lewis11777
Charter Member
I was speaking only about the ETO, otherwise that would open a whole separate round of debates.
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Mosquito Turning Radius
- Thread starter lewis11777
- Start date
FireStorm II
SOH-CM-2025
gecko
Charter Member
I agree, very informative. Perhaps some of you experts can answer this - how did American P-47C/early D series not suffer ridiculous losses over the course of 1943? It was the primary American fighter in the ETO at the time, and outclassed as a dogfighter by contemporary Bf 109s and Fw 190s. German pilot quality was still pretty good too, right? certainly better than what was faced by the P-51 a year later. Durability can't explain all of it. Certainly in CFS3 it's near suicidal to try to dogfight anything with it. Any ideas?
F4U and P-47
Yes the F4U was a very good plane and in many respects better than the P-51. It could do more and still out dogfight nealry anyplane it was up against. The P-47, I think you'll need to see a few facts. Such as how many sorties did it fly, the type, when the plane was engaged in combat, etc. No simple answer here.
Yes the F4U was a very good plane and in many respects better than the P-51. It could do more and still out dogfight nealry anyplane it was up against. The P-47, I think you'll need to see a few facts. Such as how many sorties did it fly, the type, when the plane was engaged in combat, etc. No simple answer here.
lewis11777
Charter Member
Gecko I don't think anyone needs to be a historical expert necessarily to discuss well documented facts. Performance trails on every major aircraft in the war are a matter of published record. Hard numbers on the results of nearly every air combat engagement provide factual accounts. As Ted said though sometimes you have to interpret the numbers based on key factors i.e. types of engagements recorded etc. Probably no one would dispute that the P-47 was not a good match for a 190 or 109, just as unlikely that anyone would say P-47's always lost the battle. Chance and circumstances had to favor P-47 pilots once in a while, perhaps many of their missions were also geared to give them an advantage considering the odds.
Led Zeppelin
Charter Member
From what I've understood, the P-47 was a good fighter at high altitude, where the Fw190 was not. At lower altitude, the P-47 was nearly a brick in dogfight but this is where it became one of the best, if not the best, 'jabo' of the war because with allied air supremacy from mid 44, this weakness point was not a major problem anymore.
Led Zeppelin
Charter Member
Here is what I have.
When the P-61 arrived in the ETO, several crews were wondering if their aircraft would be really suitable in the ETO, they were thinking that the Mosquito was superior.
As a consequence, Lieutenant General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, 9th AF commander, ordered a test. This one occured on july 5th 1944 between a Mosquito XVII of 125th squadron and a P-61 of 422nd squadron. According to 422nd journal, the P-61 was faster (at 3000 - 45400 - 6000m), had a better climb rate and a better manoeuvrability.
In the US Headquarter, Mr. Robert A. Lovett (War Department - Air) talked about the P-61 to Brigadier General Carl Spaatz (commander of US Strategic Air Forces in Europe) because he hesitates for the ETO between producing the P-61 or the Mosquito under license. Another comparative test occured, more formal this time, and the result was the same.
Colonel Winston W. Kratz, who evaluates the P-61 during this second tests session said:'The P-61 was not a superior night fighter. It was not a bad night fighter. It was a good night fighter. All it needed was more speed.'
Sources:
View attachment 54301
Test
I read about this test also and an addendum to it was that this was a farse, and that the p-61 did not perform as stated, rather it was claimed so the Americans would not want the Mossie (limit supply) and that the P-61 would be accepted by the Americans as a good fighter. Also, I read that although the P-61 has been credited with several V-1 kills the only way they happened was when the 61 was able to dive onto the V-1, if not since it was so slow only the typhoon or mossie could catch a v-1 in level flight.
What we need are accurate flight test data and graphs for each one. This is becoming fun! I'll bet all my little reindeer that the mossie was better and while good the p-61 was average at best. Now when they made her (p-61) into the single seater then she was a race horse.
Off to search for proof!!!!
I read about this test also and an addendum to it was that this was a farse, and that the p-61 did not perform as stated, rather it was claimed so the Americans would not want the Mossie (limit supply) and that the P-61 would be accepted by the Americans as a good fighter. Also, I read that although the P-61 has been credited with several V-1 kills the only way they happened was when the 61 was able to dive onto the V-1, if not since it was so slow only the typhoon or mossie could catch a v-1 in level flight.
What we need are accurate flight test data and graphs for each one. This is becoming fun! I'll bet all my little reindeer that the mossie was better and while good the p-61 was average at best. Now when they made her (p-61) into the single seater then she was a race horse.
Off to search for proof!!!!
lewis11777
Charter Member
Here is some published data on a head to head test of the p-47 and the 190. It appears the 190 had it's greatest advantage at lower speeds where the weight of the jug probably effected maneuverability the most.
In addition to the testing of an Fw 190A in the UK, the USAAF carried out trials in Italy in December 1943 using a captured example against a Republic P-47D-4 Thunderbolt. Both carried a typical combat load and the tests were flown from sea level up to 10,000 ft. The Fw 190 was considered to be in exceptionally good condition for a captured machine and achieved 42 in of boost pressure on take-off, although it lacked the P-47D's water injection.
During acceleration tests the Fw 190 initially held an advantage at all heights and speeds, quickly gaining about 200 yards, but at 330 mph IAS (Indicated Air Speed) the P-47 began to overtake rapidly and quickly drew away. The story was very much the same in the climb with the Fw 190 being superior over the first 1,500 ft, but thereafter the P-47 achieved dominance and out-performed the Fw 190 by 500 ft/min. Dives of 65 degrees were carried out from 10,000 ft to 3,000 ft, starting at 250 mph IAS. Once again the Fw 190 held an initial advantage but was passed by the P-47 at 3,000 ft at a much greater speed.
At speeds in excess of 250 mph IAS, the two aircraft were turned on each other's tail as tight as possible and alternating the turns left and right. The P-47 easily out-turned the Fw 190 at 10,000 ft and had to throttle back to keep from overshooting, a level of superiority that increased with altitude. It was found that the Fw 190 was very heavy in terms of fore and aft control, vibrated excessively, and tended to black out its pilot. Below 250 mph IAS however, the ability of the Fw 190 to hang on its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident. The Fw 190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favourable position.
The concluding remarks of the USAAF report were as follows:
USAAF opinion
'The 190 performs nicely in all aerobatic manoeuvres with the exception of a very slight fore and aft control which makes low altitude manoeuvres dangerous. This aircraft has an extremely bad high speed stall in turns which is not so evident in high speed pullouts, but if trimmed and pulled hard enough it will spin violently straight down without warning. Aileron control is very good at all speeds and rudder control is normally good. Forward and side visibility are very good while rear visibility is very poor. The cockpit is uncomfortably small for a pilot taller than 5 ft 11 in. Baling out would be difficult for any pilot. The aircraft is quite nose heavy which would make dead stick landings dangerous and high speed dives near the ground dangerous. The engine seems to run rough at all times and the vibration transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of the flying characteristics. This characteristic is partly responsible for the lack of warning in high speed stalls.'....."
The exact model of Fw 190A was not identified.The P-47D-4 was not built with a paddle-bladed propeller, and the author did not say that a new prop was fitted.
See
Peter Caygill, Focke Wulf 190, Airlife Publishing, 2002.
In addition to the testing of an Fw 190A in the UK, the USAAF carried out trials in Italy in December 1943 using a captured example against a Republic P-47D-4 Thunderbolt. Both carried a typical combat load and the tests were flown from sea level up to 10,000 ft. The Fw 190 was considered to be in exceptionally good condition for a captured machine and achieved 42 in of boost pressure on take-off, although it lacked the P-47D's water injection.
During acceleration tests the Fw 190 initially held an advantage at all heights and speeds, quickly gaining about 200 yards, but at 330 mph IAS (Indicated Air Speed) the P-47 began to overtake rapidly and quickly drew away. The story was very much the same in the climb with the Fw 190 being superior over the first 1,500 ft, but thereafter the P-47 achieved dominance and out-performed the Fw 190 by 500 ft/min. Dives of 65 degrees were carried out from 10,000 ft to 3,000 ft, starting at 250 mph IAS. Once again the Fw 190 held an initial advantage but was passed by the P-47 at 3,000 ft at a much greater speed.
At speeds in excess of 250 mph IAS, the two aircraft were turned on each other's tail as tight as possible and alternating the turns left and right. The P-47 easily out-turned the Fw 190 at 10,000 ft and had to throttle back to keep from overshooting, a level of superiority that increased with altitude. It was found that the Fw 190 was very heavy in terms of fore and aft control, vibrated excessively, and tended to black out its pilot. Below 250 mph IAS however, the ability of the Fw 190 to hang on its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident. The Fw 190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favourable position.
The concluding remarks of the USAAF report were as follows:
USAAF opinion
'The 190 performs nicely in all aerobatic manoeuvres with the exception of a very slight fore and aft control which makes low altitude manoeuvres dangerous. This aircraft has an extremely bad high speed stall in turns which is not so evident in high speed pullouts, but if trimmed and pulled hard enough it will spin violently straight down without warning. Aileron control is very good at all speeds and rudder control is normally good. Forward and side visibility are very good while rear visibility is very poor. The cockpit is uncomfortably small for a pilot taller than 5 ft 11 in. Baling out would be difficult for any pilot. The aircraft is quite nose heavy which would make dead stick landings dangerous and high speed dives near the ground dangerous. The engine seems to run rough at all times and the vibration transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of the flying characteristics. This characteristic is partly responsible for the lack of warning in high speed stalls.'....."
The exact model of Fw 190A was not identified.The P-47D-4 was not built with a paddle-bladed propeller, and the author did not say that a new prop was fitted.
See
Peter Caygill, Focke Wulf 190, Airlife Publishing, 2002.
You make a good point. Real life air-to-air combat depends on other factors than an aircraft's raw dog-fighting capability and the fighter pilots are trained to use the advantage of their particular aircraft. My impression is that with the P-47 this was dive speed, firepower (8X 50 cal), and I think I recall reading somewhere that it sported a pretty impressive roll rate. If you dive on an unaware target, blast it, and cut out it doesn't matter how aerobatic the other aircraft is because you ain't hanging around there long enough to find out! The well trained P-47 pilots simply avoided tactical situations in which the enemy had the obvious advantage. I think with CFS3 the element of surprise is (almost?) impossible to obtain against the AI for these kind of hit and run tactics so the simulation favors the tight-turning dogfighter.
lewis11777
Charter Member
And this is also a very good point!
Hi Lewis,
both the British A-4/U8 that Wrinkle Brown tested and the USN A-5 (I believe from memory) suffered from battle damage, namely the ailerons where out of order.
The vicuous stall behaviour is a direct result of this aileron damage and subsequent unproper repair.
One of the USN pilots that tested the A-5 in Italy (again, I believe it was an A-5, not entirely positive though) said after the war something to the extend of "we where young and proud of our own machines and didn't recognize what a great plane it really was".
Another thing to keep in mind, both Fw190 where fighter bombers optimized for low level performance and ground attack.
There is no way that such a plane makes a good dogfighter.
both the British A-4/U8 that Wrinkle Brown tested and the USN A-5 (I believe from memory) suffered from battle damage, namely the ailerons where out of order.
The vicuous stall behaviour is a direct result of this aileron damage and subsequent unproper repair.
One of the USN pilots that tested the A-5 in Italy (again, I believe it was an A-5, not entirely positive though) said after the war something to the extend of "we where young and proud of our own machines and didn't recognize what a great plane it really was".
Another thing to keep in mind, both Fw190 where fighter bombers optimized for low level performance and ground attack.
There is no way that such a plane makes a good dogfighter.
lewis11777
Charter Member
Mathias I couldn't agree more, much of the debate here is like saying a hammer is better than a wrench. It all depends on what you are using it for!
Led Zeppelin
Charter Member
thanks for the information!
Although a pilot that adjusts his tactics to the capabilities of his own aircraft can often find a way to prevail in air-to-air combat.
http://vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html