# best combination of manuverabilty and speed in an allied...



## MacArther (Jan 14, 2006)

Plane. This does not include the Italains after the Amistice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

I go with the Spitfire, not sure which model yet, have to think about it, but I would go as far as saying the Spitfire was the most maueverable and it had pretty impressive speed as well. After that I would go with the P-38.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 14, 2006)

Simple. My choice: P-80.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

I dont know, I think the P-80 is a good choice however I think the Spitfire had the better combination of both speed and maneuverability.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

What about the Corsair? It had tremedous rate of climb and dive speeds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

Ill agree with you that the Corsair was a great aircraft, but there was not much that coudl turn with a Spit and the dive problems were fixed on the late model spits.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 14, 2006)

I would say it was the Spitfire followed by the P-38 or the F-4U. As for the version of the Spitfire I would go for one of the later war versions, probably the MKXIV, although others were also good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

I agree with you, I am tryign to figure out which varient of the Spit I would go for.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 14, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I would say it was the Spitfire followed by the P-38 or the F-4U. As for the version of the Spitfire I would go for one of the later war versions, probably the MKXIV, although others were also good.



I can see that, except at very low speeds where the P-38 doesn't have to worry about the stall.

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 14, 2006)

Mk VIII Spitfire with a Merlin tuned to "Basta" modification (+ 25 lbs boost). Only a couple of squadrons worth converted before the end of the war, but it was an absloute ball tearer down low.

Not as fast as the later Mk XIV but still pretty ferocious and probably a tad more manouverable in the turn. RAF testing had it doing 362 mph at 0 feet, 409 mph at 14,000 feet and 405 mph at 25,000 feet.

The climb rate was phenomenal though. 5,580 feet/minute at 0 feet and it held a 5000 fpm climb rate up to 11,000 feet. It was still doing over 4,000 feet per minute at 17,500 feet!

Next choice is an odd one, but it's the P-51A/Mustang II. Not a high altitude fighter, but below 15,000 feet it beats the Typhoon and FW-190 for sheer speed and manouverability. Very good alieron roll, reasonable climb (4,600 fpm off the deck) and capable of doing 409 mph at 11,000 feet!


----------



## Udet (Jan 14, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Mk VIII Spitfire with a Merlin tuned to "Basta" modification (+ 25 lbs boost). Only a couple of squadrons worth converted before the end of the war, but it was an absloute ball tearer down low.
> 
> Not as fast as the later Mk XIV but still pretty ferocious and probably a tad more manouverable in the turn. RAF testing had it doing 362 mph at 0 feet, 409 mph at 14,000 feet and 405 mph at 25,000 feet.
> 
> ...




British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and 

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

All tests full of mistakes and speculations. 

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII? 

Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 14, 2006)

8) Jet age rules!
I would like to staywith the P-80, it´s definetely not the best maneuvering plane but it was the fastest (and even had a reasonable agility) by much.
However if we exclude the jets, my next favourite would be the F8 Bearcat closely followed by the wonderful Spitfire (MK IVX)...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2006)

You either mean the Spitfire XIV or XVI because IVX isn't a real number.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2006)

I think you will find that 1,658 Spit VIII;s were built. It was stronger than the Spit IX, had a longer range and was standard issue in the Far East.

As an aside why does everyone thnk that the British were bad at testing aircraft. 
We had more reason than most to test planes properly, had the gumption to set up the worlds first test pilot school in 1942 and set up standard testing criteria to ensure a level playing field.
There were a number of 109's tested from the E onwards so I don't know where scarce came from.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2006)

People don't, Glider, Udet does. He has this unhealthy dislike of the British military system during World War II. Even more to the point he dislikes the Spitfire, he cannot believe that something so good could have come from the Allied forces. After all, we are talking about a person who believes 90% of the war stories are Allied propaganda - hell, maybe he thinks Germany won the war and we've got Iraqs propaganda minister working for us. 

"The Allies have not entered Berlin!"


----------



## book1182 (Jan 14, 2006)

I would go with the P-51H if it made the war. I would like the Typhoon or the Tempest down low and a high flying spit.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 14, 2006)

I'm taking a different route and suggesting the Ta-152H... At the altitude it was designed to fight at it was unmatched... Even the best Russian fighters couldnt match it at low altitude....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 14, 2006)

would have blasted the hell out of those mustangs, and the me262s would blast the bombers....

anyways why is ur siggy always about shot up luftwaffe planes or something?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 14, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I'm taking a different route and suggesting the Ta-152H... At the altitude it was designed to fight at it was unmatched... Even the best Russian fighters couldnt match it at low altitude....


I did not know the Ta152H was an Allied a/c.

Up to 20k the Tempest was 'unbeatable' and 4 20mm helped.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

The P47D-25 was no slouch at 30,000 ft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 14, 2006)

> I did not know the Ta152H was an Allied a/c.


Doh!!!


----------



## Hop (Jan 15, 2006)

> British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:
> 
> (a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and
> 
> (b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.



There were of course others used in tests, including a 109E3, a clean G2, etc.

But how does the fact that the RAF had a limited number of captured 109s to test mean their tests were not reliable?



> All tests full of mistakes and speculations.



Of captured aircraft? Of course. Captured aircraft don't come with manuals, or mechanics, or the right fuel, and the pilots tend to be fairly uncooperative. 

But that affects all countries. The US, for example, claimed after initial tests that the Corsair rolled as fast, or faster, than the Fw 190. The British tests showed much higher roll rate for the 190.



> Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?



They didn't. Over 1500 Spitfire VIIIs were made, they served with large numbers of squadrons, including some USAAF ones.



> orrect, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?



957, iirc.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 15, 2006)

Spit Mx XIV for me


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 15, 2006)

Udet said:


> British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:
> 
> (a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and
> 
> (b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.




The British captured and tested over 20 different Bf 109s, and also tested several other Bf 109s captured by French and American forces during the war. Most of the Allied testing lines up reasonably well in its conclusions over the war period. 

I wouldn't doubt the RAF's testing of its own equipment. It was done in order to best understand the aircraft it was operating, not so you could dispute it on the internet.



> All tests full of mistakes and speculations.



I'm sure they were. German and Italian tests of British equipment would be similarly flawed. Its part of not having perfect knowledge about your enemy and his standards and operating procedures. However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much.




> Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?



Mostly because the MTO/PTO was a secondary theatre to the RAF after 1944 and there was a slow conversion over to the Basta modification. I said 'a couple' because I didn't have an absoulte reference on numbers. When I checked it seems like 244, 322 and 324 Wings, at a minimum, converted thier squadrons to Basta modifications in late 1944/early 1945. So that gives about 12 Mk VIII squadrons in the MTO on +25lbs. 



> Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?



There were about 275 mk XIVs built post war, so approximately 700 were built before VJ day.

Wartime service there were 10 squadrons fully equipped with F Mk. XIV or FR Mk. XIV, with the first missions in May 1944. So that's 10 squadrons x 20 aircraft each = 200 airframes, without counting losses or accidents. Plus there were the 2 squadrons who converted in May 1945 and 2 squadrons sent to India in June 1945, and 2 squadrons who operated the type in conjunction with other planes for low-level tactical recon.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 15, 2006)

There was more Mk XIVs than there ever was 1.98ata K-4s which only appeared in the last month or two of WW2.


----------



## Glider (Jan 15, 2006)

Glider said:


> I think you will find that 1,658 Spit VIII;s were built. It was stronger than the Spit IX, had a longer range and was standard issue in the Far East.
> 
> As an aside why does everyone thnk that the British were bad at testing aircraft.
> We had more reason than most to test planes properly, had the gumption to set up the worlds first test pilot school in 1942 and set up standard testing criteria to ensure a level playing field.
> There were a number of 109's tested from the E onwards so I don't know where scarce came from.



I will rephrase the first line of the second para. 
As an aside Udet, why do you think that the British were bad at testing aircraft


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 15, 2006)

#1: F8F Bearcat
#2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)

=S= 

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

Udet said:


> British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:
> 
> (a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and
> 
> ...



And I guarantee you German testing of allied equipment was just as flawed. It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.



plan_D said:


> People don't, Glider, Udet does. He has this unhealthy dislike of the British military system during World War II. Even more to the point he dislikes the Spitfire, he cannot believe that something so good could have come from the Allied forces. After all, we are talking about a person who believes 90% of the war stories are Allied propaganda - hell, maybe he thinks Germany won the war and we've got Iraqs propaganda minister working for us.
> 
> "The Allies have not entered Berlin!"


    
And these arguments of his are getting very very very old.



Lunatic said:


> #1: F8F Bearcat
> #2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)



I will agree with you on that and say F8F Bearcat and Spit Mk. 21. When I said the Spitfire at first I was not thinking of the later generation of aircraft the allies produced. Ill go with the Bearcat and the Spitfire Mk. 21 as second. I think overall throught the whole war the Spitfire represented the Allies in this catagory the best.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 15, 2006)

I'd go with a Tempest at any altitude but especially down low, if it counted, the Fury


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 15, 2006)

I don't buy the F8F, it was certainly a good aircraft but it was far to limited. It was never used during the war and more importantly, it was a point defense aircraft only.

I'll stick with the Spitfire/P-38 combo. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

And that I will buy also. That was a good point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2006)

Spit/ P-38 for me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

That is what I think I am going back to.


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 16, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I don't buy the F8F, it was certainly a good aircraft but it was far to limited. It was never used during the war and more importantly, it was a point defense aircraft only.
> 
> I'll stick with the Spitfire/P-38 combo.
> 
> wmaxt



Range of the F8F was comprable to that of the Spitfire. Like the Spitfire, the F8F was an interceptor not a patrol/escort plane.

I agree it never saw combat, but it was fully deployed during the war and like the P-51H and F7F suffered from lack of imperative rather than lack of availability. The US just had no imperative to rush these newer types into combat like the British, Germans, and Japanese did near the end of the war.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2006)

> It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.



I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2006)

> It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.



I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

Maybe because it was proven even by Japanese pilots. The Zero was a good plane but she was not all she was made out to be.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 16, 2006)

Hmmm.

to say 
'A US (or respectively German or UK) test pilot probably can not squeeze the same performances out of a foreign plane (say respectively a Zero, Mustang or Bf109) that a similarly skilled but more trained-on-the-type pilot can achieve' 

has nothing to do with the absolute quality of the plane (Zero, P51 or Bf109)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

No the quality of the plane was very good, but in combat it was outclassed. Its armament was outlcassed, its armour was outclassed and in the end its speed was outclassed.


----------



## Udet (Jan 16, 2006)

I am going to have me some action here, finally. Things were getting quite cozy in here.

First off, I proceded to discard Mr. Plan_D´s comments off hand for they are of no value or use.

Secondly, mr. Der Adler and his hilarious opinions. What makes you think only you can find others funny eh?

Whatever the result of German testing of allied craft might have been is meaningless. Why? Very simple: such testings have not been presented as any sort of alleged testimony of the superiority of the German hardware -the way the Brits have done it with their own-.



Mr. Glider:

I do know how many Mk. VIIIs were made. I was referring to that particular model Mr. Jabberwocky pointed in his comment: a +25 lbs boost, the "Basta" modification of the Merlin engine.

He first failed to mention what was the strenght of a RAF squadron. But then he said a 20 aircraft squadron.

If only 2 squadrons were fitted with such variant, its contribution was insignificant. 

But I will make the update, following his freshest comment: if some 12 squadrons were fitted with the model its contribution is still above marginal, when by the time, the P-51s and P-47s were roaming the skies of Europe by the thousands.

Glider: the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists come from the ones carried out with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 fitted with underwing cannons. It was a Wilde Sau fighter who landed intact in a British airfield.

Go see the performance graphs of a noted Mike Williams and you will find what I mean.


Mr. Krazy Kaniuk:

Quote: 
_There was more Mk XIVs than there ever was 1.98ata K-4s which only appeared in the last month or two of WW2._

Correct. And?

Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs? 


So Mr. Jabber, they tested "over 20 different 109s". Questions:

(1) Where are the results of such testings to be found? 
(2) Do you have copies of such testings that you can share? 
(3) Have you seen the sheets?

Quote:

_"However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much."_

With the battle results of RAF vs Luftwaffe -before the full assembly of the 8th and 15th- I do not think the Brits quite got them. 

Post-war production? There is no relevance in that. I am interested on how those machines fared against the Luftwaffe.

The vaunted and glorified Spitfire Mk XIV which was produced in very modest numbers to say to the least.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 16, 2006)

As well as range wasn´t part of the question. It all belongs to agility and speed, so the F8F is a reasonable choice.


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2006)

Udet said:


> Glider: the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists come from the ones carried out with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 fitted with underwing cannons. It was a Wilde Sau fighter who landed intact in a British airfield.
> 
> Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?
> 
> ...



Interesting choice of words. 'the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists' 
I suspect thay you are talking rubbish. The UK had a steady stream of 109's to test. You seem to assume that we only tested one. I know it was a wild Sau but so what. Does that mean mean that we couldn't test it? I take it you have evidence that the British only tested one or two

As for the K4 dgofighting with a Spit yes the Spit would have my money as the 109 had well known and severe problems with its controls getting heavy at high spead. The Spit had its moments but not as bad as a 109.

The Spit 14 was produced in decent numbers but a Mk IX had a decent chance against a K4. You also seem to forget that the 109G was the most produced version. 

You also seem to have forgotten my comments about the Test Pilot school. Your statement was that the british couldn't test aircraft ad were buiased. I was pointing out that we took it seriously enough at the height of the war when it was by no means won to set up a special school to look into this special skill.
If the Germans were so good can you give me the details of a German equivalent?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 16, 2006)

As for adding to the Spit I would also go for the XII and Seafire F-47:

In 1942/43 (Can't remember which one as I'm not at home and Haven't got: The Spitfire Story Book by Alfred Price), but they had a race at deck level with a Typhoon a Fw-190 and a Spitfire...........They thought they were gonna get a clapped out old Spit V, but got the Spit XII Prototype........the Spit won by miles and at the time in the war was unbeatable on the deck.

As for the Seafire F-47, crap at low speed but at high speed nothing could really touch it 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 16, 2006)

> Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?


Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2006)

P-51K


----------



## Udet (Jan 16, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> > Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?
> 
> 
> Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.



Really? Can you please provide a list Spitfire Mk. IX aces, and the number of Bf 109s they shot down?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 16, 2006)

I would of thought that out of all the spits invovled the Spit XIv would of been better. Ok, only a bit faster then the IX low down, but


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> > Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?
> 
> 
> Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.



The vast majority of pilots that flew for Germany were very unseasoned during Bodenplatte. Most Of the experienced Germans were used as flight leaders just to get them on target and tell them what to do. Most of those who were shot down by allied planes were green pilots. Comparing the SpitIX and 109 from then and saying that it was nothing but Spit IX being a better plane is not true statement. You want to compare Spit vs 109 its hard. BOB the British were going for the bombers mostly and had higher losses vs the 109 then was true fair to compare. During 41-42 when Britain attacked targets in France the Germans in 109 layed a serous beating of the British planes (Spits alot of them) and the Germans were going mostly for bombers also then and were vastly out numbered. So if you want to compare Spit to 109 that would alot fairer. Both sides had trained crews both had negatives of their side of one kind or another. It is a ageless arguement 109 or Spit, hard to compare fairly at any time. Fun to try. If it was me I would choose the 109 forsure.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 16, 2006)

Udet said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > > Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?
> ...



Don't have to be aces.  

#2 in XIVs got a K-4
#401 in IXs got *4* 109s
#403 in XIVs got *3* 109s
#414 in IXs got *3* 109s

IXs - 7, XIVs - 4

Could be more but I wasted enough time.

LOL, even the Typhoon got some 109s.

A total of *22* 109 Gs and Ks lost to RAF fighters. 

It was IXs from 401 which got the 1st CW 262. 

ps @ hunter. Most IXs were fighter bombers so would have only basic combat fighter experience.


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2006)

Nearly all British and Commonwealth Aces flew Spits so take your pick. 

Hunter makes some good points but one question is 'If the late 109's were that good, why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190'?'


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2006)

Glider said:


> Nearly all British and Commonwealth Aces flew Spits so take your pick.
> 
> Hunter makes some good points but one question is 'If the late 109's were that good, why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190'?'



Actually the vast majority of German aces preferred the 109, especially the top aces. Important difference there.


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2006)

it was not preference but what was offered to them in their Geschwaders


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Udet said:
> 
> 
> > KraziKanuK said:
> ...



While the Spit is a good plane like I said comparing the Spit and the 109 in this battle is not fair. I have read articles from Allies pilots who did get in the air and they said most of the Germans didn't even make any evasive maneuvers when they attacked them, or the German pilots just jumped out of their plane as soon as their were in a disadvantageous position. They simply didn't know what to do when a enemy got on their tail. Like I said, all I am saying comparing the Spit to the 109 based on this air combat is not fair. Would you think comparing Spit losses to 109 losses when the British were attacking France in 41-42 was fair ? If you do you are in for a big surprise. Brit loss alot more Spit than Germans lost 109. Not trying to start a pissing fight but it is hard to compare the two fairly.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2006)

Erich said:


> it was not preference but what was offered to them in their Geschwaders



Eric I have read where some Aces were able to delay their a/c being changed or get their choice of a/c they wanted, most of the time no but a few top aces I think were able to from what I have read. Do you agree that most of the top aces flew 109s?


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2006)

at one time or the other.

Hartmann's JG 52 never had Fw's available to them, only 109's

Barkhorn flew both as well as the Dora 9 in JG 6

Rall flew a combination of craft, 109 in JG 300 though he had the Dora 9 offered to him but he layed low and did no op flying while as Geschwader Kommodore of JG 300. He flew the Me 262 after war

Kittel flew both and prefered the 190

Nowotny flew both and died in the Me 262

Rudirffer flew both and ended flying the Me 262

Bär flew both and prefered the 190 and ended the war in the Me 262

Graf flew both

Weissenberer flew the 109 and then Me 262

Phillip flew both, died in the Fw 190

Schuck flew in JG 5's Bf 109 only unit and then Me 262 at wars end

on it goes...


----------



## Udet (Jan 16, 2006)

Mr. KrazyKanuk:

Well, this might be the last time I waste my time in responding to you.

Now I am moving away from technical data sheets which appear to be the specialty of several guys here. Now the hardest of the facts: battle record.

Yours was an interesting evasive action: "they do not have to be aces..."

22 Bf 109 Gs and Ks? Not what you can call a fruitful harvest when one knows of the number of German fighters deployed for the operation.

But back in business wasting my time with you:

Possibly so, they do not have to be aces...the point is that wherever you look, whatever the period or phase of the war you pick, you name it: Battle of Britain, 1941, 1942, 1943, pre D-day 1944, post D-day 1944, the Bf 109 produced far more aces than any of its contemporary Spitfire ever came close to achieve during each period.

Major Helmut Wick during the Battle of Britain alone shot down 25 Spitfires. This, during a time when the Germans had high losses operating over enemy territory, and still no Spitfire pilot shot down what you can call a significant number of Bf 109 E.

"Johnnie" Johnson shot down 38 German planes within a period of 3 years.

So Mr. Crazy, differences are substantial as you might perceive.

To make the long story short, you should have learned by now that if you claim the Spitfire to have been such a wonderfully flawless fighter -clearly superior to most German designs-, superior virtually throughout the entire war, such fact, by force, should have produced a vast number of British aces with numbers of kills that at least should scratch the records of the German aces.

But no. Such aces do not exist. Noble Marmaduk (south africa)? If I recall correctly he never flew Spitfires, the fact is he got shot down and killed early in the war by a Bf 110 -another one of the planes the allies have portrayed as "doomed"-.

Where are the aces of fighter force that was in a state of war the entire duration of WWII -nearly 6 years-? Furthermore, where are those aces who flew, according to your words, a plane that virtually surpassed most -if not all- German designs?

Something must be very rotten around here.

The brunt of the fighter war over Europe in 1944-45 was carried out by the P-51s, P-47s and P-38s, the Jug more importantly.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 16, 2006)

Ginger Lacy got 11 109E's in the BoB

Archie McKellar got 9 109E's

"Cocky" Dundas got 6 109E's.

Josef Frantisek got 8 109E's (in Hurricanes ) 

Gordon Sinclair got 4 109'E's


Fighter Command (and 2TAF, ADGB and 100 Group) fighter claims in the ETO alone were evaluted post war as ~10,700. Given that there were over 18,000 fighter pilots that fought under Fighter Command and various British fighter organisations in the war period, its hardly suprising that there weren't scads of high scoring individuals. RAF pilots saw far less fighter on fighter action than their German counterparts. If you put Johnny Johnston, or Ginger Lacy or Marmaduke Patel or Johnny Bladwin or Edgar Barwell in the same situation as Galland or Wick or Lang or Marseille or Priller, their scores would of been somewhat similar.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 16, 2006)

RAF Spitfire Claims for 1/1/1945

2 Sqn (Mk XIV): 2 Destroyed
308 Sqn (Mk IX): 13 Destroyed
317 Sqn (Mk IX): 5 Destroyed, 1 probably destroyed, 4 damaged
401 Sqn (Mk IX): 8 Destroyed, 1 probably destroyed, 3 damaged
403 Sqn (Mk XIV): 8 Destroyed, 1 damaged
411 Sqn (Mk IX): 2 Destroyed
412 Sqn (Mk IX): 7 Destroyed, 1 damaged
414 Sqn (Mk IX): 3 Destroyed, 1 damaged
610 Sqn (Mk XIV): 1 Destroyed

Total aerial claims: 49 destroyed, 2 probably destroyed, 10 damaged.

Aerial losses: 

2 Sqn: 2 MIA, 1 Cat. E
308 Sqn: 4 Cat. E, 1 KIA
317 Sqn: 1 Cat. E
403 Sqn: 2 Cat. E
412 Sqn: 1 MIA
414 Sqn: 2 Cat. E


Total aerial losses: 13 Spitfires lost, 2 pilots KIA, 1 pilot MIA (412 Spitfire IX pilot shot down by flak and captured on afternoon sortie)

USAAF claims were 66 Destroyed, 4 probably destroyed and 15 damaged. USAAF combat losses were 29 fighters Cat. E and 8 pilots MIA.

LuftWaffe Pilot losses were

JG 1: 18 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 2: 23 KIA/MIA, 10 PoW, 3 WiA
JG 3: 11 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 2 WiA
JG 4: 16 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 6: 17 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 
JG 11: 22 KIA/MIA, 4 PoW,
JG 26: 12 KIA/MIA, 8 PoW, 4 WiA
JG 53: 10 KIA/MIA, 4 PoW, 6 WiA
JG 54: 7 KIA/MIA, 5 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 77: 6 KIA/MIA, 5 PoW
SG 4: 3 KIA/MIA, 1 PoW

Total pilot losses: 220 KIA/MIA/PoW, 18 WiA

Total fighter losses: 241 destroyed, missing, written off on return.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

Which Spit had the fastest climb rate to 33,000 ft?


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2006)

Für Bodenplatte:

German forces lost 271 a/c with 60-100 %
65 a/c with 0-59% damage

57 MIA
86 KIA
70 POW
21 WIA
102 pilots came away ok

this does not take into account the losses by Ju 88G-1 and G-6 a/c and crews doing pathfinder work.

16 nf crews were either in action or were killed at their airfields due to Allied bombings, 5./NJG 6 being a prime target at Essen-Mülheim AF.

this as the result of the latest research done by Ron Pütz and John Manhro in their Bodenplatte book


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Which Spit had the fastest climb rate to 33,000 ft?




I have no figures for 33,000 feet, but lots for 30,000:

British testing shows that the HF Mk IX (Merlin 70) could get to 30,000 feet in just 7.8 minutes. A HF VII (Merlin 71, only 14 made serving with just 1 squadron) might actually be very slightly faster than that, as its best throttle height is about 2,000 feet higher.

Mk XIV could get to 30,000 feet in 8.3 minutes

A Mk VIII (Merlin 66) could get to 30,000 feet in 8.6 minutes

A standard LF Mk IX (Merlin 66) could get to 30,000 feet in 8.4 minutes

A early Mk IX (Merlin 61) could get to 30,000 feet in 9.2 minutes

A +25 lbs capable Mk VIII/IX would be faster than any of these, having a boost of some 100-800 fpm over the +18 lbs Mk IX, depending on altitude and boost power. I just don't have any hard and fast figures handy. The boost (and climb rate) climb rate advantage gets less and less with altitude, petering out at about 18,000 feet. Still, it should get to 20,000 feet in under 4 and a half minutes  , and climb the same as a standard IX above 18,000.

See this report http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html for more details


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Erich said:


> Für Bodenplatte:
> 
> ........
> 57 MIA
> ...



What became of the 57 MIA? How many dead or POW?


----------



## Hop (Jan 17, 2006)

> Major Helmut Wick during the Battle of Britain alone shot down 25 Spitfires.



Luftwaffe records credit him with 31 kills during the BoB:

16 Spitfires
14 Hurricanes
1 Curtis



> This, during a time when the Germans had high losses operating over enemy territory, and still no Spitfire pilot shot down what you can call a significant number of Bf 109 E.



The problem is, this is during a time when the Luftwaffe were overclaiming like mad. In particular, they were overclaiming Spitfires.

Note Wick's claims, more Spitfires than Hurricanes, despite the fact the Hurricane served in far greater numbers, and suffered far greater losses.

The German version of Jagdwaffe kills in the BoB:

14 Curtiss
23 Defiants
715 Hurricanes
7 Moranes
1239 Spitfires

Actual RAF losses were about 900 single engined fighters (no Moranes or Curtiss types were operated at all). Of that 900, about 60% were Hurricanes, 40% Spitfires. Despite that, the Jagdwaffe claimed far, far more Spitfires than Hurricanes, which some have called "Spitfire snoberry". Bear in mind the 900 figure is for all losses on operations, which includes bomber's defensive fire, collisions etc.

Wick's 17 Spitfires are actually probably closer to 5, if he overclaimed by the same amount as other Luftwaffe pilots at the time.



> To make the long story short, you should have learned by now that if you claim the Spitfire to have been such a wonderfully flawless fighter -clearly superior to most German designs-, superior virtually throughout the entire war, such fact, by force, should have produced a vast number of British aces with numbers of kills that at least should scratch the records of the German aces.



Allied aces operated for restricted tours, in a target poor enviroment, and under a system that didn't reward kills as much as the German system, or structure squadrons so that a single pilot made most of the kills, and the rest were there to protect him.

Stephen Bungay, The Most Dangerous Enemy:

""This was part of the Luftwaffe's emphasis on individual stardom and it had some negative aspects. At the margin, some of the most successful gave the impression that they were after their own glory rather than the success of the unit, and the view became widespread that some of them were building their scores at the expense of their protecting wingmen, the poor old 'Katschmareks'. Ulrich Steinhilper reports on such discussions in JG52 which increased in frequency as the battle continued:
The debates nearly always came back to the subject of battle honours and decorations, mostly prompted by the NCOs who felt more aggrieved than the officers. Why was it, they would ask so often, that the decorations are, in the main, only handed out to those with the highest scores? Wasn't it clear that it was those who were flying ahead and insisting on strong formation discipline around them who were also running up the highest personal scores - almost exactly matched by the losses from their own formations - losing one Katschmarek after another for another white stripe on the tail of their aircraft? And who was it who was suffering the most, they would ask. Of course, it was the NCOs who generally flew at the rear or on the flanks.
Those known to be plagued by a chronic desire to have a Knight's Cross and its various accoutrements (Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds) dangling around their necks were said to be suffering from “Halsweh” (a sore throat). Adolf Galland was one well known sufferer, and he used his position first as Gruppenkomandeur of III/JG26 then as Kommodore of the whole Geschwader to hand pick his wingmen.""




> Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?



Yes. The 1.8 ata K4 would climb worse, turn worse, and have a poor armament for combat against fighters. It's only advantage over the Spitfire XIV would be a marginal dive acceleration advantage.


----------



## Hop (Jan 17, 2006)

> Mr. Glider:
> 
> I do know how many Mk. VIIIs were made. I was referring to that particular model Mr. Jabberwocky pointed in his comment: a +25 lbs boost, the "Basta" modification of the Merlin engine.
> 
> ...



I'm not aware of _any_ Spitfire VIIIs running at 25lbs boost in service. (any evidence to the contrary gratefully received).

The reason for that is that 25 lbs boost required 100/150 grade fuel, and that was limited to Britain, afaik. Spitfire VIIIs, being fitted with extra fuel tanks and tropical filters, didn't serve from Britain, they all went overseas (the Med, Middle and Far East)

However, the Spitfire IX did serve from Britain using 25 lbs boost, and from the end of 1944 used 25 lbs boost on operations from the continent. The instructions for the conversion specified 25 Spitfire IX squadrons (20 aircraft per squadron)

The differences between the Spitfire VIII and IX were minor. The IX was a bit lighter, carried a bit less fuel, and didn't have a retractable tailwheel. Speed, climb, roll and turn were almost identical between the two models.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 17, 2006)

My poor Udet, unlike you I never claim the Spit was the be all, end all of fighter a/c, like you do for the 109s.  LOL, the *uber twins* are now triplets.

The only evasive action was by you because you wondered from the example given > Bodenplatte. That is the usual tactic by those of the *German is uber, all else is crap* ilk.

Not hard to have amassed large numbers of kills when the Germans only had 2 s/e fighter types, unlike the Brits who had to spread the kills among at least 6.

Btw, H Bar flew a Dora during Bodenplatte and had to keep throttling back as the 109G/Ks could not keep up.  Should I also mention the 487th FS in P-51s which took off with *full* wing and fuselage fuel tanks during the attack and desimatted JG11, all at low level. The P-51 is said to be a 'dog' with a full fuel load. So much for your uber 109s.


Jabberwocky, pick up *Bodenplatte* by Monrho/Purz. The most detailed account of Jan 1 1945 yet. ISBN 1-902109-40-6


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2006)

Hop said:


> > Major Helmut Wick during the Battle of Britain alone shot down 25 Spitfires.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just wanted to ask one thing here, are you saying that Germans over claimed more than the British or USA ever did ?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> My poor Udet, unlike you I never claim the Spit was the be all, end all of fighter a/c, like you do for the 109s.  LOL, the *uber twins* are now triplets.
> 
> The only evasive action was by you because you wondered from the example given > Bodenplatte. That is the usual tactic by those of the *German is uber, all else is crap* ilk.
> 
> ...



It is very clear that at this point in the war that German average pilots skill level had dropped off very bad, but a victory over a average German pilot is not the same as a victory over the average German pilot from say 1939-42. Again I say it has less to do with the plane they were flying and more to do with the little training these green pilots have. Both the 109 and Spit are very fine planes.


----------



## Hop (Jan 17, 2006)

> Just wanted to ask one thing here, are you saying that Germans over claimed more than the British or USA ever did ?



No, all sides over claimed. They did it more over enemy territory, when they didn't have ground observers, and when there were large battles. The Luftwaffe spent most of the war fighting over their own airspace, so had more opportunity to check pilot's kill claims.

But in case like the BoB, and fighting over the sea, and deserts, the Luftwaffe overclaimed as much as anyone.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2006)

Hop said:


> > Just wanted to ask one thing here, are you saying that Germans over claimed more than the British or USA ever did ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




100% agree, just wanted to be clear on that one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Udet said:


> I am going to have me some action here, finally. Things were getting quite cozy in here.



And you think you determine how things are in this forum!    
Go home to mommy! 



Udet said:


> Secondly, mr. Der Adler and his hilarious opinions. What makes you think only you can find others funny eh?



Alright let me answer this in 4 parts.

1. *My hilarious opinions?! I AM ENTITLED TO WHATEVER FUCKING OPINIONS I FEEL LIKE, JUST LIKE YOUR STUPID ASS OPINIONS THAT HALF THE TIME HAVE NO WIEGHT OR BEARING BECUASE THEY ARE DISTORTED WITH BIASED ONE SIDED THOUGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!*

2. I decide what I think is funny, not what you want me to think is funny. YOU DONT LIKE THAT, GO POST SOME PLACE ELSE!!!!!!!!!

3. I HAVE NOT INSULTED YOU ONCE YET IN THIS THREAD OR IN THIS FORUM AS A MATTER OF FACT. DONT YOU DARE GO AROUND AND START INSULTING ME!!!!!!!! *COMPARED TO OTHER ADMINS ON HERE, I PLAY THE GOOD COP, HOWEVER IF YOU PISS ME OFF UDET I CAN BECOME THE BIGGEST THORN IN YOUR ASS ON THIS FORUM. DONT MAKE ME BE THE BAD GUY!!!!!!!!!!! *

4. Lastly you have a serious problem on here talking down to people like you are better than them. Stop pretending to be sitting high up in your castle looking down at pesents. You aint that big!!!! You act like you are over compensating for a small Dick!!!! Jesus Christ man I know your 18 so start acting like a man instead of little punk!

Alot of people around here dont like your attitude. Thats right you make opinions of others, well they can do the same to you and frankly they are right. You act like some kind of all being no it all, well I got knews for you there is more knowledge out there than your 18 year old brain can handle!

You feel free to completely dismiss other peoples statements as completly wrong, yet your reasons are completly based off of opinions and not facts. You throw out supposed facts, but know one else has heard of them, but hey you know everyone else is wrong because your 18 year old or 20 year whatever you are, has been there, done that, and knows more than anyone else. Maybe that works that way in Mexico or in your RICH LITTLE DADDIES WORLD THAT YOU LIVE IN, BUT NOT IN THE REAL WORLD! 

RESPECT IS EARNED NOT GIVEN UDET!!!!!!!! EARN IT IF YOU WANT IT!!!


----------



## MacArther (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes, please don't mess with admins (see:anywhere) on the site. Der is a good source for critique, as well as administration, so lay off. Sorry, if I butted in, but it had to be said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Thankyou McArther I appreciate it.

It is funny I rarely get mad at people on this forum and as a matter of fact I think I get along with most people on this forum.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 17, 2006)

> I CAN BECOME THE BIGGEST THORN IN YOUR ASS ON THIS FORUM



Actually, I can be a bigger one, seeing as I am literally a large thorn  But you get the idea.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. KrazyKanuk:
> 
> Well, this might be the last time I waste my time in responding to you.
> 
> ...



See there you go, talking to him like you own him and are better than him. You constantly say you are wasting your time talking to him. *If we here are waisting your time, then go and post in another forum.* If you do not like talking to us because we are a waste of time, go and post someplace else. *If you dont like us, you are not welcome here, go someplace else!*


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 17, 2006)

Adler "believe" is spelt wrong it should be believe not belive...

I will agree admins can be very annoying...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2006)

i've never really had a problem with them, apart from the time CC changed my profile to say i'm gay


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Adler "believe" is spelt wrong it should be believe not belive...
> 
> I will agree admins can be very annoying...



Ooops!  When I type pissed off, I type Ueber fast and make mistakes and dont go back and retype them!

You agree that admins can be annoying? Damn man I am sorry that we annoy you!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 17, 2006)

You don't annoy me but you (all - maybe not CC) are firm when neccessary (remember I moderate too...)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2006)

how did you get mod powers?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Oh I see what you mean, you are on WW2 Talk right. I see the link now at the bottom.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2006)

Udet,

I may of started out here on this forum on the wrong foot alittle but I have made my amens for that. Treat everyone one here as a equal and with respect and they will do like wise. Having different opinions is fine just express them respectfully, I love to debate more than anyone. Chris (Adler), Evan, Eric, even Les (he might come across alittle crazy at times but he is very fair, he just tells it as it is, I respect that), any of the other admins here that I have not mentioned sorry I just have not talked alot with you meaning no disrespect, they are all very fair and knowledgeable. Chris (Adler) is a great and fine guy, I would back him up anytime any place. Sorry Chris I didn't want to butt in but you are very fair guy and anyone taking shots at you deserves a few shots. Udet post respectfully and you will do fine, don't well you will find out whats next .....


----------



## Udet (Jan 17, 2006)

Quote:

*"You feel free to completely dismiss other peoples statements as completly wrong, yet your reasons are completly based off of opinions and not facts. You throw out supposed facts.."*

DARE YOU to prove this assertion.

Supposed facts? Which ones could those be?

Bring on the facts and not just the words.



One more thing with you: I am not here to be liked. Learn this very well.

I am here for further learning -and I have with several people here-, and to tell my views. Period. 

If you, and many others dislike my "attitude" which is nothing else but defending my points of view, based on the information I have managed to gather in past years, that is your sole problem -and theirs-. It´s not even a concern I have on a list.

Isn´t it strange you do not react on a similar fashion with any other members defending their own views, something many do in quite a more aggressive style? But you are free to do whatever. 

Ah, and I did not insult you. 

I simply responded using the same measurements you applied to me in your last posting when you roughly said "and his views are gettind old...", supported with lots of emoticons showing either smiles or laughter. 


So that is what I did, nothing else, nothing excessive. I have never launched insults at anyone, and never will.

Be sure though, I will always come up with controversy wherever I feel is required. Also that I will defend myself always.

You want to be a "thorn in the ass" here? Do whatever you want. I am just an ordinary member. 

Also, do not lecture me about the real world. You do not know me. I do not know you, I do not lecture you or anyone else about the real world.



Mr. Hop:

If you have any doubts on that Spit Mk. VIII running at +25lbs, ask Mr. Jabberwocky.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 17, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> how did you get mod powers?


I didn't.


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh I see what you mean, you are on WW2 Talk right. I see the link now at the bottom.


There is your answer, the link is in my sig...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 17, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> You don't annoy me but you (all - maybe not CC) are firm when neccessary (remember I moderate too...)



Hey.  Nah I know that, most of the touble seems to originate in politics, where I dont visit much, or someone else just gets there first...

We have a great team of admins and all contribute to the smooth running of the site...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Udet said:


> Quote:
> 
> *"You feel free to completely dismiss other peoples statements as completly wrong, yet your reasons are completly based off of opinions and not facts. You throw out supposed facts.."*
> 
> ...



First you start stating facts and Ill give you something other than words!



Udet said:


> One more thing with you: I am not here to be liked. Learn this very well.



You dont tell me what I have to learn and what I dont! I take that as a threat and for that you get your first warning!



Udet said:


> If you, and many others dislike my "attitude" which is nothing else but defending my points of view, based on the information I have managed to gather in past years, that is your sole problem -and theirs-. It´s not even a concern I have on a list.



I will tell you this one more time and as a member of this forum, you are not better than a single person here, and you will act like that. *You will not talk down to anyone here. **If you are wasting your time by talking to them, leave this forum!*



Udet said:


> Isn´t it strange you do not react on a similar fashion with any other members defending their own views, something many do in quite a more aggressive style? But you are free to do whatever.



I choose when and where I wish to step in! 



Udet said:


> Be sure though, I will always come up with controversy wherever I feel is required. Also that I will defend myself always.



As long as you do it with respect, then you can do whatever you please. I actually agree with a lot of things that you say, however you do them in a very wrong way and I find it disrespectful. As soon as you do not agree with some one you tell them that you are not going to waste your time with them anymore and that they have absolute clue what they are talking about and dumb and naive and believe in Allied Propoganda. Again Respect is Earned!!!! You have not Earned it!


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2006)

Gentlemen if I may add as one of the moderators on board here.

BE CIVIL !

we all come here with great expectations to learn and no-one and I mean no-one has all the answers.............

may I suggest we take more time to formulate our texts in answer and not as a mean rebuttle of words as whom are we trying to impress..........ourselves..........big deal ! there is some good and benefical information to be had here, let us not wreck this ok ?

I really do not want to see us go down a road similiar to other fourms on the net that I have had the displeasure of moderating on.

cool down, take a deep breath


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2006)

Without a doubt, the Spit had the best turning rate of all the allied fighters. But the P47 had a great roll rate up at 30K, the P38 and F4U both had excellent climb speeds and the P47's diving ability was legendary. The P51 was the fastest of the bunch with decent maneuverability. The Typhoon sounded like it was nearly unstoppable at low altitudes.

So in what flight regimes was the Spitfire behind other allied aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2006)

Here ya go....

"The Fw 190 has a peak roll rate of over 160 degs/sec just below 250 knots, this then decreases but is not overtaken until reaching 360 knots (by the P-51). 

The clipped wing Spitfire has a peak roll rate of 150 degs/sec at 200 knots: it is superior to the 190 until 220 knots and then runs slightly below that until also overtaken by the P-51 at 355 knots. 

The normal wing Spitfire has a peak roll rate of 105 degs/sec at 200 knots, this is overtaken by the P-63 (the best roll performing US fighter) which peaks in turn at 110 d/s at 270 knots. 

The P-47C is shown peaking at 84 d/s at 230 knots. Like other US fighters, the roll rate is less peaky and falls away more gradually. The P-51B peaks at 94 d/s, 310 knots. The P-40 has a similar characteristic but at a slower speed. 

The Wildcat and Hellcat both peak just under 70 d/s around 260 knots. However, both are superior to the Zero. 

Sadly, the F4U is not quoted. So although this study backs my comment on the P-47 I may yet have to eat my words on the Corsair!" 


http://www.us-aircraft.com/bbs/army_config.pl?read=2089


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2006)

Bomber escorts ? granted the RAF did fly day time missions with the 4 engine heavies in 45 but were late mark Spits flying with them.

little weak on this sorry ........

E ~


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2006)

I would not like to have to face a P47 with the good prop on it. Dives like hell climbs well, fast, armed to the teeth and very tough to take down. Just like in a real fight I don't care if you win or lose you are going to take a few also. The P47 could dish it out better than most and it could take it to. Not alot of planes could give as good as they took, P47 was scary. Not really a dog fighter presay but who cares about dog fighting, I would not dog fight, hit and run thats the way to go, keeps you alive longer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2006)

Erich said:


> Gentlemen if I may add as one of the moderators on board here.
> 
> BE CIVIL !
> 
> ...



Agreed!

Great info there to FBJ!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 17, 2006)

The P-38J-25/Ls slow speed roll rate is a bit slower than the P-51s but surpasses it at 325mph and passes the Fw-190 at about 340mph. It maxes out around 100deg/s at about 450mph (Lockheed numbers) though I've seen 110deg/sec claimed. This is aileron imput only, initial roll performance can be enhanced with throttle imput.

In '42 the P-38F was tested with all the AAF fighters ang was reported to turn as tightly (P-40) or better (P-39, P-47, P-51A) up to 15,000ft and the advantage got better as it went higher.

On the Docs page, is a test of a P-38F with 2 Spit IX's one high reduction(.477) and 1 with a lower reduction (.42) and the British decided the Spitfire could turn a little tighter but all other perameters the P-38 was in the middle between the Spitfires below 25,000ft where the Spitfire had more of an edge. They also noted a few moves the Spitfire couldn't follow effectively.

The late P-38J and L models were measurably better than the F was especialy at altitude.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2006)

Is it not true that roll rates would be different as compared between sea level and 30K?

And was there a roll rate limitation from the G forces on the pilot? It wouldnt make sense to have a fast rolling plane with a pilot blacked out as compared to slower rolling plane where the pilot is still in control.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Is it not true that roll rates would be different as compared between sea level and 30K?
> 
> And was there a roll rate limitation from the G forces on the pilot? It wouldnt make sense to have a fast rolling plane with a pilot blacked out as compared to slower rolling plane where the pilot is still in control.



Thats a good question and I don't know. Having said that, one is generaly going faster at altitude, at least at first, which would tighten things up a bit.

The original F4U was much faster rolling but was slowed to better balance the controls. I have also read comments from pilots that the P-38, using differential throttle to help initate a roll, could bang your head on the canopy from the abruptness but I've never heard of an aircraft rolling fast enough to black out the pilot.

I ran across some control imput info on the P-51D and P-47D at best corner speed of 300mph+/-
P-51 3g pull = 48# and a 5g pull = 86#
P-47 3g pull = 16# and a 5g pull = 27#
I don't have numbers for the P-38 just coments that rudder and elevators were great but in early models the ailerons were very high effort which is why they used a wheel instead of a stick.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 18, 2006)

# = pound(lb), so 48# = 48lb


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2006)

I would love to compare that to other aircraft such as the Spitfire, Bf-109, and Fw-190.


----------



## Udet (Jan 19, 2006)

For the record:

"_Don't have to be aces. 

#2 in XIVs got a K-4 
#401 in IXs got 4 109s 
#403 in XIVs got 3 109s 
#414 in IXs got 3 109s 

IXs - 7, XIVs - 4 

Could be more but I wasted enough time_..."


If the audience takes a little time, they will see Mister KrazyKanuk wrote this before I responded in the same measure. He felt he was wasting his time and got no warning. 

Case closed.

Have a lovely, a fascinating day.

*smoochies*


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

Its interesting that the P51 has a high roll rate at high speeds. Perhaps it is better than the Spitfire at speeds above 350 knots.

Now down on the deck, I would suppose speed is what would keep you out of trouble.

What allied plane was the fastest at sea level?


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its interesting that the P51 has a high roll rate at high speeds. Perhaps it is better than the Spitfire at speeds above 350 knots.
> 
> Now down on the deck, I would suppose speed is what would keep you out of trouble.
> 
> What allied plane was the fastest at sea level?



Well the P-51s roll rate maxes out at about 95deg/s at ~300mph and drops to about 76deg/s at 450mph and I'm sure the effort is very high at those speeds. I think you'll find its more likely a high average rate.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

"The clipped wing Spitfire has a peak roll rate of 150 degs/sec at 200 knots: it is superior to the 190 until 220 knots and then runs slightly below that until also overtaken by the P-51 at 355 knots. "

I wonder if that refers to a P51D?


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> "The clipped wing Spitfire has a peak roll rate of 150 degs/sec at 200 knots: it is superior to the 190 until 220 knots and then runs slightly below that until also overtaken by the P-51 at 355 knots. "
> 
> I wonder if that refers to a P51D?



The numbers I show for roll rate is for the P-51B. The numbers I posted for stick effort was for the P-51D model. Generaly the B model has better performance than the D but I would think the roll rate would be consistent between the two.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2006)

I admit that I have found this last few postings on the roll rates to be very interesting and I didn't expect the Spit to do as well as it did.
My thanks to all of you who have looked into this. Much appreciated


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 19, 2006)

I was surprised the P47 had such low force requirements. I wonder if we can find such info for more aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

That is what I am researching right now. Probably wont have anything till next week though, because I wont have much time this weekend.


----------

