Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Sorry, misunderstood.
There are several problems when discussing "maneuverability". First is actual turn rate. In fact there was no German fighter which could out-turn any British fighter, and the FW-190 was one of the most "average" turning aircraft of the war. The second factor was how fast the plane could get into the turn, meaning how fast it could roll from 0 to 90 degrees. The FW-190 was tested as the fastest rolling aircraft of the war, without exception. This meant that if a FW and Spitfire were both rolled fully to the right, the 190 could flick over and be turning the other way before the Spit could even get his wings level. The Bf-109 was slower than the FW-190, but still faster-rolling than the Spitfire. This is what led to the development of the "clipped-wing" Spit. Another major factor was the negative-G capability. Not only could any German fighter push the nose over directly into a dive, leaving the early British fighters wasting a precious second or two rolling over before they could dive, but they could also push the nose forward while in a full turn, turning mildly in the other direction, which the Spits and Hurris could not. This gave the Germans a bit of a surprise in Africa where the Brits were using P-40s, which at first they didn't know could follow them through those negative-G turns.
This is true, but the Germans and Japanese really had no choice. I have stated many times my belief that America's single main contribution to the war was the fact that we were thousands of miles from the nearest front. Second was our huge population base, which coupled with the first meant that we could afford to do all that. Third was the manufacturing capability which stemmed from the first two. We could afford to out-build, out-recruit and out-train pretty much anybody. Having the war be far away is a good thing.
|
I meant sustained turn not turning radius two different flight characteristics I should have clarified my meaning.I know for a fact that RAF pilots where strongly advised never turn get it a sustained turning match with a 190 because the 190 would win.Now one or two quick turns yes the Spit was better but if a Spit got lured into a sustained turn with 190 he was asking for trouble indeed.Of course you statement does display how the key to air combat is understanding your aircraft and its strengths and weakness in comparison to the opposing one.Or you could choose to me like Eric Hartman and only seek out the enemy aircraft not paying attention and get close to him and blow him way before he can even evade you in the first place.The highest scoring ace in history though that "dog fighting" was a "useless" ballet and I agree get the easy kill.
I would say that your belief about the primary advantage that the US had during WWII is pretty much fact.Now the Axis could have countered this early in the war which the Japanese in particular set out to do of course they failed to do maintain the advantage that they initially gained now had the Axis been able to mount some sort a sizable dual front action against the US that would have been interesting.Just as the capture of Moscow in 1941 by the Germans most likely would have dealt a crushing blow to the USSR.Of the topic of strategy during WWII is another can of worms.
EDIT: Well a quick look int the back of a book about late mark Spitfires(VII-IX) has an index that includes a 1942 evaluation of a IX Spit vs. a captured FW190A.It goes into much detail but basically says that IX Spit can out turn a 190 and that climb is about equal though at higher levels the Spit is superior under all conditions the 190 had better acceleration.It does state that it was felt that the 190 was able to well evade a Spit when the Spit tried to get onto the 190's tail in this case the 190 could easily flick roll and evade especially in a negative G turn where the Spit could not follow.This disproves the data i read on the net claiming the 190 had better sustained turn abilities this can not be possible when the Spit had better turning and better climbing rates.
The XIV Spit was found to superior to a FW190A is most all respects except rolling this test was done in 1944 a few months before the 190D9 came into service the RAF took an educated guess on its performance they thought it was going to have a DB603(the Dora actually had a more powerful Jumo213A).I can post both evaluations in their entirety if anyone is interested.