07-2012, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
First of all, I did not say in my post that the Mk IX being slower turning than the Mk V was part of the quote: I do note the Mk V in the real world is generally considered to out-turn the Mk IX though... Ask people who flew or still fly both Marks... Is French your native language? Tough luck: It is mine...: " 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 (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical." -On April 29th the regiment completed 28 sorties to escort bombers and ground attack aircrafts and 23 to protect ground troops, with four air battles occuring. The first few days were marked by failures due to the use of "outdated" (my use of quotation marks) horizontal combat tactics (My note: horizontal combat was never considered outdated in all of WWII, except for the Allies in the Pacific: It covers about 95%+ of all Western air battle in 1944) while the Spitfire was particularly well-adapted to fighting in the vertical plane. Second quotation : "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: "At low and medium altitude, the Mark VB was outperformed by German and Soviet fighters of its time. To try to improve its maneuverability and its speed (?!?: My note: They couldn't have expected much speed increase from that now could they? Obviously this was more about maneuvering), the Soviets lightened it by removing the four machineguns and their ammunition. This variant was evaluated by the VVS test center during the Summer of 1943. Apparently it was not a success, as there was no instruction to standardize the modification" If you think my translations are inaccurate, you seriously need to learn to read French... If the turn rate was really satisfactory to the Soviets compared to their own types, why would they change tactics to the vertical for this type alone? And why did they try to lighten it, at no improvement in drag or speed, if not obviously to improve its maneuverability? If the Spitfire really turned with around 17-18 sec turn times (TsAGI), which is every bit as good as the best of their fighters, why did they consider it unsuitable for their ususal turning tactics? If you want to cling to the pipe dream that the Mk V was any worse turning than a Mk IX, then just keep on dreaming... Except against slow-turning types like the P-51 or the Me-109G, turning tactics with the Spitfire were simply not very competitive, this worsening with the Mk IX, which is why the Mk IX is always used in dive and zoom tactics (followed by the occasional harsh high G high speed unsustained turn, its performance for which was on the other hand quite good), and this almost without exception: The vertical was what it excelled at... Gaston |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
