Maneuverability vs Speed

[GregP]

The P-51D was and is a lot of things, but slouch doesn't fit anywhere in there.

There were two setups for the ailerons; one had 50% more travel at the tip ... 10° and 15° up and down travel. It also had enough power reserve to make the performance numbers change drastically. If you were flying with 150 PN fuel and didn't mind really pushing your engine, you could get quite sparkling performance from it. Most of the time, getting book numbers was easy. It's only real weakness was slow-speed maneuverability, where it wasn't the best steed to be using.

It wasn't ever going to win many dogfights at 180 mph. But stay above 280 mph and the P-51D was one of the better ones. Really, it was wanting to be above 300 mph in a fight. So, it was never going to out-duel a Zero at 200 mph, but it also wasn't likely to be IN that fight in the first place. P-51D pilots stayed fast when they could do so.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

That's what I'm wondering about, is how much more performance (especially climb rate and such), came with the higher boost levels allowed late war. You have to remember that the P-51H was typically only about 600-700 lbs lighter than the D under the same specs, but both were allowed 80-81" Hg dry (the V-1650-7 didn't have ADI like the -9 did), while the -9 in the H had ADI that allowed 90" Hg.

And the Mustang being agile at high speeds, that was typical of fighters evolving during World War II. I do remember reading that the Zero and Ki-43 actually had their maneuverability deteriorate if they were pushed much above 270-280 mph, and at 300+mph their controls were almost set in concrete, while most Allied fighters thrived at those speeds or higher.

The P-51 (at least until you got to the Lightweights) may not have been Spitfire agile, but the Merlin P-51s carried twice the fuel (and that's just the main wing tanks) of the Spitfire, and aside from the unarmed PR Spits, name a British fighter that could fly and fight it's way from Berlin to back, or even beyond? Maybe the Hawker Tempest, but that's iffy, and the Mustang was smaller and more agile as far as I know.

 

[PAT303]

name a British fighter that could fly and fight it's way from Berlin to back, or even beyond?

Been done to death mate, giving the Spit long legs would have been easy but having the likes of Portal saying a long range fighter couldn't compete with an interceptor made sure it would never happen, even after P51's entered service.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-51 (at least until you got to the Lightweights) may not have been Spitfire agile

The P-51D/K was incredibly agile at higher speeds.

The only aircraft that could outfight a P-51 in a high-speed turning fight, was the Me262.

 

[SplitRz]

The P-51D/K was incredibly agile at higher speeds.

The only aircraft that could outfight a P-51 in a high-speed turning fight, was the Me262.

'Only'! That word!

Wasn't the Tempest - a renowned 262 killer - be as capable in this aspect (if not more?) as the P51 at its respective rated altitude?

 

[GrauGeist]

'Only'! That word!

Wasn't the Tempest - a renowned 262 killer - be as capable in this aspect (if not more?) as the P51 at its respective rated altitude?

At higher altitudes, where the P-51D and Me262 were in their element, the Tempest would not be as fearsome as it was at lower to medium altitudes.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And even at low alt. with high boost, the P-51B/D was as fast or faster than the Tempest. A P-51B or D on 25 lbs boost (or 80-81" Hg) was capable of about 400 mph at sea level. That was about 10 mph faster than the Tempest V or even the DH Hornet. Also, at the same 80" the P-51H was no faster or barely faster (though the -9 Packard Merlin was a high altitude engine, the -7 was a medium alt. engine), and the -9 was cleared for 90" with ADI.

The Tempest was limited above 20K ft due to the Sabre using a single stage supercharger.

 

[WARSPITER]

The Tempest's shortcomings didn't really worry the RAF as they had the Griffon Spitfire for shooting other aircraft down.

 

[Ovod]

And even at low alt. with high boost, the P-51B/D was as fast or faster than the Tempest. A P-51B or D on 25 lbs boost (or 80-81" Hg) was capable of about 400 mph at sea level. That was about 10 mph faster than the Tempest V or even the DH Hornet. Also, at the same 80" the P-51H was no faster or barely faster (though the -9 Packard Merlin was a high altitude engine, the -7 was a medium alt. engine), and the -9 was cleared for 90" with ADI.

The Tempest was limited above 20K ft due to the Sabre using a single stage supercharger.

That may certainly be true, but the Tempest was certainly fast enough to shoot down over 600 jet-propelled V-1 cruise missiles.

 

[SaparotRob]

That may certainly be true, but the Tempest was certainly fast enough to shoot down over 600 jet-propelled V-1 cruise missiles.

I didn't know the number was that high.

 

[GrauGeist]

Flying straight and level to intercept a V-1 is not the same as mixing it up with an adversary.

 

[Ovod]

I didn't know the number was that high.

Well certainly quite a few hundred V-1s were shot down. by the Tempest. Even more buzz bombs were shot down by the DH Mosquito.

Flying straight and level to intercept a V-1 is not the same as mixing it up with an adversary.

What I always found interesting is the fact that shooting down a V-1 missile is not really considered a real kill, compared to shooting down a manned aircraft. I mean, here you have an enemy aircraft that's homing onto the heart of the nation - it's capital city - London, and almost certainly about to cause death and injury to the civilian population. It must surely be the top priority of the hour for the British armed forces, in their entirety, to stop such a menace from reaching it's target.

I don't think V-1 kills were considered as real combat victories when pilots are having their aerial victories tally calculated, is this true?

 

[yulzari]

Flying straight and level to intercept a V-1 is not the same as mixing it up with an adversary.

But that is exactly what is needed to avoid 600 tons of HE falling on your people. In the speed v manoeuvrability OP matter only speed matters in the campaign to protect the UK from many hundreds of tons of HE being thrown at your people. It is something of an amateur popular USA perspective to see it as of little relevance. The first bombs fell on Britain in 1940 and it continued for the next seven years. I doubt if the USA folk would see it as not significant if they were being bombed for seven years. Even artillery shells were being fired at Kent from1940 to 1944. Not mention the V1 and V2 attacks upon Antwerp. The US fighter and AA authorities were very aware of the issues and played a part in the later part of the war, especially in the defence of Antwerp by AA fire.

What I am saying is that the split between speed and manoeuvrability depends not only on the airframes but also the context. An Auster needs its agility to avoid air attacks and prosecute the war with accurate artillery fire but has no chance of catching an Me262; but it has no need to . A Hawker Tempest would be almost useless for the Auster task but has a reasonable history of downing Me262s. Horses for courses and the courses differ wildly.

 

[Greg Boeser]

But that is exactly what is needed to avoid 600 tons of HE falling on your people. In the speed v manoeuvrability OP matter only speed matters in the campaign to protect the UK from many hundreds of tons of HE being thrown at your people. It is something of an amateur popular USA perspective to see it as of little relevance. The first bombs fell on Britain in 1940 and it continued for the next seven years. I doubt if the USA folk would see it as not significant if they were being bombed for seven years. Even artillery shells were being fired at Kent from1940 to 1944. Not mention the V1 and V2 attacks upon Antwerp. The US fighter and AA authorities were very aware of the issues and played a part in the later part of the war, especially in the defence of Antwerp by AA fire.

What I am saying is that the split between speed and manoeuvrability depends not only on the airframes but also the context. An Auster needs its agility to avoid air attacks and prosecute the war with accurate artillery fire but has no chance of catching an Me262; but it has no need to . A Hawker Tempest would be almost useless for the Auster task but has a reasonable history of downing Me262s. Horses for courses and the courses differ wildly.

No bombs fell on England in 1946 or '47.
UXO continues to be found to this day.

 

[yulzari]

No bombs fell on England in 1946 or '47.
UXO continues to be found to this day.

Duly edited. Not wearing my reading glasses whilst counting fingers……

 

[SplitRz]

Flying straight and level to intercept a V-1 is not the same as mixing it up with an adversary.

No, but the Tempest was demonstrably fast enough AND manoeuvrable enough to do both - and did, didn't it (?)

 

[GrauGeist]

Only 155 (+/-) Me262s were downed by Allied action.

The majority of Tempest kills on the Me262 were during "Rat Scrambles", where the Tempests ambushed Me262s in the landing pattern. That tactic was short lived, though, as the Germans switched to heavy AA to protect the airfield and pattern.

The bulk of 262s downed in action, were by P-51s.

 

[SplitRz]

At higher altitudes, where the P-51D and Me262 were in their element, the Tempest would not be as fearsome as it was at lower to medium altitudes.

And fearsome it was.

"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."

(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)

 

[BarnOwlLover]

That may certainly be true, but the Tempest was certainly fast enough to shoot down over 600 jet-propelled V-1 cruise missiles.

And Mustang IIIs (P-51B/C) shot down almost as many, using the performance mods I mentioned (later eventually applied to USAAF P-51s). Even the Mosquito shot down over 600 V1s.

 

[SplitRz]

And Mustang IIIs (P-51B/C) shot down almost as many, using the performance mods I mentioned (later eventually applied to USAAF P-51s). Even the Mosquito shot down over 600 V1s.

This issue has been discussed at length before (see link one). And whilst I can't comment on the accuracy of these tables - there are obvious disparities between sources -, they don't seem to my understanding to back up what you claim there. 'Sprint' Mustang iiis were certainly fast and effective, but the number of V1s they shot down did not approach that of the Tempests.

1 - Old thread from ww2aircraft.net V1s Shotdown

2 - Wikipedia quotes the following figures:

In daylight, V-1 chases were often chaotic failures until a special defence zone between London and the coast was declared in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and mid-August 1944, the handful of Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs. One Tempest pilot, Squadron Leader Joseph Berry of No. 501 (Tempest) Squadron, destroyed fifty-nine V-1s and Beamont destroyed 31. Next most successful was the Mosquito (428), Spitfire XIV (303) and Mustang, (232). All other types combined added 158. The experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, was rushed half-ready into service in July 1944 to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from unreliable armament and accounted for only 13.

As far as I can see, near 600 successful interceptions for both Mustang and Mosquito figures are way, way out.

Do you have some alternative sources and links for those numbers to back up the assertion both types also shot down near 600 V1s each?