Mosquito Turning Radius

[lewis11777]

"Aces High" at the link below shows a Mosquito as having a better turning radius than a Fw 190a-5. From several things I have read about the Mosquito's performance it sounds like the Mosquito had poor turning performance. Some stories say thats why it was relegated to roles other than day intercept missions. Is the performance data reflected by "Aces High" accurate or is there information to the contrary?

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php

[NachtPiloten]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/mosquito.html

[lewis11777]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/mosquito.html

Thanks Ted, these performance trials definitely indicate that the mosquito was not suited as a dog fighter against single engine enemy fighters. Wonder where "Aces High" got their data?

54171

[NachtPiloten]

Just look at their name Aces High ... must be smoking something good .....:icon_lol:

[KellyB]

Near as I can see, they're measuring performance in the game as opposed to real world.

Their versions of the aircraft are not, perhaps, as well crafted as those we fly.

[lewis11777]

Near as I can see, they're measuring performance in the game as opposed to real world.

Their versions of the aircraft are not, perhaps, as well crafted as those we fly.

Sounds like it but some of the CFS3 stock FM's are inaccurate as well. The stock fw 190a-5 has one of the worst turning capabilities in the game. In reality it could out turn all of it's american counter parts and some of the spits. I think the Avhistory FM was more realistic.

[lewis11777]

I should probably add that much of their data on other fighters reflects information close to what I've read on the internet. Sorting through actual performance information and erroneous claims can blur the facts a little. I think Aces High accurately shows the P-51's and P-47's as having a worse turning radius than most variants of the 109's and 190's. The 109's and Spits are measured as the best pure dog fighters which seems to be consistent with most published literature. I raised the question about the Mosquito because AH data did not match most reports of actual performance.

[Mathias]

Sounds like it but some of the CFS3 stock FM's are inaccurate as well. The stock fw 190a-5 has one of the worst turning capabilities in the game. In reality it could out turn all of it's american counter parts and some of the spits. I think the Avhistory FM was more realistic.

"Out-turn" is not exactly the correct term when it comes to Spit v. Fw190.
All Spits had a better horizontal turn rate than the Fw190 but the Fw190 was lightyears ahead in terms of rollrate and allover manoverability, and it got even worse for the Spit at higher speeds - all Marks.
Like one Spit Jockey once said "at higher speed the sky wasn't enough to roll the Spitfire", whereas the Fw190 remained manovreable around all axes even in high speed dives.

[lewis11777]

You're right Matthias there were several important maneuvering aspects of dog fighting. However when comparisons arise pilots always seemed to put a lot of emphasis on turning ability as a critical factor. Likewise the most highly rated of the pure dog fighters are typically planes with excellent turning ability. The Mustang was considered to be one of the better overall performers yet it is perceived as 2nd best to Spits, 109's and 190 because it could not turn as tightly. I think it would have been viewed as the Spitfires equal if it simply had better turning performance.

[Mathias]

Fast rollrate means you can quickly change the direction of flight. That together with the light and precise controlls at any speed made the Fw190 the superior dogfighter over the Spitfire (again, any Mark, not just up to V). The Fw190 Jockey would just go into the vertical when the Spit driver turns horizontally. The Spit driver would rip his arms off if he'd try to follow.
Eithehrway, not many aircraft where lost in a classics dogfight situation, most didn't even know they had an opponent on their tail before they got shot down.

[HouseHobbit]

True, from what I have read, the Fw 190 was a very dangerous machine..
Galland recommended to stop all other fighter production and only build the Fw 190 in late 42..
Pity none of the flight models we have for the Fw 190 really show how Great a enemy aircraft they were..

The Spit was a okay bird not great but okay..Had some good points, it was outclassed later in the war by newer designs..
Fw 190D and P-51's come to mind..

[NachtPiloten]

One must remember that toward the end of 1943 and onwards the Germans suffered not from poor machines or demonstrably better allied planes, but rather from the fact that they had some of the poorest trained pilots in the war. The attrition rate was something that the Germans could not address. The allies on the other hand were able to rotate out their pilots, offer more training, and just had the advantage in pure numbers.

[greycap.raf]

The Spit was a okay bird not great but okay..Had some good points, it was outclassed later in the war by newer designs..
Fw 190D and P-51's come to mind..
Being outclassed depends heavily on which versions are compared, usually people pit Spitfire V against Fw 190A and Spitfire IX against Fw 190D and then note that the Spitfires are outclassed. How about contemporary groupings like these...

1941: Spitfire V vs. Fw 190 vs. P-51 - oh bugger, neither of the latter two were in service by the time the Spitfire came into use.

1942: Spitfire IX vs. Fw 190A-3 vs. P-51A - maximum speed, climb rate and turning rate go to the Spitfire, roll rate goes to the Fw 190 and range goes to the P-51.

1944: Spitfire XIV vs. Fw 190D-9 vs. P-51D - see the 1942 situation.

I'm not saying that Fw 190s and P-51s weren't great fighters but they certainly didn't outclass the Spitfire unless my idea of outclassing is very different from everyone else's. It's like implying the P-40C outclassed the Zero, its advantages were pretty much the same as those of a Fw 190 over a contemporary Spitfire.

[Led Zeppelin]

Regarding tthe Mosquito, some tests were made (2 or 3) against a P61 Black Widdow and each time, the Black Widdow won.

[NachtPiloten]

Regarding tthe Mosquito, some tests were made (2 or 3) against a P61 Black Widdow and each time, the Black Widdow won.

Where are these? I read that the p-61 was inferior to the mossie as a night interceptor and that because of the numbers available, the p61 was adopted for use by the Americans, although tests showed it to be slower, have inferior climb, range, and overall maneuverability. I'll search for these later today.

see this: http://www.ww2f.com/aircraft/33888-best-nightfighters-wwii.html

and: http://combatace.com/topic/65251-ww2-cannons/

Clearly, the p61 while interesting, was not superior and in reality not equal. Heck, the JU88G models could go over 400 with FuG 220, imagine euipped with Berlin 240 as they were toward the end of the war, this would add 20-30 kph getting them very close to the mossie (424 mossie vs 418 Ju88Gs). The radar was great, but both the mossie and widow used the same one.

[lewis11777]

True, from what I have read, the Fw 190 was a very dangerous machine.. Galland recommended to stop all other fighter production and only build the Fw 190 in late 42.. Pity none of the flight models we have for the Fw 190 really show how Great a enemy aircraft they were.. The Spit was a okay bird not great but okay..Had some good points, it was outclassed later in the war by newer designs.. Fw 190D and P-51's come to mind..

Owen I would have to say that the records support Rene's statement. In a match up as we are speaking about the Spitfire was typically hailed as the best allied dog fighter in the ETO. The dog fighting reputation given to the P-51 was mostly from combat against less experienced pilots who were at a great disadvantage. Also you can't dismiss the performance data that reflects the clear advantage of Spits, 190's and 109's given equal pilots. The P-51 however did an excellent job as the multi mission platform for which it was designed. It still carries the well deserved reputation of best all around intercepter, bomber escort, ground attack aircraft. The historical record in downed aircraft and destroyed enemy hardware supports this fact as well.

[Led Zeppelin]

give me some time, I'll find my sources.

[lewis11777]

give me some time, I'll find my sources.

And what will you be lecturing on?

[HouseHobbit]

Owen I would have to say that the records support Rene's statement. In a match up as we are speaking about the Spitfire was typically hailed as the best allied dog fighter in the ETO. The dog fighting reputation given to the P-51 was mostly from combat against less experienced pilots who were at a great disadvantage. Also you can't dismiss the performance data that reflects the clear advantage of Spits, 190's and 109's given equal pilots. The P-51 however did an excellent job as the multi mission platform for which it was designed. It still carries the well deserved reputation of best all around intercepter, bomber escort, ground attack aircraft. The historical record in downed aircraft and destroyed enemy hardware supports this fact as well.

BRAVO, I will have to retract that statement, you are correct..
Thanks..
:salute: :salute: :salute:

[greycap.raf]

The P-51 however did an excellent job as the multi mission platform for which it was designed. It still carries the well deserved reputation of best all around intercepter, bomber escort, ground attack aircraft.

In the ETO, I might add to that. Few people realize that there's an aircraft that was actually faster and climbed just as well if not better than the P-51, flew every bit as far if necessary (some seriously large drop tanks) and was more manoeuvrable at high speeds. It's just that it never gets the attention it deserves because it fought the relatively unknown war against the remains of the Japanese empire - the fearsome F4U.

[lewis11777]

I was speaking only about the ETO, otherwise that would open a whole separate round of debates.

[FireStorm II]

In the ETO, I might add to that. Few people realize that there's an aircraft that was actually faster and climbed just as well if not better than the P-51, flew every bit as far if necessary (some seriously large drop tanks) and was more manoeuvrable at high speeds. It's just that it never gets the attention it deserves because it fought the relatively unknown war against the remains of the Japanese empire - the fearsome F4U.


adding almost 1200 cu.in. can do that!

Great thread gents.

[gecko]

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?

[NachtPiloten]

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]

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?

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]

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]

Where are these? I read that the p-61 was inferior to the mossie as a night interceptor and that because of the numbers available, the p61 was adopted for use by the Americans, although tests showed it to be slower, have inferior climb, range, and overall maneuverability. I'll search for these later today.

see this: http://www.ww2f.com/aircraft/33888-best-nightfighters-wwii.html

and: http://combatace.com/topic/65251-ww2-cannons/

Clearly, the p61 while interesting, was not superior and in reality not equal. Heck, the JU88G models could go over 400 with FuG 220, imagine euipped with Berlin 240 as they were toward the end of the war, this would add 20-30 kph getting them very close to the mossie (424 mossie vs 418 Ju88Gs). The radar was great, but both the mossie and widow used the same one.

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:
54301

[NachtPiloten]

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]

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.

[swpierce]

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?

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]

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.

And this is also a very good point!

[Mathias]

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.

[lewis11777]

Hi Lewis,
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.

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]

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!!!!
thanks for the information!

[swpierce]

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.

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