ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
On paper the FW109 looks much better, but most of the GER aces flew ME109's. Reason was that the ME109 had better rollrate and tighter turn circle. FW109 was faster and tougher, but not as nimble. Further, data on roll rates and turn rates doesn't exist for most of the planes of the era. So, instead, gamers have to quantify what they can and some planes get reputations in game that are not consistent with how they actually performed in the war. P-39 is one of those that generally gets pretty slammed. Oh well.
Sorry but this is simply wrong.
The 190 was famous for having the best rollrate in the whole european theatre. The standard evasive maneuvre in a 190 was to roll it on its back and split-S away
which worked perfectly against the lower wing-loaded british aircraft - until the arrival of the first P-47 squads that were able to outdive the 190.
The reason for most German aces choosing to remain with the 109 airframe, which was from design outdated in late ´42, was simply that they got used to handle
this aircraft to its absolute limit. they all had 1000´s of hours flight experience on the 109 and knew it better than anything else.
to quote RAF Air Marshall Sholto Douglas in 1942:
"We are now in a position of inferiority. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of my fighter pilots that the FW190 is the best fighter in the world today."
they were, simply put, two different approaches to fighter design.
the 109 being a good overall dogfighter while the 190 was a class A energy fighter.
the differences between P39s and P40s are much smaller in these aspects.
LoBaron,
Not disputing anything you say, but you're missing 2/3 of the war. Typical western mistake.
From the USA and UK perspective, due to the type of fighting they did, the FW-190 was the very best. It was the foremost energy fighter of the war by many expert opinions. From the SOV perspective, they considered the FW-190 a sitting duck. It was not a dogfighter. It did not have good 'deck' performance.
Most of the GER aces were on the East not West front, and they preferred the Me. Very few exceptions, if any. You may be correct in that it was due to the time they had in the airframe, I haven't chatted with any of them so I cannot know the answer. OTOH, it may be due to the reputed fact, from both GER and SOV sources that the ME was a far superior dogfighter which is what was needed in the East.
Again, your reference to roll-rates is correct against the armament wing-mounted fighters in the West. In the East, the roll-rate did not compare at all to the Yak or Me designs with most/all of the weapons mounted c/l or inboard against the fuselage.
For the P-39, the SOV typically removed the wing guns to further enhance its already unmatchable rollrate. They also, somehow, fixed the problems with the 37mm cannon, because that is what the No.2 Sov ace used. He had all the other guns removed to lighten and improve the performance.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... lchart.jpg
Ok i know that this chart does not contain the 109 but it gives you a picture of the average and the 190 comes out on top by more than a margin, except for the clipped-wing
spitfire which lacked any performance in other areas and was reduced to ground support roles shortly after better solutions became available.
The P39´s roll rate is below even some of the wing-mounted western types.
wing mounted guns (except for the big cannon pods the Germans used against bomber formations) had only marginal impact, more important was the wingload/control surface are.
You were absolutely correct that i was referring more to the western than the eastern front but i just wanted to point out the better rollrate compared to the 109.
Not counting in version differences the 190 was better in roll, dive and firepower.
the 109 had a smaller (sustained) turn radius and retained E better in (sustained) turns - which was probably
another reason why they were preferred on the eastern front where thing often ended in low-level turn fights.
I totally agree with you that the areas where the 190´s excelled were of no (or much less) importance on the eastern front but it wasnt the 109´s roll rate that
made the difference there. it was good but tended to deteriorate fast with increased speed.
Also interesting on this chart is the below par rollrate of the Zero which in fact was a direct result of the low wing load (very little weight compared to a huge wing area)
