# P-47 vs P-51 in a dive



## Jenisch (Apr 8, 2012)

Which of them was the fastest diver?


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

I believe the WWII data says the P-47 was a bit faster in dive speed, but the P-47 dive performance was in Indicated Airspeed and the P-51 dive peformance was in calibrated airspeed.

At 10,000 feet the P-47C could dive at 520 mph IAS and the P-51 limits was 505 mpgh CAS. Little to choose.

As an aside, I spoke with Steve Hinton about the P-47 in a dive and he said he had flown a P-47 to 25,000 feet (operating turbocharger) and had dived it vertically at full power. He said it accelerated quickly to 450 mph and stayed there ... but I didn't think to ask if it was IAS, CAS, TAS, or what, and I didn't ask at what altitude he pulled out. A strong diver from all the reports, but Steve said he expected it to be faster in a dive.

I didn't "interview" him about it, it was a short conversation. 

Additionally, in one of the magazines he is quoted as having said the P-38F was faster than the P-38J. I aksed him about that he said that at the same power, the P-38F was faster than a P-38J or L ... but the J and L had more power availabe and so were actually faster than an F model. He said his comment was taken out of context as he was describing the P-38F as being faster than a J or L in normal cruise at the same power levels .. amd that part never made the magazine quote.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 8, 2012)

Interesting. I risk to say that maybe the P-47 he flown, a civilian version I suppose, didn't have all the weight of a wartime model and hence didn't accelerated as fast in a dive.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 8, 2012)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaHlnI_LQ_

Perhaps this video can help you, Greg.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2012)

Dive limit for the P-51B/-D was 505 mph IAS (from manual), while for P-47 it was 500 mph (from 'US 100 hundred' book).


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 8, 2012)

Thanks Pauk. The little better speed of the Mustang was effect of the laminar flow wing? Anyway, the P-47 was some 3 tons heavier, so it's acceleration in the dive must have provided a decisive advantage.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

The "civil version" of the P-47 Steve flew has all the wartime equipment in it, including the turbocharger. The guns don't fire, but are otherwise stock, and the armor plate is still there.

I'd venture to say it is within spittign distance of stock weight, though the ammunition doesn't have powder in it.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2012)

The laminar flow wing has the effect of beginning the transonic shock wave near Max t/c which is ~ 40% MAC. I t had two effects - 1.) delaying wave drag, 2.) reducing/eliminating nose down pitch due to flow separation.

The fastest I Have ever heard of a 51 dive was an RAF test in which a MK IV was at .82-.85 M (instrumentation a little fuzzy) and the aircraft had so many wringled panels and fastners fail that the a/c was written off. That was Far above the Placard speed.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2012)

The RAF compared the P-47 to a number of other aircraft in 1943 - the trials are n the web somewhere sorry, as is so often the case I couldn't find the document when I was lookinf for it. I do recall that the Mustang ran away from the Thunderbolt in a dive, which surprised me. The anecdotal evidence from both sides of the conflict seems to be that the 47 was miles ahead of everything else in this area, so go figure. 
I wonder if a great part of the Thunderbolts reputation for diving comes not so much from outright speed as controllability. Maybe there were other aircraft around that dived as fast as the P-47 but without the control. I also wonder if the P-47's ability to pick up speed so quickly in the dive (and remain controllable) goes some way to answering the question as to whether it could roll with a Fw-190. The P-47 semed to everything well as high speeds and I suspect that any opponent silly enough to dive away from one would quickly enter the speed zone in which the Thunderbolt reigned, even if they were matching it for outright speed. 
One other thing I always wondered about is the P-47's reputation for firepower. It had great armament for the job; the .50's gave it plenty of punch for dealing with the fighters and light bombers it mostly flew against,and plenty of firing time to boot, but surely it was outgunned by Typhoons, Tempests and even Hurricanes in terms of instantaneous firepower.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2012)

Critical Mach Number for both P-38 and P-47 was .68, low when compared many other fighters of the time, that was why both got the dive recovery flaps later on, so pilots could dive very near their planes' limit without danger that dive became unrecoverable.

Juha


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 9, 2012)

It seems (from my various book reading over the years) that the P-47 and P-51 were able to dive and catch any Me109 or Fw190. What are the respective dive speeds of these aircraft? I would say until the advent of the P-51, the Thunderbolt was the first single engine fighter that dove so well, so much of the talk and lore passed on are because it was the first.

CobberKane, you bring up an interesting point.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> It seems (from my various book reading over the years) that the P-47 and P-51 were able to dive and catch any Me109 or Fw190. What are the respective dive speeds of these aircraft? I would say until the advent of the P-51, the Thunderbolt was the first single engine fighter that dove so well, so much of the talk and lore passed on are because it was the first.
> 
> CobberKane, you bring up an interesting point.



It's not so simple, the P-38 and P-47 airfoils had very poor critical mach numbers, dive recovery flaps were added under the leading edges to pitch up the aircraft to cure this problem from about 1944. The P-51 had outstanding mach characteristics and didn't need dive recovery flaps. Me 109 mach limit problems were actually traced to rudder overbalancing caused by a horn balance on the rudder. A new tall tail using a balance tab greatly increased mach limit to the point that the Me 109 was on occaision out diving the P-51D (with the bubble canopy).

You could count on Mach 0.78-0.79 as the Mach limit for the FW 190 and Me 109.

I'm just reading "The Focke Wulf Ta 152: by Thomas Hitchcock. Extraordinary in this book given the aircrafts very high aspect ratio is several pilots accounts of extrmely high dive speeds in the aircraft, the pilots reported flutter and wing vibration but no problems recovering and no damage.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

P-40 wasn't extremely good in the dive as well?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2012)

Neve heard of an Me 109 outdiving a P-51. Where did you come up with that?

At speeds over 400 mph the flight control surfaces of an Me 109 are almost solid and it is unmaneuverable in the extreme. I have neard of many Me 109's diving straight into the ground when attempting to chase an Allied fighter in a medium to low altitude dive (from combat reports), but never out diving a P-51.


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2012)

Hello GregP
there are P-51D pilots’ combat reports where they stated that 109s they were following outdove them. Most probably cause was simply that the hunted (109 pilot) took greater risks than the hunter (P-51D pilot). After all the behaviour of a plane didn’t transfer from normal to impossible instantly at the critical Mach number but became nastier and nastier when a/c approached the critical Mach number. P-51D’s critical Mach number was appr. .82 and the highest Mach Number achieved by 109 in German tests was .805 with specially modified 109F with G series wings and with the late 109 high tail. In the plane the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons. The horizontal stabilizer trim was limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. 

Juha


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 9, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> P-40 wasn't extremely good in the dive as well?



Yes, the P-40 was very good in the dive. But I don't think It could match the P-47. And it would never have began a dive at the altitudes at P-47 would obtain, it couldn't get that high!


----------



## davparlr (Apr 9, 2012)

Early report of P-51 (Allison) verses P-38F, P-39D, and P-47F 


> (3) The acceleration in dives and the maximum permissible diving speed of the subject aircraft is superior to all types tested.



P-51 Tactical Trials


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> Neve heard of an Me 109 outdiving a P-51. Where did you come up with that?
> 
> At speeds over 400 mph the flight control surfaces of an Me 109 are almost solid and it is unmaneuverable in the extreme. I have neard of many Me 109's diving straight into the ground when attempting to chase an Allied fighter in a medium to low altitude dive (from combat reports), but never out diving a P-51.



I pulled this of google books a few years ago:


"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, 
unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of 
them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over 
and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe 
buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane 
and regained control, but the 109 got away. 

On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could 
not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would 
start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. 
The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be 
exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it 
often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. 
The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had 
a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought 
on compressibility at lower speeds." 
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

I would take Curtis's story with a grain of salt as we don;t know if his P-51d had the dorsal fillet or the metal elevators.

The Me 109 ailerons were certainly stiff, but this doesn't mean the aircraft couldn't be rolled. The light aileron forces on the P-51B+ is due to the use of 'internal balancing' of the ailerons. If the aileron was deflected up the pressure would increase at the aileron-wing hinge point. This high pressure air was chanelled to a bellows on the opposit side to reduce deflection forces. The P-51A lacked this innovation and thus had rather poor roll rate. The good mach characteristics of the P-51 wing section and the stiff two spar wing was also clearly a factor. The Spitfire's thin wing had low control forces but the aircraft didn't didn't have room for internal balancing. Due to the single spar design and low twist rigidity the Spitfire could achieve good deflection of the aileron but this wass then negated by the wing twisting in the opposite direction. The Me 109 didn't have a twist problem, it just had stiff ailerons at high speed. Note at mediium speeds it had a very good roll rate and low forces. A very small number of Me 109's made by WNF (Wiener Neustad Fabrik) near Vienna had spring tab servo ailerons where a small tab assists the pilot. They are somewhat of a mystery however. These were common in post 1944 USN fighters as well as the German jets.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2012)

I read an article concerning the RAF testing of various Allied and Axis aircraft and the highest dive speeds they got were from (surprise) an ME-262 and a Griffon engined Spitfire. To match the 262 the spit had to use a much steeper dive angle. It lost it's prop and after an unpowered landing the wings were found to be canted back. I bet the pilot is still having nightmares over that one! Outright speed notwithstanding, the RAF also found that the P-47 handily out-dived the Spit IX
I'd reiterate that dive performance is about more than just terminal velocity, it includes variables such as control and acceleration. If a P-47 out-accelertes a Bf 109 in the dive and outrolls it at, say, 470 mph, and has a better zoom climb to boot, then it's not going to matter much if the 109 pilot can actually ring a few extra knots out of his machine. The standard defensive manouver for a P-47 pilot with a 109 on his tail will be to put the nose down and firewall the throttle in the knowlege that his machinne will 'outdive' the German.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 9, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Early report of P-51 (Allison) verses P-38F, P-39D, and P-47F
> 
> 
> P-51 Tactical Trials



OFF, caught my attention:

_(4) The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-40F and the P-39D. None of these appears to have any definite superior turning characteristics. _

I know this is an Allison Mustang but there were substantial differents from the Merlin ones in terms of turning performance? Hans Lerch, in Luftwaffe Test Pilot, claims the Merlin Mustang B he flown was very good in turninfight as well. I already read in other sources the Mustang was a great dogfighter as well. However, it's strange, since it's laminar airfoil don't seems to give sufficient lift, and it's wing load was also higher then say, a 109. Someone can explain me this?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2012)

The P-51D/K has the same wing thickness, chord (except root chord), and area as a P-51A. We have one of each that is flyable, and they DO fly, and I can tell you that from personal knowledge. All that happened in the "D/K" model was the guns were mounted upright, the feed was modified, and the root chord was a bit longer. After the wing kink for the wheel well from the root chord, the wings are identical.

The Me 109 was almost unrollable at over 400 mph. The full defelction tat could be obtiained by a normal pilot could only generate maybe 15° per second or less. The REALLY scary thought is the pitch rate wasn't much better ... ask any Me 109 pilot.

I am hearing in here that:

1. The P-38 was never called "the fork tailed devil" by the Luftwaffe, and we had it confirmed as true for the upteenth time this last weekend by former Luftwaffe pilots at out P-38 event that they DID call it that name).

2. I hear that there are new data coming out stating the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were, in fact, better and faster than previously thought. That won't change their mediocre combat record and will not be believed unless it can be demonstrated ... good luck.

3. The Me 109 can out dive a P-51! Never hear that and we have had presentations by almost all the living P-51 pilots and not many less Luftwaffe pilots.

4. There is a thread in here where the speed of the P-51 at low level is questioned and people are debating it ... but we fly them almost every weekend and they are as fast as the specifications. Al sea level, the P-51 is VERY fast. There is a Google hit for a tactical trial of early P-51 performance and it is bogus. The report in the Google hit has no report number (not possible in WWII) and the people back then knew how to spell ... the report has too many mispellings, including some common words. The numbers in Wikipedia are ridiculous ... they don't match North American Aviaion, the US Army Air Corps tests, or the USAAC Fighter Group tests.

Gotta' say, I am a disbeliever in people trying to make the Mustang performance lower in the "popular press." If I didn't know the people flying them today, I might bite ... but the people flying them get book performance at book weights ... and BETTER performance at lighter weights. The Me 109's I know of are getting book performace at book weights and better performance at lighter weights ... and the Me 109, when going faster than 400 mph, was fleeing the combat scene, not attacking, because the Me 109 was traveling in more or less a straight line at anything above 400 mph.

You are free to rewrite whatever performance specs you want if you are authoring a PC flight sim game but, if you want historically accurate data, stick with the specifications as given by the manufacturers at the time. Sorry guys, I don't buy the performacne rewrites 70 years later because I know people who fly them now, and THEY don't buy it either. Even our A6M5 Model 52 meets specs, just like our Northrop N9MB Flying Wing does. The only reason most of the Hawker Sea Furies don't meet spec is they aren't flying with Bristol Centaurus engines anymore, mostly; they have Wright R-3350's mostly and are quite a bit faster and more powerful than stock hawker specs ... not slower.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2012)

I guess it all depends on how you define 'dogfight.' I don't think the the P-51 was ever renowned as a turn fighter, although it was considered to be somewhat better than contemporary 109s and 190s in this respect. Perhaps that what Hans Lerch meant. i recall an interview with Clayton Gross where he recalls engaging in a turning fight against a 109 for the better part of ten minutes before the other pilot bugged out - it's hard to imagine the German would have survived that kind of fight against a spitfire.
Eric Brown considered the Mustang to be the best 'American' dogfighter (assumedly compared to the P-38 and P-47). He preferred the Spit IX but noted that wherever the P-51 lost out (climb, turning circle) it made up in other areas (rate of roll, speed). For the record he considered the best dogfighters to be the Spitfire XIV, The Fw 190D and he P-51D, in that order, with the caveat that he could have thrown a postage stamp over the three of them.


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2012)

Hello Siegfried
First of all, like all its contemporaries. or at least most of them, 109 suffered wing twist at very high speed, 109F theoretical aileron reversal speed was appr. 980km/h TAS at 3000m according to DVL test. If one put DVL test results on to NACA 868 results one sees that 109F rolled better up to 190mph IAS at 10000ft than USAAF fighters but P-40F and P-63A. It also rolled better than Hurricane and Typhoon but normal wing Spitfire rolled better through entire speed range and at high speeds Spit rolled clearly better than 109F at 10000ft, at least up to 390 mph IAS where NACA graph ended, and at low speeds too. But between 280 and 310mph IAS there was not much difference between Spit and 109F. And Spit achieved its peak roll rate at 200mph IAS 109F around 280mph IAS. Fw 190 was in class of its own up to 370mph IAS where first P-51B and then Tempest get better in rolling. And Spits elevators were very light but its ailerons got heavy at high speeds.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Apr 10, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I guess it all depends on how you define 'dogfight.' I don't think the the P-51 was ever renowned as a turn fighter, although it was considered to be somewhat better than contemporary 109s and 190s in this respect. Perhaps that what Hans Lerch meant. i recall an interview with Clayton Gross where he recalls engaging in a turning fight against a 109 for the better part of ten minutes before the other pilot bugged out - it's hard to imagine the German would have survived that kind of fight against a spitfire.
> Eric Brown considered the Mustang to be the best 'American' dogfighter (assumedly compared to the P-38 and P-47). He preferred the Spit IX but noted that wherever the P-51 lost out (climb, turning circle) it made up in other areas (rate of roll, speed). For the record he considered the best dogfighters to be the Spitfire XIV, The Fw 190D and he P-51D, in that order, with the caveat that he could have thrown a postage stamp over the three of them.


 
Eric Brown flew them all - in one book he cited the F6F as 'America's Best' but more consistently the 51. Gunther Rall considered the Mustang to be the Allies 'best' but he shaded it by extolling the range Combined with excellent (not best) attributes in all manueverabilty parameters...

The reason it is inaccurate to say that the '109 turned better' is because that statement was inaccurate perhaps 1/2 the time. In the hands of a world class pilot who could push the 109 to the edge w/o stalling vs same 51 pilot and middle range loading, the 109 should eventually get on the tail of the 51 in that middle range speed/altitude.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 10, 2012)

GregP has access to Zekes and Flying Wings and Sea Furies?

No disrespect man, but at this moment I really ****ing hate you.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

Same here, Mark; he also has access to the Bf-109s, Fugwerk Fw-190s, P-38s...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> The P-51D/K has the same wing thickness, chord (except root chord), and area as a P-51A. We have one of each that is flyable, and they DO fly, and I can tell you that from personal knowledge. All that happened in the "D/K" model was the guns were mounted upright, the feed was modified, and the root chord was a bit longer. After the wing kink for the wheel well from the root chord, the wings are identical.
> 
> The Me 109 was almost unrollable at over 400 mph. The full defelction tat could be obtiained by a normal pilot could only generate maybe 15° per second or less. The REALLY scary thought is the pitch rate wasn't much better ... ask any Me 109 pilot.
> 
> ...



Your experience and knowledge with all these types of aircraft and pilots is an invaluable contribution to this site.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 10, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Siegfried
> First of all, like all its contemporaries. or at least most of them, 109 suffered wing twist at very high speed, 109F theoretical aileron reversal speed was appr. 980km/h TAS at 3000m according to DVL test. If one put DVL test results on to NACA 868 results one sees that 109F rolled better up to 190mph IAS at 10000ft than USAAF fighters but P-40F and P-63A. It also rolled better than Hurricane and Typhoon but normal wing Spitfire rolled better through entire speed range and at high speeds Spit rolled clearly better than 109F at 10000ft, at least up to 390 mph IAS where NACA graph ended, and at low speeds too. But between 280 and 310mph IAS there was not much difference between Spit and 109F. And Spit achieved its peak roll rate at 200mph IAS 109F around 280mph IAS. Fw 190 was in class of its own up to 370mph IAS where first P-51B and then Tempest get better in rolling. And Spits elevators were very light but its ailerons got heavy at high speeds.
> 
> Juha


 
I think the 109 always had a reputation as a nasty staller in tight turns. Posibly only the best pilots were game to approach its best turn performance for fear of spinning out without warning. I've also read that the spitfires great sturn performance was enhanced by the elliptical wings tendacy to stall progressively from the wingroots out, shuderrring and giving the pilot plenty of warning. Is this correct?


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2012)

Thanks for the compliment, but I am only a volunteer at the Planes of Fame. I just happen to be a very INTERESTED volunteer and I ask Steve Hinton too many questions from time to time. he probably hates to see me walking up ...

My project, with 3 or 4 other guys, is the restoration of a Bell YP-59A Airacomet, the USA's first jet aircraft. We are about $50k away from flight test. If we had the money, it would be flying in 2 months. Until then, we refine our restoration to make it better when it DOES fly. My team of 3 guys built a new sliding canopy from scratch and we are now doing a new windscreen and windscreen top frame bow and sheet metal. We are close to being finished.

Seriously, go out to a flying museum and volunteer. After awhile as a restorer, you get to know the planes pretty well. The pilots give me their take on performance, even relative performance versus the OTHER types they fly or flew. Our Mustang pilots include Steve Hinton, his son Steven Hinton Jr (current Reno Unlimited Champion), Kevin Eldrige, 3 or 4 other Reno unlimited pilots, and some other guys who are real-estate ageents that happen to be F-16 drivers in the National Guard, and quite a few well known pilots. 

I am not "friends" with all of them, but am freindly with most when we see each other. So, although I appreciate the thoughts, I just help restore these things and dream of flying them. When I fly, it is usually a Cessna not a warbird! Wish it were otherwise. My desire is to built an RV-7 or Harmon Rocket. The Rocket is my sentimental favorite, but the RV-7 puts the weight on the wing spar at the CG, so two big guys can fit without going out of aft CG limtis ... so RV-7 ... it I get the money.

Keep 'em flying and come visit, If you come on any Saturday, I'd be happy to show you around personally. During the normal workday, I work with Joe Yancey building Allison V-1710 engines. That is a lucky accident of life as I was an electrical engineer for 32 years before that and never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever think I'd be living in California, volunteering at the Planes of Fame and workling with Joe Yancey.

Keep 'em flying!


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I think the 109 always had a reputation as a nasty staller in tight turns. Posibly only the best pilots were game to approach its best turn performance for fear of spinning out without warning. I've also read that the spitfires great sturn performance was enhanced by the elliptical wings tendacy to stall progressively from the wingroots out, shuderrring and giving the pilot plenty of warning. Is this correct?



I'd say no, rather other way around. Because of heavy elevators it was difficult to stall 109 and slats made it even more difficult and the deployment of slats gave clear warning that the plane was near stall. The deployment of slats also lightened elevator. If one still pull harder while speed decreased 109 began shake if one still kept pulling left wing and nose dropped if one easy off the pull the turn continued. Of course some inexperienced pilots lightened the pull when slats came out and so didn't fly the plane to the its limits. Spinning was forbidden but 109 didn't went into spin easily, in fact that was one of demands in the original specifications.

On the other hand Spit had very light elevators and it was easy to stall the plane by tightening the turn too much. So British found out in 1940 while testing a captured 109E that even if Spit could turn tighter many pilots were afraid to turn as tightly as possible because it was so easy to pull too much and the captured 109E could out-turn them. Someone else surely can tell more on Spit turning behaviour. I have somewhere pilots' descriptions on that, but not time to dig them out.

So IMHO 109 was easier plane to fly to its limits than Spitfire.

Juha

ADDUM: Michael Potter on Spit Mk IX: "Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch… the stall characteristics are benign. With flaps and gear down and the weights we fly at today, stall speed is less than 60 knots. There is lots of warning, little tendency for a wing drop, and recovery is routine and immediate."


----------



## riacrato (Apr 11, 2012)

GregP said:


> 2. I hear that there are new data coming out stating the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were, in fact, better and faster than previously thought. That won't change their mediocre combat record and will not be believed unless it can be demonstrated ... good luck.


Again, just like in the other thread, please elaborate on the poor combat record of the Ta 152.

You know, when I was in school, Pluto was still a planet and Tyrannosaurus rex the largest land carnivore ever. Now, damn those researchers, how dare they uncover new evidence and prove that to be wrong.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Hello Riacrato
IIRC 4 Ta 152s were lost in air combat and they claimed 10 air victories.

Juha


----------



## riacrato (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi Juha,
I didn't have the exact numbers at hand but that more or less conforms to what I recalled. Given the circumstances, hardly poor or even mediocre, but rather good. Yet that small a sample is not very good for evaluating the aircraft's performance.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

Juha said:


> I'd say no, rather other way around. Because of heavy elevators it was difficult to stall 109 and slats made it even more difficult and the deployment of slats gave clear warning that the plane was near stall. The deployment of slats also lightened elevator. If one still pull harder while speed decreased 109 began shake if one still kept pulling left wing and nose dropped if one easy off the pull the turn continued. Of course some inexperienced pilots lightened the pull when slats came out and so didn't fly the plane to the its limits. Spinning was forbidden but 109 didn't went into spin easily, in fact that was one of demands in the original specifications.
> 
> On the other hand Spit had very light elevators and it was easy to stall the plane by tightening the turn too much. So British found out in 1940 while testing a captured 109E that even if Spit could turn tighter many pilots were afraid to turn as tightly as possible because it was so easy to pull too much and the captured 109E could out-turn them. Someone else surely can tell more on Spit turning behaviour. I have somewhere pilots' descriptions on that, but not time to dig them out.
> 
> ...



So, by adding that addendum you have contradicted yourself?

If in 1940 RAF pilots were reluctant to turn tighter and risk a stall does it not speak to their relative inexperience more than the on-the-limit handling of the Spitfire? After all, up to 1940 LW pilots had more training and, generally, had a lot more experience.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> So, by adding that addendum you have contradicted yourself?
> 
> If in 1940 RAF pilots were reluctant to turn tighter and risk a stall does it not speak to their relative inexperience more than the on-the-limit handling of the Spitfire? After all, up to 1940 LW pilots had more training and, generally, had a lot more experience.



Not necessarily, note "...but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch...", so it was easy in the heat of the combat tighten the turn too much. In 1940 both sides had inexperience fighter pilots, both had suffered losses during the French Campaign, in fact 109 units more than Spit units because France had been mostly HUrri show. And regulars had plenty of experience on flying on both sides even if only Germans had significant combat experience.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Riacrato
> IIRC 4 Ta 152s were lost in air combat and they claimed 10 air victories.
> 
> Juha



do you know also the date of first air combat?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2012)

How much would the gravity-type carbs fit in to the turning/stall problem in turns on the early Spits?


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

Hello Vincenzo
I don't know the first combat but the first claim I'm aware was 1 March 45, when Josef Keil claimed P-51D.
On the other hand the info that Loos claimed 3 Yaks while flying Ta-152H seems to be unreliable, so it seems that Ta-152 loss-kill-ratio was after all 4 to 7. Or probably lower because of some overclaiming is probable.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi Riacrato,

In a thread in here (can't recall the title) it was suggested by a member that he had uincovered new data on the Ta-152 series that suggested it was quite a bit better than thought. He gave no timeline but suggested they were not far from publishing the data.

With the popwer of the Ta-152 (choose a model) and an airframe similar to the fw 190D, the aerodynamics suggest the very speeds the specifications so often quoted claim to be true. To have someone suggest that the planes were, in fact, quite a bit better some 70 years later naturally gives me a lot of doubt. We have already discussed their combat record and the figures aren't very impressive. The losses are from one to four, depending on who you believe (combat losses, not operational losses). At the end of teh war, the only operational Ta-152's in service were two C-models. TWO! Now that is a war winner, huh?

The kills are from 7 to 10. So the kill-to-loss record is anywhere from 10 to 1 down to 7 to 4. Naturally, there are those who pick the best number and latch onto it just as there are those who pick the lowest number and latch onto it. I tend to think the real number is about 8 or 9 to 2 or 3 since theose number are in the middle of the range. Either way, it is not very impressive to me. I don't doubt the fact that the Ta-152 was a good aircraft and I feel the mediocre numbers are more of an indication of how the war was going at the time, with few German planes flying (a few veteran pilots) and hordes of Allied fighters roaming about. 

Nevertheless, I find it VERY hard or impossible to think of an aircraft with this combat record as the best of anything. Good? Yes. The best and contributed to the war effort? No way. It is an interesting footnote at best, at least to me. Other opinions may vary and do.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 12, 2012)

Hi GregP,

I think Erich is the forum mod / member who is compiling that data (don't know for sure). If so I have little doubt it will be well researched and not biased, as he didn't give me any other impression in the past.

I think you give the Ta 152 too little credit. It started combat at a time where the collapse was already in full swing. No plane could hope to fare well in those circumstances. The kills recorded are predominantly at heights where the Ta 152 was not at its best. And yet apparently it was to score a record of better than 1:1, at a time where every other German fighter (maybe Me 262 excluded) was scoring 1:5-1:10.

Certainly not a poor kill ratio.


----------



## Juha (Apr 12, 2012)

Njaco said:


> How much would the gravity-type carbs fit in to the turning/stall problem in turns on the early Spits?



IMHO in pure turning nothing because of in normal turning one pulls positive Gs and gravity-type cabs in Spits had problems only with negative Gs but in combination of different movements there might be situations were a/c was under neg Gs and so Spit would suffer momentary loss of power.

Juha


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 12, 2012)

Juha said:


> Not necessarily, note "...but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch...", so it was easy in the heat of the combat tighten the turn too much. In 1940 both sides had inexperience fighter pilots, both had suffered losses during the French Campaign, in fact 109 units more than Spit units because France had been mostly HUrri show. And regulars had plenty of experience on flying on both sides even if only Germans had significant combat experience.
> 
> Juha


Still, the assertion that the 109 was easier to fly to it's limits is a bit too revisionist for me. There are just too many descriptions from pilots of both sides who flew each aircraft. I can't quote verbatim but read a report from a German pilot who said of the spitfite 'that Spitfire was my real baby - never had I flown an aircraft like this...we were used to the 109 with its stall and landing...' and another who described both the Spit and Hurricanne as 'childishly easy to fly and land' . A video I have of a Canadian Spit pilot has him saying 'you could pull that spade stick back into your gut and the spitfire would just shudder around the turn - you had to kick it to make it go into a spin.' Grummans chief test pilot flew a seafire and said 'I had never felt so at home in an aircraft... I found myself laughing out loud....the hellcat and Corsair were work horses, the spitfire was a dashing Arabian stallion.'
The 109 easier to fly to its limits - really?


----------



## riacrato (Apr 12, 2012)

"Easier to fly to its limits" doesn't equate to "easy to fly". Not that I necessarily agree, I know way too little about how both planes handled in the extreme. But e. g. the Fw 190 is generally considered easier to fly than the 109, but I would say it cannot be flown to its limits too easily: The stall is harsh and I think many pilots would be reluctant to pull it to the limit in a sharp turn.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2012)

The Early Spitfires were hard to fly to their limits because of the overly powerful elevators. This was changed on later models although I don't know if the "problem" was totally solved. 

What is wanted on a fighter is good "control harmonization". In other words the amount of effort the pilot has to put into the controls ( or the distance they have to be moved) to get a certain amount of response in any axis of flight. A plane that needs much more effort to move the stick sideways to roll than it does to move forward or back to climb or dive (or tighten or loosen a turn) is going to take more work to fly smoothly. Or a plane that has a light stick but needs the rudder pedals kicked instead of pressed. 

The other aspects of this is what happens if the limit's are reached and exceeded and also what kind of warnings there are. 109s had the slats deploy and then a bit later kind of mushed as it stalled. Spitfires are supposed to have done a fair amount as shuddering as they approached stall. P-39s supposedly gave very little warning. 

And if you exceed the limit? how easy does the plane recover? if you relax the stick soon enough does the plane almost automatically recover or does one wing drop much more than the other and the plane tries to go into a spin? 

Fear in the pilots mind over what MAY happen can be a real factor in how close he flies to the limit.


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2012)

Hi riacrato,

I don't think I give the Fw 190 too little credit. I consider it a very good fighter, but far from a superplane.

I like the armament, the wide track landing gear, the wonderful ailerons, and the relatively easy to use auto mixture on the throttle (making it hard to fly formation, though ...). I don't like the wing loading or the relatively ineffective elevators comp[ared with other fighters. It was too heavy for its size and not very good in pitch. It began to lose performance at altitude (in the radial engine versions) and was decidedly not at its best above 20,000 feet.

The D model was preffy good and adressed some of the altitude issues, but was still not very good in pitch. The cockpit was claustrophobic ... I know, I sat in the one that used to be in Mesa, Arizona at Doug Champlin's fighter museum and is now in Paul Allen's colelction. I could almost not turn my head 90° and I didn't have a fight helmet on at the time!

I consider the Ta 152 a non-starter becasue so few were built and deployed. It was excellent at high altitude, but definitely lost some of the quick roll rate at lower altitude due to long, high-aspect ratio wings. I don't wish to debate the Ta-152 with anyone because it made as much combat impact as the P-51H did ... read that almost none. All the "what ifs" won't change that fact. It would never even have been deplpoyed due to being prototypes except teh war was rapidly being lost and they were desperate.

In total, the Fw 190 was a competent front line fighter mostly flown by veteran pilots, and it made a good partner for the Me 109. Together they were a great WWII fighter pair that flew and fought well. I would not call them the best since they did not accomplish the task of stopping the Allies in the air. They started the war with air superiority (at least the Me 109 did) and gradualy lost it as the war moved on. By 1945, neither plane could live for very long in an Allied sky. Whatever the circumstances, that does not spell "best" in my book, but I like both of the German fighters very much and have worked on the restoration of the Ha.1112 at the Musuem. From the firewall back it is pure Me 109G. Neat plane.


----------



## Juha (Apr 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Still, the assertion that the 109 was easier to fly to it's limits is a bit too revisionist for me. There are just too many descriptions from pilots of both sides who flew each aircraft. I can't quote verbatim but read a report from a German pilot who said of the spitfite 'that Spitfire was my real baby - never had I flown an aircraft like this...we were used to the 109 with its stall and landing...' and another who described both the Spit and Hurricanne as 'childishly easy to fly and land' . A video I have of a Canadian Spit pilot has him saying 'you could pull that spade stick back into your gut and the spitfire would just shudder around the turn - you had to kick it to make it go into a spin.' Grummans chief test pilot flew a seafire and said 'I had never felt so at home in an aircraft... I found myself laughing out loud....the hellcat and Corsair were work horses, the spitfire was a dashing Arabian stallion.'
> The 109 easier to fly to its limits - really?



Now nobody have said that 109 was easier to land than Spit or Hurri, it wasn't. 109 was more difficult in finals than at least Merlin Spits and clearly more difficult to handle during the ground run. But as the Finnish test pilot noted, because its heavy elevators and slats 109 was difficult plane to stall unintentionally. Spits up to somewhere in Mark V production had overly sensitive elevators so it was easy to stall it unintentionally, especially because its poor control harmony. Metal ailerons clearly helped with excessive aileron heaviness at high speeds but ailerons remained heavy at higher speeds. The overly light elevators were first cured with bob weights during Mk V production run after several wing failures, and later on Westland's Petter (Westland was contracted to built Mk Vs) first found out that fairly simple modification on elevators would cure the problem, so the cure would not affect production. Of course Supermarine staff would not accept solution from a chief designer of another firm, but after Petter had shown that the problem could be solved with fairly simple modification, they soon came out with their own cure, a small mod to elevators aerodynamic balance.

Both 109 and Spit had bening stall contrary to for ex. Fw 190

Juha


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 12, 2012)

Juha said:


> Now nobody have said that 109 was easier to land than Spit or Hurri, it wasn't. 109 was more difficult in finals than at least Merlin Spits and clearly more difficult to handle during the ground run. But as the Finnish test pilot noted, because its heavy elevators and slats 109 was difficult plane to stall unintentionally. Spits up to somewhere in Mark V production had overly sensitive elevators so it was easy to stall it unintentionally, especially because its poor control harmony. Metal ailerons clearly helped with excessive aileron heaviness at high speeds but ailerons remained heavy at higher speeds. The overly light elevators were first cured with bob weights during Mk V production run after several wing failures, and later on Westland's Petter (Westland was contracted to built Mk Vs) first found out that fairly simple modification on elevators would cure the problem, so the cure would not affect production. Of course Supermarine staff would not accept solution from a chief designer of another firm, but after Petter had shown that the problem could be solved with fairly simple modification, they soon came out with their own cure, a small mod to elevators aerodynamic balance.
> 
> Both 109 and Spit had bening stall contrary to for ex. Fw 190
> 
> Juha


 
Well, I went back over my readings and videos, etc and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't get past the preponderance of pilot accounts describing the 109 as a tricky beast to fly and the Spitfire as a dream. If you google the Discovery Channel documentary on Sptifire v 109 a pilot who currently flies restored examples of both says just that, and a former Luftwaffe pilot states that the 109 in the air needed to be treated 'like eggshells'. Interestingly, the documentary makers suggest that the 109 might even have been able to out-turn the spit, on paper at least, but in combat the aircraft's unforgiving characteristics meant no-one was prepared to push it that far.
About the only way i can make sense of your assertion that the 109 was easier to fly to its limits would be if you meant the german fighter behaved well right up to the point where it went out of control and spun into the deck, whereas the spitfire with its eliptical wing would shudder as it approached its limits (giving the pilot plenty of warning of the impending stall in the process) and surely recover far more easily afterwards.
As to which was the better aircraft, I guess that depends in you criteria. From a manufacturing and service angle, surely it was the 109; Cheaper to build and easier to service. In terms of performance and design stretch, the spitfire. The 109 really peaked with the F and early G models - the small airframe was just too limited in terms of the engine and armament increases it could cope with. In contrast the late model Spitfires were still as potent as anything in the air when the war ended - not bad for an aircraft that had first flown ten years earlier..


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Well, I went back over my readings and videos, etc and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't get past the preponderance of pilot accounts describing the 109 as a tricky beast to fly and the Spitfire as a dream. If you google the Discovery Channel documentary on Sptifire v 109 a pilot who currently flies restored examples of both says just that, and a former Luftwaffe pilot states that the 109 in the air needed to be treated 'like eggshells'. Interestingly, the documentary makers suggest that the 109 might even have been able to out-turn the spit, on paper at least, but in combat the aircraft's unforgiving characteristics meant no-one was prepared to push it that far.
> About the only way i can make sense of your assertion that the 109 was easier to fly to its limits would be if you meant the german fighter behaved well right up to the point where it went out of control and spun into the deck, whereas the spitfire with its eliptical wing would shudder as it approached its limits (giving the pilot plenty of warning of the impending stall in the process) and surely recover far more easily afterwards.
> As to which was the better aircraft, I guess that depends in you criteria. From a manufacturing and service angle, surely it was the 109; Cheaper to build and easier to service. In terms of performance and design stretch, the spitfire. The 109 really peaked with the F and early G models - the small airframe was just too limited in terms of the engine and armament increases it could cope with. In contrast the late model Spitfires were still as potent as anything in the air when the war ended - not bad for an aircraft that had first flown ten years earlier..


 
Me 109 gave plenty of pre stall buffet coming from the tail. If it did stall into a high g turn it tended to mush through with Little tendency to flip or spin. The Me 109 probably had the most benign spin of any ww2 fighter. The Me 109 did not have a superior turning radius however could gain the upper hand if it had equal power which was not the case in 1943.

Do not conflate the stalling characteristics of an aircraft in landing config with it in a high g turn, they often have no relationship to each other. A spit in a high turn that did stall was prone to flip inverted, a 109 presumably due to slats and the long tail moment arm was not prone to this. Ideally one avoids a stall in the first place unless one is good enough to use it tactically.


----------



## Juha (Apr 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Well, I went back over my readings and videos, etc and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't get past the preponderance of pilot accounts describing the 109 as a tricky beast to fly and the Spitfire as a dream. If you google the Discovery Channel documentary on Sptifire v 109 a pilot who currently flies restored examples of both says just that, and a former Luftwaffe pilot states that the 109 in the air needed to be treated 'like eggshells'. Interestingly, the documentary makers suggest that the 109 might even have been able to out-turn the spit, on paper at least, but in combat the aircraft's unforgiving characteristics meant no-one was prepared to push it that far.
> About the only way i can make sense of your assertion that the 109 was easier to fly to its limits would be if you meant the german fighter behaved well right up to the point where it went out of control and spun into the deck, whereas the spitfire with its eliptical wing would shudder as it approached its limits (giving the pilot plenty of warning of the impending stall in the process) and surely recover far more easily afterwards.
> As to which was the better aircraft, I guess that depends in you criteria. From a manufacturing and service angle, surely it was the 109; Cheaper to build and easier to service. In terms of performance and design stretch, the spitfire. The 109 really peaked with the F and early G models - the small airframe was just too limited in terms of the engine and armament increases it could cope with. In contrast the late model Spitfires were still as potent as anything in the air when the war ended - not bad for an aircraft that had first flown ten years earlier..



Well, besides the Finnish test pilot's evaluation and the FiAF pilots opinions, I based my opinion on 109 to the statements of several LW 109 pilots, Bär, Grislawski, Leykauf etc in several books. As I wrote, British noted the same thing as they evalueated 109E. And as I wrote earlier, 109 didn't spun easy, in fact one of demands in the specs for the new LW fighter on which it was designed was that the plane should be spinproof. That was one of the reasons why 109 had slats. Spit behavior got better after mods during Mk V production.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2012)

The Me 109 handled well at 120 - 280 mph. After that speed it started to get very stiff and lose maneuverability. At 400 mph, it took 4 seconds to roll from level to 45° and the pitch rate was worse. Add to that the fact that the Me 109 had no rudder trim, and you would QUICKLY tire of coordinated flight in a fast Me 109, making attack problematic on top of the non-maneuverability. Without coordinated flight, teh gunsight was tough to keep on target!

While the early Spitfires were also sluggish rollers at over 400 mph, the trait was cured in later models, and the Spitfire's pitch rate was always superior to the Me 109, if only by virtue of much lower wing loading.

I'd say the Me 109E and Spitfire I were even matched with each one having a slight siperiority at different aspects of air combat. History seems to agree with that evalulation.

The Me 109F was better but, by then, later Spitfire marks were also in service and they were well matched with opponerts and detractors for both planes in almost equal quantity.

By the time the Me 109G flew, the plane was WAY too heavy and the G was a real handful in turning fights due to very heavy wing loading and the preponderance of bumbps and bulges in strange places including the wing top surfaces. Nobody thought the Me 109G was a great dogfighter, including the Me 109G pilots.

Many people have written that ALL of the faults of the Me 109 could have been easily corrected, but never were. They are right; here we are in 2012, and the Me 109 faults STILL have not been corrected, even as an exercise. So the Me 109 will have to live with all its well-known faults.

Faults or not, I tend to like it a lot.


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 13, 2012)

I also like the Me-109 because it was smaller and hard to see and had a very good weapons fitment. CL engine mounted cannon.
Many here do not understand that very few combats involved maneuver as more than 90% of all kills were Vs targets that did not know they were under attack until it was way too late. ( If at all!)


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

Very true, Shooter, and you are right ... most people fail to realize that. The great dogfighters had to owkr hard only every once in awhile, but even a Ki-27 could shoot down a Hellcat if the Hellcat was caught asleep and unaware.


----------

