# Diving - which fighters used it best, and how?



## CobberKane (Oct 8, 2012)

In most discussions concerning manoeuvrability, rate of turn and roll rules and diving is just something to do when there is a Zero on your tail. The diving ability of the P-47 Thunderbolt was proverbial, yet RAE tests indicated that the P-51 Mustang could dive faster and the highest speed ever attained by a piston engine aircraft was in a Spitfire. So what made a good diver; controllability, acceleration or outright speed? And what WWII fighters used diving most effectively against their opponents, and how?


----------



## ShVAK (Oct 8, 2012)

Acceleration + firepower, with the ability to easily pull up or roll out.

The P-47 may not have been as fast downhill in terms of absolute speed as the P-51 or Spitfire but from pilots' accounts it seems like it got to Vmax faster. You didn't want to see a Jug bearing down on you hard with all eight .50's blazing. Plus it had a very good roll rate and the structural integrity to easily handle a 420+ mph dive.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2012)

Acceleration in the dive is definitely the key.

The P-51B accelerated away from the Spitfire IX, providing one of its advantages in a duel between the pair. But there was much less advantage over a Spitfire XIV. 

I think the P-47 worked well in (the initial stages of) the dive because of the same reason it wasn't a very good climber - gravity!


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 9, 2012)

I think both the above comments are on the ball – acceleration and control at high speed are at least as important as outright speed in diving. I suspect the P-47 excelled in both these areas. The RAE found that both the Fw190 and Bf109 could dive at higher speeds that the Thunderbolt, but I’ve also read an account from a German pilot who described the 190 as ‘inferior beyond all hope in the dive’ as compared to the P-47.
One other factor to consider is the inverse of the dive, the zoom climb. The Tempest was apparently excellent in this area and frequently able turn an initial altitude disadvantage into and advantage by drawing the attacking fighter into a dive, then zooming and coming out above the opposing fighter.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 9, 2012)

I think the reason the P-47, as told by the pilots that flew it and against it in combat, talk about its incredible dive is energy. Though technically when tested by test pilots other planes could go faster, the Thunderbolt because of its own weight kept the energy from the dive and was able to convert it into climb. That and possibly because it had a better feel at those high speeds, giving the average pilot the confidence in his airplane. To a lesser extent, that may also explain the perception about the P-40 versus primarily the Japanese aircraft. It was much heavier and was able to retain its energy from the dive. Kind of like a heavier bullet retaining more energy down range than a lighter bullet.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 9, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I think the reason the P-47, as told by the pilots that flew it and against it in combat, talk about its incredible dive is energy. Though technically when tested by test pilots other planes could go faster, the Thunderbolt because of its own weight kept the energy from the dive and was able to convert it into climb. That and possibly because it had a better feel at those high speeds, giving the average pilot the confidence in his airplane. To a lesser extent, that may also explain the perception about the P-40 versus primarily the Japanese aircraft. It was much heavier and was able to retain its energy from the dive. Kind of like a heavier bullet retaining more energy down range than a lighter bullet.


 
The P 47 also had an excellent reputation as a formation flyer. Because of the drag created by its radial engine, any decrease in throttle resulted in immediate de-accelaration, making it much easier to make small adjustments in speed compared to fighters like Spitfires and Mustangs. The sleeker, LC engine fighters tended to coast when the throttle was chopped and took much londer to slow. I guess the drag of the P 47 was a bit like engine braking in a car. I wonder if this characteristic of the P47 was also a help in the dive, enabling the pilot to more easily manouvuer according to what the aircraft he was pursuing did, although it may also have affected the zoom climb negatively compared to LC fighters that also dived well.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2012)

Cobber - do you happen to have the RAE report that concluded that the Fw 190 and Bf 109 dove at a higher velocity than the P-47?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 9, 2012)

And on the other side of the world, Claire Chennault taught his pilots to use the superior diving traits of the P-40 to best the Emperor's air force.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 9, 2012)

From:
Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2012)

The myth that the P-47 wasn't a good climber was initially true when the narrow-chord props were used. Once they put on wide-chord props, the P-47 was still down a bit in low-altitude climb, but handily out-climbed many fighters at medium and especially high altitude. It was probably one of the best at 28,000 to 35,000 feet, right where many of them spent time on escort missions. Couple that with very good roll and you have a formidable escort aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Oct 9, 2012)

I agree. 

You want to accelerate quickly into a high speed diving pass followed by a zoom climb to regain superior altitude. An aircraft with superior climb makes this a lot easier.

Erich Hartmann was master of the of the dive zoom. The Me-109G had great dive, climb, acceleration and firepower. A match made in heaven (from the Luftwaffe perspective).


----------



## msxyz (Oct 9, 2012)

Macchi c.200 and c.202 were very fast divers and always gained recognition for this.

Some sources say speeds as high as 1000 km/h were obtained in a step dive at altitude, although the airspeed readings of the instruments of the era weren't accurate once they approached the high subsonic region. Even the designer of the c.200/2 had always been suspicious of the figures reported by the test pilots and deduced correctly that the instruments weren't returning accurate readings past certain speeds.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 9, 2012)

Compressibility starts at ~ .3M, Drag Divergence begins antwhere from .59 to .65 for nearly all well designed airframes and stagnation pressures on pitot tubes well below that become unreliable. No way did Macchi 202 come close to 1000km/hr, and certainly not with wings and eppenage still attached to airframe.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 9, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Cobber - do you happen to have the RAE report that concluded that the Fw 190 and Bf 109 dove at a higher velocity than the P-47?


 
From recollection the information comes from Eric Browns book 'Wings on my Sleeve'. Brown said th RAE tested the P38, P47 and P51. I think the figures for critical dive speed for the thee fighters were; P38 and P47, mach .72 and P51 mach .78. That put the P51 on par with contemporary 109s and 190s and the P47 and P38 a bit behind.
I think the highest figure the RAE ever got was mach .82 for a Spitfire, but the plane lost its prop and its wing were bent back in the process, though it still landed. I guess the effective critical dive speed probably would have been no more than the P 51.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> The myth that the P-47 wasn't a good climber was initially true when the narrow-chord props were used. Once they put on wide-chord props, the P-47 was still down a bit in low-altitude climb, but handily out-climbed many fighters at medium and especially high altitude. It was probably one of the best at 28,000 to 35,000 feet, right where many of them spent time on escort missions. Couple that with very good roll and you have a formidable escort aircraft.



It depends what you compare it with.

Compared to the earlier versions with standard props the paddle blade prop versions look like stellar climbers, but how do they compare to known good climbers?

The Spitfire XIV has 1000+ ft/min better climb at sea level than the P-47M, which appears to be the best climbing P-47, and still matches the climb at 32,000ft. Can't tell you above that.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> The myth that the P-47 wasn't a good climber was initially true when the narrow-chord props were used. Once they put on wide-chord props, the P-47 was still down a bit in low-altitude climb, but handily out-climbed many fighters at medium and especially high altitude. It was probably one of the best at 28,000 to 35,000 feet, right where many of them spent time on escort missions. Couple that with very good roll and you have a formidable escort aircraft.


 
The pre-paddlepop prop P 47 (say that fast five times!) certainly had a reputation as a poor climber, at least at low to medium/high altitudes. The D models apparently improved markedly in this respect, although I agree with WuzaK (shock, horror!) that’s its questionable whether they matched dedicated climbers like the 109K or Spit XIV at any altitude. But then as an escort fighter they didn’t really have to, I guess. The Thunderbolts could fly above the bombers, which was where the German fighters had to go, and intercept by doing what they did best – diving.
One other thing - didn't the later P47 have dive flaps, like the P38L? But the P-51 didn't - was this a reflection of the Mustangs higher critical mach number and therefore contrallbility at higher dive speeds than the other two fighters?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2012)

Controlability is different to critical mach number. Though I believe they could be related - part of the issue for P-38s in dives was due to compressibility causing buffeting of the elevator.

Yes, Cobber, this is the second thing in which we are in agreement. The other is that the Wallabies are crap.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I think the highest figure the RAE ever got was mach .82 for a Spitfire, but the plane lost its prop and its wing were bent back in the process, though it still landed. I guess the effective critical dive speed probably would have been no more than the P 51.





> Beginning in late 1943, high-speed diving trials were undertaken at Farnborough to investigate the handling characteristics of aircraft travelling at speeds near the sound barrier (i.e., the onset of compressibility effects). Because it had the highest limiting Mach number of any aircraft at that time, a Spitfire XI was chosen to take part in these trials. Due to the high altitudes necessary for these dives, a fully feathering Rotol propeller was fitted to prevent overspeeding. It was during these trials that EN409, flown by Squadron Leader J. R. Tobin, reached *606 mph (975 km/h, Mach 0.891)* in a 45° dive. In April 1944, the same aircraft suffered engine failure in another dive while being flown by Squadron Leader Anthony F. Martindale, RAFVR, when the propeller and reduction gear broke off. Martindale successfully glided the Spitfire 20 mi (32 km) back to the airfield and landed safely. Martindale was awarded the Air Force Cross for his exploits.
> 
> A Spitfire was modified by the RAE for high speed testing of the stabilator (then known as the "flying tail") of the Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft. RAE test pilot Eric Brown stated that he tested this successfully during October and November 1944, *attaining Mach 0.86 in a dive*



Supermarine Spitfire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2012)




----------



## CobberKane (Oct 9, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Supermarine Spitfire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's a crazy speed for a piston engine aircraft. Brown said the only other fighter of the war to match that dive speed was the ME262, though is did so at a much more shallow angle of course. In any case experience with the P 47 suggests that that outright speed in the dive is secondary to acceleration in defining what makes a fighter a good 'diver' from the combat pilots point of view. I wonder if another big factor is rate of roll. For a fighter to dive it must first roll 180 degrees, and the faster this occurs the less time there will be for a) a target at lower altitude to escape, or b) an attacker to catch you before you dive away. I believe one of the few advantages the Spitfire V had over the Fw190A was an ability to pull away in extended dives, yet a typical escape for the 190 when attacked by the Spitfire was to roll and dive, because its superior roll rate mean it would be esablished on the desired plane and entering the dive while the spitfire was still playing catch up behind it. 

Perhaps a 'good diver' is a plane that can:
1. roll quicky
2. accelerate quicly in the dive
3. remain controllable 
4. have a good zoom climb.

With outright speed in the dive being secondary to these factors, so long as it was at least competitive


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2012)

The Spitfire XIV was very probably the best climber of the war. The Me 109K was near it, at a MUCH lower speed of climb. Since the P-47 with the wide-chord prop was near these two stellar cimbers, my point is well made. The early P-47N-5 climbed at slightly over 4,200 fpm at sea level and was still clibing at 3,750 fpm at 28,000 feet. Later N's were a bit better. numbers for P-47N-5 from wartime report number E5-302-A, available on the web at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg.

The P-47N's, especially the late models, were the fastest planes of the war bar none, at altitude, and 470+ mph in service, in numbers. Some others mathched and exceeded the P-47N's speed after the war, but not during the war. I'm not talking about prototypes, I'm talking about deployed, normal operational types. Protypes, while interesting, especially to me, are meaningless in wartime operations.

Normal operations, to me, means more than 1,000 built and deployed. There were 1,816 P-47N's built and 1,667 built in WWII, with most deployed during WWII. Numbers like 43 built, as in the Ta-152 are a batch of hastily-deployed prototypes (never more than 25 in service at any one time), and they were not operational after the first malfuntion, due to no spare parts in the logistics system and all parts needed for new production. Nothing wrong with the Ta-152 at all; just not a factor in any wartime operations, so please spare us the prototype performance debate, it is meaningless in the scheme of WWII operations.

But, if 1,000 or more were built and deployed in WWII, then go for it. More than, say, 200, were operational, but hardly well-deployed and were sort of operational ... but not really, except ina small group.

The Me 109K was fast (about 440 mph or so) and climbed well, but was not maneuverable or much of a a threat above 400 mph, as any Me 109 pilot can tell you. At that speed, they were running to save their lives. Their combat speed was around 350 mph if they were going to fight and maneuver. But get fast and climb with the best (at a lower speed), they could if necessary. It rarely was except to catch something. When they DID, they slowed down to attack unless it was to be a tail chase. If so, the target was likely to be able to out-maneuver the Me 109K at high speed. If both slowed down, it migh be a fight. For instance, I believe the Me 109K could ctach most Mosquitos. But catching it and making a kill of it are two different things.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Spitfire XIV was very probably the best climber of the war. The Me 109K was near it, at a MUCH lower speed of climb. Since the P-47 with the wide-chord prop was near these two stellar cimbers, my point is well made. The early P-47N-5 climbed at slightly over 4,200 fpm at sea level and was still clibing at 3,750 fpm at 28,000 feet. Later N's were a bit better. numbers for P-47N-5 from wartime report number E5-302-A, available on the web at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg.



That chart shows a rate of climb of just over 3600ft/min at sea level, and 2400ft/min at 28k ft.

Time to 25k ft is around 8 minutes (using WEP all the way), at which time the Spitfire XIV is some 5000ft higher!

The P-47's climb in no way compares to the Spitfire XIV's until over 30,000ft, and then it only appears to match it.

The Spitfire IX, depending on engine and altitude, could outclimb a XIV.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 10, 2012)

Anyone have any info on the dive speed / handling / zoom of the F4U Corsair?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 10, 2012)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/jt259-handling.pdf

See section 4.23


Also:


> The F4U's appear to be superior to teh P-51B under all conditions in level flight acceleration, in maneuverability, and in response. The P-51B has markedly superior diving acceleration



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The pre-paddlepop prop P 47 (say that fast five times!) certainly had a reputation as a poor climber, at least at low to medium/high altitudes. The D models apparently improved markedly in this respect, although I agree with WuzaK (shock, horror!) that’s its questionable whether they matched dedicated climbers like the 109K or Spit XIV at any altitude.
> 
> *The later D's (post -11) with WI and Paddle blades did in fact climb with or climbed faster above 30,000 feet due to the supercharger and continuously uprated R-2800 hp...as it continued to perform when the Spit and 109 went well beyond their critical altitude. Having said that, it would entirely depend on the condition of the engines for the P-47D to climb faster above 30,000 feet than the Spit IX or XIV*
> 
> ...



Yes the P-47D-25 (IIRC) and beyond had a dive 'flap' around the 30% chord line similar to the P-38 for the very same reason.

The region of Drag divergence moved to the area of aerodynamic center/max T/c for both the P-38 and P-47, then from that state to critical mach where the shock wave formed and started moving aft. During that transition, the Mac caused a nose down pitch - The effect of the dive flap was to delay the transition and enable the pilot to get control of the dive.

The Mustang max t/c was near 40% which had two effects. First was a more gradual gradient for the pressure distribution over the airfoil, delaying the critical velocity at which Drag Divergence (local near supersonic/pre-shockwave) formed. Second, the effect of a shock wave forming at ~40% chord was a much reduced Pitching Moment. 

Simply, the 51 didn't 'tuck' like all the rest of the conventional wing fighters.

As to the necessity of Roll before Dive? Only if you had to follow the guy in front, or your roll was an evasion manuever coupled with a climb - then split S... but IIRC all the tests performed by RAE for dive measurement was simply fly in parallel and push the stick forward.. trust me that a 51 does not need to roll and split S to initiate a wild ride 'south',


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 10, 2012)

P-47N were deployed from april '45, only N-1 and N-5 were used in WWII the production of this 2 variant was 1,100.
1,667 is the production until december 1945 for Farmingdale factory


----------



## davparlr (Oct 10, 2012)

wuzak said:


> That chart shows a rate of climb of just over 3600ft/min at sea level, and 2400ft/min at 28k ft.
> 
> Time to 25k ft is around 8 minutes (using WEP all the way), at which time the Spitfire XIV is some 5000ft higher!
> 
> ...


 
There is some confusion on the performance of the P-47N. The referenced site shows correct weight but is probably an engineering analysis not flight test data. These tend to be optimistic, which is confusing. Flight test data as shown by this site,
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg ,

shows a significant difference in tested weight of the N compared to the D and M. Just looking at the M, it has a basic weight increase over the D, most likely due to the new engine and larger turbo-supercharger, of 236 lbs and tested weight increase of 531 lbs, for some odd reason. However the N, with a basic weight of 300 lbs more than the M, due to bigger wing and installed wing tanks, shows a tested weight 2528 lbs more than the M. If corrected for over weight conditions, the N should handily out climb the M, and besting 4000 ft/min, which would make some sense since the wing loading is better on the N.

While there is conflicting data, I suspect that if the Spitfire XIV and P-47N performance would be quite close at equal fuel weights (the spit carries much less fuel). The N engine produced a flat rated 2800 hp up to 33k, much more powerful at high altitudes than any other fighter including the dual engined Do 335.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2012)

> much more powerful at high altitudes than any other fighter including the dual engined Do 335.


The Do-335 was a high speed light bomber complete with bomb bay. A 1945 version of the 1960s F105. One would expect such aircraft to be optimized for low level performance.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 10, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Yes the P-47D-25 (IIRC) and beyond had a dive 'flap' around the 30% chord line similar to the P-38 for the very same reason.
> 
> The region of Drag divergence moved to the area of aerodynamic center/max T/c for both the P-38 and P-47, then from that state to critical mach where the shock wave formed and started moving aft. During that transition, the Mac caused a nose down pitch - The effect of the dive flap was to delay the transition and enable the pilot to get control of the dive.
> 
> ...


 
Regarding Roll before dive, surely this was a nessecary manouver to avoid 'red out.'? I know early war 109 pilots used to bunt straight into a dive to escape Spitfires and Hurricanes as their fuel injected engines would continue to operate, but this wouldn't have needed to be a particularly violent move, just enough to generate negative Gs. In fact the longer and slower the manouver the more time the 109 would have under power while the Spit or Hurri was falling behind I guess. Likewise, when trying to compare the dive speeds of two planes in a controlled enviriinment the best option would be to simply push the stick forward steadily. But when someone is on you tail and dive aceleration is your trump card i would have thought you would want to get into that dive asap without bursting every capilliary in your eyeballs - in other words a split-S. So if diving was invariably preseded by a roll in combat, it follows that any plane that had a good reputation as a diver most likely was a good roller as well. This certainly seems to be the case with the P-47


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 11, 2012)

In reference to the high speed dive of the Spitfire. With all due respect to that lovely airplane. How does a dive that destroys the airplane, and is lucky to land, proof that it is the supreme diving aircraft????? The destruction is evidence that the limits of the airframe were exceeded.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2012)

It was going somewhat faster than its contemporaries could in a dive.

But it was done in the name of research.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 11, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> In reference to the high speed dive of the Spitfire. With all due respect to that lovely airplane. How does a dive that destroys the airplane, and is lucky to land, proof that it is the supreme diving aircraft????? The destruction is evidence that the limits of the airframe were exceeded.


 
Only Martindales plane was destroyed, the other two apparently survived, though Brown's Spitfire can be discounted due to it's new tail. And no, I wouldn't describe the Spitfire as a supreme diver because, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that a fighter's reputation as a diver in combat situations included roll rate, which would put the aircraft on the chosen plane before diving, and acceleration in the dive, which would close the gap on a target or open the gap from a pursuer. Neither of these factors were examined in the RAE tests, although the outright speeds reached by the Spitfire does emphasise what a remarkable design it was.
I think rate of roll is one of the most underestimated performance criteria of all fighters. Wth the exception of the loop and the chandelle (which is effectively an abreviated loop) all acrobatic manouvres begin with a roll. I believe that this is the key to the reputation of the P47 as a great diver; very few aircraft would have been able to stay with it as it rolled and the few that could would not have been able to keep up once it accelerated into the dive. commenced.


----------



## Hop (Oct 11, 2012)

> How does a dive that destroys the airplane, and is lucky to land, proof that it is the supreme diving aircraft????? The destruction is evidence that the limits of the airframe were exceeded.



Diving to Mach 0.891 did not destroy the aircraft. The aircraft in question was a Spitfire XI, serial number EN 409. It was used for tests in 1943. In January 1944 the RAE issued an interim report that included details of a "typical" dive to mach 0.891. 

Several months after that report, in April 1944, the same Spitfire, EN 409, was destroyed in another diving accident. We don't really know what speed it got up to before the accident occurred.

And it wasn't the limits of the airframe that were exceeded, iirc. The constant speed unit (prop gearbox) failed, causing the prop to tear away. 

But the cause is immaterial. We have a test report showing the Spitfire reaching mach 0.891 safely. There is no mention of damage. Indeed, there can't have been significant damage or they wouldn't have been using the same aircraft for high speed research months later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Wth the exception of the loop and *the chandelle (which is effectively an abreviated loop*).



Not true...

A chandelle is a control maneuver where the pilot combines a 180° turn with a climb. 

The Idea is to start the maneuver at maneuvering speed and complete the maneuver 180° from your starting point just about at stall speed. As you climb and bank you're reaching a bank angle between 30 and 40 degrees.

This is a Chandelle...


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 12, 2012)

The F6Fs were very effective at dive-bombing on both land and sea targets. They proved that over and over, since their inception. Such was built into them by Grumman. Think of the constraints attendant to deploying aircraft from carrier decks as opposed to from land runways. Although the carriers carrying the F6Fs were Essex Class in size, Grumman built every conceivable role they could into those aircraft short of torpedo-bombing because of the space constraints, even on those big carriers. 

As far as generally what makes for a good dive-bomber, you get a decent fighter-bomber aircraft, it's more the pilot training and skills, than it is anything else. The SBDs, with their perforated brake flaps, were ideal dive-bombers. However, you don't have the requisite training and skills, you don't hit the broadside of a barn in one of those.


----------



## barney (Oct 12, 2012)

To me, when we talk of diving, I don't think of a shallow dive to drop a bomb or strafe an airfield, I think of the monumental dives from bomber altitude to deck chasing or being chased by e/a. 

When entering a dive, most planes had to be trimmed a certain way, altitude and speed had to be monitored and the pullout begun at a specific altitude depending on the speed and altitude where the dive was initiated. I can imagine this easily going wrong in combat. 

So, I suggest the best diver would be the plane most likely to keep you alive when the execution of this maneuver is less than perfect. Better yet, I think a wise pilot in chase would feign the vertical dive and then go shallow. Let the guy below display his diving skills.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 13, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not true...
> 
> A chandelle is a control maneuver where the pilot combines a 180° turn with a climb.
> 
> ...


 
...Which would seem to leave the loop as the only acrobatic move not incorporating a roll, which emphasises my point rate of roll is a vital ingredient of that mysterious quality, manouverablity - at least as important as turning radius, which so many comentators seem to regard as the be-all and end-all of an aircrafts dogfighting ability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> ...Which would seem to leave the loop as the only acrobatic move not incorporating a roll.



For the most part, CORRECT!


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2012)

Do you have historical F6F bombing accuracy results to support that claim?


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2012)

davebender said:


> Do you have historical F6F bombing accuracy results to support that claim?


I beg your pardon? Why don't you research NAS Fallon, NV, late-1944, early-1945, for starters. Find out what the boys over there in those bombing-fighting squadrons were training on. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't just gunnery target practice and acrobatics. The F6Fs were made to dive-bomb, that was a built-in role. They were bombing-fighting aircraft, not just fighting aircraft.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 13, 2012)

barney said:


> To me, when we talk of diving, I don't think of a shallow dive to drop a bomb or strafe an airfield, I think of the monumental dives from bomber altitude to deck chasing or being chased by e/a.
> 
> When entering a dive, most planes had to be trimmed a certain way, altitude and speed had to be monitored and the pullout begun at a specific altitude depending on the speed and altitude where the dive was initiated. I can imagine this easily going wrong in combat.
> 
> So, I suggest the best diver would be the plane most likely to keep you alive when the execution of this maneuver is less than perfect. Better yet, I think a wise pilot in chase would feign the vertical dive and then go shallow. Let the guy below display his diving skills.


That's pretty much exactly right. Did you know the Navy even had a way of monitoring the angles of the dives? The pilots got their initial training in dive-bombing in the SBDs in the Gulf and the Atlantic. My Dad got his out of NAS Okalaka.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 14, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> I beg your pardon? Why don't you research NAS Fallon, NV, late-1944, early-1945, for starters. Find out what the boys over there in those bombing-fighting squadrons were training on. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't just gunnery target practice and acrobatics. The F6Fs were made to dive-bomb, that was a built-in role. They were bombing-fighting aircraft, not just fighting aircraft.


OK, now you boys got me talking to myself, replying to myself. I think this is useful to know, however. So, here we go...

Let's get our heads out of Wikipedia for a moment and try to get a grasp on the big picture. Why was Leroy Grumman put to the task of the F6Fs? One reason, to neutralize the Japanese air power. Grumman was the most logical choice for that as he was the manufacturer who was the most familiar with carrier constraints. Let's talk about those for a moment. One is, space. That meant not only the retractable wing designs, but pack as many roles into that aircraft as you can. When the mission priorities change, you want the machinery, right there, on board, to do the job. That's the reason those bombing capabilities were built into this fighter aircraft. Another is, maintenance. You want something simple. Another is, durability. You want something strong. The F6Fs filled out those constraints, as well. 

OK. Indeed, the first F6F squadrons were VF (i.e., fighting) squadrons. Why? That was the priority. You don't drop bombs on enemy aircraft, you fight them. As that priority transitioned to encompass bombing, understand, these pilots had already been trained on that, well before the F6Fs even came out of production. They got their wings, they went straight to the SNJs, then to the SBDs. They already knew how to dive-bomb. And, indeed, those later F6F squadrons were VBF (i.e., bombing-fighting) squadrons.

Finally, on the subject of this thread, generally, I'll implore you all to think of this. You take any of these aircraft discussed, you put a pilot in there who knows what he's doing, he's going to put that bomb on the pitcher's mound on a baseball diamond. That's how good these aircraft were in that role. All they required was that crack pilot. How do you think our SBDs got those carriers at Midway? And, note, those weren't standing still like land targets. I rest my rant.


----------



## Xjrtaz (Oct 21, 2012)

My father has officially documented in combat reports that his P-47 regularly did up to 600 mph in a dive and needed to apply his dive brakes to stop from overtaking the fleeing kraut in front of him.
When Gladych and he joined the 56th FG after flying spits in various Polish squadrons, they were asked to assess the combat capabilities of the jug. To summarise, climbing and diving the best they had ever flown but very lacking in combat capability below 15,000 feet.
It was only the later marks of spit that were capable of safely diving at speed. Several Polish pilots were killed when the "wings marched off" (as my father stated) or the fuselage twisted out of line rendering the spit to the scrap heap. One Polish pilot 'Feric' is in Northolt runway having proved the point to the farnborough engineers that the wings separated in a steep dive. He was reported to have been killed in a 'flying accident'


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 21, 2012)

Xjrtaz said:


> Several Polish pilots were killed when the "wings marched off" (as my father stated)...


My father told me that same thing in reference to the Kamikazes when they came in "hot" and yet nobody here believed it because I couldn't back it up in a Wikipedia reference or some such thing. Suffice it to say, I believe you.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2012)

Xjrtaz said:


> My father has officially documented in combat reports that his P-47 regularly did up to 600 mph in a dive and needed to apply his dive brakes to stop from overtaking the fleeing kraut in front of him.
> 
> *His impression of 600mph was due to the inability of the pitot tubes to correctly get true airspeed stagnation pressures and temperatures.*
> 
> ...



*Even the P-51 and P-47 which were the top divers for US were 'restricted' at 505mph TAS and/or .75M.*


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 22, 2012)

Xjrtaz said:


> My father has officially documented in combat reports that his P-47 regularly did up to 600 mph in a dive and needed to apply his dive brakes to stop from overtaking the fleeing kraut in front of him.
> When Gladych and he joined the 56th FG after flying spits in various Polish squadrons, they were asked to assess the combat capabilities of the jug. To summarise, climbing and diving the best they had ever flown but very lacking in combat capability below 15,000 feet.
> It was only the later marks of spit that were capable of safely diving at speed. Several Polish pilots were killed when the "wings marched off" (as my father stated) or the fuselage twisted out of line rendering the spit to the scrap heap. One Polish pilot 'Feric' is in Northolt runway having proved the point to the farnborough engineers that the wings separated in a steep dive. He was reported to have been killed in a 'flying accident'


 
Your father assessed the P-47 as the best climber he'd flown to date? Did he mean zoom climb?


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 22, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Originally Posted by Xjrtaz
> My father has officially documented in combat reports that his P-47 regularly did up to 600 mph in a dive and needed to apply his dive brakes to stop from overtaking the fleeing kraut in front of him.
> 
> *His impression of 600mph was due to the inability of the pitot tubes to correctly get true airspeed stagnation pressures and temperatures.*


Are you saying the pitot tube can't measure true air speed in a dive? I never heard of that. Air speeds were measured all the time in diving training. 

At any rate, his father's impression he regularly had to apply his dive brakes while descending on a fleeting fighter means to me he had that P-47 cooking pretty darn fast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Are you saying the pitot tube can't measure true air speed in a dive? I never heard of that. Air speeds were measured all the time in diving training.




Compressibility error - 
The error in the readings of a differential-pressure-type airspeed indicator due to compression of the air on the forward part of the pitot tube component moving at high speeds. 


Read more: compressibility error: Definition from Answers.com


----------



## Xjrtaz (Oct 22, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Your father assessed the P-47 as the best climber he'd flown to date? Did he mean zoom climb?



Yes, best one to date.
After the war he flew jets with 167 Sq


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Compressibility error -
> The error in the readings of a differential-pressure-type airspeed indicator due to compression of the air on the forward part of the pitot tube component moving at high speeds.
> 
> 
> Read more: compressibility error: Definition from Answers.com


Thanks. I suppose then I can say at slower speeds it's more reliable? I don't understand the science, that's why I'm asking.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Thanks. *I suppose then I can say at slower speeds it's more reliable?* I don't understand the science, that's why I'm asking.


For the most part yes. On some installations there is actually a correction card that will account for compressibility error


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part yes. On some installations there is actually a correction card that will account for compressibility error


Appreciate it, FLYBOYJ. I honestly never even knew there was an issue there.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 22, 2012)

Even if there wasn't an iota of data to support it, the anecdotal evidence from both sides of the conflict would be enough to secure the Thunderbolts reputation as one of the best divers of the war. The RAE established that other aircraft, including contemporary 109s and 190s, had outright higher diving speeds, but possibly that wasn't much use in practice because if the P 47 accelerated in the dive as quickly as it's pilots said, it would have overhauled those fighters while they were still building up speed. Maybe that's where the P47's great strength lay; in dive acceleration from a typical combat manouvering speed up to, say 500mph, combined with its steadyness as a gun platform at those speeds. The specific adavantage of a 109 or 190 in outright eventual dive speed wouldn't be much use if it had a P47 up its clacker filling it with .50s while it was waiting to get there.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 22, 2012)

Xjrtaz said:


> Yes, best one to date.
> After the war he flew jets with 167 Sq


 
Gotcha. I would have been very suprised if your grandfather had been singing the praises of the P-47 as a climber afer coming from Spits, but as a zoom-climber it was supposed to be very good. The Tempest may have been better still, though it couldn't go as high as the 47, and probably came along a bit late in the war to really cement its reputation.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The RAE established that other aircraft, including contemporary 109s and 190s, had outright higher diving speeds, but possibly that wasn't much use in practice because if the P 47 accelerated in the dive as quickly as it's pilots said, it would have overhauled those fighters while they were still building up speed. Maybe that's where the P47's great strength lay; in dive acceleration from a typical combat manouvering speed up to, say 500mph, combined with its steadyness as a gun platform at those speeds. The specific adavantage of a 109 or 190 in outright eventual dive speed wouldn't be much use if it had a P47 up its clacker filling it with .50s while it was waiting to get there.



Kobber - do you have those reports from RAE? You may recall Gunther Rall was assigned to Rechlin during rehab where he both flew the P-51, P-47 against the latest LW ships during the Fighter School part of his assignment there but also had access to all the test pilots and data. He was very clear in his autobiography that he could not escape in a dive against the chasing 47s.

Another factor to consider is that if the 109 or 190 began a dive to evade say 800-1000 yards ahead of a 47 or 51, and was truly faster in a dive, there would be no hope of the P-47 (or P-51) catching up - and yet catch up they did (and often) as evidenced by so many Encounter reports. 

The drag coefficient of the P-51 was 2/3 of the 109/190...which leads to interesting questions regarding the RAE tests.


----------



## Arossihman (Oct 23, 2012)

As far as wings ripping off one has to account for different variants that had different armaments in the wings. More guns.....heavier wing that would come off more easily than a wing with less guns in it. I believe in testing either a version of the mustang or even the jug shed its wing because of steps taken to lighten the aircraft and less guns were put in to compensate until the wing root was strengthened. Can't remember where I read that but I will check my "jug bible" when I get home tonight.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 23, 2012)

Arossihman said:


> As far as wings ripping off one has to account for different variants that had different armaments in the wings. More guns.....heavier wing that would come off more easily than a wing with less guns in it. I believe in testing either a version of the mustang or even the jug shed its wing because of steps taken to lighten the aircraft and less guns were put in to compensate until the wing root was strengthened. Can't remember where I read that but I will check my "jug bible" when I get home tonight.



Two Mustang wing failures (P-51) were traced to landing gear lock failing in high G pull - in which the gear door was popped open, one suspect was due to ammo doors failing at very high speed. Production fits were made to provide LG uplock and redesigned door from B to D as wellas replace .188 thick ammo door with .25 thickness. 

Most failures of the 51 were in rolls for which there were large asymmetric loads. The only 51 that had conscious weight reduction program was the P-51H - it was designed to 7 1/2 G at 8800 pounds IIRC which was a higher stress Design Limit Load than the P-51B/D at 8G for 8000 pounds GW


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 23, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Kobber - do you have those reports from RAE? You may recall Gunther Rall was assigned to Rechlin during rehab where he both flew the P-51, P-47 against the latest LW ships during the Fighter School part of his assignment there but also had access to all the test pilots and data. He was very clear in his autobiography that he could not escape in a dive against the chasing 47s.
> 
> Another factor to consider is that if the 109 or 190 began a dive to evade say 800-1000 yards ahead of a 47 or 51, and was truly faster in a dive, there would be no hope of the P-47 (or P-51) catching up - and yet catch up they did (and often) as evidenced by so many Encounter reports.
> 
> The drag coefficient of the P-51 was 2/3 of the 109/190...which leads to interesting questions regarding the RAE tests.


 
Unfortunately, I don’t have the reports. I’m going on the account of Eric Brown in his book. But I agree that in practise a P-47 could out dive pretty much anything, either offensively or defensively – all the pilot accounts I’ve read from both sides of the conflict confirm it. 
From what I’ve read the P-47 accelerated very quickly in the dive and retained the speed it built up very efficiently, either of which characteristics would enable it to overhaul a fleeing opponent, either during the dive or immediately afterwards, irrespective of whether the other plane might have had a slightly higher maximum dive speed under controlled circumstances. My thinking is that even with a fairly extended separation these qualities must have been enough to give the P-47 a significant edge in the area of diving. The alternative would be to assume the RAE results were wrong, which I’m disinclined to do


----------



## drgondog (Oct 24, 2012)

I pressed Wing Captain Brown on this topic back in the 80's and could get no back up to his claim that the Mcr of the FW 190 was higher than both the P-47 and P-51, enabling it to dive faster. I'm open to belief that RAE tested all three to critical limits but I have only found the Mustang IV and P-47D-30 (?) dive tests (with wing flap), which given all the access via internet is pretty curious that the results for 190 and 109 are not available.

As to accelerating in a Dive - and then extending the lead - the Mustang out accelerated the Spit IX at all altitudes then maintained the separation, the Tempest V above 24000 feet (the Tempest slightly superior below 24,000 feet), the FW 190 and Me 109G always at all altitudes according to the RAF Wettering report dated 8 March 1944. These are the only published Tactical Comparisons I have seen.

Page 58-61 of Jeff Ethell's "Mustang"

The Army Air Forces Board Project No. (M-1) 50 "Tactical Employment Trials on North American P-51B-1 Airplane" was a Tactical Trial between the P47D-10, P-38J-5, the P39N-0 and P-40N.

Comments - regarding individual characteristics in which the Mustang was out performed.
1. Both the P-39 and P-40 had a slightly better turn.
2. The P-47 had a slightly better rate of Roll, but the P-51 has a faster rate of roll than all the others
3. It notes that only the P-38J can initially out-accelerate (to a couple of hundred feet in front), before being rapidly caught from behind by the 51 from level flight.
4. The P-38 and P-51 are even in Zoom cimb initially from level flight at low and medium speeds, but the P-38 keeps climbing after the 51 falls away. At high speeds however the 51 pulls away and zoom ends 'considerably higher'. 
5. The P-51 out zooms the P-47 from level flight at all speeds, and recovering from dives the P-51 out accelerates and outclimbs the 47.
6. The P-47 is slightly faster than the P-51 above 30,000 feet but the Mustang will attain 400 mph all the way to 40,000 feet.

One other important note - "The P-47 and P-51 are equal in Dive from level flight but the P-51 'jumps ahead several hundred feet' then maintains that separation neither gaining nor losing distance."

Inference - if the FW 190 and Me 109 have a superior dive speed according to Brown to both the P-51 and P-47 then the acceleration period to terminal dive velocity should be a pretty short interval - implying that neither the Mustang nor Thundebolt should Ever catch the 109/190 in a dive initiated from equal altitudes if the German fighters have several hundred yards of separation. History is unkind to that theory.


Pages 49-50 from Jeff Ethell's "Mustang" - I haven't looked but think this report is on SpitfirePerformance website.

The net of the discussion is there seems to be no published comparisons citing the Fw 190 or Me 109 as superior either in dive acceleration or max dive velocity to either the Mustang or Thunderbolt.


----------



## Xjrtaz (Oct 24, 2012)

Must say, some really interesting posts on this thread. great stuff all, very knowledgeable, hats off to you all


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 24, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I pressed Wing Captain Brown on this topic back in the 80's and could get no back up to his claim that the Mcr of the FW 190 was higher than both the P-47 and P-51, enabling it to dive faster. I'm open to belief that RAE tested all three to critical limits but I have only found the Mustang IV and P-47D-30 (?) dive tests (with wing flap), which given all the access via internet is pretty curious that the results for 190 and 109 are not available.
> 
> As to accelerating in a Dive - and then extending the lead - the Mustang out accelerated the Spit IX at all altitudes then maintained the separation, the Tempest V above 24000 feet (the Tempest slightly superior below 24,000 feet), the FW 190 and Me 109G always at all altitudes according to the RAF Wettering report dated 8 March 1944. These are the only published Tactical Comparisons I have seen.
> 
> ...




Which would seem to support the almost universal experience of pilots that the P-47 could out-dive the 109 or 190. Oddly, though, it seems the P-51 was at least as good in this respect as the P-47 but doesn't have the same reputation. Maybe diving represented the most significant advantage of the P 47 over the German fighters and thus came to be a more commonly used tactic agianst them - thereby cementing its superiority in this respect in the minds of the pilots - as compared to the P51, which had other options?
Then again, I have a DVD in which a P-51 pilot says: "Intellegence told us we could outdive them, but we couldn't. At least I couldn't outdive the one that was after me, and I was going straight down at full throttle." 
The Thunderbolt was also renowned for its steadyiness at high speeds, which doubtless made the option of diving attacks that much more attractive. The Tempest was also apparently very good in this regard. At least one kill was claimed to have been scored at well over 500 mph. There probably aren't too many aircraft that could be used as a gun platform at those speeds, even if they could get there.
At the end of the day I'm not about to discount the P 47 as a supreme diver - there is just too much anecdotal eveidence to support this. By the same token I'm not inclined to discount Browns assertion that the 109 and 190 could reach higher speeds under controlled circumstances, but whether it was practical for them to do so in combat might be a different matter. I suspect that reconciling this apparently contradictory information lies in recognising that use of the dive in a combat situation is a lot more complicated than just pointing the nose down and opening the throttle!


----------



## davparlr (Oct 24, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Then again, I have a DVD in which a P-51 pilot says: "Intellegence told us we could outdive them, but we couldn't. At least I couldn't outdive the one that was after me, and I was going straight down at full throttle."


There were some late model Bf-109 models like the G-10 and K that were quite a challenge to the P-51D. These were much too late to have an affect on the war, but did cause some consternation with the allied pilots when they ran into one.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 24, 2012)

for Gordon Levett 109 (for true S-199) outclimb, outdive and outzoom the P-51D and the Spitfire L.F. IX 
Aircraft


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2012)

A flippant reply to the original question _Diving - which fighters used it best, and how?_ 

The ones that used it best were those that could dive the fastest, and did it going down hill

Sorry couldn't help it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2012)

Arossihman said:


> As far as wings ripping off one has to account for different variants that had different armaments in the wings. More guns.....*heavier wing that would come off more easily than a wing with less guns in it.* I believe in testing either a version of the mustang or even the jug shed its wing because of steps taken to lighten the aircraft and less guns were put in to compensate until the wing root was strengthened. Can't remember where I read that but I will check my "jug bible" when I get home tonight.


Is this for the P-47 in general? In many cases a "loaded" aircraft will handle turbulance and rough air pentration better than being flown at a lighter weight.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Which would seem to support the almost universal experience of pilots that the P-47 could out-dive the 109 or 190. Oddly, though, it seems the P-51 was at least as good in this respect as the P-47 but doesn't have the same reputation. Maybe diving represented the most significant advantage of the P 47 over the German fighters and thus came to be a more commonly used tactic agianst them - thereby cementing its superiority in this respect in the minds of the pilots - as compared to the P51, which had other options?
> Then again, I have a DVD in which a P-51 pilot says: "Intellegence told us we could outdive them, but we couldn't. At least I couldn't outdive the one that was after me, and I was going straight down at full throttle."
> 
> *Its entirely irrelevant to proof points but my father scored three of his six air kills against 109s by cathing up to 109s in a dive that had a head start (7-28-44 and 9-11-44) plus two in turning fights within a Lufberry (6-20-44) and one in which he split S in less altitude than the 109 he had cornered (8-6-44).*
> ...



I don't ever 'dismiss' Brown but he never delivered on the proof points regading a.) side by side tests of 109/190 vs 51/47 in which the 109/190 'won', nor did he b.) refute the RAE tests in March 1944 in which the opposite conlusion (from Brown's) regarding 51/47 Dive performance in head on Comparisons. Ergo, to me its an interesting theory that is contrary to several hundred Combat Encounter Reports in ETO


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 25, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I don't ever 'dismiss' Brown but he never delivered on the proof points regading a.) side by side tests of 109/190 vs 51/47 in which the 109/190 'won', nor did he b.) refute the RAE tests in March 1944 in which the opposite conlusion (from Brown's) regarding 51/47 Dive performance in head on Comparisons. Ergo, to me its an interesting theory that is contrary to several hundred Combat Encounter Reports in ETO


 
I think that sums it up pretty nicely. Re 'dismissing Brown' - it was just a general comment that anyone should be cautios about disreagrding the opinions of such an experienced pilot - but we are also entitled to ask why that opinion seems to contradict the great bulk of combat experiences. That's why I was speculating about factors like acceleration, or stability as a gun platform as contributing to the P47s reputation as a diver.
I'm intrigued by the data that suggests the P51 was at least as good in this respect, yet it is the P-47 that gets all the accolades


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't have the technical knowledge to explain this , but could it be a result because of the weight of the aircraft? The P-47 being so heavy, when pushed over or rolled over on her back and begins to dive, the weight lets the airplane use its energy and it quickly gains speed in the dive. Much faster than its lighter foe, in this case an Me109 or Fw190. The same would hold true of a P-51 vs the German fighters. Again its weight lets it gain speed faster, in the first few critical moments. Now once into a more sustained dive, aerodynamics become more important and the cleaner or smaller airframes "catch up". The Mustang being cleaner than the Thunderbolt ultimately surpasses the speed that the Thunderbolt can obtain. And the same with the Messerschmitt, where eventually it may be able to obtain a higher speed in a dive than a Mustang. But in real world combat, the Thunderbolt or Mustang in its initial surge of speed in the dive catches the Messerschmitt before it can get away and the plane is shot down. A situation where testing, with no bullets flying, shows one result but in combat another opposite result usually occurs.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 26, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I don't have the technical knowledge to explain this , but could it be a result because of the weight of the aircraft? The P-47 being so heavy, when pushed over or rolled over on her back and begins to dive, the weight lets the airplane use its energy and it quickly gains speed in the dive. Much faster than its lighter foe, in this case an Me109 or Fw190. The same would hold true of a P-51 vs the German fighters. Again its weight lets it gain speed faster, in the first few critical moments. Now once into a more sustained dive, aerodynamics become more important and the cleaner or smaller airframes "catch up". The Mustang being cleaner than the Thunderbolt ultimately surpasses the speed that the Thunderbolt can obtain. And the same with the Messerschmitt, where eventually it may be able to obtain a higher speed in a dive than a Mustang. But in real world combat, the Thunderbolt or Mustang in its initial surge of speed in the dive catches the Messerschmitt before it can get away and the plane is shot down. A situation where testing, with no bullets flying, shows one result but in combat another opposite result usually occurs.



Take it to the extreme if you think the heavier airplane accelerates faster.. P-51 and B-17 nose over at the same time..

From a Physics POV, the key factors are Thrust and Drag. Weight will have a contribution to the vertical acceleration as it adds to the Thrust developed by the Propeller/engine system but you have to look at the effect carefully as you differentiate Velocity with respect to time. (acceleration)

In my example above the drag differential between the P-51 and B-17 is enormous. In a dive it would seem as if the B-17 had a drag chute attached as it pitches over.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 5, 2012)

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the reason for the extreme example. However does this mean that weight has nothing to do with the dive? As in stored energy? What about two similar airplanes. A lightly loaded P-51, with 1/4 tanks of fuel, ammo expended, vs a fully fueled Mustang with full ammo load. However brief, wouldn't the weight of the heavier P-51 help it accelerate quicker to its maximum dive speed?


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 5, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I understand the reason for the extreme example. However does this mean that weight has nothing to do with the dive? As in stored energy? What about two similar airplanes. A lightly loaded P-51, with 1/4 tanks of fuel, ammo expended, vs a fully fueled Mustang with full ammo load. However brief, wouldn't the weight of the heavier P-51 help it accelerate quicker to its maximum dive speed?



My knowlege of physics is pretty basic, but I would cite the example of a watermaelon and and apple being dropped at the same time - they hit the ground at the same time too. Hence, if air resistance were not a factor weight would not affect acceleration in the dive. The determining factor would be thrust alone. 
However, in real life we do have to deal with air resistance we and this brings drag into the picture. More drag means less acceleration in the dive. But even if we had two aircraft with identical drag properties and power, if one were significantly heavier than the other it would have an advantage in the dive because it would also have a higher wing loading, and aircraft with higher win loading generally tend to retain control at high speed better than aircraft with lower wing loading. So by my reckoning, while a heavier aircraft might not have any advantage in the initial stages of a dive (all other things being equal) it may very well have an advantage as the dive progresses and the speeds rise.
Having said all that, anyone with a better knowlege of physics feel free to shoot me down


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I don't have the technical knowledge to explain this , but could it be a result because of the weight of the aircraft? The P-47 being so heavy, when pushed over or rolled over on her back and begins to dive, the weight lets the airplane use its energy and it quickly gains speed in the dive. Much faster than its lighter foe, in this case an Me109 or Fw190. The same would hold true of a P-51 vs the German fighters. Again its weight lets it gain speed faster, in the first few critical moments. Now once into a more sustained dive, aerodynamics become more important and the cleaner or smaller airframes "catch up". The Mustang being cleaner than the Thunderbolt ultimately surpasses the speed that the Thunderbolt can obtain. And the same with the Messerschmitt, where eventually it may be able to obtain a higher speed in a dive than a Mustang. But in real world combat, the Thunderbolt or Mustang in its initial surge of speed in the dive catches the Messerschmitt before it can get away and the plane is shot down. A situation where testing, with no bullets flying, shows one result but in combat another opposite result usually occurs.


My naive understanding is the same, that's why I wonder why such a big fuss is made of it over several pages. The drag of all four aircraft will be "close enough" in the equation drgondog outlined. So initially I guess the difference in mass and thrust (of which the P-51 and P-47 both have more than the Me 109 or Fw 190) will lead to a faster dive in the first stage of the dive. And if that stage is long enough for the pilot to get into a shooting position, than his plane surely dived better than his opponent's.

If the small airframes of the 109 and 190 enable higher diving speeds but they achieve them only considerably later than the 51 or 47 in the same dive... than that seems entirely possible to me, but less meaningful, outside a few probably isolated instances. Though I would've personally guessed the P-51 to have the highest diving speed limit thanks to its clean airframe.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 5, 2012)

if i remember right reports on williams pages the german fighters were faster in early dive


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2012)

The aircraft one with better acceleration will initially outgain the other, independent of Gross Weight, then Drag will take over as Drag will at some (very close point in) time equal to Thrust.

In a Free Body Diagram, in equilibrium (i.e no more acceleration) the Vertical Force in a 90 degree dive 

Thrust + Weight = Drag

Explaining it in terms of P-47 vs P-51. The 51 out accelerates intitially, the P-57 closes and maybe starts to achieve a slightly higher speed - which in a long dive may enable the 47 to catch up. In this example the drag differential is slightly offset by weight differential but both have nearly the same Mcr

PS - the physics goes to hell in a handbasket when the Q loads overwhelm the airframe..

In terms of a P-51 versus P-38 - the P-38 initially gains a few feet in the push over but the 51 catches up and accelerates past the 38 before the 38 runs into compressibility, then opens the distance significantly. The Mcr of the 51 is higher.

For P-51 vs Me 109 - the 109 (late G/K) initially accelerates and gains a slight lead, then the P-51 closes and catches up due to the Drag and weight differential.

I have not seen the Mcr data for the 109 but suspect it is lower than the 51.

BTW - these Force balances go to hell in a handbasket when the Q loads overwhelm the structure..


----------



## duplex (Jun 9, 2017)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmRfBsaUN8o_


The legendary German ace Gunter Rall says P-47 was superior to 109 in dive which means that P-47 must have been much better than Spitfire by a huge margin as 109's have comfortably outperformed the Spitfire's in BoB

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2017)

See Drgondogs previous post.

putting it a bit differently 

You have at least three things affecting dive, one is how fast the plane accelerates in the dive. The Spitfire was not good at this.
The 2nd is how fast the plane will ultimately go in the dive given enough height and time. The Spitfire could reach very high speeds but the other plane might well have out accelerated it and gotten out of range by the time the Spitfire got to a point were it was faster (or caught the Spitfire).
3rd is what the ultimate dive speed of the plane is and why. Many 1930s biplanes had so much drag they hit a speed in a dive and simply couldn't go any faster. Most monoplanes didn't have this problem. However they had structural limits, pieces would start falling off the plane at high speed. They had control limits, aerodynamic loads on the control surfaces reached a point where the pilot could not move them using muscle power. And they had aerodynamic limits, at high speeds the airflow changed over the wing and aircraft surfaces and change the center of lift of the wing and or change the airflow over the control surfaces which changed the trim of the aircraft making it difficult or impossible to control. Some planes went into mach tuck. the plane steepened the dive without any input form the pilot (or the pilot could not pull out of the dive). A few planes were trimed such that they tended to pull out of the dive and the pilot could not keep them diving at the same angle using all his strength on the control column.

The P-47 accelerated very quickly in a dive, it also kept aileron effectiveness to rather high speeds making it easy (comparatively) to roll or turn in the dive. Even though the Spitfire (and be careful of the Mark of Spitfire) might actually be able to reach a higher speed given enough altitude. The P-47s did have a problem with compressability.

Also please note that since weight makes up a good component of the dive acceleration/speed comparing a 1940 6000lb Spitfire to a 1944/45 8400lb Spitfire MK XIV might lead to some wrong conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 9, 2017)

duplex said:


> The legendary German ace Gunter Rall says P-47 was superior to 109 in dive which means that P-47 must have been much better than Spitfire by a huge margin as 109's have comfortably outperformed the Spitfire's in BoB



This post is futile attempt to bash Spitfire, without any facts to prove the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> This post is futile attempt to bash Spitfire, without any facts to prove the point.


I have seen two videos of RAF and LW aces that support this but it must be seen in context. It is no great recommendation for the 109 that it could out dive the spitfire in 1940, The Bf109 was supposed to be defending the bombers this is no done well by diving away.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2017)

you can't defend the bombers if you are shot down. If the 109 had a Spitfire on it's tail then diving is a valid way of breaking contact. 
Staying and acting as a bullet sponge so the Spitfire doesn't attack the bombers means fewer escorts the next day or next week. 
It wasn't mano a mano duels but a war of attrition between groups/formations. 
Breaking contact when disadvantaged means, depending on fuel state, being able to rejoin the group several minutes later and resuming duties, or at least sucking the Spitfire/Hurricane into diving after the 109 which also takes them out of intercept position against the bombers. 
A lot depends on relative positions (in every sense, actual location, altitude, direction and airspeed) of the aircraft and the numbers of aircraft. 9-12 Spitfires attacking with 20+ 109s defending 30+ bombers? 

One size does not fit all situations. diving away is just one tool in the tool box.


----------



## duplex (Jun 10, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> This post is futile attempt to bash Spitfire, without any facts to prove the point.


 
A futile attempt ? I don't have to prove any point its a common knowledge .Even the eminent BoB historian James Holland came to the conclusion ( you must assume he did his own research )

James Holland's Griffon Merlin | The Me109 v Spitfire Debate Keeps Going

People can argue all they like about handling, wing-loading, under-carriage widths etc etc, but the bare-faced facts are these: the Me109 could climb faster, had considerably greater fire-power, and could dive faster. That made it the best air-to-air fighter of 1940. That’s not a debate, it’s a fact.


I fully understand Britains emotional attachment to Spitfire but there is the reality , it had its weakness during BoB nobody can deny _.._


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

Well, your eminent BoB historian had better get his facts straight, that or cut out the bias.

"The third crucial advantage was its fire-power – 55 seconds’ worth of ammunition compared with 14.7, and 20mm high explosive cannon shells as well as machine-guns, cannons that even without their explosive charge packed a punch 200% heavier than a .303 bullet."
A Spitfire only got 14.7 seconds worth of firing time _if _the guns were firing faster than 1200rpm. They were generally rated at 1100-1200rpm. At even 1160rpm that is 15.8 seconds. Granted this is a minor quibble but the 109s oh so superior fire power of 55 seconds is for TWO guns, not eight. The cannons ran out of ammo after 7-8 seconds. No mention of _that_ is there? 
To be fair the 20mm shells, even without explosive are way more powerful than 200% but the Germans have a slight problem at any but the closest of ranges. The 20mm and the 7.9mm mgs have different times of flight. At sea level the 20mm shells take 1/10 of second longer to get to 300 meters. The difference is less at higher altitudes but a 300mph aircraft can cover 44ft in a 1/10th of second. This makes deflection shooting a bit difficult. 

I would also seriously question the claim that the 109 climbed faster. They did climb differently. The 109 climbed at a steeper angle which to pilots in combat appears to be climbing better. The Spitfire covered more horizontal ground while gaining about the same or slightly more altitude per unit of time.
One also has to be very careful when comparing printed tests as you will very seldom find a test for a Spitfire (or any British plane) climbing at combat power. For example this chart
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171climb-c.jpg

was done at 2600rpm and 6 1/4 lbs boost which is why the boost falls off at around 11,000ft. This was pre BoB and by the time of the BoB not only was the boost limit changed to the well known 12lbs but the 30 minute climb rating was changed from 6 1/4 lbs at 2600rpm to 6 1/4 lbs at 2850rpm. Combat climb at 3000rpm would have been? even without the 12lbs of boost.

He also managed to leave out that the Spitfire was faster in level flight.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## duplex (Jun 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, your eminent BoB historian had better get his facts straight, that or cut out the bias.


 
I am little bit frustrated mate , why should a popular British historian present himself as someone who is biased against Spitfire ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

I have no idea but please see WWII Aircraft Performance

For British tests done at the time and pay attention to the conditions or engine limits (rpm and boost) used during the tests. Please note that the supercharger is geared directly to the crankshaft so the supercharger on a Merlin III will turn 848.8 rpm _less _for every 100 rpm of the engine which is why the boost tapers off so much while climbing vs the boost available at 3000 rpm in level flight ( you also have the ram effect in the inlet) 

See WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS for some of the information on the guns, a lot of the rest can be found on internet fairly easy and just divide rates of fire and ammo capacity with a calculator.

Th bf109 could _enter_ a dive quicker (perhaps much quicker) but that doesn't mean it was actually faster or that it was as controllable in a dive. That means aileron response and/or elevator response. 

I have no idea of his of motive but the _facts _are there for anybody to check,


----------



## duplex (Jun 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea but please see WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> For British tests done at the time and pay attention to the conditions or engine limits (rpm and boost) used during the tests. Please note that the supercharger is geared directly to the crankshaft so the supercharger on a Merlin III will turn 848.8 rpm _less _for every 100 rpm of the engine which is why the boost tapers off so much while climbing vs the boost available at 3000 rpm in level flight ( you also have the ram effect in the inlet)
> 
> ...


 
Thanks mate...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2017)

For a detailed but long comparison see; Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Diving speeds given here from pilots manuals are 450mph for the Spitfire and 466 for the 109. 16mph doesn't seem to be enough to get excited about compared to how fast the planes accelerated in the dive or the 109s ability to "bunt" into a dive.


----------



## Ascent (Jun 12, 2017)

The fact that the Germans could get enough of a lead to escape from the Spitfires and Hurricanes by "bunting" into the dive while they had to roll before they could follow also answers a question earlier in the thread about the quickest way into the dive.


----------



## stona (Jun 12, 2017)

Ascent said:


> The fact that the Germans could get enough of a lead to escape from the Spitfires and Hurricanes by "bunting" into the dive while they had to roll before they could follow also answers a question earlier in the thread about the quickest way into the dive.



Yes. But other factors come into play in combat. Bf 109 pilots were wary of going too fast in a dive for fear of being unable to recover. Bader once said that usually, having dived away, a Bf 109 would be "going like a lamplighter" and he would not be able to close the range. He also noticed the reluctance of Bf 109 pilots to go too fast or pull out low, which he could use to his advantage. Word went around the Jagdwaffe, following the introduction of the 'Friedrich' that it could fail catastrophically following a Spitfire in a dive, or pulling out hard. In Bader's words, the German pilots were "a bit porky on the joystick" when pulling out of a fast dive.
Rolf Pingel kindly delivered an almost intact Bf 109 F to the British and in his subsequent interrogation confirmed what Bader had noticed.
This is from the original report:







It DOES NOT matter whether the 'Friedrich' really did have such a weakness or not. The German pilots believed that it did, and flew accordingly.

Nothing is black and white in air combat. Different aircraft may have marginal advantages in certain areas over others, but the most important factor is usually the man at the controls.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 12, 2017)

My point was really about that initial transition to the dive where the 109 pilots got that little bit of wriggle room. Whether they managed to turn that into escape is another matter but it gave them that chance.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 12, 2017)

One thing that I don't quite understand re: early Spit/109 is that the propeller pitch issue is almost never mentioned (at least compared to the negative G issue).

If you gave me a choice between two identical fighter planes but:
- one had a constant speed propeller and engine cut in negative G
- one had a controllable pitch propeller and engine worked in negative G​
You'd better believe I'd take the fully automatic pitch every time.

As stona said '... the most important factor is usually the man at the controls'. I'm sure there are plenty of occasions where a 109E was outclimbed, outfought or outdived by Hurricanes (let alone Spitfires) due to the pilot not manipulating his propeller properly in a life-and-death struggle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 12, 2017)

Greyman said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of occasions where a 109E was outclimbed, outfought or outdived by Hurricanes (let alone Spitfires) due to the pilot not manipulating his propeller properly in a life-and-death struggle.



Ulrich Steinhilper touched on this in his autobiography, both the pitch control and the inexperienced replacement pilots arriving at his Gruppe in the second half of September 1940.

_"Typical of these youngsters was a Gefreiter who arrived in late September. His flying time was minimal - he had only fired a few shots at a ground target, had never flown on oxygen and still had no idea how to use his radio. We tried to increase their experience before they actually came along on combat missions by taking them on patrols between missions. Then we would talk on the radio, climb to altitudes in excess of 8,000 metres and make them use oxygen. Of special importance was teaching them how to change the pitch of their propeller to get maximum pull from the engine at high altitude... It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle-climb or at high altitude. After about ten hours tuition we would take them out over the Channel to shoot at shadows on the water or cross to Dungeness and shoot at a black medieval tower that stood there [the old Dungeness Lighthouse]. Finally, when we could not excuse them combat duty any longer, we would take them along with us. This became the case with the Gefreiter and so I took him as my 'Rottenhund'. We began our climb almost immediately after take off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do over the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half way across the Channel and at 4,000 metres Kuhle told him to leave the formation and return to base. He broke away but in his confusion he turned not for home but towards Dover. Kuhle realised what was happening and ordered me to give chase and take him home. I rolled out and soon overhauled him, just before we reached the balloon barrage at Dover. I had tried to raise him on the radio but he was in such a state of anxiety that he wouldn't or couldn't respond. Positioning myself in front of him I rocked my wings, using the signal for him to follow me. He dutifully hung on to my tail and we were soon back at Coquelles. This was one of only two missions I missed during the whole of our time in the Battle of Britain."_

So, yes, the manual pitch control could be an issue. It also illustrates that the Germans were suffering the same problem as Fighter Command, though a distinction lost on Sholto-Douglas. There is a difference between a pilot, fresh faced and newly trained, and a combat ready pilot.

Some Bf 109 Es, depending on which propeller system was fitted, did have automatic pitch control. It became standard on the F series, though it could still be overridden by a manual control from the pilot.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 12, 2017)

To explain why a Bf 109 could enter a dive quicker than a Spitfire of BOB vintage, you have only to note the Bf 109 was fuel injected and the Spitfire was carbureted. If the aircraft were pushed over into a dive (called a "bunt" at the time), the carb would cough when under negative g and the Bf 109 would not, so it appeared to accelerate away. In fact, the Merlin soon revived when in the dive and The Bf 109 rapidly got to a speed where the controls were almost frozen. The main operational solution was to half-roll and THEN dive.

The Bf 109 was medium-speed dogfighter and was not very well-mannered above 400 mph, which was easy to reach in a full-power dive. And that's not a knock on the Bf 109 (surely a great plane). Rather it is a statement of the well know high-speed characteristics of the type. As I've said in here before, the very late-model Bf 109s, if they were going 450 mph, were running TO a fight or FROM a fight, but they weren't fighting at that speed; they were flying in a straight line and covering some serious ground. The best dogfight speeds for the Bf 109 series ranged from 180 mph to something just under 300 mph. They weren't bad at all from 280 to 320 or so mph, but they got pretty stiff above 350 mph and were almost unmanerverable above 400 mph, though they COULD get to that speed.

The inventive Tilly Shilling invented a small orifice (another name for a restrictor) that could be placed inside the carb to mitigate if not eliminate the negative g stuttering of the Merlin. It was called "Miss Shilling's orifice" or "Tilly's orifice" by the crews at the time. By 1943 the Merlin had a Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor that injected fuel at 5 psi. Later, the 100-series Merlin got an S.U. injection carburetor that injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a function of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, effectively meaning it had fuel injection.


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2017)

She must have been some woman, Beatrice Shilling. To have the career in engineering which she enjoyed at that time cannot have been easy for a woman.
There is a branch of the Women's Institute (WI) in Farnborough which still calls itself 'Tilly's Widgets'. I'm sure they are not mechanical engineers, but it is a nice tip of the hat to a pioneering lady. A widget, in this old fashioned context, has nothing to do with computing, being rather any little device whose name you don't know or have forgotten, rather like the 'RAE restrictor'.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jun 13, 2017)

About comparing the BoB era Spitfire and Bf 109 in a dive:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> To explain why a Bf 109 could enter a dive quicker than a Spitfire of BOB vintage, you have only to note the Bf 109 was fuel injected and the Spitfire was carbureted. If the aircraft were pushed over into a dive (called a "bunt" at the time), the carb would cough when under negative g and the Bf 109 would not, so it appeared to accelerate away. In fact, the Merlin soon revived when in the dive and The Bf 109 rapidly got to a speed where the controls were almost frozen. The main operational solution was to half-roll and THEN dive.
> 
> The Bf 109 was medium-speed dogfighter and was not very well-mannered above 400 mph, which was easy to reach in a full-power dive. And that's not a knock on the Bf 109 (surely a great plane). Rather it is a statement of the well know high-speed characteristics of the type. As I've said in here before, the very late-model Bf 109s, if they were going 450 mph, were running TO a fight or FROM a fight, but they weren't fighting at that speed; they were flying in a straight line and covering some serious ground. The best dogfight speeds for the Bf 109 series ranged from 180 mph to something just under 300 mph. They weren't bad at all from 280 to 320 or so mph, but they got pretty stiff above 350 mph and were almost unmanerverable above 400 mph, though they COULD get to that speed.
> 
> The inventive Tilly Shilling invented a small orifice (another name for a restrictor) that could be placed inside the carb to mitigate if not eliminate the negative g stuttering of the Merlin. It was called "Miss Shilling's orifice" or "Tilly's orifice" by the crews at the time. By 1943 the Merlin had a Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor that injected fuel at 5 psi. Later, the 100-series Merlin got an S.U. injection carburetor that injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a function of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, effectively meaning it had fuel injection.




I remember reading about the Spitfires Merlin stuttering if you didn't half roll to keep g's on the fuel system years ago and more than once, good stuff Greg. So what kept the Mustang's Merlin from the same issue, "Miss Shilling's Orifice" or did it utilize a pressure system?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2017)

I believe the Merlins went through three stages, the original carburetors. The carburetors with "Miss Shilling's Orifice" and by 1943/44 even the British Merlins were getting a pressure carburetor. The American built Merlins ALWAYS used Bendix pressure carburetors.

Wiki claims that by March of 1941 the device had been fitted throughout fighter command, While the device prevented the momentary fuel starvation of negative G it still didn't provide for prolonged inverted flight.

It would seem that this negative G problem lasted less than a year.

Photo of Miss Shilling off duty. 
http://




She had lapped the Brooklands race track at 106mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2017)

[QUOTE="Shortround6, post: 1338044, member: 28476"


Photo of Miss Shilling off duty.
http://




She had lapped the Brooklands race track at 106mph.[/QUOTE]

On a Norton...good for her!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 13, 2017)




----------

