# Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 9, 2006)

I was reading this article about best fighter aircraft. Here it is

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html


Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted with an up-rated Pratt Whitney R2800-18W or -42W engine. This powerplant developed 2,450 bhp with water injection. It was also fitted with a four blade hydromatic propeller which provided the necessary efficiency to utilize the greater power. The carburetor inlet was moved from the wing root leading edge to a duct located under the engine. The exhaust stacks had to be re-routed as a result. Armament remained the same as the F4U-1, with six .50 caliber Browning MGs. The limited production F4U-4B was armed with four M3 20mm cannon. Under-wing load capability was substantial. Up to three 1,000 lb. bombs along with eight 5 inch rockets could be carried. Reportedly, it was not unusual to rig the F4U-4 with as much as 6,000 lbs of ordnance. Apparently the robust structure of the Corsair could bear these loads without undue wear and tear on the airframe. Almost certainly, such overloaded Corsairs did not operate from carrier decks, but exclusively from shore bases.

Let’s compare the F4U-4 to its earlier sibling, the F4U-1 so that we can clearly see the improvements made.

Maximum speed:
F4U-1: 417 mph @ 19,900 ft.
F4U-4: 446 mph @ 26,200 ft.

The -4 displays a 29 mph speed advantage, but more importantly, does it at a considerably greater altitude. The F4U-4 is actually 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the Mustang’s best altitude.

Rate of climb:
F4U-1: 3,250 ft/min.
F4U-4: 4,170 ft/min.

While the -4 has a more powerful engine, it also weighs more than the F4U-1. This marked increase in climb rate can be attributed to the more efficient 4 blade propeller as well as the higher power of the up-rated powerplant. The increase moves the Corsair into stellar company with fighters such as the P-38L and the F7F Tigercat. The F4U-4 climbs at a rate 20% better than the P-51D.

There is little doubt that the Corsair was likely the greatest load carrying fighter of its era. There is little to compare to it except perhaps late-war models of the P-47, which still fall somewhat short in maximum load.






We now get to the more subjective aspects of the -4’s performance. Rating a fighter’s flight characteristics is never without pitfalls. What one pilot feels is too stiff, another might describe as firm or secure. As a result, opinions may vary. However, empirical data is certainly the most valuable in determining a fighter’s overall performance. The tangible things such as cockpit layout and visibility are also important, as are the intangible things such as confidence in the airframe to get the pilot home. I will do my best to present the subjective data in an unbiased manner.

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

Ease of flight.The Corsair was much less a handful than the P-51 when flown into an accelerated stall, although it was by no means as forgiving as the F6F Hellcat. Torque roll was no worse than most of its high power contemporaries.

The F4U also rolled well. When rolling in conjunction with powerplant torque, in other words, rolling left, it was among the very fastest rolling fighters of the war. In the inventory of American fighters, only the P-47N rolled faster, and only by 6 degrees/second.

In level flight acceleration the F4U-4 gained speed at about 2.4 mph/sec, the P-51D accelerated at about 2.2 mph/sec. The F4U-1 could not keep up with either, accelerating at only 1.5 mph/sec. The real drag racer of American WWII fighters was the P-38L. It gained speed at 2.8 mph/sec. All acceleration data was compiled at 10-15,000 ft at Mil. power settings.

Turning to dive acceleration, we find the F4U-4 and Mustang in a near dead heat. Both the P-47D and P-38L easily out distance the Corsair and P-51D in a dive. Still, these two accelerate better than the opposition from Japan and Germany. Moreover, both the Corsair and the Mustang have relatively high critical Mach numbers allowing them to attain very high speeds in prolonged dives before running into compressibility difficulty. With the exception of early model P-38’s, it was almost always a mistake to attempt to evade American fighters by trying to dive away. This goes for early war fighters as well, such as the P-40 and F4F Wildcat.

There is one story recorded by a Luftwaffe pilot who, while flying a Bf-109F over North Africa tangled with several FAA Martlets (the British name for the F4F). Finding himself alone with a Martlet on his tail, he elected to half roll into a steep dive to shake off the slow flying carrier fighter. Hurtling down in a screaming dive, the German looked over his shoulder and was stunned to see the Martlet (Wildcat) closing with guns blazing. Pulling back on the stick, under heavy G loading, the German eased into a zoom climb. The F4F was still with him firing bursts. As the speed bled down, the Bf-109 began to pull away in a steady rate climb. Had the Brit been a better shot, the German was certain he would have been shot down. He had underestimated the diving ability of the American fighter. Indeed, many of his comrades would do the same over Europe and not be as fortunate as he.

When we look at the turn rates of WWII fighters we stumble upon several factors that determine how well a fighter can turn. Aside from the technical aspects such as wing area and wing loading, we find that some fighters are far more maneuverable at low speeds than at higher velocities. This was very common with Japanese designs. At speeds above 250 mph, the A6M Zero and the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) could not roll worth a nickel. But at 150 mph, they were two of the most dangerous fighters ever to take wing. It did not take long for Allied pilots to learn to avoid low speed turning duels with the Japanese. Once this rule was established, the light weight dogfighters were hopelessly outclassed by the much faster opposition.

Over Europe, things were somewhat different. The Luftwaffe flew fast, heavily armed aircraft that were not especially suited to low speed turning fights. The Allies had in their inventory the Spitfire, which was very adept at turning fights. The Americans had the P-47, P-38 and P-51. All of which were very fast and at least a match for the German fighters in maneuverability. Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality. With the exception of these last two, there was nothing in western Europe that could hang with the F4U-4. Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.






So, perhaps now is a good time to summarize the performance of the F4U-4. Let’s compare it to the aircraft generally believed to be the best all-around fighter of World War Two, the North American P-51D Mustang.

Speed: The -4 was about 10 mph faster than the P-51D at the altitude where the Mustang developed it’s highest speed.
Advantage: F4U-4

Climb: The -4 Corsair was a remarkable climber despite its size and weight. It could out-climb the Mustang by nearly 800 fpm.
Advantage: F4U-4

Maneuverability: The F4U-4 was one of the very best. According to Jeffrey Ethell: "Of all World War II fighters, the Corsair was probably the finest in air-to-air combat for a balance of maneuverability and responsiveness. The -4, the last wartime version is considered by many pilots who have flown the entire line to be the best of them all….." Indeed, the F4U-4 had few, if any equals at the business of ACM (air combat maneuvering).
Advantage: F4U-4

Armament: Equipped with either six .50 caliber machine guns or four 20mm cannons, the -4 had more than adequate firepower to destroy any aircraft. It was the premier load carrying single engine fighter of the war. It could get airborne with bomb loads exceeding that of some twin engine medium bombers.
Advantage: F4U-4

Survivability: There was no other single engine fighter flown during the war that could absorb greater battle damage than the Corsair and still get home. Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the tank-like P-47 Thunderbolt. That is a remarkable admission. The big Pratt Whitney radial engine would continue to run and make power despite have one or more cylinders shot off. The P-51D, on the other hand, could be brought down by a single rifle bullet anywhere in the cooling system.
Advantage: F4U-4

Useful range: The F4U-4 had roughly the same radius of action as the Republic P-47D-25-RE, which flew escort missions deep into Germany as far as Berlin (the P-47D-25-RE had 100 gallons of additional internal fuel capacity). Yet, the P-51D still maintained a big edge in endurance.
Advantage: P-51D

Ease of flight: Despite gaining the nickname of "Ensign Eliminator", the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era. Some who have flown both the Corsair and the Mustang state without hesitation that the P-51 exhibited a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. Moreover, the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft when entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped. The P-51, however, gave no warning of an impending stall. When it did stall, it was with a total loss of pilot control, rolling inverted with a severe aileron snatch. Recovery usually used up 500 ft or more of altitude. It was not uncommon for Mustangs to spin out of tight turns during dogfights. The F4U could also be flown at speeds more than 30 mph slower than that at which the Mustang stalled. In other words, the P-51 could not hope to follow a Corsair in a low speed turning fight.
Advantage: F4U-4

Outward Visibility: The Corsair provided for very good visibility from the cockpit. However, few if any WWII fighters offered the pilot a better view than the P-51D. The earlier P-51B was inferior to the F4U. Nonetheless, it was the D model that made up the bulk of Mustang production.
Advantage: P-51D

Finally there is an area in which the P-51 cannot compete at all. The F4U was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier. What this provides for is a utility that is unmatched by the better land based fighters of WWII. The ability to operate at sea or from shore can never be over-valued.
Obvious advantage: F4U-4

In conclusion, it would be hard, no, impossible to dismiss the F4U-4 as the leading candidate for the "best fighter/bomber of WWII". Furthermore, there is strong evidence that it very well may be the best piston engine fighter (to see combat) period. Certainly, everyone can agree on this: The F4U-4 Corsair was at the pinnacle of WWII piston engine technology and performance. When people debate the relative merits of the great fighter aircraft of WWII, they would be remiss in not acknowledging the F4U-4 as one of the very best, and in the educated opinion of many, "the best" fighter aircraft to fly into combat in World War II.




I had kinda wondered if it was better than the mustang for manuverability.
I hadn't realized it was even tougher than the P-47 and of course the P-51 to take hits in battle.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Thats an interesting post.

Although for firepower, both were equal. I dont think the Corsair used 20MM untill after the war.

I dont think the F4U was faster though. Most posts Ive seen here put the P51D/K as the fastest fighter (except for the P47N)


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats an interesting post.
> 
> Although for firepower, both were equal. I dont think the Corsair used 20MM untill after the war.
> 
> I dont think the F4U was faster though. Most posts Ive seen here put the P51D/K as the fastest fighter (except for the P47N)



The F4U-4 had a top speed in normal configuration of 446mph. 

One of the things I like about that article is that it points out some of the advantages of the P-38L over even the F4U-4.

I think the F4U-4 ranks right up there with the top fighters.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

This is going to be a good thread, great information there....

Overall I'm taking the F4U-4....

I like to look at longevity - the F4U was still being produced as late as 1953. I found this to be interesting...

"The AU-1 project began life as the F4U-6 but was quickly redesignated by the Navy to reflect its ground attack role. The dash six was never built. The AU-1 was produced solely for the US Marines during the height of the Korean War. Deliveries began in January 1952 and a total of 111 were supplied during the year. The AU-1 was powered by an R-2800-83W Double Wasp with a single stage supercharger, developing 2,300 hp (1,716.4 kW) for take off and 2,800 hp (2,089.6 kW) for War Emergency. Extra armor was added for protection from the small arms fire which would be encountered at the lower altitudes where the AU-1 would be working. It’s ground attack role was underlined by the statistics; max take-off weight was almost 10 tons (9071.9 kg) while the service ceiling was only 19,500 ft (5,943.6 m) and the maximum speed was a mere 238 mph (383 kph)! Ground attack required only enough speed to present a difficult target for ground fire and only enough altitude to properly aim it‘s weapons. 

The AU-1 was armed with 10 rockets or 4,000 lbs (1,814.4 kg) of bombs, in addition to four wing mounted 20 mm cannon with 230 rounds per gun. A fully armed AU was an awesome war machine!"


----------



## Twitch (Feb 9, 2006)

Simply put the Corsair was one of the best! It's all up to each individual to decide if they feel it was THE best. My Corsair pilot friends told me that when they flew mixed missions with squadrons of Hellcats the F6F's could not keep up with the F4U's normal cruise and they always had to throttle back.  It would have held its own in Europe for certain.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 9, 2006)

The Corsair was definately one of the top fighters of World War II - there's no doubt about that. Remember, Joe, that the Spitfire wasn't exactly a one hit wonder - it was still in use in 1954 in the RAF.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats an interesting post.
> 
> Although for firepower, both were equal. I dont think the Corsair used 20MM untill after the war.
> 
> I dont think the F4U was faster though. Most posts Ive seen here put the P51D/K as the fastest fighter (except for the P47N)



There were actually quite a few of the late war prop fighters that were faster than the P-51D:

P-47M (470mph),
P-47N (460 mph),
109K4 (444-452 mph), 
Spitfire XIV (446-448 mph), 
Spitfire 21 (454-460 mph),
Ta-152 (460 mph),
F4U-4 (446 mph),
P-51B/C (448-450 mph),


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 10, 2006)

Just wondering why the FW got the highest rank as top fighter plane of WWII when they say it was outclassed by all the better ally aircraft?

This article said a P-38 could outurn a FW. I read somewhere the P-38 could never turn as well as a single engine fighter. Did that mean only the corsair and spitfire single engine fighters? Or was the P-38 like the Zero that could turn better at slow speed than fast speed? 

it's likely at high altitudes a FW could turn better than a P-38, because thats when it became less manuverable.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

Whoever told you the Fw-190 was out-classed hasn't got a clue. The Fw-190D was equalled in a dogfight by the Spitfire XIV - and in dogfighting terms that's about as good as you're going to get. 

The Fw-190A was never out-classed, but the later Allied fighters were mostly superior in varying degrees. A P-38 was known to out-turn a Fw-190, but it took remarkable pilots to get the best out of a P-38. A P-38 out-turned a Zeke! 

The Spitfire XIV was superior to the Fw-190A ... and I think most people consider all Fw-190s to be 'Antons' that's where the mistake comes that they were "out-classed". Still, the Antons were never out-classed .... but if some of the SturmFw were caught by Allied fighters ... they were easy meat. 

The late-war Allied fighter types in the ETO (Spitfire XIV, Spitfire 21, Tempest, P-51 and P-38 ) were generally equal to, or superior ... to anything the Luftwaffe could field. And more importantly ... they all had fuel, and there were more of 'em (not that it'd matter with the Spitfires ... 'cos anyone with sense knows the Luftwaffe had nothin' that the Spitfire couldn't tangle with)


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 10, 2006)

Just wondering, plan d, did the P-38 out turn the zeke while flying a low speed turn or a high speed turn?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

I believe it was low speed, but it didn't turn inside the Zeke conventionally. The pilot slowed one engine, and speeded up the other ... and literally spun the P-38 almost on the spot!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 10, 2006)

That's cool. 

I guess that's one of the benefit of having two engines over one!

Besides other reasons.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

It was extremely dangerous, any mistiming and he would have put the plane into a spin. But it's the sign of a great pilot - very, very few of the pilots then and now could achieve that.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

If I remember correctly, it was Dick Bong that out-turned the Zero. Keep in mind that Dick Bong was a remarkable pilot. While at Luke field, he flew a mock engagement while flying an AT-6 against a P-38 and the pilot of the P-38 couldn't shake him! The P-38 pilot was a seasoned veteran and no slouch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

From what I understand Dick Bong, Tom Mcguire and Gerald Johnson, all used the "throttle jockey technique" to actually out turn a Zero (or probably an Oscar). I also understand they also used about 10 degrees of flap.....


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 10, 2006)

The P-38s from H on had a "maneuvering flap" at 8 to 12 deg depending on the model. 

P-38 vs Fw-190 below 20,000ft all markes of P-38 were with an average pilot reported as better (even by the 20th FG who hated their 38s). Early models of the Fw-190 didn't do well above 20,000ft, but the P-38s leading edge intercoolers limited it to, The 20th rated them as even. 

The late aircraft of each were better in both areas the Galland Fw-190D/P-38L story is that they had a dogfight that ended in a huge gravel pit Galland couldn't get away and the P-38 could only get in a few potshots until the P-38 ran low on fuel - so was Galland by then and they each went their own ways. The account I read stated Galland turned white and said you about killed me that day as he heard the story being recited. Both pilots were attending a post war fighter confrence with other pilots at the time.

Art Heiden felt the P-38L was a lot better even up high - but what pilot doesn't belive in the plane he has success in?

I think that they were very close, each with its own advantages.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

The 190 was never outclassed by any allied fighters. Ask any allied fighter pilot and they will tell you that aswell. The 190 was a top of the line fighter to the end.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 11, 2006)

That is pure myth about the thottle jockeying guys. I heard that many years ago and actually asked P-38 pilots that flew with Bong. It is categorically untrue. The P-38 is an energy fighter and no one with experience ever tried to out turn Zeros!! P-38 didn't "spin on the spot" by fiddling with the throttles. Picture that whole thing in your mind and you'll realize how unbelievable it is.

Ralph Wandrey told me "the only way a P-38 would have been in a favorable position to cut the apex of a Zeke's turn was if the Zeke was at about 350 MPH after a shallow dive since its ailerons normally became very heavy at that velocity.

If you didn't nail the Zeke then he would have bled off enough speed in the turn for his envelope of high maneuverability again and he'd come around on you."

Don't want to argue with anyone but don't believe this myth guys... 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> That is pure myth about the thottle jockeying guys. I heard that many years ago and actually asked P-38 pilots that flew with Bong. It is categorically untrue. The P-38 is an energy fighter and no one with experience ever tried to out turn Zeros!! P-38 didn't "spin on the spot" by fiddling with the throttles. Picture that whole thing in your mind and you'll realize how unbelievable it is.
> 
> Ralph Wandrey told me "the only way a P-38 would have been in a favorable position to cut the apex of a Zeke's turn was if the Zeke was at about 350 MPH after a shallow dive since its ailerons normally became very heavy at that velocity.
> 
> ...



Well it's funny - I know that Ralph Wandrey actually flew with Bong and he was his wingman during his second tour. Hmmm.., no one said you could get the P-38 to spin on an instance by doing this, but this "trick" was documented in several publications including a 1945 copy of the Lockheed Star (the first time I ever seen it). My ex wife and I worked with Tony LeVier - he told me about this as well but never mentioned who actually did it.....

I've heard this spoken about by many old timers I worked with while at Lockheed 1980 - 1990, some were pilots who said this was done but not by very many.....

Its not unbelivable - I've seen people play with light twins (C-310s) and do similar maneuvers - ever see Bob Hoover!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

"Among others, Capt. Tommy Lynch and Ist Lt. John "Shady" Lane of the New Guinea-based 39th FS began to experiment with the beneficial effects of adverse yaw. Though the P-38's counter-rotating props largely eliminated the torque common to high-performance aircraft, a left turn (for instance) could be improved by advancing full throttle on the right (outboard) engine and reducing power inboard."

From P-38 Flight Journal, Winter 2003 by Tillman, Barrett


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

Ralph Wandrey was said to be one of Dick Bong's favorite wingman, he come on scene in the Pacific in early 1943. By that time the initial "batch" of P-38 pilots have already had their share of playing with the P-38. The 39th and the 9th was the first units to receive P-38s and its at this time I believe Tommy Lynch, John Lane, Dick Bong and Stan Sparks and later possibly Gerry Johnson began playing with the P-38 and examining the use of adverse yaw in an attempt to tighten a turn or increase the roll rate in the P-38. I do know that Lynch specifically told his pilots DO NOT attempt a turning battle with any Japanese aircraft, it does not mean that this "technique" wasn't attempted by these guys...

I know Wandrey was a 6 kill ace and is one of the last (if not the last) surviving member of the original 9th FS. I would respect his word on this matter but the fact he wasn't there with these guys in the beginning doesn't mean it was not attempted. As stated earlier I once had a conversation with Tony LeVeir and he was well aware of pilots doing this maneuver. I believe that Wandrey perhaps did not hear of any of these guys doing this the time he was flying with them....The "myth" came from somewhere - I believe it was at least experimented with and maybe employed...


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 11, 2006)

I wrote for an hour (yes I'm that slow) and the machine lost it. I'll post most of it tomorrow.

Adler,
Those were the words of a pilot in the 20th FG. Art Heidens feelings fall in here to so does a number of others. I understand part of that is pilot bravado, but to, if he thought the 38 wasn't up to it he would say that to.

Galland, in a Fw-190D, couldn't gain the advantage or get away from a P-38 - thats a pretty good guage of their relative capabilities with good pilots.

Robin Olds got 2 in his first dogfight. Another pilot got 5 in a fur ball, in one mission.

Stienhoff reported the Lightning (flying from Africa) was faster and more maneuverable than his aircraft. I don't know if there were any Fw-190s there.

Did this mean the P-38 could walk all over a contemporary Fw-190, only on a bounce which doesn't count here. I feel and evedince exists that the P-38 could and did fight 1:1 with the top fighters (Spit, 190) of WWII. The initiave and who made/didn't make mistakes was going to be the loser.

Twitch,
Jeff Ethell has an article in Flight Journal Mag. about the P-38 and the effectiveness of a throttle assisted turn like his dad, Irv, did in WWII.
http://www.flightjournal.com/ from here go to famous planes then to P-38. Jeff flew all the AAF aircraft so his thoughts are valid.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

I forgot about Jeff Ethell - I remember reading about this in one of his books as well - you know he died in a P-38 a few years ago....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

And I'm going to throw one more in here.....

"The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat."

"Roll rate in early models was directly related to pilot skill. Proper use of
differential throttle would induce a remarkable high roll rate (in either
direction) not attainable by aileron alone."

"As far as he knows.... Several of the 475th and 49th FG veterans wrote about being instructed by some of the hot pilots about the use of differential throttle to induce a roll faster than merely cranking in right or left yoke."

Taken from an interview with Elliot Dent, 49th FG. Dent flew P-40s and P-38s and finished the war with 6 kills.....

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Adler,
> Those were the words of a pilot in the 20th FG. Art Heidens feelings fall in here to so does a number of others. I understand part of that is pilot bravado, but to, if he thought the 38 wasn't up to it he would say that to.
> 
> Galland, in a Fw-190D, couldn't gain the advantage or get away from a P-38 - thats a pretty good guage of their relative capabilities with good pilots.
> ...



I never said that a Lightning could not go 1:1 with a Fw-190. I am just saying that the 190 was not outlcassed by any fighter of the day as Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Just wondering why the FW got the highest rank as top fighter plane of WWII when they say it was outclassed by all the better ally aircraft?


----------



## Twitch (Feb 12, 2006)

Well what bored Lockheed test pilots did for amusement certainly wasn't remotely familiar with combat. The reality is that the P-38 was an energy fighter not a turner and anyone stepping outside that envelope in combat would be toast. Dicking around with throttles in an experimental attempt to out turn a Zero, Oscar, Nate or whatnot would produce your own death. As it was put to me, "nobody was dumb enough to try and turn with the Japs and live."

I asked P-38 pilots from Wandrey and Paul Murphey to Larry Blumer and Jack Ilfrey and their 1st response was always laughter and a quip to the effect of "Is that old wives' tale still going around?" Then I'd be educated on the finer points of the P-38's handling and told that whatever increase in turn radius could be milked out of separate throttle, richness and pitch adjustments it wouldn't produce anywhere near a significant increase in turn rate for the time and effort put in. I got statements like "nobody is going to fart around like that with a Jap on your tail!" "The P-38 couldn't out turn the 109 in any circumstances of combat we encountered."

So after asking probably 6 P-38 aces the question I figured they were telling the truth. But what the hey!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well what bored Lockheed test pilots did for amusement certainly wasn't remotely familiar with combat.



Tony LeVeir was a board test pilot? Do you even have an inkling who the hell he is (was)?!?!? 



Twitch said:


> I asked P-38 pilots from Wandrey and Paul Murphey to Larry Blumer and Jack Ilfrey and their 1st response was always laughter and a quip to the effect of "Is that old wives' tale still going around?"


Jack Ilfrey flew in the ETO and it was pointed out this was not done by ETO pilots!!!!!!



Twitch said:


> Then I'd be educated on the finer points of the P-38's handling and told that whatever increase in turn radius could be milked out of separate throttle, richness and pitch adjustments it wouldn't produce anywhere near a significant increase in turn rate for the time and effort put in. I got statements like "nobody is going to fart around like that with a Jap on your tail!" "The P-38 couldn't out turn the 109 in any circumstances of combat we encountered."
> 
> So after asking probably 6 P-38 aces the question I figured they were telling the truth. But what the hey!



Well don't know what to tell you, I've shown you my sources and heard it from guys at the factory, if its a wives tale, its survived pretty long and has been well documented by a host of others...

But then again those who allegedly did this are no longer with us, so dead men can't say much.....


----------



## Twitch (Feb 13, 2006)

Well point being if it was such a well-known deal why weren't ETO guys privy to it? They had as much skill as PTO guys? Also the dynamics behind more juice on one fan while turning has extremely limited benefits. May be noticeable in a very slow flat shallow-bank turn. At combat speeds as soon as you're into a steep banking turn you're beginning to use the elevator to turn. If you think you are going to make a tighter right turn, as soon as the higher revving engine port becomes the TOP engine due to the bank, the extra speed of it is going to want to bring the top fuselage down not tighter to starboard. 

If you all want to discount the ETO pilots' input because someone somehow categoricaly knows they didn't attempt the maneuver it sounds kind of elitist like they were too dumb or something. I described the concept to them and they said NO. These guys were not unfamiliar wirh P-38s. Ralph Wandrey and Paul Murphey both at the same location at the same time said it was a misguided tale when they heard it together. Others mentioned things like, "sounds like a good way to get into trouble. Do you expect anyone to be behind a maneuverable enemy, chop one throttle, decrease mixture, firewall the other, increase mixture, and adjust pitch on both? Cause that's what you'd need to do in that scenario. Hell son, by then the guy in front would be behind you lobbing 20s up your butt!"

Think about it. Picture it in your mind and you'll realize that once you're up on the elevator at combat speed this can't work. Ask a P-38 pilot and you'll get a similar response to the ones I got.

Yeah I met LaVeir in the early 1980s actually before I heard this armchair ace's turn legend. In my work I've interviewed a couple hundred American, British, Russian and German aces.

So anyone can believe whatever on this I guess. I don't argue with peopl e on the internet to each his own. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well point being if it was such a well-known deal why weren't ETO guys privy to it?


Those to ask are no longer with us, well, I don't know what to tell you, but the "legend lives on."



Twitch said:


> They had as much skill as PTO guys?


Beats me but I would guess because these PTO guys got their birds first, they began to "experiment" first.


Twitch said:


> Also the dynamics behind more juice on one fan while turning has extremely limited benefits. May be noticeable in a very slow flat shallow-bank turn. At combat speeds as soon as you're into a steep banking turn you're beginning to use the elevator to turn.



Actually you apply elevator back pressure (and maybe power) in any turn in order to stay level - flying 101... 



Twitch said:


> If you think you are going to make a tighter right turn, as soon as the higher revving engine port becomes the TOP engine due to the bank, the extra speed of it is going to want to bring the top fuselage down not tighter to starboard.



And as mentioned in the post I submitted from Elliot Dent, all controls are coordinated to take advantage of this....


Twitch said:


> If you all want to discount the ETO pilots' input because someone somehow categoricaly knows they didn't attempt the maneuver it sounds kind of elitist like they were too dumb or something. I described the concept to them and they said NO. These guys were not unfamiliar wirh P-38s. Ralph Wandrey and Paul Murphey both at the same location at the same time said it was a misguided tale when they heard it together.



Well if Elliot Dent was still alive it would of been interesting to put all of them in the same room together!


Twitch said:


> Others mentioned things like, "sounds like a good way to get into trouble. Do you expect anyone to be behind a maneuverable enemy, chop one throttle, decrease mixture, firewall the other, increase mixture, and adjust pitch on both? Cause that's what you'd need to do in that scenario. Hell son, by then the guy in front would be behind you lobbing 20s up your butt!"


On one side I could agree, but what you're saying there is wrong - you don't touch the mixture - this was all done with throttle and maybe prop control - mixture control in almost any reciprocating engine is only adjusted at certain times in order to achieve the proper air-fuel mixture for the altitude the aircraft is being operated at and in certain situations engine cooling...... 


Twitch said:


> Think about it. Picture it in your mind and you'll realize that once you're up on the elevator at combat speed this can't work. Ask a P-38 pilot and you'll get a similar response to the ones I got.



It take two seconds to do this - would I try it?!? Hell no! Was it SOP for guys in the 39th or 9th FS? Hell no!! Tommy Lynch wrote about not turing with any Japanese aircraft, but did it preclude him or other highly gifted pilots from attempting it??? - But it seems some of these guys played around with this as the legend persisted and well documented by Elliot Dent.


Twitch said:


> Yeah I met LaVeir in the early 1980s actually before I heard this armchair ace's turn legend.


??? - LeVier probably participated in more dangerous flying than any 10 P-38 drivers during WW2 (and that's not taking anything away from those guys). I've worked close by to Tony for almost 3 years, he was humble and gracious and wrote the book that many of the guys you describe eventually followed. 


Twitch said:


> In my work I've interviewed a couple hundred American, British, Russian and German aces.


And in my work I actually worked on (and flown, maybe a couple of hundred hours) warbirds and knew guys who flew them...Then and today!!! 


Twitch said:


> So anyone can believe whatever on this I guess. I don't argue with peopl e on the internet to each his own. 8)


Yep!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2006)

Tony Levier probably knew more about flying the P38 and how it handled than any person that flew it.

And yes, he was a nice and personable guy. Always was a pleasure to talk to (and yes, i have met him).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Tony Levier probably knew more about flying the P38 and how it handled than any person that flew it.
> 
> And yes, he was a nice and personable guy. Always was a pleasure to talk to (and yes, i have met him).



Agree Sys - LeVier was a great guy and your comments are bullseye!!!

Another guy I've spoken about this was Jay Beasley. I remember him telling me he heard of it but distinctly discouraged it!!

I had the pleasure to fly with him once, here's a site about this amazing guy....

http://www.vpnavy.com/vpbeasley.html

http://www.vpnavy.com/beasley.html


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 13, 2006)

Twitch,

In my reading I've seen it written that pilots who fought in both the ETO abd the PTO mentioned that 
1. They have compared on the difficulty of combat and rated the PTO as the toughest.
2. They noted that many techniques wern't used in the ETO that were used in the PTO.

The differential throttle would also be brief, when I read about it in conjunction with trrn or roll as a Blip of the throttle.

The P-38 in the ETO paved the way for other aircraft and this includes setting up the supply lines personel the whole works starting in Oct '43. The pilots that were doing this many times had 20hrs in the P-38, no training in combat and this was against German pilots that had flown since 1937 had been in combat and out numbered the AAF fighters as much as 10:1 over Germany. The P-38s were never more than 1,000 strong and starting around May '44 were doing ground attack work which rarly required max performance. By July '44 3/4+ of the P-38 missions were Ground attack. The time and opportunity were not there in the ETO.

I've already given the Flight Journal Magazine site. Here is a site about John Tilly and his victory of a Zero in a turning fight.
http://www.kilroywashere.com/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html if it doesn't come up go to google and type Tilley, P-38 

Abcense of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn' exist. I'll also say it wasn't done by everybody, but its reported to be effective when it was used.

In the PTO the P-38s were present in '42 and were fully supported, which makes a big difference. 

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> [
> I never said that a Lightning could not go 1:1 with a Fw-190. I am just saying that the 190 was not outlcassed by any fighter of the day as Soundbreaker Welch? said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering why the FW got the highest rank as top fighter plane of WWII when they say it was outclassed by all the better ally aircraft?



Cool, The P-38 history is as you know very hot/cold. Many AAF pilots (this is particularly true of P-38 pilots) including Heiden felt they had a better aircraft, some of them are quite vocal about it. I'm sure thats where he got that statement from.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Twitch,
> 
> In my reading I've seen it written that pilots who fought in both the ETO abd the PTO mentioned that
> 1. They have compared on the difficulty of combat and rated the PTO as the toughest.
> ...



Well said wmaxt - could you post that link again, I can't get it?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2006)

I bet in the PTO, more than one P38 pilot tried to jocky around with the throttle in a dogfight, and isnt here to tell us about it.

Rule #1: in the PTO. Never drop your speeds.
Rule #2: in the PTO, dont try to turn with a Zero cause youre probably not going to tell many people about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2006)

Hey, got to the link - something to see here...

"The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield."

"As far as he knows.... Several of the 475th and 49th FG veterans wrote about being instructed by some of the hot pilots about the use of differential throttle to induce a roll faster than merely cranking in right or left yoke." 

Hmmm - John Tilly was in the 475th.....



wmaxt said:


> Absence of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't' exist.


I'm going to remember that quote wmaxt!!!


----------



## Twitch (Feb 14, 2006)

That link doesn't work. I'd be interested in reading that. My one outstanding question is how does power differentian assist in an elevator turn in the P-38 at combat speeds? I'm NOT trying be be a wise guy I'd like to know guys.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yeap but you ask a Fw-190 pilot and they will tell you there aircraft was better. So who is wrong? I dont think you or me can prove that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2006)

Twitch said:


> That link doesn't work. I'd be interested in reading that. My one outstanding question is how does power differentian assist in an elevator turn in the P-38? I'm NOT trying be be a wise guy I'd like to know guys.


Like any other aircraft when you enter a turn you may have to increase power to maintain a given airspeed and altitude, this is done while increasing elevator backpressure, the amount of backpressure depends on speed and bank angle. If you go into the turn with more power on 'wing-up' engine you're inducing adverse yaw which will induce a "skidding" turn. The turn radius will be reduced, but the turn itself will not be coordinated and you will loose altitude and airspeed if backpressure is not increased...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2006)

I found the link by doing a yahoo serch for johm tilley - for some reason the link don't work. Here's the text....

I guess I should start this report at the beginning. I was born in June of 1923 at the Presidio of San Francisco, California. My Dad was career Army, so my brother and I were what were known as "Army Brats." The Presidio was an Army base that included units of the Infantry, the Coast Artillery, and the Army Air Corps. In the 1930's it was a pretty nifty place for young boys to live. My brother and I and our friends would explore and play in the trenches and dugouts used for Infantry training, wander around and gape at the big 12" Coast Artillery cannons, and watch the Air Corps P-12's (and later P-26's) land and takeoff at the airfield. By the time I was 10 years old, I had decided that I wanted very much to fly fighters in combat. Later, while in high school, I saw my first P-38 Lightning flying overhead and knew immediately that was the aircraft I wanted to fly. When I graduated from Army Air Force pilot training on February. 6, 1943 (at 19 years of age) I was surprised and very unhappy to find myself assigned to the AAF (Army Air Force) Training Command. I didn't find out until months later that my dad had arranged this assignment because he didn't want to lose his son in the war (understandable now, but infuriating at the time). At any rate, I was a very unhappy and bitter young man with an extremely bad attitude about being stuck in Training Command. After about six months of constant complaining to a family friend in the Training Command Headquarters, I finally convinced him that my bad attitude was going to get me in serious trouble so he reluctantly arranged for my transfer to a P-38 training program (and he has my eternal thanks and gratitude). About three months later I was on my way to Australia as a 2nd Lieutenant P38 replacement pilot. At last I was a very happy kid driving a 2000+ horsepower flying hotrod.

I joined the 431st Fighter Squadron, 475th Fighter Group, of the 5th AF at Dobodura, New Guinea in Nov. 1943 and flew my first two combat missions on Dec. 15th. All I can remember is that we were outnumbered about six to one. I was very frightened, and we came back to base with my guns unfired. The next day, on my third mission, we intercepted a large formation of Jap "Betty" bombers and attacked them several times at high altitude. Then the Squadron leader, on whose wing I was flying, dove on a lone bomber flying homeward on the deck (just above ground level). When I completed my firing pass on the bomber I pulled up, looked around, and realized I was suddenly all alone. All alone, over enemy territory, not sure how far and in what direction home base was, and definitely frightened, I headed in the direction I thought would get me home. I reduced airspeed and leaned the mixture to conserve fuel and flew just under an overcast that I could duck in to if any hostiles appeared. I was thinking all the time – "you dumbbell! You could be flying over sunny California instead of this damned jungle with people trying to kill you." I got back to Dobodura about 30 minutes after the rest of the squadron and learned that (a) I had been considered lost in action and (b) my leader and I shot down two bombers (one of them credited to me) and (c) my tent mates had already appropriated all my personal GI property for themselves.

From Dobodura the 431st moved to Finschafen and then Nadzab in Papua New Guinea, then Hollandia and Biak Island in Dutch New Guinea. From Biak we moved to Buri and then Dulag on Leyte, P.I (Philippine Islands). Then we went to Mindoro, P.I. From Mindoro to Clark Field and finally Lingayen on Luzon, P.I. Dobodura was a miserably hot, humid, muddy and buggy place (somewhat like South Florida in the summertime, but in Spades). At Dobo (our slang for Dobodura) we enjoyed Australian "C" rations obviously left over from the 1915 Gallipoli campaign (Moldy "bully-beef" and hardtack biscuits). We also had U.S. rations which were as bad or worse (dehydrated potatoes, powdered eggs and synthetic powdered lemon juice to kill the God awful taste of the Lister-bag[1] water).

U.S. 'K' rations were also available and highly prized. I soon found out that I couldn't handle the mess tent food and then fly a combat mission so I gave up eating breakfast or lunch and just carried a canteen of water and hard candy from the K rations with me in the aircraft. After the mission (or sometimes, missions), I'd again brave the mess tent, but with damned little enthusiasm. It was also at Dobo that I was introduced to the two constants of tropical living – fungus infestations and dysentery. I was hospitalized briefly for Dysentery. The fungus usually showed up as "jock-itch." When we became raw enough to make walking unpleasant, the medics would swab our crotches with salicylic acid solution. This led to about 15 minutes of lively dancing and fanning of the affected location.

I was also personally "blessed" with a serious sinus blockage. On slow let-downs returning from a mission, I would go completely blind in my left eye until the blockage popped open. Fast descents were no problem but those slow ones were pure torture. I was finally hospitalized for the sinus problem. After about three days of suction pumps up my nose and no sleep at night because of the pain, I talked a nurse into a shot of morphine. I awoke the next morning with a large glob of mucus on the cot next to my head. The blockage was gone and never seriously bothered me again. From then on, I made rapid descents from altitude whenever possible.

I remember two things about our stay at Finschafen. One was the proximity of the mess tent to the outdoor latrine and the flying insect's very efficient shuttle set-up between the two locations. This required us to adopt a unique eating style. We'd keep one hand over the canteen cup to deprive the bugs access to their aluminum swimming pools. At the same time, while holding spoon, fork, or whatever in the other hand, fan the mess trays madly to keep as many bugs as possible out of our "food." The second indelible memory of Finschafen was the difficulty of digging foxholes in the rocky hillside upon which our tents were situated. We lived four to a tent and at this time Frank Monk[2] and I were on one side of the tent and I believe Warren Cortner and Bill Ekdahl[3] were on the other side. The idea was to dig a two-man foxhole on each side of the tent. Cortner and Ekdahl worked like the devil and produced a proper foxhole on their side. But Monk couldn't quite see the need for all that manual labor so I dug one by myself just barely deep enough to get my head and most of my body below ground level. Sure enough, "Bed Check Charlie"[4] showed up shortly thereafter and I jumped into my hole. The next thing I knew Monk jumped in on top of me. Don't know how much of himself Monk was able to get below ground level (possibly an arm or leg) but he made a nifty top cover for me.

Compared to our first two camps in N.G., Nadzab was a delight. Out in the open of the Markham Valley with no jungle surrounding us, it was hot but dry and dusty. In fact finding water for drinking and washing was the big problem.

Hollandia, our next base, was very close to the Jap lines. Most of our ground troops were aware of the fact that pilots received 2oz. of booze for every combat mission, so we had Infantry visitors looking for Air Force hospitality whenever we were located close to each other. An Infantry 2nd Lt. showed up one day looking for a little alcohol to ease his pain and suffering, and we got to swapping war stories. Someone asked him what it was like to shoot a person you could actually see (something we pilots didn't 'have to contend with, thank God). I'll never forget his reply: "I don't shoot Japs, I BURN 'em. There's nothing like flame throwers and white phosphorous grenades." His eyes lit up and bugged out as he said this and he looked like a madman. We flyboys all backed away a bit and were damn glad when he left us for his muddy foxhole. No one will ever convince me that men in combat are sane by any civilized standards.

It was also at Hollandia that I found out first hand how well the Jap aircraft were built. Their flush riveting was beautiful and the aluminum skin was about half as thick as ours. The Oscar unbolted just behind the wing and I could carry the entire aft end of the aircraft. No wonder the little devils were so maneuverable. They weighed about one third of the P-38's weight.

We had two camps on Biak. Both were quite pleasant with good saltwater swimming and fishing. However, the food was still terrible. I quit going to the mess tent altogether and lived mostly on the melt-proof chocolate bars in our survival kits. We must have had a pretty good supply of those things 'cause I never had any trouble scrounging them from the fellows responsible for our parachutes and survival packs.

From Biak we staged through the Halmahera Islands to Leyte P.I. The pilots and planes of the 431st landed at a mud field on Leyte called Buri on 7 November 1944. Buri was the mud hole to end all mud holes and about 2800' between palm trees. Flying from Buri was a very dicey proposition. For takeoff, Cletracs[5] would tow us from the dispersal area and back our tail booms into the palm trees at one end of the field. The brakes wouldn't hold in the mud, so as soon as we got the engines started we'd cram on full throttle and go. No mag checks – just fire up and go! About half way down the field, we'd slap down ½ flaps, haul back on the yoke, and pray. To my constant surprise I always just cleared the palm trees at the far end. For landing, the flaps were full down, the props were flat, and oil and coolant radiator doors full open for additional drag. We'd then bring her in as slow as possible, barely clearing the tops of the trees at the approach end of the field, and drop it in the mud with a splash that covered the whole plane in mud. When we stopped sliding, we'd cut the engines and wait for the Cletrac to tow us out of the way so the next guy could "splash down." Needless to say, we carried no external stores (bombs or drop tanks) while flying out of Buri. The P-38 was without a doubt the only fighter in the USAAF inventory that could operate out of that particular mud hole. 

I'm not positive about the date but believe we moved to Dulag on the 13th of November. We had to leave quite a few P-38s behind because of mud clogged radiators. That evening Jap fighters came over strafing as usual. We were used to being strafed morning and evening by fighters, but when enemy bombers showed up strafing at tree top level, we were more than a little puzzled. Then along came the Jap transport A/C at about 2000' and out

came the paratroops. Hells fire, thinks I, heading for the nearest water-filled foxhole with my trusty .45 auto pistol. I'm going to wind up in the damned ground war after all. I was frightened but awed and fascinated by the spectacle. I've never seen so much flak in my life, as all the ships offshore and all the AA batteries on land opened up. It was almost dark by this time and there were so many tracers crossing the sky I believe a person could have walked on them. I don't think a single Jap transport A/C made it through. They were literally blown out of the sky before our eyes. As luck would have it, the Jap paratroops that survived landed around Buri, the field we had just vacated, and behind our infantry troops fighting in the mountains west of us. For a couple of days they raised hell with some of our ground personnel and destroyed most of the P-38s we had left behind. Some infantry units were sent back from further west and finally eliminated the enemy paratroops. It was a very "interesting" couple of days.

From Leyte the 431st moved to a base on Mindoro. At this time Robert (Pappy) Cline[6] (Squadron Commanding Officer), Fred Champlin (Squadron Operations Officer) and I (Senior Flight Commander) were taking turns leading the Squadron. On the evening of 24 Feb. 1945, my crew chief came over to my tent for a visit. It was not my turn to fly the next day, so we proceeded to get seriously "Happy " on my "combat ration." About four a.m. the next morning (25 Feb)., I was awakened and told I'd been selected to lead the Squadron to Phan Rang Bay in French Indo China (now called Viet Nam) to cover a PB4Y (Navy B-24) snooping around the area checking out the Japanese radar coverage. I was still drunk at takeoff time, and although I was on 100% oxygen (great for hangovers) I still couldn't read the aircraft instruments for the first two hours. Thankfully we had a B-25 to follow for navigation on the way over. When the coastline of Indochina came in sight, the B-25 turned back and I started calling and looking for the PB4Y we were supposed to cover. He was no where around Phan Rang but I did finally make radio contact. He said he'd moved on up to Cam Ranh Bay and was about to head for home. I asked if he wanted us to cover him on the way home but he said that wouldn't be necessary. I then asked if he'd mind us staying in the area to see what mischief we could do. That was OK with him so the 431st pulled a Pearl Harbor in reverse at Phan Rang Bay. This was the first time 5th AF fighters had flown over that part of the world. We strafed everything in sight, sinking a couple of small boats, setting fire to a POL[7] storage area and knocking down a couple of Rufes (Zeros on floats) who were foolish enough to get airborne in our airspace. When it was time to go home I picked a reciprocal heading from the one the B-25 had used coming over, threw in a little wind-drift correction by looking at the waves and was pleasantly surprised to find Mindoro dead ahead when we again made landfall. This was an 8-hour mission and like all other 7 - 8 hour missions we flew, very few of the pilots could straighten up for about 15 minutes after climbing out of the cockpit. Only one of our P-38s sustained any damage, and that was caused by a U.S. 50 cal. machine gun round that bounced off something we were strafing. All in all, a very satisfying mission -- for this kid at least.

Our next base, and probably the best location of all, was Clark Field on Luzon. Very nice, with wooden floors and screens for the tents and a short jeep ride to what was left of Manila. That didn't last long though. A P-51 outfit located at Lingayen couldn't handle the 90' crosswind (the strip was parallel to the beach with a constant on shore wind) or the rolling PSP[8] landing mat. No sweat for that wonderful P-38 though, so we had to swap camps with the P-51 outfit. At Lingayen I came down with a facial paralysis that interfered with my attempt to spit, whistle, swallow, etc. So, again I was hospitalized, but this time I was sent to Letterman General Hospital at the Presidio of San Francisco, where I had been born almost exactly 22 years earlier. After a month long boat trip across the Pacific, eating as much of that good shipboard food as I could. I arrived home in California weighing about 80 pounds.

I flew 159 combat missions and over 550 combat hours in P-38 models G, H, J, and L. My first kill was a Betty bomber on my 3rd mission while in a P-38H model. The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield. "Pete" Madison[9] was kind enough to oblige. When we got back to base, I had to crank down the side window and wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land the bird.

My last three kills were made while I was flying the P-38L, which I considered the greatest fighting machine of the war. Surprisingly enough (to me) numbers three and four were downed with deflection shots. I was a lousy shot and really didn't understand the effects of gravity in aerial gunnery. I thought the bullets would go where the sight was pointing. Of course I now know this was true only if you were within boresight range and were not pulling any Gs while shooting. Both #3 and #4 were in descending turns and must have flown downward into my dropping stream of gunfire. Number 3 was a Zeke, and at the time I called #4 a Jack and #5 a Zeke 52[10].

I'm now convinced (after seeing them on the ground when we got to Clark Field) that #4 was a George[11] and #5 was a Frank[12]. Number 5 was extremely fast and took little or no evasive action but just tried to outrun me. It didn't work. It took me a comparatively long time to catch him, but catch him I did and he finally exploded. By then I was too close to react and f1ew right through the debris without running into any of it. Pure luck.

I guess P-38s were the great love of my life. They handled beautifully, were very forgiving and would do almost anything you asked of them. I loved the two counter-rotating engines (one of those engines brought me home on several occasions) which eliminated the torque problems associated with single engine prop jobs. I also loved all those guns in the nose, because we didn't have to worry about a converging cone of fire as you did with wing mounted guns. The P-38L clocked a good 40 MPH faster on the deck than the P-51Ds I flew with similar loads. The P-47s, P-40s and P-39s weren't even in the same ball park. The P-38 would also carry one hell of a big load. I remember someone in the Group getting airborne in 1700' with two one-ton bombs hung under the plane.

What didn't I like about the P-38? High altitude flight and the cockpit layout. Although designed as a high altitude interceptor, it was a pain in the buns above 30,000'. The cockpit heat and windshield deicing were not adequate for cold ambient air. The turbo chargers had a habit of running wild above 30,000'. The cockpit was very cramped (not a real problem for us pint-sized fellows). (Editors note: Lt. Tilley was 5'6" tall and weighed approximately 130 pounds. By the time he was Captain, he was down to about 100 pounds.) I would have preferred a stick to the yoke and wheel flight controls in the P-38 and the cockpit layout was God awful compared to the other fighters I've flown. On our "pitch-out" landing approaches we were reaching for things all over the place and had to change hands on the controls at least twice. In spite of all of the above, I still think it was the greatest aircraft I've ever flown, including five of the AF's earliest jet aircraft.

As for combat training--it is to laugh. After learning to fly the bird at Williams AFB and Muroc AFB, I went to a tenant[13] unit at San Diego NAS for "operational training." This amounted to just over 75 hours during which time we were supposed to learn all the good stuff like dive and skip bombing, air to ground and air to air gunnery, tactical formation flying and dog fighting. I had no problem with any of it except air to air gunnery. I even managed to whip my instructor in the final exam dog fight. But we only got about six air to air gunnery passes on a towed target and that just wasn't enough for someone who had received no gunnery training in Advanced Pilot Training. I compared notes with "Pete Fernandez"[14] some years ago and he was convinced he owed his good score in Korea to the fact that he had been a gunnery instructor in the states before going MIG hunting in Korea. When I joined the 431st at Dobo, our pre-combat training consisted of questions from Col. MacDonald about the amount of lead needed to hit a target at various angles of deflection, then a flight on the wing of one of the "old hands" who would try to lose you or "kill" you. The thinking was that it was better to lose a new pilot before combat than to find out he couldn't cut it later when it really counted. My checkout flight was on Tom McGuires[15] wing and it was a wild One. I've never worked harder staying on someone's tail. That guy was probably the best fighter pilot I've ever flown with, but he couldn't shake me off his tail – so I was then and there declared "combat qualified." It wasn't till many missions later that I thought I was "combat qualified."

Our survival training was equally comprehensive. "If shot down, form a group and head for the hills" was one of the gems of wisdom imparted to us. The only practical survival advice I can remember was "don't ever wear those fleece lined Aussie flying boots when you're actually flying." After a week in the swamps in those things you'd wind up with mush where your feet used to be. The .45 auto pistol we carried was another useless survival tool. The only valid reason for carrying a side arm was to kill food. About the only plentiful game in New Guinea jungles were birds. If by some miracle you did manage to hit a bird with that.45 ACP[16] you'd wind up with nothing but feathers to eat. Evidently some of the 5th AF crews bitched enough about the .45 that somebody came up with, "shot" cartridges for it. When I got my hands on these .45 cal. shot shells I took them to a nearby body of water and shot at a wooden box floating about 25' away. The shot hit the water halfway to the box. I stopped carrying the 45 on my flights. The only piece of survival gear I carried on all my missions was a GI handy dandy sheath knife. Many years after leaving the service I finally learned how to shoot the 45 auto and it's now one of my favorite personal defense weapons, but a survival tool it is not.

Without question the air to ground missions (strafing, dive bombing, etc). were the most dangerous missions. My aircraft was hit only three times. The first time, while attacking Betty bombers, a 7mm MG (Machine Gun) Round knocked out my hydraulic system. The second time was while dive bombing a heavy AA (Anti-aircraft artillery) position. Now that was a really scary mission. If I remember correctly I was leading the very last element and rolled into the dive about four or five seconds after Kenny Hart[17] who was in the P-38 ahead of me. The AA was pointing straight up at us while we were pointing straight down at them. The flak was so heavy I couldn't see Kenny's a/c through all the flak bursting between us. The sky was black with flak bursts all around us. We had to drop the bombs at about 2500' to keep from catching some of our own bomb blast. I figured I'd be a sitting duck at that altitude so I started zigzagging like crazy and when far enough from the bomb burst, headed for the deck to find some trees to hide behind. Just as I leveled out I took a chunk of flak in my horizontal stabilizer. The third time, I took a small cannon shell in the inboard right wing while leading eight a/c strafing an enemy airfield on Cebu. McGuire was leading the other eight a/c flying top cover for us. Gen. Kenney[18] had ordered him not to do any more "dangerous" flying because he was the #2 U.S. fighter ace and was due for rotation back to the U.S. I really can't remember how many surface targets I destroyed because we got no "points" for them and nobody bothered keeping count but I'm certain I destroyed at least as many enemy a/c on the ground as in the air. Once again I can't remember where or when, but our Squadron once clobbered a fair sized freighter by all of us shooting again and again at the same spot on the waterline until it rolled over and started sinking.

I could never tell if we were fighting Japanese Army or Navy pilots but you could sure tell the "instructors" from the "students." Like any other group of pilots when they were good they were very very good, and when they were not good they were dumb as bricks. The best I ever met was a Zeke pilot over Cebu Island sometime in Dec. 1944. I was leading a flight of four P-38s eastward and at low level towards home base on Leyte. Just as we passed over the east coast of Cebu I spotted a lone Zeke a couple of thousand feet above heading westward. I didn't think he'd seen us so I wheeled around and started climbing into his blind spot (below and behind). Just as I started to mash the trigger button he "split S"ed and proceeded to lead us on a merry chase. First he took us over a Jap airbase where all the AA started shooting at us, but came as close to hitting him as it did us. I guess he didn't like that flak any better than we did so he headed down one of the many narrow valleys running the length of the island. He'd zigzag from one side of the valley to the other. Then, when he reached a dead end, he'd pull up sharply and roll over into another valley heading in the opposite direction and I'd find myself face to face with a rapidly approaching mountain. This went on for about 20 minutes without any of us laying a glove on him, but we had plenty of fuel left and I was determined he wasn't going to get away. I guess he finally saw the futility of it all so he took the Zeke right down to ground level, rolled over, pulled back on the stick, instantly converted himself and his Zeke into a ball of flames. Japan lost a hell of a good pilot that day. When the four of us got back to Leyte we agreed that none of us had really hit the guy so we cut cards to see who would claim the kill. My element leader won the cut. On several other occasions I can remember following an Oscar or Zeke zigzagging full throttle down hill to about 1000' above sea level where they'd pull a split S and slip right between our legs so to speak. I was somewhat unhappy about losing them this way so decided to see for myself just how much altitude it took for a full split S in the P-38. From a fast cruise at a safe altitude I cut both throttles, pulled the nose up, rolled over as fast as possible and pulled back as hard as possible. I never made it in less than 2500'. If I had tried to follow those guys, I'd have earned a submariner's badge posthumously.

The 431st radio call signs were "Hades" and later "Daddy." The "Hades" call sign was what led to my design for the Squadron insignia, and the Group's "Satan's Angels" name. When I first joined the 475th at Dobo the Group was looking for a Group insignia and everyone was encouraged to submit a design. I thought a red devil's head on a blue field with golden yellow stars representing the Southern Cross (the Group was formed in Australia) would cover the three Squadron colors of red (431st), yellow (432nd) and blue (433rd). I put a halo around the devil's head because we were, after all, "the good guys." "Satan's Angels" seemed a natural because of the devil's head with halo. Group didn't think the insignia was formal enough but kept the name Satan' s Angels. The 431st then adopted the insignia for itself. I still like the insignia and am very proud of it, but after all these years "Satan's Angels" is beginning to sound rather corny.

Everything considered, I don't believe our losses were excessive but we did lose too many pilots not due to enemy action. Some of our very best pilots were lost this way. In the final analysis even Tom McGuire killed himself by trying to dogfight without first dropping his almost full belly tanks.

I don't think any 475th Group history would be complete without acknowledging the masterful way in which Bill O'Brien[19] led the 431st on "Black Sunday," 16 April 1944. On an escort mission from Nadzab to Hollandia the weather socked in solid behind us. There was absolutely no safe way of going through or over the weather and to make things even worse, our home base at Nadzab was weathered in. Making a very wise decision, O'Brien led the 431st to the northeast coast of New Guinea, and with the Squadron flying very very tight white-knuckle formation, we found a few hundred feet between the water and the solid overcast. Even so, the rain was quite heavy and you could see zilch straight ahead but could see out to the side. With the Squadron a couple of hundred yards offshore and just above the water, Bill could follow the coastline by looking out to the side. He led us in this fashion, making very slow and gentle heading changes as the coastline changed until we reached a reasonably clear landing strip at Saidor on the New Guinea coast where we all landed as quickly as possible. The 431st pilots were all safely on the ground when singles and small formations of other units began arriving. It was a nightmare, with everyone low on fuel and desperate to land. Aircraft (B-24s, B-25s, A20s and P-38s) were landing from both directions at once, dodging, hopping over each other, and, in at least one case, colliding on the runway. The 431st did not lose a single pilot, but the other units suffered serious losses. It was in fact, the worst beating the 5th AF took throughout the entire war.

All in all my combat tour was a very exciting adventure. I actually enjoyed a good bit of it and I was very grateful to the Fates for allowing me to live (and live through) my boyhood dream.

End Notes

1. Lister Bag: A large canvas bag (approximately 40-50 gallons) used to treat (antiseptically) and dispense drinking water from several spigots around its bottom. I presume it was named after Sir Joseph Lister, founder of antiseptic surgery.

2 Frank MonkA 431st Fighter Squadron pilot. He later became an ace. He is now deceased but survived the war.

3. Warren Cortnner and Bill Ekdahl 431st pilots. Both survived the war and.

4. "Bed Check Charlie" Usually one twin engine bomber with unsynchronized engines (just to make our teeth grate most of us thought but probably the Japs thought it would disrupt the anti-aircraft batteries aim). He showed up regularly but not every night.

5. Cletracs. Small tractors used to move aircraft on the ground without using the aircraft engines. 

6. "Pappy" Cline. The oldest pilot in the 431st at age 29.

7. POL Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants. A Fuel Dump

8. PSP Matting. Pierced Steel Planking. I always assumed it was the same as Marston matting but we called it PSP. Steel interlocking planks that could be put down very fast to build an air field.

9. Harold N. "Pete" Madison. Another 431st pilot. He survived the war.

10. "Zeke" Commonly referred to as a "Zero." A Mitsubishi A6M5. A single Radial engine Jap fighter. U.S. code name "Zeke."

11. "George" A Kawanishi N1K2-J Single Radial Engine Jap fighter. U.S. Code name "George." It looked like a P-47 with a Jap paint job).

12. "Frank" Nakajima K184. A single engine Jap fighter. U.S. code name "Frank." Fastest of the Jap fighters.

13. Tenant Unit. We were an Army Air Force Squadron operating out of a U.S. Navy Base. I'm sure the Navy was being reimbursed for everything they provided for us. Any military unit located on a base belonging to a different command or service is (or was) designated a "Tenant Unit."

14. "Pete" Fernandez. The third leading Jet Ace of the Korean War.

15. Major Thomas B. McGuire Jr.. Born August 1920 in New Jersey but lived in Sebring, Florida until joining the Army Air Force in July 1941. He is the second ranking U.S. Fighter Ace with 38 "kills." He was killed in action on 7 January 1945. "Mac" was a 1st Lt. With 13 "kills" when I flew this "combat checkout" flight on his wing.

16. ACP Automatic Colt Pistol. If you walk into a gunshop today and ask for .45 cal. Ammo, the guy behind the counter will want to know if you want 45 ACP or 45 long (which came into being with the old 45 Colt six-shooters used in Wild West days). Both cartridges are still in use today.

17. Kenny Hart. A 431st pilot. Later to become an "ace." Survived the war but was killed in an auto accident shortly after the war.

18. General Kenny was the Commanding General of Far Eastern Air Forces (FEAF) which, at that time, included the 5th and 13th Air Forces.

19. Captain Bill O'Brien was the 431st Squadron Operations Officer at this time. He was killed in action several months later.

This guy claims he got down to 90 mph with an Oscar! While I would have no cause to dismiss this story I think its pretty crazy!!! By hey, his wing man saw it and he lived to tell the story!!!!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

Hmmm intersting stuff, thanks for sharing it.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2006)

Great story flyboy!

I always find the stories of the PTO as the most entertaining. Primitive base conditions, rain, heat and bugs plus long range missions.

Far different than from the ETO or MTO.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 14, 2006)

Good read Joe...


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Good read Joe...


Agreed, good find Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2006)

Thanks Guys, I know we went way off subject here but it just kinda rolled!!!

Actually wmaxt directed me there....

Here's some other great sites...
http://www.475thfghf.org/
http://www.475thfghf.org/tactics.htm


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2006)

A P-38 out-maneuvering a Fw-190  

wmaxt go ask any veteran FW-190 pilot and he will tell just how much of a turkey the P-38 really was compared to the FW-190. The P-38 was atcually the plane the German fighter pilots were the least afraid of out of all Allied fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2006)

Soren said:


> A P-38 out-maneuvering a Fw-190


For the most part no - you always have the pilot skill factor...


Soren said:


> wmaxt go ask any veteran FW-190 pilot and he will tell just how much of a turkey the P-38 really was compared to the FW-190. The P-38 was atcually the plane the German fighter pilots were the least afraid of out of all Allied fighters.


True - but at the same time its been shown the P-38 in the ETO was not flown to its full potential. Overall I recognize most -190 marks superior to the P-38 in maneuvability, but if flown correctly by the right pilot it would give any -190 a run for its money - But then again you could almost say that about most fighters......


----------



## gaussianum (Feb 15, 2006)

Do we have any veteran Luftwaffe pilots on this forum?

Does anyone know of a forum where they hang around?

Cheers


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 16, 2006)

Actualy The P-38 pilots claim the P-38 was better than the Fw-190. The killrate of the P-38 endorses that 4:1 in the ETO and 5:1 in the MTO thats aggregate but still representitive. Also remember when the majority of the P-38 were in the ETO '43- June, '44, the Germans had both numerical and pilot proficiency superority.

James Morris 20th FG dowened 3 Fw-190s in a single combat, involving tight turns.
25 August P-38s from the 367th encountered Fw-190s of JG-6, in a low level all out battle,8 P-38s and 20 Fw-190 went down. In that fight Lewarence Blumer got 5.

Robin Olds on his first combat got two Fw-190s in a turning fight. This was confirmed by a B-26 that watched the fight.

Galland himself in a Fw-190D was almost shot down by a P-38 in a turning fight that ended up in a Gravel pit. The P-38 had the advantage the whole time but Galland was was unable to escape until the P-38 ran low on fuel and left. Galland confirmed the story.

A quote from Heinz Knoke, "...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us and swing around for the attack... then we in a madly milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I'm never able to get a shot in.

Here is an excerpt from a letter from Col. Rau C.O. of the 20FG, complaining about training and the complexity of the P-38.
"My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly haldled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce".

Edit: Heres what Robert Carey, 474th FG, says - " I might comment that I never worried for 1 minute that that If I tangled with the Luftwaffe, I was going to be at a dissadvantage, because the airplane (P-38) could just outperform them."
http://p-38online.com/carey.html

Art Heiden P-38/P-51 pilot also says this
"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-1944 could be more beautiful than a P-38L out rolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or a split-s or whatever gyration a startled,panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better."

The P-38s only flew about 130,000 sorties and about half to two-thirds of those were escort, most Germans probably never saw one. Even at that they have 1,771kills.

Here is a flight test of a P-38F and comparisons to the Spit IX and the Fw-190.
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/p38/p38f/2.jpg

The info I have any P-38 variant was capable of taking on its contemporary Fw-190.

Sorry that site works in my 'favorites' but not in the post.

wmaxt


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 16, 2006)

That was a good story the pilot told.

But this topic could soon be turning into a debate between the Corsair vs. Lightning.

What do you think?


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 16, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> That was a good story the pilot told.
> 
> But this topic could soon be turning into a debate between the Corsair vs. Lightning.
> 
> What do you think?



Well at least a Lightning vs Fw-190, but your right. A major point can be made here is that the Corsair performance is verry verry close to that of the P-38s, with proponents on both sides.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2006)

I can't believe you actually believe that wmaxt, its clearly fairy-tales. 

The point where a pilot claims the P-38 could out-roll the Fw-190 is a dead give-away. (Not to mention the claim tthat it would outturn one as-well  )

You can go ask a Focke Wulf pilot what he thinks of the P-38, and he'll tell you exactly how he feels about it = "Easy prey!" And those are probably the exact words he is going to choose.

Not a single, not one of the Fw-190 or 109 vets I've ever talked to looked at the P-38 as a worthy opponent, "it was like fighting a bomber" one pilot once said! Now that can hardly be described as maneuverable


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> You can go ask a Focke Wulf pilot what he thinks of the P-38, and he'll tell you exactly how he feels about it = "Easy prey!" And those are probably the exact words he is going to choose.


Robbin Olds would say the same about the -190


----------



## gaussianum (Feb 17, 2006)

I can imagine wuerger pilots engaging in turning fights, only if they are inexperienced, or, if they have no altitude to trade for speed.

Maybe both of these factors contributed heavily for the results of the previously mentioned engagements.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2006)

Using maneuver flaps a P-38 pilot could probably outturn a Fw-190 A-8 or any other non-fighter version. But against a Fighter version A-7 or a D-9 being flown by a properly trained pilot, the P-38 really doesn't stand a chance, unless being piloted by a "very" good pilot.



> Robbin Olds would say the same about the -190



Robin Olds tally is mainly a result of ground kills and shooting down young LW boys trying to fly their heavily loaded Fw-190A Bomber Interceptors home from a bomber intercepting mission. That was the fate for many of the LW boys, being bounced and shot on their way home. Not many were shot down as the result of a dogfight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> But against a Fighter version A-7 or a D-9 being flown by a properly trained pilot, the P-38 really doesn't stand a chance,* unless being piloted by a "very" good pilot.*


But that was the key  

I was being a smart arse about Olds!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2006)

Soren said:


> I can't believe you actually believe that wmaxt, its clearly fairy-tales.



I have seen some cornering data that gives a max g corner for a P-38L at 270mph and a radii at 531ft to the Fw-190D9 at 325mph and 769ft. The AAF pilots that fought them are consistent the P-38 could beat a 190.



Soren said:


> The point where a pilot claims the P-38 could out-roll the Fw-190 is a dead give-away. (Not to mention the claim tthat it would outturn one as-well  )



The Fw-190 rools at its peakof 142deg/sec at ~270mph by 350mph its roll rate is down to 81deg/sec. The P-38L at 350mph is rolling at 88deg/sec and is up to 98deg/sec at 450mph. 



Soren said:


> You can go ask a Focke Wulf pilot what he thinks of the P-38, and he'll tell you exactly how he feels about it = "Easy prey!" And those are probably the exact words he is going to choose.



Any pilot esp those who haven't seen one and has comfidence in himself and his aircraft would say that, including the P-38 pilots. Obviously you didn't take time to read the Carey site, or Gallands story that in his words "You damn neer killed me that day". You obviously didn't read Flyboys post from John Tilley. If a P-38 can out turn a zero at 100ft do you really think it can't out turn a Fw-190?

I don't think the P-38 was signifigantly better than a 190 but it could go 1:1 with an even or better chance of winning.

Another thing people have decided it takes an exceptional pilot to fly the 38 well - as the training accident numbers show that isn't true - experts were majical in a P-38 but a average pilot was not bad and a slightly better pilot was very dangerous in a P-38 - ask the pilots they shot down! By the way wasn't this true of many aircraft?

wmaxt



Soren said:


> Not a single, not one of the Fw-190 or 109 vets I've ever talked to looked at the P-38 as a worthy opponent, "it was like fighting a bomber" one pilot once said! Now that can hardly be described as maneuverable



Well if he hasn't seen one or bounced and ran he wouldn't really know, would he?
You obviously haven't read much about the P-38 have you? There was a saying that was still around for my uncle to hear, If Jesus came back as a plane he'd be a P-38. That doesn't sound like a bomber does it. I will admit and even show you cases where FGs disliked the P-38, some wanted single engine fighters because of a mindset, they never tried to see what the P-38 could do. That kind of thing is not the problem of the aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > You can go ask a Focke Wulf pilot what he thinks of the P-38, and he'll tell you exactly how he feels about it = "Easy prey!" And those are probably the exact words he is going to choose.
> ...



And quite a few others have said it, in fact I'm still looking for the first pilot who didn't know he could beat any German fighter with a P-38. These guys said that out of experiance not hearsay.

The percentage of P-38 pilots that fought with German fighters is far greater than Luftwaffe pilots that did. 1771 of those that did see a P-38, never came back to correct them. If I were to belive an aircrafts qualifications I'd ask someone who had flown or fought it or fout against it, not someone who "heard" about it. 
Second, after June '44 the P-38s were doing ground attack as their primary roll. With the bombers being the Germans first priority target they didn't mix much, so 95% of the German pilots never saw one and if they had never seen a competent twin engined fighter like the P-38, it was easy to dissmiss them, remember hes using the Me-110 as an example - until he shot you down.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2006)

Soren,

Another point about the P-38s turn, after the war some German pilots were invited to fly and test our aircraft. Gunter Raul(sp?) compared the Spitfire to the P-38 with the comment "Its about as good".

Heres another account but from the MTO The story of Charles Hoffman is also in the Stories slot in this forum (Feb 4, 2004).
http://www.1stfighter.org/warstories/hoffman.html

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2006)

> I have seen some cornering data that gives a max g corner for a P-38L at 270mph and a radii at 531ft to the Fw-190D9 at 325mph and 769ft. The AAF pilots that fought them are consistent the P-38 could beat a 190.



Hahaha !  It wouldn't happen to be this site: http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html Would it ? Well tell you what, go ahead and take what is written on that site as facts, eventhough the actual author says it shouldn't be taken as such  

Just so you know, his calculations are based on "In-game" test results of a game called Warbirds, and reading his work it is very clear that he has no knowledge on aerodynamics at all ! 

You see in the real world the Fw-190D-9 could actually almost turn with a Spitfire, and at high speed actually out-turn it. The Fw-190A-4 was on par with P-51 in turn rate, while the Fw-190A-5/6 and some A-7's would turn tighter.



> The Fw-190 rools at its peakof 142deg/sec at ~270mph by 350mph its roll rate is down to 81deg/sec. The P-38L at 350mph is rolling at 88deg/sec and is up to 98deg/sec at 450mph.



Based on that "Warbird" game, sure... In real life, sorry but no.



> Any pilot esp those who haven't seen one and has comfidence in himself and his aircraft would say that, including the P-38 pilots. Obviously you didn't take time to read the Carey site, or Gallands story that in his words "You damn neer killed me that day". You obviously didn't read Flyboys post from John Tilley. If a P-38 can out turn a zero at 100ft do you really think it can't out turn a Fw-190?



I'll respond by asking you wmaxt, do you believe the P-38 could out-turn a Zero at 100ft ?



> I don't think the P-38 was signifigantly better than a 190 but it could go 1:1 with an even or better chance of winning.



Sorry but you've got that all wrong wmaxt, the P-38 would need one hell of a pilot controlling it for it to be successful against a Fw-190. And if the Fw-190 pilot knows his plane well enough, the P-38 just hasn't got chance. (Except maybe to dive and run away)



> Well if he hasn't seen one or bounced and ran he wouldn't really know, would he?
> You obviously haven't read much about the P-38 have you? There was a saying that was still around for my uncle to hear, If Jesus came back as a plane he'd be a P-38. That doesn't sound like a bomber does it. I will admit and even show you cases where FGs disliked the P-38, some wanted single engine fighters because of a mindset, they never tried to see what the P-38 could do. That kind of thing is not the problem of the aircraft.



Well you see most of the guys I was refering to have either shot a P-38 down, or has atleast been bounced by one themselves. And all of them agree that the P-38 was a Turkey compared to both the Fw-190 and Bf-109. It was easy to out-maneuver according to them, and it was 'the' Allied aircraft they were the very least afraid of. And Aerodynamics certainly backs them up !

And about my book knowledge on the P-38, don't worry it is more than sufficient for this discussion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2006)

I know in the old book Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe (Toliver and Constable) they quote many pilots saying the P-38 was an easy kill, Heinz Baer is quoted saying that in a 1955 interview with Toliver, HOWEVER we could talk about the above average P-38 driver that could bring his aircraft around and accomplish this, the P-38 stalled flaps down, gear up between 94 and 105 mph depending on weight - under normal circumstances this would be suicide to bring your aircraft that slow and start turning it at the "buffet" with flaps down but remember one thing - the P-38 had no adverse yaw which meant unless it was heavily banked, it would not drop a wing during a stall (unlike most single engine aircraft of WW2) if both engines were running, as a matter of fact if you stalled the P-38 "flat" (limited pitch attitude) and kept the yoke back inducing a secondary stall the aircraft basically dropped like a falling leaf - this I was told by Tony LeVier....

It was documented and witnessed that Elliot Dent turned with an Oscar at 90 mph - the Oscar (KI-43) was probably one of the most (if not the most) maneuverable aircraft of WW2 below 200 mph and yet this guy got his P-38 to turn with one - while I totally accept this is definitely the exception than the rule, I still think it leaves the door open that it could be done with a select pilot behind the yoke!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 18, 2006)

Belive it or not in my pilots handbook for the P-38 a L model was capable of flying at 67mph power on flaps and gear down.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

YEP - at 15,000 pouunds....


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 18, 2006)

No I don't take it as fact but it should be representitive. But I suppose I deserved that one.




Soren said:


> You see in the real world the Fw-190D-9 could actually almost turn with a Spitfire, and at high speed actually out-turn it. The Fw-190A-4 was on par with P-51 in turn rate, while the Fw-190A-5/6 and some A-7's would turn tighter.



AS I posted Rall compared the Spitfire to the P-38. 
There is also a well known competition with a Spit Griffon that the P-38 dominated. 
Stienhoff stated "the clear superority of the Lightning in speed and maneuverability over our aircraft"
Galland couldn't get away.
Knoke couldn't close
The AAF pilots belived they could and they actually flew P-38s in combat against Fw-190s - I'm willing to bet your German pilots, judging from their remarks, never saw a P-38, or bounced the one they did. 
last here is a test by the British of a F model againse a SpitIX and comparison with a Fw-190 on the Docs page.
http://prodocs.netfirms.com




Soren said:


> Based on that "Warbird" game, sure... In real life, sorry but no.



No, actual tests, you'll find the chart in http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html



Soren said:


> I'll respond by asking you wmaxt, do you believe the P-38 could out-turn a Zero at 100ft ?



It was done and witnessed. My pilots handbook for the P-38 gives a power on full flaps gear down minimum speed at 67mph



Soren said:


> Sorry but you've got that all wrong wmaxt, the P-38 would need one hell of a pilot controlling it for it to be successful against a Fw-190. And if the Fw-190 pilot knows his plane well enough, the P-38 just hasn't got chance. (Except maybe to dive and run away)



Sorry, I gave you examples where it was done, who did it, the opinions of "Both" sides that even give the P-38 an edge on the very best the Germans had. That should be enough to pique your intrest to find out for yourself. All you've come up with is derision, flat statements, and a couple of quotes from German pilots that probably never encountered a P-38. 



Soren said:


> Well you see most of the guys I was refering to have either shot a P-38 down, or has atleast been bounced by one themselves. And all of them agree that the P-38 was a Turkey compared to both the Fw-190 and Bf-109. It was easy to out-maneuver according to them, and it was 'the' Allied aircraft they were the very least afraid of. And Aerodynamics certainly backs them up !



Four out of five German aircraft that met P-38s, 5 out of six in the MTO, didn't make it home. The fifth got the P-38, he, with some right probably thought it wasn't capable. Did they really or was it a successful bounce, The P-38 was a turkey for the first 30 seconds if caught unawares when the pilot was switching from cruise to combat mode.
Areodynamic certaintiy? Heres a couple of examples of why the P-38 works as well as it does
1, high aspect ratio of 8 giving high speed while preserving maneuverability and climb.
2, Power was split doubling prop sweopt area giving efficent use of the power available and for above average pilots differential throttle control. Trim changes were minimal, single engine aircraft change trim every time power changes. Central guns.
3, Tail length to chord ratio in the P-38 was 4:1, most fighters had a ratio of 2/2.5:1. The longer ratio gives more torque to the controls and lets them be smaller for less drag for the same effect. it also lowered control forces
4, the J-25 and L models had hydralic ailerons that got better as the speed increased even after it became too hard for other planes to maintain their roll rate.



Soren said:


> And about my book knowledge on the P-38, don't worry it is more than sufficient for this discussion.



Well if its all the old propaganda I can see where your coming from. I'm dissapointed you won't even considder looking into it, I've certainly given enough info to question it.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

> No I don't take it as fact but it should be representitive. But I suppose I deserved that one.



Its not even close to representative wmaxt, its downright BS.



> AS I posted Rall compared the Spitfire to the P-38.
> There is also a well known competition with a Spit Griffon that the P-38 dominated.
> Stienhoff stated "the clear superority of the Lightning in speed and maneuverability over our aircraft"
> Galland couldn't get away.
> ...



Rall  Why does everyone always quote Rall ?

Rall never dared fly any a/c to its true limits, and there are many examples of this, one being that after one near fatal accident in a 109E where one slat jammed in a banking maneuver sending Rall into a vicious spin, caused him never to even attempt flying the 109 at the verge of stall anymore. So then what makes you think he'll try the same maneuver in a Fw-190 then ? Thats right, he wouldn't, he had already specialized himself in B&Z tactics and had become an expert at it, so thats the tactic he was going to use no-matter the a/c.



> No, actual tests, you'll find the chart in http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/RollChart.html



Thats great, but I was talking about the Fw-190 wmaxt, and it certainly had a better roll rate than what you make out to be. (Up to 180 degree's/sec ) 

Btw, that is an impressive roll rate for the P-38 I must admit though.



> It was done and witnessed. My pilots handbook for the P-38 gives a power on full flaps gear down minimum speed at 67mph



The P-38 had very effective flaps, there's no getting around that, but deploying full flaps was impossible in a dogfight wmaxt.



> Sorry, I gave you examples where it was done, who did it, the opinions of "Both" sides that even give the P-38 an edge on the very best the Germans had. That should be enough to pique your intrest to find out for yourself. All you've come up with is derision, flat statements, and a couple of quotes from German pilots that probably never encountered a P-38.



Sorry but I take RAF and USAF tests with Axis aricraft with a BIG grain of salt, especially the Fw-190 tests, as both aileron and engine problems were ignored. The Navy's Fw-190 and Faber's Fw-190 both exibited aileron flutter and reversal, leading to premature stalling in turns or any violent pitch maneuver. The LW mech's knew about this problem and routinely checked and corrected it, but Allied mech's didn't, not until well after the war where no further tests were carried out.

And about the RAF's 109 tests, they're just too ridiculous, flying them against their own cleanly loaded fighters while still having cannon pods attached and pissing their pants each time the slats deploy thinking the airplane is going to stall. Those tests are just worthless, absolutely worthless..



> Four out of five German aircraft that met P-38s, 5 out of six in the MTO, didn't make it home. The fifth got the P-38, he, with some right probably thought it wasn't capable. Did they really or was it a successful bounce, The P-38 was a turkey for the first 30 seconds if caught unawares when the pilot was switching from cruise to combat mode.



And where exactly are you getting those stats wmaxt ? 

The P-38's tally is result of ground kills and bouncing unaware LW boys on their way home from a bomber intercepting mission. If the P-38's had normally engaged an aware Fw-190 or 109 pilot it would have been a different story.

Fact is most LW boys got shot down as a result of a bounce, one where they never even knew they being bounced until they were hit, and then it was usually too late. 



> Areodynamic certaintiy? Heres a couple of examples of why the P-38 works as well as it does
> 1, high aspect ratio of 8 giving high speed while preserving maneuverability and climb.
> 2, Power was split doubling prop sweopt area giving efficent use of the power available and for above average pilots differential throttle control. Trim changes were minimal, single engine aircraft change trim every time power changes. Central guns.
> 3, Tail length to chord ratio in the P-38 was 4:1, most fighters had a ratio of 2/2.5:1. The longer ratio gives more torque to the controls and lets them be smaller for less drag for the same effect. it also lowered control forces
> 4, the J-25 and L models had hydralic ailerons that got better as the speed increased even after it became too hard for other planes to maintain their roll rate.



Here's a couple you forgot:
1)Massive flat plate area
2)High power-loading
3)High lift-loading
4)Disturbed airflow over the wings because of engine placement
5)High aspect ratio wing advantage ruined by engine placement
6)Low CL-max of tip airfoil

Those were some of the most important, but there's plenty more...



> Well if its all the old propaganda I can see where your coming from. I'm dissapointed you won't even considder looking into it, I've certainly given enough info to question it.



Old propaganda ? Do you believe that the USAF's museum archives are dealing out propaganda ?

Btw, by your logic the Bf-110 was one hell of a dogfighter !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

Soren said:


> [
> The P-38 had very effective flaps, there's no getting around that, but deploying full flaps was impossible in a dogfight wmaxt.


Full flaps? Not impossible but probably not done; Maneuvering (10 to 12 degrees)? YES! Recommended or done routinely? Hell no! Suicidal? Only if you don't get away with it!


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

Well if you'd want your flaps jammed or damaged then it might be a good idea, but otherwise no. Obviously the Fw-190 pilot would want the fight to take place at high speed, so deploying too much flaps would spell disaster for the P-38.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

Soren said:


> Well if you'd want your flaps jammed or damaged then it might be a good idea, but otherwise no. Obviously the Fw-190 pilot would want the fight to take place at high speed, so deploying too much flaps would spell disaster for the P-38.



You could drop half flaps up to 250 mph in the P-38...


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2006)

Would you recommend flying with half flaps deployed against a Fw-190 ? I sure wouldn't. Cause if you loose speed against a Fw-190, your dead. (Like so many Spitfire pilots learned)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

Soren said:


> Would you recommend flying with half flaps deployed against a Fw-190 ? I sure wouldn't. Cause if you loose speed against a Fw-190, your dead. (Like so many Spitfire pilots learned)


I agree - but you still have that one pilot that could it and get away with it - I've seen little posted about this as far as P-38 vs Fw-190, but you could look at that post earlier when it was done against an Oscar. An Oscar (ki-43) is (was) way more maneuvable than an -190 under 300 mph....


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 19, 2006)

I would not drop half flaps against an Anton, in any circumstance.... 

I recall one Spitfire pilot who commented something to the effect, "I learned, hanging in my parachute, to never ever drop flaps with the -190... I never made that mistake again...""


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

Agree....


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 19, 2006)

Maneuvering flaps were used effectively by many pilots in both the P-38 and the P-51. Bud Anderson mentiones it several times.

The good pilot thing - I agree the P-38 was a bit harder to master but as the training stats show once trained properly it was the safest fighter the US used in WWII. Using the curve its my opinion that 30-40% were good enough to fight the P-38 well and probably 10% were exceptionally. That would compare to probably 65% that were adequate for combat in the P-51 or P-47.

Soren,
I've posted ample info which you have ignored I belive your comment was "I know all I need for this conversation" Yet you have not provided one shread of information that is contradictory yet verifiable, or quantifiable. Your German pilots opinions are not verifiable nor can I ask questions to clarify the statements which sometimes change when a third party repeats them.

The opinions of pilots like Art Hieden are just as valid as those your using, Art flew over 300combat hrs in a P-38 (all series) and 50 in the P-51 in the ETO against German fighters. Art was still flying in 1990 and had accumulated 24,000hrs plus, neither you nor I have the experiance or right to criticize his opinions.

I agree I shouldn't have used Hoof's numbers, my research indicates there actualy pretty close except the planes in WWII were stressed for 7-7.5Gs not 9. However I can't support it, I shouldn't have used it. I accept that razz. However the rest of your allegation is groundless until you provide some data coorodarating your view that is verifiable, and quantifiable. Just dissmising my data because you know it all doesn't work.

If you do convince me, I'll change my stance. Until you do I'm not going to legitimize your statements by answering with data you already admitted your not going to consider.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2006)

Your the one who has failed to present REAL evidence for these claims wmaxt, not me !

I don't take pilot accounts as gospel, as we will never really know what happened, there are simply to many factors that come into play here. Its anecdotal evidence at best.

We will never know what was going on inside the cockpit of those LW fighters shot down in these claims for instance. Was the pilot aware he was being attacked or was he unaware ? We don't know... And the 109 and 190 pilots actually aware they were being attacked probably hushed when they saw a P-38 was following them, thinking "There's no way that big bird is going to follow me in even the lightest of maneuvers" and so mistakenly made no wild evasive maneuvers... 


And about those figures at "Hoof's" site, what facts do you have to support them ? I certainly have none ! Only a bunch debunking them...

These facts about the P-38 below are evidence enough to disprove any claim that the P-38 could normally turn with a Fw-190 or Bf-109 in a dogfight(And especially not a Ki-43 !), it would simply bleed energy way too quickly. 

1)Massive flat plate area 
2)High power-loading 
3)High lift-loading 
4)Disturbed airflow over the wings because of engine placement 
5)High aspect ratio wing advantage ruined by engine placement 
6)Low CL-max of tip airfoil (The NACA 4412 to be specific)


Lastly Im not going to deny that a very good P-38 pilot could bring down an aware Bf-109 or Fw-190 pilot, as we've seen pilots do amazing feats with less than amazing aircraft, but it was definitely the exception rather than the rule !


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> Well if you'd want your flaps jammed or damaged then it might be a good idea, but otherwise no. Obviously the Fw-190 pilot would want the fight to take place at high speed, so deploying too much flaps would spell disaster for the P-38.



The P-38 had fowler flaps and these could be deployed effectively without significant chance of jamming. They slide out of the wing and curl down. Besides, the P-38 flaps (and many other US planes) had force limiters and trying to put down too much flap for the given speed was impossible.

Later model P-38's also had dive recovery flaps which could be utilized at any speed, acting as a sort of air-brake.


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> The P-38 had fowler flaps and these could be deployed effectively without significant chance of jamming. They slide out of the wing and curl down. Besides, the P-38 flaps (and many other US planes) had force limiters and trying to put down too much flap for the given speed was impossible.
> 
> Later model P-38's also had dive recovery flaps which could be utilized at any speed, acting as a sort of air-brake.



Lunatic you don't use flaps against a Fw-190, it'll be the biggest and last mistake you'll ever make. If you loose speed against a Fw-190 your as good as dead, and deploying flaps 'will' decrease your speed.


----------



## Hop (Feb 20, 2006)

> There is also a well known competition with a Spit Griffon that the P-38 dominated.



I'm not sure "dominated" is an accurate description. Lowell in the P-38 claimed victory, but the Spitfire pilot involved probably did so as well. Lowell also cheated on the rules of engagement, they'd agreed to meet at 5,000ft, Lowell climbed much higher and dived down to 5,000ft, in his own words travelling at "about 600mph" at the merge.

In Lowell's own words:



> We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes. I took off in a new P38L after my crew chief had removed the ammo and put back the minimum counter balance, dropped the external tanks and sucked out half the internal fuel load. I climbed very high, so that as I dived down to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, I would be close to 600 mph. When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail. When he did a wingover from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail. Naturally he turned into a full power right Lufbery as I closed in. I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we’d had hot guns he would have been shot down. He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-Sed from about 1000 feet. I followed him with the new flaps, banked only about 45 degrees, but still dropped below the treetops.
> 
> The men of the 364th were watching this fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several told me later that they though I would crash. But they were wrong!. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base."



Ever hear two online pilots describe a duel? Both of them will tell you they won. It's only when guns are involved that you get a real idea of who won, because the winner flys away, the loser doesn't. Donaldson (the Spit pilot)'s version would probably be that he'd have shot Lowell down when he zoom climbed away, and again during the Lufberry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> These facts about the P-38 below are evidence enough to disprove any claim that the P-38 could normally turn with a Fw-190 or Bf-109 in a dogfight(And especially not a Ki-43 !), it would simply bleed energy way too quickly.


If he got the aircraft slowed and applied power (sought of like a power on stall) I believe it was do-able, remember the -38 had no adverse yaw like a single engine fighter - in a power on stall it shook and fell flat if the pitch attitude was flat.



Soren said:


> Lastly Im not going to deny that a very good P-38 pilot could bring down an aware Bf-109 or Fw-190 pilot, as we've seen pilots do amazing feats with less than amazing aircraft, but it was definitely the exception rather than the rule !


Well said, I think that's the whole point here...


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38 had fowler flaps and these could be deployed effectively without significant chance of jamming. They slide out of the wing and curl down. Besides, the P-38 flaps (and many other US planes) had force limiters and trying to put down too much flap for the given speed was impossible.
> ...



Well of course - unless the FW pilot makes the mistake of bleeding off too much E in which case you would deploy combat flaps to stay behind him and out turn him to get the shot right?

Remember, at lower speeds (below 300 mph) the P-38 had a huge acceleration advantage. From stall to 200 mph no single engine plane could even come close to the acceleration available to the P-38 pilot. This was a huge part of how it "out turned" Japanese fighters in the PTO, it could do a hi yoyo to bleed off speed and then cut the corner and regain energy to take its next shot. Also, I think the engine power differential thing was only used in this kind of manuver, where it could be used to bring the plane around at the top of the yoyo.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



That is the main point but the more I research the P-38 the more apparent it is that the pilots that had that skill were not the top 10% but the top 30-45%. Admittedly thats lower than the 60-65% of say the Mustang or Spitfire, it was still significant.

Secondly there are many many references to P-38s outmaneuvering German fighters, what tecniques were used I don't know. I do know that many AAF P-38 pilots did not fear their German counterparts, feeling they had the best plane. Try this site,
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html Cory Jordan is more ellequent than I am!

wmaxt


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 21, 2006)

Hop said:


> > There is also a well known competition with a Spit Griffon that the P-38 dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. However I think the salient item from this engagement is that once the P-38 was on the Spits tail, after all E advantage had been spent, the Spit could not shake the P-38.


----------



## Hop (Feb 21, 2006)

> Remember, at lower speeds (below 300 mph) the P-38 had a huge acceleration advantage. From stall to 200 mph no single engine plane could even come close to the acceleration available to the P-38 pilot.



Acceleration is directly proportional to climb rate (both are functions of excess power). Any plane that could outclimb the P-38 at less than 200 mph could also out accelerate it at that speed. 

Off hand, that would be later Spitfires, 109s, and a few others at specific heights.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 23, 2006)

Hop said:


> > Remember, at lower speeds (below 300 mph) the P-38 had a huge acceleration advantage. From stall to 200 mph no single engine plane could even come close to the acceleration available to the P-38 pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, because they could not apply full power without spinning around the prop. The P-38 never had torque roll problems.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2006)

> Well of course - unless the FW pilot makes the mistake of bleeding off too much E in which case you would deploy combat flaps to stay behind him and out turn him to get the shot right?



Except in the P-38 you won't be able to stay behind him, you simply do not have the power or the lift necessary, and if you start to drop flaps to attempt this he's simply going to out-run you in an instance ! (And since both a/c are turning its going to be before you get the chance to acquire the necessary deflection.)

And even if by some miracle you do manage to stay behind him(Very unlikely in a P-38 ), all the Fw-190 pilot has to do then is a quick split S maneuver and he's outta there. A Spitfire couldn't follow this maneuver, so you can be sure the P-38 couldn't as-well. And if you try, well go ask a Spitfire pilot what would happen next...



> Remember, at lower speeds (below 300 mph) the P-38 had a huge acceleration advantage. From stall to 200 mph no single engine plane could even come close to the acceleration available to the P-38 pilot.



And how exactly is that ? Take a look at the power-loadings for these aircraft Lunatic, as-well as the flat plate area, and you'll see that definitely wasn't the case !



> No, because they could not apply full power without spinning around the prop. The P-38 never had torque roll problems.



Huh ? Well you see Lunatic, spinning around is what a prop does.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2006)

Soren said:


> > > No, because they could not apply full power without spinning around the prop. The P-38 never had torque roll problems.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2006)

I know FLYBOYJ, I was just making fun of that first part. 



> If he got the aircraft slowed and applied power (sought of like a power on stall) I believe it was do-able, remember the -38 had no adverse yaw like a single engine fighter - in a power on stall it shook and fell flat if the pitch attitude was flat.



Well with a height advantage I'd guess it was do'able, but if your directly behind him its only going to bite you, as your going to loose height and speed very quickly in this type of maneuver.


----------



## Lunatic (Feb 24, 2006)

Soren said:


> I know FLYBOYJ, I was just making fun of that first part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The whole point of the hi yoyo is to convert speed to altitude, turn a the lower speed, and then convert the altitude to speed at an advantagous angle. This would allow the P-38 to cut inside the Zero, but it would require a very skilled pilot to pull it off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > I know FLYBOYJ, I was just making fun of that first part.
> ...



And the Yo-yo maneuver (High/ low, and slow speed) were first employed during WW2 for this exact reason and later became a standard maneuver taught during air combat training.

Earlier we spoke about using differential power settings for maneuvering. Here is a report done in "modern times" concerning this technique for jet aircraft - it's lengthy, a bit dry reading and not necessarily on this subject matter but it shows that an aircraft can be maneuvered effectively with differential power...

After a US Airways crash of a B737 outside of Pittsburgh several years ago, many suspected that it was due to a "locked rudder." Many airlines developed emergency procedures to deal with this if encountered. My father in law helped write the procedure used by United Airlines and based his work on this paper. He spent time with Gordon Fullerton (Shuttle Astronaut) who assisted in this paper...


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> The whole point of the hi yoyo is to convert speed to altitude, turn a the lower speed, and then convert the altitude to speed at an advantagous angle. This would allow the P-38 to cut inside the Zero, but it would require a very skilled pilot to pull it off.



Well you see, that maneuver might work well against a Zero or Ki-43, but against a Fw-190 its an entirely different matter. Cause there's two very important differences between the Zero/Ki-43 and the Fw-190, and that is Speed Acceleration, and the Fw-190 is vastly superior in both of these. 

If a P-38 pulled a hi yo yo maneuver on a Fw-190D-9 it would loose it in an instant. Cause while the P-38 would be able to gain on a Zero or Ki43 in this kind of maneuver, it couldn't on the Fw-190, the Fw-190 would simply out-run and out-turn it at the same time. Cause the P-38 might have a smaller turn radius with its maneuver flaps deployed, but its sustained turn rate is still infinitely inferior to the Fw-190D-9's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2006)

Soren said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of the hi yoyo is to convert speed to altitude, turn a the lower speed, and then convert the altitude to speed at an advantagous angle. This would allow the P-38 to cut inside the Zero, but it would require a very skilled pilot to pull it off.
> ...



If it worked against a KI-43 it WILL work against ANY -190 mark, providing the -190 driver allowed himself to be suckered into the maneuver. The KI-43 was one of, if not the most maneuverable fighter aircraft of WW2 below 300 mph - 

There's a lot of assumptions here and its hard to theorize here, but I agree with Lunatic, this is not an impossibility....


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If it worked against a KI-43 it WILL work against ANY -190 mark, providing the -190 driver allowed himself to be suckered into the maneuver. The KI-43 was one of, if not the most maneuverable fighter aircraft of WW2 below 300 mph -



If the Fw-190 got suckered into a low speed turn fight, where the P-38 has the height advantage and could utilize its maneuver flaps, then yes I agree it is very possible. But the point is a good Fw-190 pilot won't allow that to happen, and since he's got Speed, climb rate, roll rate and turn rate to his advantage he's got every opportunity to avoid it.



> There's a lot of assumptions here and its hard to theorize here, but I agree with Lunatic, this is not an impossibility....



I agree, it is not impossible, but it would take alot of skill and luck to pull it off against a Fw-190.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 26, 2006)

The Max climb rate of the Fw-190D-9 is rated at 3,250min, another source puts it at 32,800ft in 16min. The P-38L could hit 4,000ft/min (chart shown below) and hit 35,000ft from sea level in 15min in METO power 17,400#(pilots handbook). Even if you only accept the 1600hp max for each engine of the P-38L max climb should be in the 3800ft/min range. The 190 could not out climb the P-38L anywhere.

The P-38H had a climb of 3,500ft/min and could reach 35,000ft in 13 min and is still climbing at 1,200ft/min in '43 16,100# combat weight METO power.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2006)

The Fw-190 Dora-9 has a climb rate of 3,642 ft/min, and will reach 20,000ft in 7min 6 sec, max climb rate using "Sonder Notleistung mit a lader als bodenmotor" would be even higher. While the P-38L has a climb rate of 2857 ft/min at normal combat weight(17500 lbs). 

This also compares well with the power-loading figures(Especially when we add the flat plate area):

P-38L: 5.93 lbs/hp
Fw-190D-9: 4.22 lbs/hp

Your figures must be for a VERY lightly loaded P-38 !


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 26, 2006)

Soren said:


> The Fw-190 Dora-9 has a climb rate of 3,642 ft/min, and will reach 20,000ft in 7min 6 sec, max climb rate using "Sonder Notleistung mit a lader als bodenmotor" would be even higher. While the P-38L has a climb rate of 2857 ft/min at normal combat weight(17500 lbs).
> 
> This also compares well with the power-loading figures(Especially when we add the flat plate area):
> 
> ...



No as I quoted above there for an L model at 17,400lbs, combat weight. 

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2006)

Don't tell me you actually believe in those figures wmaxt ?!

Obviously somethings terribly wrong with those figures, cause they're fantasy like.

According to those figures the P-38 weighing 17,400 lbs, and using only 1,100hp of power, would reach 20,000ft faster than a plane only half that weight and with more power available. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right about those figures...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 27, 2006)

Soren don't be such a twit. Any idiot can see that there is something wrong with the labelling of the graph.

You also forgot to double the hp as there is 2 engines.


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren don't be such a twit. Any idiot can see that there is something wrong with the labelling of the graph.



Krazi there's no need be rude, its easy to see the graph, its just a little blurred thats all. 



KraziKanuK said:


> You also forgot to double the hp as there is 2 engines.



No I didn't Krazi, 1100+1100 equals 2200, thats 40 less horsepower than the Fw-190D-9  

But obviously you forgot to look at the power-loading and flat plate area !


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 27, 2006)

All the sources Ive seen for time to climb to 20,000 feet for the P38, were in the 6.0 minute range (+/- a few seconds).


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2006)

Thats preposterous ! 

We're talking about a plane which weighs twice that of an ordinary single engined fighter, and it doesn't even have twice the power ! And the wing-loading and drag of the P-38 is also waay higher !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2006)

Soren said:


> Thats preposterous !
> 
> We're talking about a plane which weighs twice that of an ordinary single engined fighter, and it doesn't even have twice the power ! And the wing-loading and drag of the P-38 is also waay higher !



I gotta agree with Soren - I just looked in a POH - Time to 15,000 feet in a J with V-1710s-89/91 was 5 minutes, 9 minutes to 25,000 @ 17,400 lbs.

An L at 17,400 still shows a 9 minute climb to 25,000, 5 minutes to 15,000.

Best climb speed between SL and 25,000 is 180 - 170 MPH (Vx)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 27, 2006)

If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.

You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.

What is so hard to believe about the climb? The P51 with 1490hp, and 260kg lighter, climbed to 6.0km in 6.1 minutes while the D-9 with 1750hp took 7.7 minutes. This from a book on the Dora.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right.

BTW, the climb rate of the Dora dropped off dramatically above 4km.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.
> 
> You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.
> 
> ...



The actual P-38 POH says otherwise - I calculate 7 minutes at 2650 ft/mim for the J/L based on the POH and again this is at 17,400 pounds


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2006)

> If you did not make such dumb post, I would not have commented. Dumb because there is obviously something wrong with the labelling.



I commented on what the graph says Krazi, and that is not "Dumb".



> You said 1100hp, not 2200hp.



Ofcause I did ! Cause it says 1100 hp !! 

Multiplying that gives you 2200 hp, thats less than the Fw-190D-9 for twice as heavy an a/c, and thats what I said Krazi ! 

And when you add the flat pate area as-well, it really looks ridiculous ! 



> What is so hard to believe about the climb? The P51 with 1490hp, and 260kg lighter, climbed to 6.0km in 6.1 minutes while the D-9 with 1750hp took 7.7 minutes. This from a book on the Dora.
> 
> So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's something seriously not right.



At normal military power the P-51 would reach 20,000ft in 7.5 min.



> BTW, the climb rate of the Dora dropped off dramatically above 4km.



There should still be more than enough power to beat the P-38 to 6km !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2006)

The posted climb data in the POH is the same for the J and L

17,400lbs - 7 minutes to 20,000 feet
19,400lbs - 9 minutes
21,400lbs - 11 minutes


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 27, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Thats preposterous !
> ...



Those numbers are at 54" boost to. 60" (350hp) boost will make a difference as will 64" boost (600hp). I'm giving both numbers because of the possibility that the 64" boost was not used/available often, many pilots note they used "over 60" so who knows for sure?

The power loading for a P-38L at combat weight (17,400lbs) and 3200hp 60" boost is 5.4lbs/hp. The Dora 9 at normal loaded weight is 9840lbs and 1776hp (no boost) for 5.5lbs/hp. Not so different.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 27, 2006)

The Green curve labled as 1100hp is actualy the military power curve and should be labled as 54" and 1425hp. Edited @ 5:25pm

Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that the Fw-190D-9 whose power is 2240hp at sea level on MW 50 has already dropped to 2000hp by 11,500ft. Under normal unboosted power the D is rated at 1776hp at sea level and 1600hp at 18000ft and continues to drop as the altitude increases. The P-38 has retained its 1600/1725hp at ~30,000ft.

The numbers in the P-38 POH are comparable to these numbers of the Dora without the MW 50 
Fw-190D-9 - 2.1min to 6,500ft (3095ft/min ave)- 16.8min to 32,800ft (1952ft/min ave) Full power no MW 50 1776hp at SL droping off with altitude after 2nd stage supercharger engages
P-38L--------2.0min to 5,000ft (2500ft/min ave)- 15min - 35,000ft (2333ft/min ave) Military power 54" boost 1425hp (ea) SL-~30,000ft 17,400lbs

The P-38 adds another 350hp between 54" and 60" boost and another 250hp at 64". The MW 50 adds 464hp at SL and it drops off as the altitude increases, as shown above. The difference in climb giving the Fw-190 an edge at SL-6500ft drops off rather quickly as the altitude increases.

As to flat plate area and climb, the P-51 has a flat plate area of 3.80sf to the P-38s 8.78sf and the P-38 outclimbs the P-51 by a comfortable margin, the P-51 climbs at 3 min to 5,000ft, 28min to 35,000ft at less than 10,300lbs military power. FP numbers courtesy of NACA/NASA, P-51 climb data from the P-51 POH.

The bottom line here is that the P-38 could, at a minimum, keep up with the Dora in a climb.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2006)

The normal loaded weight for the Dora-9 is 9,414 lbs wmaxt, a pretty big difference.

Lets look at the numbers...

Power-loading
Fw-190D-9, no boost (1776hp): 5.3 lbs/hp
P-38L, no boost (2x1425hp): 6.1 lbs/hp

Fw-190D-9, full boost (2240hp): 4.2 lbs/hp
P-38L, full boost (2x1725hp): 5.04 lbs/hp

Wing-loading
Fw-190D-9: 47.7 lbs/sq.ft.
P-38L: 53 lbs/sq.ft.

Flat plate area
Fw-190D-9: 4.77 sq.ft.
P-38L: 8.78 sq.ft.

Now how exactly is the P-38 ever going to out-climb the Dora-9, when even at full boost the P-38 will have trouble out-climbing a Dora-9 flying at normal power ?

Lets say the Dora-9's power at full boost has dropped to 1850-1900hp at 18,000ft, thats a power-loading of 5.08-4.92 lbs/hp, thats still equal or better than the P-38L at full boost, and by now the Dora-9 has already acquired itself a good lead. (And remember this is without even considering FP area and lift-loading)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 27, 2006)

P38's also had some free HP from the exhaust thrust.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 27, 2006)

Some real world test numbers:

P-38G 42-12687 Tested at 48" mainfold

5,000 feet in 1.71 minutes
10,000 feet in 2.81 minutes
15,000 feet in 4.21 minutes
20,000 feet in 5.68 minutes
25,000 feet in 7.36 minutes
30,000 feet in 9.46 minutes

Peak RoC: 3,660 feet/minute at 5000 feet

P-38J 42-67869 Tested at 60" manifold, 16,600lbs

5000 feet in 1.25 minutes
10,000 feet in 2.54 minutes
15,000 feet in 3.89 minutes
20,000 feet in 5.37 minutes
25,000 feet in 7.06 minutes
30,000 feet in 9.32 minutes

Peak RoC: 4,000 feet/minute at sea level

Anyone have some 190D9 data? All I have are some general 190 serise document from FockWulfe, which give climb to 10,000m (33,000 feet) as 16.8 minute at normal power and 12.5 minutes at military power


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 28, 2006)

*Notice the date on the graphs > March 45*


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 28, 2006)

Jabber, the use of MW50 increased the climb rate from 17.8m/s to 22.5m/s at low level.

Lots of D-9 reports here, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2006)

According to those doc's using "Sonder Notleistung" the Dora-9 at normal combat weight and equipped with ETC-504 rack would reach 6km in 5min 43 sec. Without the ETC-504 rack and using "Sonder notleistung mit a lader als bodenmotor" this time would be even lower.

Things are starting to make some sense..


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Sep 12, 2011)

I may be coming from know where but I'd say that it is the Fw-190D, and not the F4U-4 Corsair that was the best fighter of WWII. Lets be realistic, I could talk about an aircraft such as the Ta-152, but i won't for it had little to no combat whatsoever. Although the Fw-190D entered a stage of the war in which the Allies had complete air superiority over the Luftwaffe, it was a remarkable aircraft. What makes it such an excellent fighter is that it combines the strong points of the Fw-190A with that of the Bf 109G. The aircraft was much easier to fly than the Bf 109G and Fw-190A, it had the best cockpit visibility for any German fighter (only second to the Me 262), excelled in the vertical boom zoom, and also had a range and speed very similar to that of the P-47D.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 21, 2011)

wwii
First of all, before making a blank statement that the Fw190D was better than the F4U-4, you have to decide "at what". There manueverability was very close at certain speeds and heights.
The Corsair was the hands down better load carrier (4,000 lbs capability). If we are talking a 1-on-1 dogfight, I would say the win would go to the better pilot that just happens to be having better luck that day. I do not have my files with me at this time, so I'm using what little memory I have on the following performance figures. I remember the Fw190D speed being around 350mph/S.L and 438mph somewhere around 30,000ft.? Initial climb from performance charts was about 3,700fpm. and I have seen it calculated with MW50 around 4,400fpm. The Ta 152H figures are (from memory) 375mph/S.L., around 450mph/20,000ft. Initial climb in the 4,000fpm range, although I have seen post that claim as high as 5,100fpm....??? Max speed reaching just over 465 way up around 40,000ft.
The F4U-4 figures from 1947 test results: 383mph/S.L, 463mph/22,000ft. Initial climb: 4,770fpm. increasing to over 4,800fpm around 6,000ft.
I am not saying the F4U was hands down better across the board compared to the Fw190D. I'm just saying it was highly competitive.
I believe I read in a Ta-152 book that the handling qualities of the D did not equal the A's. The D rolled about the same and turned better though.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 21, 2011)

Never sat in a Corsair, but having tried the representation in flight sims I was struck by the lack of rear visibility, now I bear in mind this is a simulation, but could anyone comment on the rear cockpit armour which seems to restrict rear visibility on the representation?


----------



## post76 (Sep 21, 2011)

Looking at performance figures for the F4U-1, it had similar performance to the Fw190A6.
It was said to have performed better in the horizontal, making tighter turns and at higher speeds.
Climb was similar, roll was similar and dive was similar. 
I see a lot of hype on the F4U-1C/D versions but the 1A with water injection was one of the faster and lighter versions.
It retained the clean wing and pushed 440mph at 65" w/water.
Its performance was most noted for its acceleration and power climbs.
F4Us did not have the dive speed (Vmax) of their counterparts which is perhaps why they weren't seen in the ETO.

Robert S Johnson trained attack runs on the F4U while flying the P-47. He commented the F4U and Fw190 were very similar as well, but he felt at altitude the F4U was a tad faster. 

From that standpoint the Spitfire might compare against the F4U in a similar way as the Fw190, just remember it could turn tighter. 

As for the F4U-4 being the most advanced fighter?
It may very well have been a top performer of the WW2 era.
Was it the most advanced by the end of WW2?
No, IMO. I still think there were more advancements with the P-47N and later model P-47D-40. Not a matter of performance but things like rear radar detection, and better mixture controls for range, and an auto-pilot. 
The F4U would eventually see similar types of upgrades with the introduction of the F4U-5, easily one of the best fighters of the era but it wouldn't see combat in WW2.


----------



## Readie (Sep 21, 2011)

It really is amazingly simple. The Spitfire was the best.
1939 - 1954
No other comes close.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2011)

Readie is to the RAF as Ratsel is to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Readie (Sep 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Readie is to the RAF as Ratsel is to the Luftwaffe.



Chris, very droll


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 22, 2011)

post 76,
Please elaborate. My documents show that the F4U-1 was capable of 436mph/17,900ft and 2,890fpm initially at 65"/2,300hp. I do not have documents on the Fw-190A-6 to make a comparison.
Readie,
I don't now about that. The Bf.109 was in the Spanish Civil War. Operational just a tad bit before the Spitfire. With every mark of Spitfire came a Bf.109 equal right up to 1945. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spit was an awesome weapon. But It was not always supreme throughout the war.


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> Readie,
> I don't now about that. The Bf.109 was in the Spanish Civil War. Operational just a tad bit before the Spitfire. With every mark of Spitfire came a Bf.109 equal right up to 1945. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spit was an awesome weapon. But It was not always supreme throughout the war.



The development race between the arch rivals was a leap frog affair as one would expect.
The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.
if they had never gone to war the Spitfire would still have been lauded as a pilots plane and the 109 forgotten.

As we got the upper hand in WW2 the 109's older design limited its use. 
The Spitfire's development in power, weapons, range, versatility and longevity makes her the winner.

Before anyone says anything I know the 'G' version is supposed to be the hotrod version. But, it was too late to impact in WW2.

The other thing is that the Spitfire is a national treasure and symbol of all that we stand for. With the greatest of respect Its hard for American's to really understand how we feel about our wonderful Spitfire.

Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> The development race between the arch rivals was a leap frog affair as one would expect.
> The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.
> if they had never gone to war the Spitfire would still have been lauded as a pilots plane and the 109 forgotten.


 I dont know that the spitfire was superior just different. Some spitfire pilots during the BoB would have preferred top swap places with 109 pilots due to its diving ability and cannon armament.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Spitfire's development in power, weapons, range, versatility and longevity makes her the winner.


please don't include range that is a non starter as for longevity the 2nd largest user of Spitfires dropped them at end of war and swapped for the 51


----------



## Milosh (Sep 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> please don't include range that is a non starter as for longevity the 2nd largest user of Spitfires dropped them at end of war and swapped for the 51



Considering the Supermarine manufacturing plant was across a very wide ocean and where the NAA manufacturing plant was, it is not hard to understand why the switch to the P-51.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2011)

To say the Spitfire was a vastly superior aircraft to the 109 is absurd. Both aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over the other. There are too many factors involved to even come to a conclusion.

What altitude?
What speed?
What conditions? 

Both aircraft traded slight superiority over the other throughout the war. As I told Ratsel, you have to put national pride aside to compare these two aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> Before anyone says anything I know the 'G' version is supposed to be the hotrod version. But, it was too late to impact in WW2.
> 
> The other thing is that the Spitfire is a national treasure and symbol of all that we stand for. With the greatest of respect Its hard for American's to really understand how we feel about our wonderful Spitfire.
> 
> ...


 
The G is not a hotrod version, if anything the G was probably the worst relative to its contemporaries, at least from 1943-44. Only the late G-10 and very similar K are "hotrods" and they were competetive to the contemporary Spitfire versions. The Spitfire benefits a lot from the more steady improvement of the Merlin when compared to the DB60x which had some problems in the mid of its lifecycle. It's important to note that the Spitfire and Mustang had the better fuel available, I wonder if there had been a performance gap between the Messerschmidt and those two had they all used the same grade fuel. Some of the aerodynamic refinements made to the Bf 109 could and should've been made earlier though (retractable tail wheel, main wheel fairings, G-10-style cowliung covers...).


----------



## Kryten (Sep 22, 2011)

lets be honest, the differences between any of the 109/spitfire marks are bordering on irrelevant compared to the importance of the tactical situation in which they engaged!

its interesting but these kind of threads will always be subjected to a degree of national/personal predjudice!


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 22, 2011)

Personally I think that the Spitfire the Me 109 just reflect certain differing priorities in the context of a similar basic requirement.
Both are outstanding designs, clearly. 
Each has its strengths and weaknesses (varying at diferent points in their WW2 life-cycles).
The big deal with the 109 was, I think, that it was not only a highly competitive fundamental design but it was optimised for ease of truly massive mass-production in a way that was simply unknown anywhere outside of the US once the great effort to_ 'build build build!'_ got going.

The one thing that I find incredible regarding the 109 is the vast array of sub-types field conversion, had they been able to standardise earlier and much more effectively I can imagine they would have produced several thousand more.
Meanwhile in the UK the chioce seems to have been to slog it out, the more difficult more expensive to produce Spitfire's production was bludgeoned into an incredible level of production all things considered.

In short 2 amazing planes I count myself very lucky to have seen both in the air and on the ground several times (real DB engined 109s too).
Thank god we are long past their reason for being and can just appreciate them for the technical historical marvels they were/are.....and perhaps spare some time to reflect on just how blessed some of us have been to have been born well past those dark terrible days.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2011)

Very well said Gixxerman.


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To say the Spitfire was a vastly superior aircraft to the 109 is absurd. you have to put national pride aside to compare these two aircraft.



So, what part of YOUR national pride are you putting to one side before you say that then Chris?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> So, what part of YOUR national pride are you putting to one side before you say that then Chris?



1. Where have I used national pride to compare these two aircraft, or any aircraft?

2. What does being an American have to do with the Bf 109 and the Spitfire? 

Come on now, now you are digging. 

Seriously, the Bf 109 is my favorite aircraft, but I would never make a fool out of myself pretending it was the best. Nor would I kid myself into thinking the Spitfire or the Fw 190 were the best. There were aircraft built on both sides that were better than all 3 of them.

Lets be honest here, all of these aircraft (Bf 109, Spit, Fw 190, P-51 and Corsair since it was actually part of the thread topic) all were great aircraft. They all had advantages and disadvantages over the others. The better aircraft most of the time would be the one who's pilot could use his aircraft's particular advantages better than the other pilot.


----------



## Coors9 (Sep 22, 2011)

Guys, guys guys........you take all of the 109 Spitfire jockeys and put them in a P-51B , they would say "what the hell have I been missing". Looks, performance, birdcage , it's a no brainer. They were both awesome birds and I'd give my left nut to fly in either one. When I look at a Spit I think that you can make it dance, when I look at a 109 I think pure fear. Two of the Greatest ever built.


----------



## Altea (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.



This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.

Discussed 1000 times, two *different* but *well balanced* solutions. Strictly *no evidence* about full Spit conception superiority.


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

Altea said:


> This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
> Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
> So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.
> 
> Discussed 1000 times, two *different* but *well balanced* solutions. Strictly *no evidence* about full Spit conception superiority.




Discussed a million times Altea !!

I was referring to the pedigree of the Spitfire. The Schneider Trophy racing heritage and lessons learnt to make a plane not only beautiful to the eye and to fly but, also a deadly interceptor fighter. Supermarine and Rolls Royce came up with an advanced winning design.

I realise that the 109 is a popular aircraft on this forum but, I will stay loyal to the Spitfire.

Cheers
John


----------



## riacrato (Sep 23, 2011)

A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. However, Germany had the newer Fw 190 they could build on whereas GB was relying almost exclusively on the Spit for a long time due to a lack of adequate alternatives until the Mustang and later Tempests arrived.

It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently I get the impression hadn't they cut so many small corners with the G (like eliminating the radiator bypass) and added a few refinements the later made to the K it would've still been very competetive in the critical months of 1943-44 where the G-6 was clearly inferior to the opposition. I guess at the time the G was laid out they were too confident in the design due to the perceived superiority of the F. Really only the Spitfire V was seen as competetive at the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> I will stay loyal to the Spitfire.



Nothing wrong with that either.

1. It was a great aircraft, and one of the best piston fighters ever built (and a very beautiful looking one as well).

2. Everyone has their favorite aircraft anyhow.


----------



## Altea (Sep 23, 2011)

riacrato said:


> A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. ...
> 
> It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently .



I agree with that. But I don't see how would you comfort any allied pilot falling down with a Hurricane I or a P-40C after a fight with a 109F-4, for instance in North Africa. 
Will you say to them your plane "would" be much easier to adapt on heavier and larger engines, the day they will be available?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 23, 2011)

riacrato said:


> A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. However, Germany had the newer Fw 190 they could build on whereas GB was relying almost exclusively on the Spit for a long time due to a lack of adequate alternatives until the Mustang and later Tempests arrived.
> 
> It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently I get the impression hadn't they cut so many small corners with the G (like eliminating the radiator bypass) and added a few refinements the later made to the K it would've still been very competetive in the critical months of 1943-44 where the G-6 was clearly inferior to the opposition. I guess at the time the G was laid out they were too confident in the design due to the perceived superiority of the F. Really only the Spitfire V was seen as competetive at the time.



We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Altea said:


> This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
> Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
> So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.
> 
> Discussed 1000 times, two *different* but *well balanced* solutions. Strictly *no evidence* about full Spit conception superiority.



My own belief is that the Spitfire was better more by luck than by actual design or intent. Both were different solutions to almost the same question/problem (but then so were the Hurricane and the Dw 520 and the P-36/P-40).

The bigger wing on the Spitfire was, in part, due to the official requirement. Once the RAF said they wanted 8 guns a small wing was pretty much out of the question. Mitchell guessed that the thin wing wing of the Spitfire would have less drag at high speed than the thick wing of the Hurricane. He didn't KNOW for absolute certainty. The Boffins at the RAE were assuring Camm that the thick wing section would pose no problem several years later on the Typhoon. The elliptical wing was a way of gaining interior volume in the wing as much as it was a way gaining efficiency. The elliptical wing offered more cord further out from the fuselage than a straight taper wing of equal size would. Mitchell needed the cord in order to get the thickness in inches that he needed in hide the landing gear in. As a for instance if you have an 80 in cord (distance front to back on a wing) a 16% thickness wing will have a maximum thickness 2.4 inches more than a 13% thickness wing with the same cord. Since Mitchell could not shrink things like the tires and needed certain minimum thicknesses at certain points and he had chosen a thin section wing he needed certain cord dimensions at certain points in the span to get those actual thicknesses. This gave him the ellipse ( I suppose he could have used a straight wing section out to the wheel wells and a then a succession of tapers, but that may have been not much easier to build than the ellipse). The wing section may have dictated the the gun layout. The thick Hurricane wing allowed for ammunition belts to pass over the tops of some guns to reach others. There may not have been room for this in the Spitfire wing which meant that the guns had to spaced to allow for ammunition between guns. This also pushed the last gun out near the wing tip so the wing needed a certain amount of thickness and cord to house the gun. 
The 109s wing may have looked rather different if it had been required to hold eight guns. 

The Spitfires larger wing may have been a detriment in the early years but it turned into an asset later on when it could not only house heavier armament but could support larger increases in weight with less detriment to it's flying qualities. 

Airframe designers do not tell air staffs what armament to use, either in type of gun or numbers. They may provide more than the air staff requests but if more armament means lower performance their design stands a good chance of not being picked. 

Airframe designers sometimes get to pick the engine and in other cases are told what engine to use. While any air frame designer could anticipate engines getting better ( more power for the same or little more weight) nobody in 1936 knew how fast or how far such improvement would go. Looking back at the last 10 years no designer would have thought that a 1935 fighter design would still be in production (even severally modified) 10 years in the future.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 23, 2011)

Altea said:


> I agree with that. But I don't see how would you comfort any allied pilot falling down with a Hurricane I or a P-40C after a fight with a 109F-4, for instance in North Africa.
> Will you say to them your plane "would" be much easier to adapt on heavier and larger engines, the day they will be available?


Point taken, but then, not even heavier engines brought those two into the top tier of fighters. They simply weren't as good fighter designs (with all due respect) as the the Spit or Messerschmidt. Again it is about balance, but assuming that all else is equal, wouldn't you take the airframe with the longer design lifespan?

But I agree with Shortround6 in that the Spitfire's relative longevity compared to the Messer was more by accident then intent. I'm sure at the time, both design teams simply wanted to fulfill their specifications as good as they could _at this time_. Neither of the two specs was especially geared towards future improvements afaik.

I think overall 1940-45 the Spitfires are _as a whole _better WW2 fighters from a pilot perspective, but I think the Messerschmidt is the better weapon taking production and maintenance into account.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Spitfires larger wing may have been a detriment in the early years but it turned into an asset later on when it could not only house heavier armament



Which Spitfire could house heavier armament in wings? Examples please.



> but could support larger increases in weight with less detriment to it's flying qualities.



What define flying quality?

Now I see the error in logic is that if all things be equal, it would be true. For example, if both plane increase in weight by 500 kg, larger wing is of course better. But problem in practice is that one aircraft increase in weight by 250 kg, the other by 500 kg... and Spitfire increased more fast, late variants were very heavy. The reason was that bigger increase was large drag of large wing to start with - it need to be compensated, more fuel need carried, bigger engine need to be used to get performance. 

Early war Spitfire had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war Spitfire like Xiv had engine of 900 kg and fuel ca. 450 kg, but range was much less than early war Spitfire. Compare 109, early war 109 had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war 109 like K had engine of 750 kg and fuel of 300 kg, but range was some 50% greater...

Early war Spitfire had wing load of 25 lbs/sqere feet, early war 109 had 33 lbs/sqere feet - 33% better. Late war Spitfire had 35 lbs sq./feet, late war 109 42 lbs./sq. feet, Spitfire now 20% better only. So despite large wing, wing load detoriated greater and more fast on Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2011)

Tante Ju, which post do you wish to use? 

Please use the edit function next time.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 23, 2011)

Sory Adler! Something went crazy...


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nothing wrong with that either.
> 
> 1. It was a great aircraft, and one of the best piston fighters ever built (and a very beautiful looking one as well).
> 
> 2. Everyone has their favorite aircraft anyhow.




Absolutely Chris. It would be a dull world if we all liked the same things.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> My own belief is that the Spitfire was better more by luck than by actual design or intent. Both were different solutions to almost the same question/problem (but then so were the Hurricane and the Dw 520 and the P-36/P-40).
> 
> The bigger wing on the Spitfire was, in part, due to the official requirement. Once the RAF said they wanted 8 guns a small wing was pretty much out of the question. Mitchell guessed that the thin wing wing of the Spitfire would have less drag at high speed than the thick wing of the Hurricane. He didn't KNOW for absolute certainty. The Boffins at the RAE were assuring Camm that the thick wing section would pose no problem several years later on the Typhoon. The elliptical wing was a way of gaining interior volume in the wing as much as it was a way gaining efficiency. The elliptical wing offered more cord further out from the fuselage than a straight taper wing of equal size would. Mitchell needed the cord in order to get the thickness in inches that he needed in hide the landing gear in. As a for instance if you have an 80 in cord (distance front to back on a wing) a 16% thickness wing will have a maximum thickness 2.4 inches more than a 13% thickness wing with the same cord. Since Mitchell could not shrink things like the tires and needed certain minimum thicknesses at certain points and he had chosen a thin section wing he needed certain cord dimensions at certain points in the span to get those actual thicknesses. This gave him the ellipse ( I suppose he could have used a straight wing section out to the wheel wells and a then a succession of tapers, but that may have been not much easier to build than the ellipse). The wing section may have dictated the the gun layout. The thick Hurricane wing allowed for ammunition belts to pass over the tops of some guns to reach others. There may not have been room for this in the Spitfire wing which meant that the guns had to spaced to allow for ammunition between guns. This also pushed the last gun out near the wing tip so the wing needed a certain amount of thickness and cord to house the gun.
> The 109s wing may have looked rather different if it had been required to hold eight guns.
> ...




Well surmised SR6.
I had to cough at the 'better by luck' comment but, hey, it wouldn't be British if it all went smoothly and according to plan would it
Shenson' contribution is missing though and the fact that his wing heralded in the jet age wing. an amazing piece of design in the 1930's
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

riacrato said:


> I think overall 1940-45 the Spitfires are _as a whole _better WW2 fighters from a pilot perspective, but I think the Messerschmidt is the better weapon taking production and maintenance into account.




As a pure mass produced weapon the ME109 was very effective with its weapons and power. 
It has a brutal purpose and definitely looks the part.

Now I'm going to have a lay down...

Cheers
John


----------



## jim (Sep 23, 2011)

"We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series"

Mr Tomo Pauk said it well. It was the failure of gernan engines improvements during the mid war period that crippled both Bf109 and Fw190 during the most critical period of the war and reduced their post war fame.. They were never outclassed like A6M in PTO but during late 43-mid 44 were in clear diadvantage mainly because of their engines.


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

Jim,
Glad you said that. I have been actively promoting the RR Merlin /Griffon as superb aero-engines.
Daimler Benz were and are great engineers and no one would really dispute that. But, when push came to shove they were not good enough either for the reasons you state or a blind alley in design. 
Personally, I still believe that an inverted engine is inferior to the 'right way up'. call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like.
There is a cut away Merlin in the IWM , London. I stood and marvelled at the complexity of such a great motor. The power, the sound, its is just fantastic.
Our American friends had a fair attempt with the Allison but, they couldn't match the power of the Merlin.
To say that we owe our liberty to Rolls Royce is not an over statement.
Cheers
John


----------



## riacrato (Sep 23, 2011)

jim said:


> "We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series"
> 
> Mr Tomo Pauk said it well. It was the failure of gernan engines improvements during the mid war period that crippled both Bf109 and Fw190 during the most critical period of the war and reduced their post war fame.. They were never outclassed like A6M in PTO but during late 43-mid 44 were in clear diadvantage mainly because of their engines.


 
Agreed but for different reasons. The BMW801 teams introduced a lot of small improvements after the D but only on prototypes. Unfortunately they waited way too long to incorporate these into a new production model, I guess they were too hard pressed reaching the required volume by the air ministry. The DB605 problems are another story but people who promote they (DB) should've put more resources into getting the DB603 or 610 to work should remember that DB already had problems getting the 605 up to spec. Later in the war these two engines were on par again, but the war in the air was already long lost.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Which Spitfire could house heavier armament in wings? Examples please.



I would say that two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns was a heavier armament than eight .303 machine guns, wouldn't you? Or two 20mm and two .50 cal Machine guns? And if you are comparing to the 109 and we leave the gunboats out once you get passed the "E" the 109 was always lacking in weight of armament (again, I say weight not effectiveness). 




Tante Ju said:


> What define flying quality?
> 
> Now I see the error in logic is that if all things be equal, it would be true. For example, if both plane increase in weight by 500 kg, larger wing is of course better. But problem in practice is that one aircraft increase in weight by 250 kg, the other by 500 kg... and Spitfire increased more fast, late variants were very heavy. The reason was that bigger increase was large drag of large wing to start with - it need to be compensated, more fuel need carried, bigger engine need to be used to get performance.



You do, of course, have actual numbers to back that up? As a general rule of thumb cutting the wing area by 25% will increase the top speed by 3%. So making a Spitfire wing of 180 square ft. (with in 3% of the 109s) would some how require hundreds less horsepower and all the other benefits you claim? 


Tante Ju said:


> Early war Spitfire had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war Spitfire like Xiv had engine of 900 kg and fuel ca. 450 kg, but range was much less than early war Spitfire. Compare 109, early war 109 had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war 109 like K had engine of 750 kg and fuel of 300 kg, but range was some 50% greater...


 Back to the long range range of the 109? I grant you the drag was a bit less on a F or G than than on an E but the engine actually used 1/3 less fuel for the same/similar cruise power? 


Tante Ju said:


> Early war Spitfire had wing load of 25 lbs/sqere feet, early war 109 had 33 lbs/sqere feet - 33% better. Late war Spitfire had 35 lbs sq./feet, late war 109 42 lbs./sq. feet, Spitfire now 20% better only. So despite large wing, wing load detoriated greater and more fast on Spitfire.


 Really? Spitfire starts out with better low speed handling and after all the additions are done has a wing loading 6% higher than an early war 109 and about 17% less than the late war 109. Actually numbers were actually closer as the 42 lbs./sq feet seems to be for the 109 carrying some sort of external load? 

Later Spitfires were not as nice to fly as early ones but then the later 109s weren't that nice to fly either. Has anyone described the flying characteristics of a late model Spitfire as "malevolent"?


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

Johnnie Johnson'sfavourite Spitfire was the mark 1X 'the best of them' he said.
Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing
There is some interesting data in this link.
Cheers
John


----------



## jim (Sep 23, 2011)

Mr Readie
1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)
2)Merlin was a superb effort but you must remember a) in 1940 time combination merlin/spit was inferior to DB/Bf109 .BoB was decided by RADAR and poor german tactics b) Till very late 1942 the combo Merlin/Spit V was still inferior to DB/Bf109f c)late in the war DB matched or even surpassed Merlin top power using inferior fuel and having also some superior charachteristics such as better specific consuption, lower cost, easy maintance , a motor cannon , smoother power curve,similar weight but bigger capacity. Also Complexity is not something good ...
Merlin had a smoother evolution curve, and that was decisive in 43/44 not so much in the spit but in P51. Had the DB605ASM appeared in autumn 43 instead of May 44 there would be little to choose between the two aircrafts for the entire war. Why did not appear? Poor planning?Poor personnel distribution? Poor priorities? Fuel availability?( If C3 was available for Bf 109s propably would manage better than 1475 PS earlier )
An interesting point
the italian fighter Re 2005 was observed that it was at least equal to Spit IX until mid altitudes (in mid,late 43) despite the fact it was using DB605A cleared for 1,30 ata and poor propeller! Both italians and enlish pilots made the observation.
Griffon was matched on paper by Jumo 213A when fitted with Mw50 but i admit there are questions of its building quality . But that was not a design fault. And again the Fw 190D was desperately late.
BMW 801 was in my opinion clearly inferior and eventually cancelled the good design of Fw190 . Reading Jg 26 War diary someone can form the image that Fw gave decent combat record despite its engine. 
as for the normal or inverter engined ,performance wise , i am not sure ther was a important diferrence. But servicing was easier on the inverted


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr Readie
> 1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)
> 2)Merlin was a superb effort but you must remember a) in 1940 time combination merlin/spit was inferior to DB/Bf109 .BoB was decided by RADAR and poor german tactics b) Till very late 1942 the combo Merlin/Spit V was still inferior to DB/Bf109f c)late in the war DB matched or even surpassed Merlin top power using inferior fuel and having also some superior charachteristics such as better specific consuption, lower cost, easy maintance , a motor cannon , smoother power curve,similar weight but bigger capacity. Also Complexity is not something good ...
> Merlin had a smoother evolution curve, and that was decisive in 43/44 not so much in the spit but in P51. Had the DB605ASM appeared in autumn 43 instead of May 44 there would be little to choose between the two aircrafts for the entire war. Why did not appear? Poor planning?Poor personnel distribution? Poor priorities? Fuel availability?( If C3 was available for Bf 109s propably would manage better than 1475 PS earlier )
> ...



Mr Jim,
RADAR and fighter command tactics helped of course in the BoB. The German attack was ill informed as Goering underestimated the RAF's resources and British resolve. All these points have been covered in other threads. Courage and determination was abundant on all sides but, fighting over your own country gives any airforce the extra 'edge' ( if that is the right word). The iconic Spitfire was seen as the symbol of victory in the BoB and taken to my nations heart in a way that no other fighter has been before or since.The Spitfire is rather like King Arthur where fact and fiction intertwine to make an ethereal protector, guardian angel if you like, of England. Against this backdrop the ME109 stands no chance, it may be admired by aviation enthusiasts as a clinical weapon of war but, its a tainted plane.

DB had an impossible task. Developing engines for planes designed by superb engineers, commanded by lunatics. The ME262 is a case in point. Germany could not sustain the war effort by 1942/1943. Again, without going over old ground, this has been covered in other posts.

Servicing an inverted? I believe it is reckoned to be easier in the field for the less skilled mechanic. I'd trade that for oil control any day.

Italian fighters? So stylish but, regrettably useless in the real world. 

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> Italian fighters? So stylish but, regrettably useless in the real world.
> 
> Cheers
> John



Ah, but useless if they had been made in numbers?

Dropping the national pride thing, the Italian aero industry was very small in the scheme of things and one good american factory probably made more aircraft than all of of Italy but that doesn't mean we can't learn from their designs or see what was possiable if other choices had been made. If you want to understand the potential of engine then looking at other installations is a big help. All Three of the Italian "5" series fighters offer possibilities that the 109 did not.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> <snip> The Spitfire <snip> where fact and fiction intertwine <snip>


 Hmmmmm


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I would say that two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns was a heavier armament than eight .303 machine guns, wouldn't you? Or two 20mm and two .50 cal Machine guns? And if you are comparing to the 109 and we leave the gunboats out once you get passed the "E" the 109 was always lacking in weight of armament (again, I say weight not effectiveness).



Why leave the "gunboats" out may I ask? We only speak of about 20-25 000 Bf 109 (late F/G/K type).. just ignore them? "Gunboats" were not a different type, they all had option to put a gun in the wing, its like leaving bomb carrying Spitfires out. Why. All later Mark could carry.. like all Mtt could carry wing cannon - if needed.







You thesis is that Spitfire wing could take cannon in wing, so could Messerschmitt, actual Spanish Messerschmitt put same Hispano in wing, 109K-6 put MG 151/20 or MG 108 in wing etc. So I do not get what are you talking about, really. The Hispano was a longer weapon, but not larger, I think breech area (which counts only for installation - you can stick out barrel front as long you want) is about same size.

You seem think bigger aerodynamic area Spitfire wing is better for carrying arament, but is it? Actual the useful storage space for guns (area where wing is thick enough to house guns) seem not to different, for example you cannot put guns in traiing edge, you cannot put guns where undercarriage bay is. But this is an interesting question. We need to take a look at scaled drawings of Spitfire wing to see what options it offers. 

On Messeschmitt the reason you cannot put more guns than one in each wing in leading edge is that much of wing is "blocked" by leading edge slats, but you can place that extra two .50 cal Machine guns over the engine, with more ammo and advantage of central firepower. Buchon probably did not do that because it used Merlin engine, which took up space for ammo bay, but put in a DB back and you can do it again. However in Spitfire you cannot place MG in the cowl because the same place Mtt has ammo bays the Spitfire has fuel points. You can perhaps move these, but this will drastic change gravity center, and wing needs to be in that gravity center, so you will have redesign wings, too...



Shortround6 said:


> You do, of course, have actual numbers to back that up? As a general rule of thumb cutting the wing area by 25% will increase the top speed by 3%. So making a Spitfire wing of 180 square ft. (with in 3% of the 109s) would some how require hundreds less horsepower and all the other benefits you claim?



Yes, let us do some "number crouching"! As you see there is matematikal formulae to assess possibile changes. General rule of thumb, power increase by cube for given speed increase. So 3% speed increase will require 3%^3 = 9,25% more power to obtain same speed, all things equal. This also means at least 9,25% more fuel burned to get this power, means 9,25% fuel weight needs to be carried to get same speed and same range, and engine and its systems will be possible heavier, and make more drag as well.

The Spitfire relied on this power by excellent work of RR to keep competative with newer fighter airframe design like 109, 190. There was very little done for improve airframe aerodynamic, that tended to get worse - radiator drag was very increased in relation to early Mark, because engine needed much more power, and much more power require much more cooling, supercharger, supercharger intercooler (needs also seperate radiator). More supercharger consumes extra power, means extra fuel need carried. 

For example, Mark I Spitfire was about 6000 lbs, Mark XIV Spitfire 8500 lbs, extra 2500 lbs during development or +42%. E type Messerschmitt ca. 5700 lbs, 7400 lbs in K type Messerschmitt, extra 1700 lbs during development or +30%.



> Back to the long range range of the 109? I grant you the drag was a bit less on a F or G than than on an E but the engine actually used 1/3 less fuel for the same/similar cruise power?



Yes, back, I supplied data for that earlier, you just do not read :/ Do you want to supply your own data perhaps to contradict if its not true? My data is primer source, so reliable.

Re: second part. I think 1/3 greater fuel effiency is two factor based on 109. First, redesigned 109F airframe in 1940, much less drag. E had top speed 570, F had ca 610 in early version, difference was 601N engine and redesign of airframe to better aerodynamic characteristics. I think assume 50%-50% role for better engine power and better aerodynamics, it seems reasonable from my calculation. So drag decrease was enough to increase speed 20 km/h alone, on same power. This means aircraft covered distance quicker, and did not consume more power. Second part is I think because DB engines also got better in feul effienz. Data shows 601E for example rather better in low speed power consumption than 601A, and 605A is even tiny better than 601E. Reason I believe is improved scavanging, increased ratios of compression in subsequent engines. 




> Really? Spitfire starts out with better low speed handling and after all the additions are done has a wing loading 6% higher than an early war 109 and about 17% less than the late war 109. Actually numbers were actually closer as the 42 lbs./sq feet seems to be for the 109 carrying some sort of external load?
> 
> Later Spitfires were not as nice to fly as early ones but then the later 109s weren't that nice to fly either. Has anyone described the flying characteristics of a late model Spitfire as "malevolent"?



Yes that why I ask about how you define term handling. It is not same as wing loading, wing loading more-less define stall speed, but that is not all. Flow characteristics are defined by shape of wing profile, other empennage, devices like slat and flap, and characteristics of control surface. British seem to think very high of early 109E handling, more "user friendly" than early Spitfire I handling.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 24, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr Readie
> 1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)



What was the date 1.42ata was cleared?


----------



## post76 (Sep 24, 2011)

Was the Spitfire any real use after the BoB and MTO?

The later Spitfires XIV and XXI were over 7000lbs take off weight, where does that leave the wing loading?

I'd heard that was somewhat of a shortcoming and it left the Spitfire less maneuverable than earlier versions. 
One might find that even the Mustang could hold a tighter radius than later spits, particularly at altitude. 
That's not saying much, the Spit design was not particularly suited for high altitude deployment but it was the fastest climbing 
allied fighter at that time and so it usually took the role of an interceptor and high altitude support. 
Maybe someone with more knowledge should clarify.


The 109 saw similar upgrades but it was still relatively light. 
Even with the advancements in MW50 and NO3 systems what was a realistic operational range of the later G and K models where allies were flying above 25,000ft?
I'd also heard that water injection was less effective above 30,000ft and required the use of a NO3 to see a noticeable performance boost.
Any thoughts on NO3 systems?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Why leave the "gunboats" out may I ask? We only speak of about 20-25 000 Bf 109 (late F/G/K type).. just ignore them? "Gunboats" were not a different type, they all had option to put a gun in the wing, its like leaving bomb carrying Spitfires out. Why. All later Mark could carry.. like all Mtt could carry wing cannon - if needed.



We have performance figures for Spitfires carrying about 650lbs of guns and ammo in the wings. DO we have performance figures for the "gun boats"? not just speed but climb? and climb at various altitudes. Service ceiling (climb at 100ft/min), operational ceiling (climb at 500ft/min), do we know what the wing guns did to the roll response (peak/max roll rate could very well be the same)? Did they do much to the turning circle? 
109 fans point out that few Spitfires carried four 20 guns even though the wing was laid out for them due to performance problems. The four 20mm set up (for guns and ammo alone) weighs 249 lbs more than the two 20mm and four .303 setup. Two 20mm/151s with 135rpg weigh 316lbs. Without the mounts, gondolas, ammo drum/box, firing controls and any provision for heating. The Spitfire may not have been able to heat the outer 20mms properly but when making that 249lb 'adjustment' on the Spitfire there is no provision for the mounts, ammo boxes, controls and heaters, either for the 20mms going in or the .303s coming out. 
Somehow the addition of the underwing guns on the 109 is supposed to have a negligible impact on performance (all performance, not just speed)?
Maybe it is just tall tales but why did the Germans continue to fly large numbers of one cannon 109s?
Stories (that may not be true) say that one cannon 109s were "supposed to" engage enemy fighters while gun boats went for the bombers. Like many stories (like Spitfires attacking fighters while Hurricanes attacked bombers) or perhaps theories is a better word, actually combat was more complicated and less easily 'partitioned' than that. 
If we assume that there is even a part truth to this the question is why? Couldn't the 'gunboats' take care of themselves in a dogfight? 




Tante Ju said:


> You thesis is that Spitfire wing could take cannon in wing, so could Messerschmitt, actual Spanish Messerschmitt put same Hispano in wing, 109K-6 put MG 151/20 or MG 108 in wing etc.....



My actual thesis is that the Spitfire could add more weight without suffering as much degradation in flying qualities or performance (all performance, not just straight line speed) due to the larger wing. Lets look at that volume to put guns in again shall we. For the original machine guns the Spitfire carried one gun just outboard of the wheels, just about were everybody else put wing guns. the next gun was just inboard of the ailerons, about 2 feet away. The 3rd gun was next to the second but forward of the aileron while the 4th gun was another 2 ft further out, about in the middle of the aileron. This spacing may have been forced by the thinness of wing or a desire not to cross belts over the tops of guns or not to stagger the guns too far back into the wing. We do know that the ammo was contained in demountable boxes. Open the door in the bottom of the wing, drop empty (or part empty) box and insert new full box for quick re-arm ( yes, belts have to pulled from/inserted into the guns). The Spitfire (if I have measured the drawing correctly) has about 2 meters of cord at the point 1/2 the way out the aileron. Does the Bf 109 even have 1 1/2 meters at that point even if we ignore the slats? I will grant that sticking guns and ammo that far out is probably not the best idea if it can be avoided. If the 109 had been required to carry eight MGs from the start it probably would have been quite different. 



Tante Ju said:


> Yes, let us do some "number crouching"! As you see there is matematikal formulae to assess possibile changes. General rule of thumb, power increase by cube for given speed increase. So 3% speed increase will require 3%^3 = 9,25% more power to obtain same speed, all things equal. This also means at least 9,25% more fuel burned to get this power, means 9,25% fuel weight needs to be carried to get same speed and same range, and engine and its systems will be possible heavier, and make more drag as well.



Strange, I am looking but not seeing the drag numbers. As in a drag co-efficient for the wing or a drag number in pounds for a certain speed. But let's take the 9.5% increase Spitfire MK I has 1030hp and does a bit over 350mph. Cutting the wing 25% should ( in theory) get us to 360.5 mph. (armored wind screen was worth 6mph). Going the other way the small wing plane needs 938 hp to go the same speed. At a cruising speed of 240mph the Spitfire (in theory) needs 352 hp. 10% more is just 35hp. Of course the smaller wing now has a stalling speed 15% higher. 


Tante Ju said:


> The Spitfire relied on this power by excellent work of RR to keep competative with newer fighter airframe design like 109, 190. There was very little done for improve airframe aerodynamic, that tended to get worse - radiator drag was very increased in relation to early Mark, because engine needed much more power, and much more power require much more cooling, supercharger, supercharger intercooler (needs also seperate radiator). More supercharger consumes extra power, means extra fuel need carried.



And of course you have the real numbers to back that up? The Spitfire radiators were designed to use the Meredith effect. How successful they were I don't know but I haven't seen any drag numbers comparing the various versions of the Spitfire, have you? 

I see you are not mentioning any increases in drag due to cooling ( water/gylcol and oil) or power requirements of the German engines as their power increased. Was German engineering that good that they could supercharge a 1475hp engine for the same power as an 1100hp engine, Or that they needed no extra power to get 1.8 (or higher) ATA than they needed to get 1.3 ATA? Or that 1800-2000hp DB605 engine needed no more cooling than the 1475hp BD605 when running at full power? 



Tante Ju said:


> Yes, back, I supplied data for that earlier, you just do not read :/ Do you want to supply your own data perhaps to contradict if its not true? My data is primer source, so reliable.



I read, one chart you supplied had one very questionable entry. quite possibly an honest typographical error. I can find a number of allied "primary documents" that have typographical errors. 




Tante Ju said:


> Yes that why I ask about how you define term handling. It is not same as wing loading, wing loading more-less define stall speed, but that is not all. Flow characteristics are defined by shape of wing profile, other empennage, devices like slat and flap, and characteristics of control surface. British seem to think very high of early 109E handling, more "user friendly" than early Spitfire I handling.



There seems to be a difference of opinion on that last part. At least one German pilot saying "Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land" 

Both types referring to Hurricane and Spitfire. Both the Spitfire and 109 got worse as time went on. Spitfire had more room to get worse.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2011)

post76 said:


> Was the Spitfire any real use after the BoB and MTO?



British seem to think so. So did some post war customers. 


post76 said:


> The later Spitfires XIV and XXI were over 7000lbs take off weight, where does that leave the wing loading?



Lower than the 109s. An 8400lb Spitfire with clipped wings has the same wing loading as a 6328lb 109. 


post76 said:


> I'd heard that was somewhat of a shortcoming and it left the Spitfire less maneuverable than earlier versions.
> One might find that even the Mustang could hold a tighter radius than later spits, particularly at altitude.



There are two chances of a Mustang out turning a Spitfire. Slim and none and Slim has already left town. 



post76 said:


> That's not saying much, the Spit design was not particularly suited for high altitude deployment but it was the fastest climbing
> allied fighter at that time and so it usually took the role of an interceptor and high altitude support.



Ah, Spitfire had a wing about the same size as the Mustang (actually a small bit larger unless clipped) it was 1000-2000lbs lighter, it sometimes had the same engine for all practical purposes. Why is it worse at high altitudes than the Mustang? It may be slower but but the climb at altitude is important as it indicates not only climb but excess power. Both planes do a 180 degree turn, Both planes WILL lose speed. Maybe the Mustang a little less due to lower drag. Spitfire may accelerate faster due to lower weight. It may have more power to fight speed bleed off if both planes are going less than full speed or near it. 
There were several hundred Spitfires built with rudimentary pressure cabins and hundreds more built with extended wing tips that not only increase wing area but change the aspect ratio which affects over all lift. 




post76 said:


> The 109 saw similar upgrades but it was still relatively light.
> Even with the advancements in MW50 and NO3 systems what was a realistic operational range of the later G and K models where allies were flying above 25,000ft?
> I'd also heard that water injection was less effective above 30,000ft and required the use of a NO3 to see a noticeable performance boost.
> Any thoughts on NO3 systems?



part of the reason the 109 stayed light was because (for the most part) it carried a light armament. 
Range seems to be rather debatable. However if you keep speed up and use the extra power of the later versions of the 109 the endurance is going to change much. You may go farther in the same period of time but time in the air is limited. MW50 and NO3 do nothing for range. If used they shorten range because if used the engine is being run at full throttle or even an extra step beyond full throttle without either system. 

MW50 is water/alcohol. It does nothing for power by itself. The alcohol is there to keep it from freezing. When introduced into the supercharger it evaporates and cools the hot air in the supercharger ( and due to the super charger even air at 40 below zero can be heated to several hundred degrees before it gets to the engine) the cooler air is more dense and denser air means more power ( more weight of air per cylinder full to burn) lower temperature means even more boost can be used before hitting detonation limits. It also helps to cool the cylinders from the inside. It helps the most at altitudes below full throttle height. At full throttle height and above the supercharge is maxed out and not going to give any more air (boost) so the only benefit is the denser air fram charge cooling. Maybe a 4% increase in power? One source says a certain model DB 605 used 106 gals of fuel an hour at take off rating but increased to 141 gals an hour when using MW50. about a 33% increase in fuel consumption. 

NO3 was very useful at high altitudes because it is essentially carrying extra oxygen in the plane. It is pretty much useless at low altitudes because the engine is already making just about all the power the engine can stand. Over full throttle height as the air gets thinner and the pressure in the intake manifold/s falls , squirting in the NO3 allows more fuel to be burned to bring the power back up. There may be some charge cooling to but that that is not the major benefit. The two systems really can't be used together even if the airplane was fitted to carry both which the 109 wasn't. It was either one or the other. The MW50 tank and the NO3 tank fitted into the same space. The MW 50 tank could be used to carry fuel to extend the range/ endurance of the 109 (or a fuel tank put in place of the MW 50 tank) but again, it was a choice one option or another. No 109 carried two of the three options. 

With the introduction of the DB 605AS engine with the bigger supercharger giving better high altitude performance than the DB605A the 109 may have seen the last of the NO2 installations ( I could well be wrong on that). The NO3 tanks were heavy and may have been of limited duration.


----------



## Readie (Sep 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> British seem to think so. So did some post war customers.




Thank you SR6 for your posts. I, for one, really appreciate them.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah, but useless if they had been made in numbers?
> 
> Dropping the national pride thing, the Italian aero industry was very small in the scheme of things and one good american factory probably made more aircraft than all of of Italy but that doesn't mean we can't learn from their designs or see what was possiable if other choices had been made. If you want to understand the potential of engine then looking at other installations is a big help. All Three of the Italian "5" series fighters offer possibilities that the 109 did not.



The Italians made some fantastically stylist aircraft SR6 and had the benefit of world class engineers.
Macchi M.C.72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is one of favourite planes.

I love older Italian cars too. The Alfa Romeo pages @ C a r s f r o m I t a l y
What would I give for one of these.

Cheers
John


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 24, 2011)

Back to the original question which is best Corsair, Spit, Fw 190. I dont know I bet they all had advantages and disadvantages but I know which cockpit I would want to be in and its the "Bent wing bastard" every time. I have sat in a spit cockpit and my rugby forward shoulders just about fitted in but closing the canopy would have been like packing sardines in a can. A Fw190 cockpit doesnt look any bigger but have sat in a Corsair cockpit and it fitted me just fine. How anyone over 5'8" ever fitted in a Bf109 cockpit I dont know must have been like sitting in a dustbin with the lid on but with less visibility.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Italians made some fantastically stylist aircraft SR6 and had the benefit of world class engineers.
> Macchi M.C.72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This is one of favourite planes.
> 
> ...



I know what you mean Readie I love Italian bikes and cars even when they wont go because of electrical problems. My old Morini 350 would refuse to start if the weather man forecast rain never mind if it was actually raining or not. 

My favourite Italian bird is the Macchi C202/205 beautiful and deadly the only plane that comes close to the Spit for elegance. Luckily for a lot of allied pilots shortages of engines and production problems kept the numbers down.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 24, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I know what you mean Readie I love Italian bikes and cars even when they wont go because of electrical problems. My old Morini 350 would refuse to start if the weather man forecast rain never mind if it was actually raining or not.



Must be that British heritage influence. One can understand the Italians having trouble with rain but not the British. Never had a British car or bike that ran well in the rain. 

Fiat made a nice DB powered a/c, the G.55 The G.56 had potential.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 24, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Must be that British heritage influence. One can understand the Italians having trouble with rain but not the British. Never had a British car or bike that ran well in the rain.



My Mini Cooper S convertible is awesome in the rain. Runs like a dream, roof doesn't leak. Just sayin'....


----------



## post76 (Sep 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> British seem to think so. So did some post war customers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 25, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Must be that British heritage influence. One can understand the Italians having trouble with rain but not the British. Never had a British car or bike that ran well in the rain.
> 
> .



British motorbike electrics were appalling but Italian electrics only had a passing aquaintance with watts and volts.  

Actually thinking about it the worst bike I ever had for wet weather was a Honda 400/4 the problem was the electrics would work well until it rained then pack up completely. The British and Italian bikes were bad but you could usually make it home by squirting a whole can of WD40 under the tank.


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2011)

post76 said:


> Shortround6 said:
> 
> 
> > British seem to think so. So did some post war customers.
> ...


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> British motorbike electrics were appalling but Italian electrics only had a passing aquaintance with watts and volts.
> 
> Actually thinking about it the worst bike I ever had for wet weather was a Honda 400/4 the problem was the electrics would work well until it rained then pack up completely. The British and Italian bikes were bad but you could usually make it home by squirting a whole can of WD40 under the tank.



Only a fool ventures forth without WD40 !!
The worse bike I had for rain were the 1970's Suzuki GT 250.380 550 two strokes. The brakes were so bad that the Japs put a sticker on the front fork leg pointing out that wet weather braking performance was impaired.

I've got an 03 Mini Cooper S. love it to bits. Its a great blend of British design and build with BMW engineering.
Cannot beat that.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

post76 said:


> Not that the Spitfire wasn't a great plane. Even late war spits were top performers.
> I know they weren't ideal for high altitude flying.



How do you know this? Very few planes were actually "ideal" for high altitude flying. Spitfires did accomplish the highest altitude intercepts of the war. Granted they used modified planes and some very determined and skilled pilots.



post76 said:


> Try a steep dive in a later Spit.



Not sure what you are getting at here, I believe the Spitfire (a Late one?) has the highest limiting Mach number of any WW II piston engine fighter. It may take it a bit longer to reach this speed but a low limit on diving speed was NOT a Spitfire problem.



post76 said:


> A later Spit might still have a limited time in the air unless it climbed at a lower output. Similar to the 109s issues.
> I know the Mustang out turned, or i should say had a better sustained turn than the Spitfire at altitude. So did the P-47 if that says anything.



I don't think anyone denies the Spitfire fighters had low duration/endurance, at least compared to some American fighters, P-39s weren't much for range. Many Soviet fighters didn't have much range till later in the war. Some Italian fighters didn't have that much range/endurance either. 
Would you care to share the source for the better sustained turn by the Mustang and P-47? 




post76 said:


> Understanding the benefits of MW50 or water injection, ie lower inlet temps, anti-detonation and allowing higher compression ratios,



MW50 didn't do much, if anything, in allowing higher compression ratios. 



post76 said:


> could it be argued that the NO3 was a more favorable system to the 109 flying high altitude missions?



Since the two do NOT overlap (at least by much) in the altitudes they are useful at it follows that the NO3 system was the ONLY system that was useful at high altitudes. 

Improvements in supercharger technology rendered it somewhat less useful. A larger, higher capacity supercharger that could provide a higher pressure ratio (deliver 1.30 or 1.42 AtA at a higher altitude than the old supercharger) and/or do so with more efficiency ( took less power to deliver the same amount of air at the same pressure) Meant the weight and complication of the NO3 system wasn't as attractive. 



post76 said:


> Looking at performance specs, there isn't a lot of input with 109s using that system.
> Pilots accounts found it useful in BnZ attacks particularly when climbing away.
> Its been a couple years since i've read about it in any detail.
> Allied pilots mention meeting 109s at 35k ft, and i don't see them being competitive with an MW50 system.



The MW50 system was never intended for use at 35,000ft. The Principal it works on depends on the supercharger being able to deliver more air than the engine can normally use. This is only going to happen at less than full throttle height. 

I don't have the figures for the weight of the GM1 system. It was disliked for several reasons. One was that the plane carried the weight penalty regardless of the mission and the GM1 could ONLY be used over 8000meters. Another was that the NO3 was capable of evaporating out of the tank/s in fairly short order. The Germans did use two systems, a high pressure and a low pressure system. In one of them they figured that a full NO3 tank would empty itself in 48 hours just sitting on the ground in hot summer weather. In summer even a 6 hour delay from filling to use would reduce the time of usage from 22 minutes to 19 minutes. Cold weather slowed down the evaporation.


----------



## post76 (Sep 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> How do you know this? Very few planes were actually "ideal" for high altitude flying. Spitfires did accomplish the highest altitude intercepts of the war. Granted they used modified planes and some very determined and skilled pilots.
> 
> Not sure what you are getting at here, I believe the Spitfire (a Late one?) has the highest limiting Mach number of any WW II piston engine fighter. It may take it a bit longer to reach this speed but a low limit on diving speed was NOT a Spitfire problem.


Mach limit wouldn't be the limiting factor. I'd ask how responsive it was at higher speeds? I'd ask when aileron reversal became an issue? If all it had to do was dive in a straight line at a relatively shallow angle then it might be fine.
The dive info is not all the impressive.
Its started from +40,000ft and at a shallow angle of dive and reached the high mach over 40 seconds of dive. The steepness of the dive never goes beyond 45 degrees.
I reckon most planes would out dive it unless it already had a good jump. It also had a tendency to nose up in the dive, but this might have been corrected in later Spits, I'm not sure. Don't bash on me to hard about that.
It could climb up to 40,000ft pretty quickly. 


> Would you care to share the source for the better sustained turn by the Mustang and P-47?


I don't remember his name, but he had all the charts and all the math that illustrated it. 
Factoring load limit, stall, speed, and engine power above 20,000ft.
He plotted points of speed and G load. The P-47 held a 5 G turn better than the Spitfire at that altitude. 
I'm passing on what's already been demonstrated to me.
There's also the Russian tests that give the turn times. It includes the later Spit21 and the P-51D has a better time. The XIV does have a better turn if recall. 
You can look there if you need affirmation. 




> The MW50 system was never intended for use at 35,000ft. The Principal it works on depends on the supercharger being able to deliver more air than the engine can normally use. This is only going to happen at less than full throttle height.



On the 109, the FTH is increased/decreased by MW50?

I'm actually not sure if that's the rule because reviewing other aircraft w/water they all appear to steam out around 30,000ft and the benefit of water injection becomes less and less above 30,000ft. There appears to be a bigger difference between turbo and supercharged when it comes to performance in the nose bleeds, so to say. 

The GM1 became an alternative when competing at high altitudes especially when supercharging tech had near reached its limit and trying to fit turbos in a 109 wouldn't be practical from a time limit standpoint. 





> I don't have the figures for the weight of the GM1 system. It was disliked for several reasons. One was that the plane carried the weight penalty regardless of the mission and the GM1 could ONLY be used over 8000meters. Another was that the NO3 was capable of evaporating out of the tank/s in fairly short order. The Germans did use two systems, a high pressure and a low pressure system. In one of them they figured that a full NO3 tank would empty itself in 48 hours just sitting on the ground in hot summer weather. In summer even a 6 hour delay from filling to use would reduce the time of usage from 22 minutes to 19 minutes. Cold weather slowed down the evaporation.



Good to know. I've never heard of that, i would think it would be prone to evaporation when actually installed in the GM1 system.
I would also think that its limited use would be another dislike. Do you happen to know the quantity of N2O used in their GM1 system?
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-gm1-performances-11480.html

I wondered if that 20 minute usage you refer to was a constant use, or if it could only be used incrementally.
Such as 7 x 3 minute uses, maybe less. 
I know with auto N2O systems they are limited by heat and can be particularly abusive on engine parts but applying that knowledge to WW2 109s at 8000m might leave more leeway.

Jagdgeschwader 50 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_JG 50 were initially equipped with eight Messerschmitt Bf 109G-5s and Bf 109G-6s polished to increase speed, and equipped with a special tank for liquefied nitrous oxide as part of the GM-1 engine power boosting system, which was injected directly into the supercharger intake. This allowed the pilot to boost the rated horsepower of the DB 605 engine. Graf set a world record[citation needed] for high altitude flight of 46,885 ft (14,291 m) feet in one of the modified 109s_


"To provide some more data: In a Me 109G-1/R2 with N2O injection, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12000 m and a ceiling of 13800 m."



Where does that leave the Corsair in this discussion?
It eludes more to the reasons why the Corsair was not widely used in the ETO.
Another plane also limited by dive performance. (vMax...see F4U manual)

Did the Spitfire have any "special" boost equipment, N2O or turbo/super?


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Hmmmmm



King Arthur sleeps with his knights under an English hill waiting to ride out and save England in her hour of greatness need.
The Spitfire prowls the skies of England making sure her children are safe from harm.

You should visit my home county of Kent, stand on the white cliffs of Dover and let your imagination run a bit. Its great (if you are English )

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

post76 said:


> Mach limit wouldn't be the limiting factor. I'd ask how responsive it was at higher speeds? I'd ask when aileron reversal became an issue? If all it had to do was dive in a straight line at a relatively shallow angle then it might be fine.
> The dive info is not all the impressive.
> Its started from +40,000ft and at a shallow angle of dive and reached the high mach over 40 seconds of dive. The steepness of the dive never goes beyond 45 degrees.
> I reckon most planes would out dive it unless it already had a good jump. It also had a tendency to nose up in the dive, but this might have been corrected in later Spits, I'm not sure. Don't bash on me to hard about that.
> It could climb up to 40,000ft pretty quickly.



Part of the problem is that there are so many different Spitfires. Early ones had overly sensitive elevators and fabric covered ailerons. Later ones Corrected both. Aileron reversal (instead of ballooning fabric covered ailerons) didn't happen until something over 500mph. Aileron flutter, which cost a few aircraft in high speed dives is also different. A 6000lb Spitfire and an 8000lb Spitfire are not going to accelerate the same in a dive. 
Lots of planes controls stiffened up to some degree in high speed dives. 


post76 said:


> I don't remember his name, but he had all the charts and all the math that illustrated it.
> Factoring load limit, stall, speed, and engine power above 20,000ft.
> He plotted points of speed and G load. The P-47 held a 5 G turn better than the Spitfire at that altitude.
> I'm passing on what's already been demonstrated to me.
> ...



The MK 21 didn't turn as well as a MK XIV let alone a MK IX. Without seeing the Russian charts and/or knowing the conditions of the Russian tests it is a little hard to judge. I am not saying the Russians didn't get the results they did but without knowing the weights of the aircraft in the test and the boost pressures they were using ( I am also wondering were they got a MK 21) for power it makes it a little hard to compare to some English or American tests. 

Charts and math formulas are all well and good but they should reflect real world results. If they say something different which one is wrong? actual flight tests and trials or the charts? Stall speed or actually co-efficient of lift changes with the angle of attack and is not the same for all airfoils or for all wing plane forms. Also the co-efficient of drag of the wing changes as the angle of attack changes and for different airfoils the co-efficient of lift and the co-efficient of drag to not change at the same rate. 
A lot of the math is beyond me but trying calculate actual turn rates form just a few points of data seems rather iffy. For instance just flying level you have profile drag, induced drag, and (I believe) parasitic drag. Just banking changes one or more of them and pulling a high "G" turn could change all of them. 

Maybe the charts you saw do take all of these into account, I don't know. 



post76 said:


> On the 109, the FTH is increased/decreased by MW50?



Lowered, of sorts. The altitude at which the throttle can be fully opened is lowered and the engine makes more power at the lower altitudes BUT the throttle will remain fully opened up to and beyond the original full throttle height and the engine will just as much power as it ever did at those heights. It may make just a bit more, 3-5% based on charge cooling alone but there is no increase in boost pressure at the higher altitudes. 


post76 said:


> I'm actually not sure if that's the rule because reviewing other aircraft w/water they all appear to steam out around 30,000ft and the benefit of water injection becomes less and less above 30,000ft. There appears to be a bigger difference between turbo and supercharged when it comes to performance in the nose bleeds, so to say.



That is because the original supercharger set up can provide no more air at those altitudes. An engine is an air pump. The more air in the more power it makes. The air at 30,000ft is about 37% of the density of air at sea level by weight so at 30,000ft you need 2.7 times more air by volume to get the same power. If your engine needed 1.3AtA to get sea level power you need 2.7 times the volume of air at 4.38 times the pressure of the air at 30,000ft. It is no wonder that the superchargers and engines ran out of steam at these altitudes. No amount of water/alcohol is going to make up for this. 
Two stage superchargers do better and the turbo charged planes do a lot better because the turbo was delivering sea level pressure air to the intake of the engine supercharger up to 25,-30,000ft. This means the turbocharged planes still had some extra supercharger capacity left at 25,000-30,000ft. Limiting factor for them was often carburetor inlet temperature. They tried to keep it under 100 degrees F after the inter-cooler and here is where the Water/alcohol could do it's thing and cool the intake charge so more boost could be used. 


post76 said:


> The GM1 became an alternative when competing at high altitudes especially when supercharging tech had near reached its limit and trying to fit turbos in a 109 wouldn't be practical from a time limit standpoint.



There was no place to put a turbo and intercooler in a 109 (and without an intercooler turbos don't do anywhere near as good). 109s stayed with singe stage superchargers. This doesn't mean that "supercharging tech" had reached it's limit. New intakes, new impellers, new diffusers could all affect pressure ratios and efficiency. 






post76 said:


> Do you happen to know the quantity of N2O used in their GM1 system?



It seems to be either 80 or 115 liters ( same tanks could be filled to either level) 

Using the NO3 also called for more fuel. Perhaps another 40 liters an hour? There may have been more than one setting of injection of the NO3.


post76 said:


> Graf set a world record[citation needed] for high altitude flight of 46,885 ft (14,291 m) feet in one of the modified 109s



It might have been a record for a certain class of plane (weight class?) the absolute world record was about 10,000ft higher. Might have still been held by Bristol 138 using a two stage engine. 




post76 said:


> Where does that leave the Corsair in this discussion?
> It eludes more to the reasons why the Corsair was not widely used in the ETO.
> Another plane also limited by dive performance. (vMax...see F4U manual)



Limited how? The 109 at times had trouble out diving an F4F Wildcat. 

Main reasons for the F4U not being used in Europe was that in 1943 there weren't that many of them and they were going to the Pacific. Only about 2300 F4Us made in 1943 compared to about 1500 P-38s and 4400 P-47s. With the P-51 coming on line the need for another fighter type in the ETO doesn't seem very pressing. The F4U was a great plane and I am sure it could have held it's own but there just doesn't seem to be much a need for it in the ETO. 


post76 said:


> Did the Spitfire have any "special" boost equipment, N2O or turbo/super?



Special over and above the two stage supercharger used from the MK VII and beyond? It wasn't really needed.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 25, 2011)

where are you guys getting "NO3" from?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

You are correct, it should be N2O. My apologies.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 25, 2011)

This link has some fuel consumption numbers for the DB605 engines,
http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

Must be fat fingers Ratsel. Should be NO2.


----------



## Hop (Sep 25, 2011)

> I know they weren't ideal for high altitude flying.



Spitfires were about the best for high altitude flying. Low wing loading becomes progressively more important as altitude increases.



> Mach limit wouldn't be the limiting factor. I'd ask how responsive it was at higher speeds?



The Spitfire had one of the lightest elevators going, which is handy when you want to pull out of a dive at altitude.



> I'd ask when aileron reversal became an issue?



Aileron reversal is a minor issue at any speed. The mid war and later Spitfires didn't really have much of a problem. The reversal speed was 660 mph indicated, so well beyond the sort of speeds that could be reached by a ww2 fighter.



> The dive info is not all the impressive.
> Its started from +40,000ft and at a shallow angle of dive and reached the high mach over 40 seconds of dive. The steepness of the dive never goes beyond 45 degrees.



Standard procedure for the RAE when testing high mach numbers. 

What is impressive is the speeds reached. For the RAE, Squadron Leader Tobin reached mach 0.89. The Spitfire he did that on was still being used for tests months later when it was lost in an accident.



> It also had a tendency to nose up in the dive, but this might have been corrected in later Spits, I'm not sure.



According to the RE it had a tendency to nose down in the dive. Again that's normal, it's called "mach tuck".

The beauty of the Spitfire is that the light elevators allowed it to be pulled out of the dive at very high speeds. In the words of the US test pilot who took a P-47 up to much lower mach numbers, the plane was "well out of control" and couldn't be recovered until the dive flaps were deployed.



> I don't remember his name, but he had all the charts and all the math that illustrated it.
> Factoring load limit, stall, speed, and engine power above 20,000ft.
> He plotted points of speed and G load. The P-47 held a 5 G turn better than the Spitfire at that altitude.



No WW2 fighter could sustain a 5 G turn at any altitude. 

The Spitfire, with it's lower induced drag, could hold higher sustained G than any comparable fighter.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 26, 2011)

post76 said:


> I don't remember his name, but he had all the charts and all the math that illustrated it.
> Factoring load limit, stall, speed, and engine power above 20,000ft.
> He plotted points of speed and G load. The P-47 held a 5 G turn better than the Spitfire at that altitude.
> I'm passing on what's already been demonstrated to me.



His name wouldn't be Gaston by any chance?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 26, 2011)

wuzak said:


> His name wouldn't be Gaston by any chance?



Oh no now you have done it you said the G word


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 26, 2011)

wuzak said:


> His name wouldn't be Gaston by any chance?


Wash your mouth out with soap
It's often said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics; it's very easy to take charts, figures, etc., and manipulate them to "prove" your theories, but nothing beats the practical experience of those who were there, and, during flight tests, the Spitfire consistently out-turned the P-51. As for not being comfortable with height, the service ceiling for the IX was 41,000', the XIV 21was 45,000', and the P.R.XIX 43,500'.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2011)

To point to the difficulty of making charts and/or using simple formula's just look at the Spitfire with it's 3 wing tips. 232sq ft, 242 sq ft and 248.5 sq ft. The extended tips offered just 2.7% more wing area than the standard wing and as might be expected, pilots could detected little difference (except for slower roll) at low altitude, yet they did make a difference at high altitude. The aspect ratio of the wings was 4.58, 5.6 and 6.49 respectively. The smaller wings have less frontal area and less skin drag but the higher aspect ratio wing has less induced drag.


----------



## post76 (Sep 26, 2011)

> Spitfires were about the best for high altitude flying. Low wing loading becomes progressively more important as altitude increases.


Wing loading is important at any altitude. At altitude, power output is important. 
There is more to wing shape than just wing loading. 

Have you read the manual for the Spit XIV?
âÉÂÌÉÏÔÅËÁ

Look under _ Handling_. 

It speaks of stability in a dive, and mentions the increased tail heaviness (nose up) encountered in the dive until compressibility is 
reached then that changes to a nose down effect. That's got to be a bit difficult to manage at high speed, no? There's a whole paragraph on it in the manual. 

It also forbids flying above 15,000ft under certain conditions, though the use of the rear fuselage tank has always been a limiting
factor of the Spit, older or later. 

Dive limits in MPH are posted with altitude and they aren't noticeably greater than dive limits under the P-47D manual. 
In fact the limits are higher in the P-47 by as much as 30mph depending on the altitude. 
Now that could be for instrumentation reasons, right?
Another reason to use math.
I don't think its a question of whether the P-47 was the better diver, it was.

I simply said that both the P-51 and -47 held a higher sustained turn. 

Actually the chart plotted G-load and speed at 22,000ft.
And now that i've had more time to think on it, it was a 4 G sustained turn. 
Math actually is more revealing than comparing pilot opinions on two separate aircraft.
If you want to make an argument against the P-47 holding a higher sustained G turn than the Spitfire, you should say 
*"yeah, but what pilot in combat ever makes a flat turn!?!"*
If the Spitfire noses down in a spiral dive it could hold a higher G turn than the P-47. The chart also demonstrated that. 
The P-47 would be more effective at orbiting at altitude with out giving up altitude for speed. 
I would expect the P-51 to be an improvement on what the P-47 because of better loading, but then output was neither as consistent or as powerful.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 26, 2011)

By using maths and extensive research on google (3 minutes almost) I have proved once and for all that the Earth is flat, NASA never landed on the moon and that a Spitfire would be outurned by Dumbo below 15,000 feet.


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> By using maths and extensive research on google (3 minutes almost) I have proved once and for all that the Earth is flat, NASA never landed on the moon and that a Spitfire would outurned by Dumbo below 15,000 feet.



AND that the Supermarine Spitfire is so legendary that it is now perfect.


----------



## jim (Sep 26, 2011)

Readie said:


> AND that the Supermarine Spitfire is so legendary that it is now perfect.


 
Ok Mr Readie, Spit is (indeed !) the most elegant aircraft ever and possibly the most famous. If i was english, i would also be very proud of it!


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2011)

It should also be noted that the P47N manual states that before going into a dive you should trim the flaps, close the cowl flaps, decrease the manifold pressure, do not retard the throttle quickly, just the sort of action you would do in a combat situation when there is plenty of time.

Should you get into compressability then the nose gets heavy, controls tighten up, sounds a bit like the Spit doesn't it. Then there is the blunt statement, intentional spinnng is forbidden. Also the types of aerobatics are limmited and the ominous phrase _'All other manoeuvers are prohibited. They teach you nothing and are extreamly dangerous'_. It also makes a specfic point of emphasising that snap rolls can damage the structure. 

In the Spitfire spinning is only banned when carrying external stores or fuel in the rear tank which is fair enough. Also the emphasise you put on the Spit getting tail heavy in a dive is misleading, you omitted to mention that the counteraction was to use the trim tab. Which is far less complicated than the list of does and don'ts associated with putting the P47 into any dive.


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2011)

In fairness, I should add that I have found a copy of the P47D pilots notes and these are a lot better than the P47N. Spins are allowed but practice spins of more than half a turn were banned. In areobatics all normal aerobatics are permitted but outside loops or inverted flights are banned and snap roles banned over 150mph.

When diving aileron forces become high over 350 mph and the cowl flaps closed. The scary thing for me is that at limiting speed 12,000 ft should be allowed for, to ensure recovery which is a lot of altitude to use up. Also an indicated speed of 400mph should not be exceeded over 25,000 ft.


----------



## post76 (Sep 27, 2011)

Glider said:


> It should also be noted that the P47N manual states that before going into a dive you should trim the flaps, close the cowl flaps, decrease the manifold pressure, do not retard the throttle quickly, just the sort of action you would do in a combat situation when there is plenty of time.


Good point, and perhaps being prepared is what the manual for an aircraft is all about. 
In combat, would i suspect that a pilot has his cowl flaps open, his throttle wide open, and his trim out of neutral so that a sudden dive might require the adjustment of all those aspects of the aircraft to ensure the safest dive? Maybe only in a climb. 
Look at other parts of the manual, if he's in combat, his cowl flaps would be closed, his flaps should be up, and he should only be prepared to trim and throttle, like any other plane. 



> Should you get into compressability then the nose gets heavy, controls tighten up, sounds a bit like the Spit doesn't it. Then there is the blunt statement, intentional spinnng is forbidden. Also the types of aerobatics are limmited and the ominous phrase _'All other manoeuvers are prohibited. They teach you nothing and are extreamly dangerous'_. It also makes a specfic point of emphasising that snap rolls can damage the structure.


Sure, there are a list of limitations for every aircraft.
Most manuals, particularly training manuals always drill procedure with a healthy safety margin.
You seldom ever see them allowing spins, particularly if it is a training manual. 
Normally, with spin limitations there is always an emphasis on speed. 
If you were to tell me the Spit had a larger envelope for spinning, i would have to agree. 
Intentionally spinning might only be done to practice recovery procedure while training. 
Aside from spinning, the P-47 had good stall characteristics. "It doesn't have a tendency to spin."



> In the Spitfire spinning is only banned when carrying external stores or fuel in the rear tank which is fair enough. Also the emphasise you put on the Spit getting tail heavy in a dive is misleading, you omitted to mention that the counteraction was to use the trim tab. Which is far less complicated than the list of does and don'ts associated with putting the P47 into any dive.



Actually, I referred to a paragraph out of the manual. 
See my former post and look under Handling/Dive...
There is nothing misleading there.
Its the counteraction required of the trim tab that made it dangerous. 
Going from countering "nose up" tendency to countering a "nose down" tendency in the event of compressibility. 
It actually forbids the use of the trim in the event of compressibility and requires the pilot to use the control column alone. 
Looking at the paragraph above that one, the pilot would also need to combat yaw, not uncommon when diving in most planes even the P-47.

The P-47: Most of what you refer to is the procedure for dive recovery in the event of compressibility which is a bit more extensive, otherwise normal procedure isn't that complicated but there are more limitations on the types of maneuvers the plane can perform going into a dive, such as a split S at full throttle. 
It also states that at that time, it was a better understood phenomenon, something that earlier may have made compressibility more dangerous.

Anyways...
How does that make the later Spitfire less than ideal for high altitude flying?
Well, buy comparison if it needs to dive to hold a higher sustained turn than either P-47 or P-51, then its already losing altitude over those two birds.
If high speed dives are too dangerous to manage with trim in a Spit XIV, then it requires the pilot to manage all the force of the control column through 
the dive which might also keep the pilot from diving as aggressively, perhaps at a shallower angle. 
Fuel...The manual says 15,000ft with rear tank filled. My guess would be if it was intended to fly higher than that it would use the tank to climb, probably something
that was calculated in the field. Anyway, not much range, which also limits time in the air something already discussed earlier.


----------



## Readie (Sep 27, 2011)

Lots of facts and figures but, our wonderful Spitfire outlived them all.
Cheers
John


----------



## post76 (Sep 27, 2011)

Readie said:


> Lots of facts and figures but, our wonderful Spitfire outlived them all.
> Cheers
> John


 

Is that why they renamed it the Spiteful?

'cause they spitefully collected hanger dust, beautiful and fast though they were.


----------



## Readie (Sep 27, 2011)

post76 said:


> Is that why they renamed it the Spiteful?
> 
> 'cause they spitefully collected hanger dust, beautiful and fast though they were.



Au contaire. No dust would dare settle on a Spitfire.
Joking apart for a moment. the IWM Spitfire could do with a good clean. 
Its bordering on gross disrespect and I intend to write to the directors.

Cheers
John


----------



## Hop (Sep 27, 2011)

> Wing loading is important at any altitude.



It becomes more important with altitude. At 40,000 ft stall speed is about double what it is at sea level.

At 4 G it's also doubled.

Consider 2 planes, one stalls at 75, the other 100 mph.

At 40,000 ft, pulling a 4 G turn, the first plane stalls at 300 mph. The second at 400 mph. The small advantage in in sea level stall speed is much more significant at high altitude.



> It speaks of stability in a dive, and mentions the increased tail heaviness (nose up) encountered in the dive until compressibility is
> reached then that changes to a nose down effect. That's got to be a bit difficult to manage at high speed, no?



All WW2 fighters experienced trim changes with speed. A nose up attitude is much safer than nose down, which increases the speed of the dive and causes a positive feedback loop. 

The RAF Mustang manual also notes that the Mustang is tail heavy (ie the nose rises), unless the fuselage tank is full, in which case it's nose heavy from the start.



> It also forbids flying above 15,000ft under certain conditions, though the use of the rear fuselage tank has always been a limiting
> factor of the Spit, older or later.



For the bubble canopied, fighter recce version only. Note also that is a post war restriction. The RAF actually removed the rear fuselage tanks from most Mustangs post war for the same safety reasons.



> Dive limits in MPH are posted with altitude and they aren't noticeably greater than dive limits under the P-47D manual. In fact the limits are higher in the P-47 by as much as 30mph depending on the altitude.



From the the P-47 B, C, D and G manual Skycat posted http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081-2.html







And for the Spitfire XIV:






That's a huge advantage for the Spitfire at high altitude. 

The P-51N manual I have gives the dive limits as 360 IAS at 25,000 ft, 318 at 30,000 ft, which is better, but still not up to Spitfire standards.



> Now that could be for instrumentation reasons, right?



It could be, but the test reports from both the British and Americans concluded the Spitfire had a much better limiting mach number, which is what is crucial in high altitude dives. 



> I don't think its a question of whether the P-47 was the better diver, it was.



Not at high altitude. The P-47 had too low a limiting mach number. 



> I simply said that both the P-51 and -47 held a higher sustained turn.
> 
> Actually the chart plotted G-load and speed at 22,000ft.
> And now that i've had more time to think on it, it was a 4 G sustained turn.



No WW2 fighter could sustain 4 G at 20,000 ft. In fact 4G would be beyond them at sea level.

From memory, 3.5 G was about the limit, quite a bit lower for heavier/less powerful fighters. (Note I'm not including rocket powered aircraft, I haven't a clue about their turn performance)



> Actually the chart plotted G-load and speed at 22,000ft.



Can we see this chart?

As others have said, it wasn't from Gaston was it? Gaston has a _unique_ take on aircraft performance.



> It actually forbids the use of the trim in the event of compressibility and requires the pilot to use the control column alone.



That's standard practice. The P-47 manual explains why:

"The elevator trim tab is not effective when the airplane is in compressibility. If you use it, the only result will be an extremely violent pull-out when you recover"



> How does that make the later Spitfire less than ideal for high altitude flying?
> Well, buy comparison if it needs to dive to hold a higher sustained turn than either P-47 or P-51, then its already losing altitude over those two birds.



This is something you keep stating but won't provide evidence for. Logically it doesn't stand up.

Look at it this way: the Mustang and Spitfire share the same engine, pretty much. You can find lower and higher altitude versions, and the Spitfire XIV has more power again at altitude.

The Mustang weighs more and has a smaller wing. 

So the Spitfire has both a wing and power loading advantage. How is the Mustang supposed to turn better, exactly?



> If high speed dives are too dangerous to manage with trim in a Spit XIV, then it requires the pilot to manage all the force of the control column through
> the dive which might also keep the pilot from diving as aggressively, perhaps at a shallower angle.



No, the prohibition on trim during compressibility was pretty much universal. Trim tabs won't work when the plane is in compressibility. They will cause too rapid a pull out once they do begin to work.



> Fuel...The manual says 15,000ft with rear tank filled.



For the fighter recce version with cut down fuselage.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 27, 2011)

post76 said:


> Is that why they renamed it the Spiteful?
> 
> 'cause they spitefully collected hanger dust, beautiful and fast though they were.



Interesting that they needed to fix the Spitfire wing by replacing it with something that looks more like a Mustang wing.


----------



## post76 (Sep 27, 2011)

> From the the P-47 B, C, D and G manual Skycat posted http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081-2.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fair enough...though early 47 manuals were loose numbers, but who's counting.
Test data is also revealing.


> Not at high altitude. 'The P-47 test vs Spit test'.


Seen it, both test reveal similar figures for both planes.
Is it about mach, or is it about speed/acceleration?
If you look at TAS, they both reached the 605mph -610mph range.
The P-47 got there in 8000ft (22k ft) and in 12 seconds, albeit also in thicker air, while the Spit took nearly 15,000ft and 40 secondsfrom 40k ft. 
Its a loose comparison but they were done around the same time period which might be the best to actually flying them side by side.
We can use other tests that put the mach number for the P-47 above .90...but who's counting.
I think the Spit actually cleared 0.95 in one test (677mph)....1948, diving all the way to deck from above 40,000ft.




> No WW2 fighter could sustain 4 G at 20,000 ft. In fact 4G would be beyond them at sea level.
> 
> From memory, 3.5 G was about the limit, quite a bit lower for heavier/less powerful fighters. (Note I'm not including rocket powered aircraft, I haven't a clue about their turn performance)
> 
> ...



You mean a 3 minute google search doesn't reveal that chart?
Man....I got to do all the digging.
Wasn't Gaston, by name. 
The chart was at 22,000ft between SpitIX and P-47D-22.
Different figures may have been revealed at higher altitudes and using later profiles.
At that height, the P-47 outperformed the Spit in sustained turns above XGs, and at XXXmph....
I haven't been able to find the chart, but its there somewhere in cyberspace.

Going higher would lower load limits for both aircraft, but at what height does the Spit putter out at?
P-47 late is good for max power to 35,000ft on some profiles. 
The spit turning tighter would be no question, sustaining the turn with out also loosing altitude is another.



> That's standard practice. The P-47 manual explains why:



The standard for the P-47 prior to dive is to set neutral trim settings.
There's no fussing with it.
The Spit manual(s) mention using trim because of a nose up tendency, but to avoid the use of trim above mach limits.


"The elevator trim tab is not effective when the airplane is in compressibility. If you use it, the only result will be an extremely violent pull-out when you recover"
Indeed, an almost identical description in both manuals but to say they read the same is cherry-picky-ish.
Read the whole section on dive and limitations for both manuals. I get a picture that the Spit nosed up more so in the dive leading up to compressibility than the P-47.



> So the Spitfire has both a wing and power loading advantage. How is the Mustang supposed to turn better, exactly?


drag and power profile, particularly at altitude, if we're still talking about sustained turns.
There's also a saw tooth to the power chart because of the supercharger stages, which despite aircraft having "pretty much" the same engines
they can end up performing quite differently at different heights.

Google taught that.




> No, the prohibition on trim during compressibility was pretty much universal.


Though you can probably take one sentence from every section of a handful of manuals and find common points, I wouldn't make the short cut in logic to say they are nearly the same in dive, either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Interesting that they needed to fix the Spitfire wing by replacing it with something that looks more like a Mustang wing.



Gee, they "fixed" they Spitfire wing with something that looks more like a Mustang wing? 

In Plane form? In airfoil? in structure? It is not surprising that they used a different wing on the Spiteful. It was only designed what, 8-9 years after the Spitfire? They only had about 25-30% more time after the Wright brothers flew to figure out a better wing for a plane that was 60% heavier, 130% more powerful and about 34% faster. 

Good as the Spifire wing was for 1935-6 it was hardly state of the art in 1943. But then no wing designed in 1943 really made it into combat in WW II did it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2011)

a few points. 



post76 said:


> I think the Spit actually cleared 0.95 in one test (677mph)....1948, diving all the way to deck from above 40,000ft.



Nobody dove these planes "all the way to deck' They Generally needed 10-12,000ft to pull out (recover). They also didn't go as fast down low, even in a dive, as they did higher up. Drag at "the deck" being roughly double what it is at 20,000ft. 




post76 said:


> Going higher would lower load limits for both aircraft, but at what height does the Spit putter out at?
> P-47 late is good for max power to 35,000ft on some profiles.
> The spit turning tighter would be no question, sustaining the turn with out also loosing altitude is another.



Some Spitfires "puttered out" at 43,000-45,000ft depending on engine. An indication of the planes ability to sustain a turn might be ( i could be wrong) reflected in it's climbing ability at a given altitude. A MK XIV in one test is shown climbing at 1800ft/min at 34,000ft. which is several hundred ft/min better than P-47M.


The P-47 could accelerate better in a dive, no question, and that is a very practical thing. A plane that accelerates quicker in a dive and use the increased separation to break contact before the slower accelerating ,but ultimately fast plane can catch up. In Reverse the slower accelerating plane CANNOT escape using a dive because it's opponent probably will not be out distanced until it has used up a considerable amount of ammunition. 

However to say the Spitfires cannot dive is also wrong. Few fights were decided by dives of 20-30,000ft.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> A MK XIV in one test is shown climbing at 1800ft/min at 34,000ft. which is several hundred ft/min better than P-47M.


 
At equal fuel loads? I suspect the M may have been carrying 450-600 lbs more fuel than the Spit in the tests. Design fuel load for the P-47 was 205 gallons, the Spit XIV could only carry 109 gallons (or 130 US gallons if the number is UK gallons).


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2011)

How do you want to figure fuel loads?

The Number of the Chart for the M was 13,275lbs. try sticking just 130gals US in a P-47M and see how far you get 

Especially using a full power climb. 

An older P-47 could use 91 gallons of fuel just warming up, takeing off and doing a combat climb to 25,000ft while weighing 12,500lbs. At 14,000lbs it 98 gallons to get to 25,000ft.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 27, 2011)

Hop said:


> The Spitfire, with it's lower induced drag, could hold higher sustained G than any comparable fighter.



Sorry but I think you hope too much for Spitfire. It was very good aircraft, but in my opinion airframe was somewhat obsolate by World War II. It represents peak technological advancement of 1935, but progress was fast, and Spitfire never developed to new results, only like garage tuning. No real modernisation program.

Drag has 2 elements. Induced drag is lower on Spitfire because low wingload. Parasite drag is very high for same reason compared to any other, probably greatest of any comparing WW2 fighter.
You make it look like as turn would be only about induced drag, but sorry, this is wrong. It is also about parasite drag. 

Second. Drag is only one part of formula of turn. You are miss half of story, sorry... Sustained G hold capacity is dependent on which G load can fighter drag = fighter thrust. 

You missed thrust complete. Thrust is very important. If you have more thrust, you can have more drag.

For this reason, your statement is not true. Both Soviet Jak 9 and Jak 3 fighters could hold higher sustained G than Spitfire. It is in tests. They achieved this with very small wing area and high wing loading. Yak 9 - 17 m2. Yak 3 - 14 m2. Latter is 15% smaller than Bf 109, only 60% wing area of Spitfire. Yet Jak 3 turns better and is much faster. Even Jak 9T with 37mm cannon could turn as good... Low parasite drag of airframe. So look at wingload, and it is not very meanful while not knowing thrust and parasite drag.

how does that make look like "big wing" designs? Not very good, dead end of technology, planes like Spitfire or Zero. They were good when engine power was small. That is why biplane has extreme big wing area, to generate lift, keep drag in turn low. But as engine power, smaller wing became superior. Big wing was declining dividient in long turn.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 27, 2011)

Could the Yaks do that at 30,000ft/10,000m?


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 27, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> We have performance figures for Spitfires carrying about 650lbs of guns and ammo in the wings. DO we have performance figures for the "gun boats"? not just speed but climb? and climb at various altitudes. Service ceiling (climb at 100ft/min), operational ceiling (climb at 500ft/min), do we know what the wing guns did to the roll response (peak/max roll rate could very well be the same)? Did they do much to the turning circle?



Yes there are figures. Soviet data says "gunboat" (I do not really like term. It suggest two different version of plane, when its one. 109 that mechanic installed gondola, and 109 that mechanic did not installed gondola.)
Gunboat (five point G-2) is 10-15 km/h slower, climbs 2m/sec slower. Service ceiling (Soviet definition) 11250 m against 11 900 meter.
Difference between two types is five pointer is 3235 vs 3023 kg, or 212 kg difference if gondola is mounted to plane.

Now, to supply your thesis, please provide effect of adding cannon to Spitfire. I find this. Two Spitfire V, equal setting. One VB with 2x20mm + 4 x 7,7. Other VC 4x20mm. Spitfire Mk VB W.3134 Report Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report.

Note VC is bit more power in test than VB (9,3 lbs vs 9,1 lbs "boost")

VB 2960 kg, 16,5 m/sec, 11 430 estimate service ceiling, 
VC 3140 climbs 14,75 m/sec (-1,75 m/sec), 11 100 estimate service ceiling, 

So, comapare effect of weight between G-2/G-2gondola, Spitfire B and C! How heavier version is different, and what are penelties.
Me 109G2 
+ 212kg weight, -2 m/sec, -650 m service ceiling.
Spitfire V
+ 180kg weight, -1,75 m/sec,-330 m service ceiling.

Note Spitfire is gaining only bit less weight, but negative effects are very similiar. Newton was English, but he was not biased hehe 

Now, which fighter is more heavily armed?

Spitfire: 40 20mm rounds per sec output. Total 480 20mm rounds available.
109G/5gun: 38 20 mm rounds + 20 7.92mm per sec output. Total 200 + 145 + 145 = 490 20mm rounds + 1000 7.92 mm rounds available.

Also please compare rates of climb, to 5000 m 
G2 5 guns = 5.1 min
VC 4 cann= 5.9 min

and speed, top, at 7000 m.
G2 5 guns = 650 km/h
VC 4 cann= 579 km/h...

Yes, your thesis sounds good if you do not make analysis, but look at above number, they do not lie. 



Shortround6 said:


> 109 fans point out that few Spitfires carried four 20 guns even though the wing was laid out for them due to performance problems. The four 20mm set up (for guns and ammo alone) weighs 249 lbs more than the two 20mm and four .303 setup. Two 20mm/151s with 135rpg weigh 316lbs. Without the mounts, gondolas, ammo drum/box, firing controls and any provision for heating. The Spitfire may not have been able to heat the outer 20mms properly but when making that 249lb 'adjustment' on the Spitfire there is no provision for the mounts, ammo boxes, controls and heaters, either for the 20mms going in or the .303s coming out.



That is all nice thesis, but I am sorry. You say there was more potential in Spitifre to carry more heavy weight, and suffer less penelty. But number show its climb decrease similiar when you add 90% of weight, and at altitude it is still 70 km/h (!!!) slower, and still has less firepower.. just answer my question, look at the above, and which one you would fly, "gunboat" 109G or Spitfire VC with four cannon?



Shortround6 said:


> Somehow the addition of the underwing guns on the 109 is supposed to have a negligible impact on performance (all performance, not just speed)?Maybe it is just tall tales but why did the Germans continue to fly large numbers of one cannon 109s?
> Stories (that may not be true) say that one cannon 109s were "supposed to" engage enemy fighters while gun boats went for the bombers. Like many stories (like Spitfires attacking fighters while Hurricanes attacked bombers) or perhaps theories is a better word, actually combat was more complicated and less easily 'partitioned' than that.
> If we assume that there is even a part truth to this the question is why? Couldn't the 'gunboats' take care of themselves in a dogfight?



Why is simple to answer. Plane tasked with attacking bombers is busy, it is vulnerable. It needs cover. One gun or three gun version, does not matter. You put it like as this tactic only apply to gunboat, but it applied to any plane tasked attacking bombers, say Spitfire providing top cover to Hurricane. Hurricane was not bad fighter for time, but it could not protect one self when flying straight at enemy bomber. Fighter needs to manuver to protect it self, plane that is locked to straight attack runs cannot do that.



Shortround6 said:


> My actual thesis is that the Spitfire could add more weight without suffering as much degradation in flying qualities or performance (all performance, not just straight line speed) due to the larger wing.



Okay - so lets see you data. I provided my data to let you see why I am very strong convinced otherwise. It would be curtous not to argue but instead support your data as well.



Shortround6 said:


> Lets look at that volume to put guns in again shall we. For the original machine guns the Spitfire carried one gun just outboard of the wheels, just about were everybody else put wing guns. the next gun was just inboard of the ailerons, about 2 feet away. The 3rd gun was next to the second but forward of the aileron while the 4th gun was another 2 ft further out, about in the middle of the aileron. This spacing may have been forced by the thinness of wing or a desire not to cross belts over the tops of guns or not to stagger the guns too far back into the wing. We do know that the ammo was contained in demountable boxes. Open the door in the bottom of the wing, drop empty (or part empty) box and insert new full box for quick re-arm ( yes, belts have to pulled from/inserted into the guns). The Spitfire (if I have measured the drawing correctly) has about 2 meters of cord at the point 1/2 the way out the aileron. Does the Bf 109 even have 1 1/2 meters at that point even if we ignore the slats? I will grant that sticking guns and ammo that far out is probably not the best idea if it can be avoided. If the 109 had been required to carry eight MGs from the start it probably would have been quite different.



The main difference is not as much between the inside volume. It is how the wing is designed. 109 has main spar in the middle, which limits lenght of gun, and slat for half the wing. You can only place gun betwen the wheel well, and the slat. On E modell there was three section of wing in this section, divided by ribs. One section was used to carry MG, or it was used for MG FF drum (needed to be placed sideway of gun so it can eject on other side), MG FF on middle, and third section housed spent casing. Spitfire has no slat, so can use all wing volume outside wheel well, and spar runs in the front. You could probably redesign 109 wing with Spitfire like front spar, but this would sacrifice wing rigidity, and lead to similiar aileron reversal/wing flex trouble as on Spitfire. You could also delete slats and use fences on top of wing (like MiG 15 or Spanish Hispano 109). But you need correct (scale) drawing to look at actuals.

But all this is irrevelent. We know 109 regular flew with 3 cannon and two MG/HMG, Spitfire flew with 2 cannon and four (two H)MG. Comparison on top shows firepower. So what significance discussion on wing carried armament has? Nothing IMHO.



Shortround6 said:


> Strange, I am looking but not seeing the drag numbers. As in a drag co-efficient for the wing or a drag number in pounds for a certain speed. But let's take the 9.5% increase Spitfire MK I has 1030hp and does a bit over 350mph. Cutting the wing 25% should ( in theory) get us to 360.5 mph. (armored wind screen was worth 6mph). Going the other way the small wing plane needs 938 hp to go the same speed. At a cruising speed of 240mph the Spitfire (in theory) needs 352 hp. 10% more is just 35hp. Of course the smaller wing now has a stalling speed 15% higher.



Yes, now please compare speed and power of Jak 3, 109 any version to Spitfire, thank you... Jak 3 with 1200 HP is faster by 40 km/h at SL than Spitfire with 1700 HP.. and turns better, too. Or compare 109G, 1300 HP, to IX Mark, 1300 HP... latter is 30 km/h slower (all ground level, because it simpler, not have to worry about different power ratings at altitude). This should tell you about drag.



Shortround6 said:


> And of course you have the real numbers to back that up? The Spitfire radiators were designed to use the Meredith effect.



So did He 100, Bf 109, Jak 3, Jak 9, MC 202, P-51 etc. Point?



Shortround6 said:


> How successful they were I don't know but I haven't seen any drag numbers comparing the various versions of the Spitfire, have you?



I have seen data suggest about 40 mph speed decrease of Spitfire due to airframe "developments" up to mid war.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 27, 2011)

Soap operah continues, part 24333! 



Shortround6 said:


> I see you are not mentioning any increases in drag due to cooling ( water/gylcol and oil) or power requirements of the German engines as their power increased. Was German engineering that good that they could supercharge a 1475hp engine for the same power as an 1100hp engine, Or that they needed no extra power to get 1.8 (or higher) ATA than they needed to get 1.3 ATA?



Of course cool requirement increased on German engine, too. You can see radiator size increase from 109F to G for example. But this was much less extreme then in British case. Reason was that German engine did not rely on supercharging to increase power so much, but also on "free" factor. 

Increase RPM does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller. 
Increase piston bore does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.
Increase compression ratiodoes not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.
Increase scavange time does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.

RR practice was to put in only a more powerfuel supercharger, give supercharger more horsepower from engine to drive it. All that horsepower given to supercharger consumed fuel, but added directly no 

Simple example. You have 1200 HP engine. Say it consume 0.3 liter/HP, this case, 360 liter per hour, total. You give 200 HP to supercharger (60 liter), the propeller gets remaining 1000 HP. 
That is 1000 (useful) HP for 360 liters, thats 2.7 useful HP / liter fuel carried for an hour.

Now you add a bigger supercharger, you give it another 400 HP during development. 
Engine now gives 2400 HP, now supercharger consumes 600 HP, leaves 1800 for propeller.
Consumption is still 0.3 liter/HP. So now supercharger consumed 180 liter per hour, but gives no thrust at all (it just allows engine to burn more fuel), 
the remaining power (1800) consumes further 540 liter, total 720 liter per hour. 
That is 1800 (useful) HP for 720 liters, or 80% more power for 100% more fuel consumption, that is 2.5 useful HP / liter fuel carried for an hour.

This is RR development in nutshell. They aimed for a decreased dividients in long term.



Shortround6 said:


> Or that 1800-2000hp DB605 engine needed no more cooling than the 1475hp BD605 when running at full power?



It seems to be case (this was discussed other forum). Reason was cooling effect of MW boost, and 1800 hp mw-boosted engine actually radiated less heat than when operating at 1475 HP. 
Radiator size was same on 1800 HP and 1475 HP DB 605A(M)



Shortround6 said:


> I read, one chart you supplied had one very questionable entry. quite possibly an honest typographical error. I can find a number of allied "primary documents" that have typographical errors.



There was no questionable entry. You have been shown real data, now you dismiss it! Okay, I do not agree, but then tell us what was range of 109F, G, K. 



> There seems to be a difference of opinion on that last part. At least one German pilot saying "Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land"



There are many pilot opinions, trials etc. Some are contradicting. But, I have asked you to define good handling, and you still did not answer. There is generic agreement however in all opinions I have seen the 109 was extremely fogiving in the air. Some manouvers were of course easier (stall warning, coming out of stall, near-stall handling were extreme good for example), others were more difficult (like loop was difficult because poor stability in direction) than other. But it is hard to quantify. For example, stability in traverse axis was very good in 109, very bad in Spitfire. Stick harmony was overall heavy but well balanced and natural on 109, and extreme unbalanced on Spitfire. One was frequent to loop, other was frequent to nose over. How do you quantify this? 

So, as I said, you have to define handling. What qualities refer to good handling? Have luck, even national test centres could not agree what is optimum..



> Both types referring to Hurricane and Spitfire. Both the Spitfire and 109 got worse as time went on. Spitfire had more room to get worse.



Refer to the above, and you will see why I disagree strongly. But basic difference is this, I try to define reasons, quantify analysis, you repeat 'Spitfire had more room to get worse, Spitfire had more room to get worse'. Opinion is okay, but if you do not have more to offer than opinion, ie. some unpartial arguements like mathematics to support, I have to agree to disagree only. As we say - "taste and power of slapping are different from person to person"  I do believe however, that so far your thesis is built much more on subjective opinion - taste if you like - than mine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2011)

Certain models of the Russian fighters would be lucky to turn at all at much over 30,000ft without loosing altitude. Others could do much better. As always, what was the combat load being carried? The weight of a single 20mm ShVAK with120 rounds and a single 12.7mm UB with 220 rounds was under 260lbs.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 27, 2011)

Jak 3 had version with 3 20mm in nose - and it was only 20 kg heavier than base version. 370 20mm round in total. Spitfire had 240 for two guns.. 

I do not get idea of weight of gun. Why does it matter? Explain me. Fighter is mostly limited by fitting space, not weight. This is where "big wing" theory is wrong. Actual execution is much more important, than size.
If I weld a big piece of lead to the B20 it makes it more impressive? Or do you think 20 kg differences matters substential to a 3000kg airframe..??

BTW it also shows the error of reasoning. You seem think - hey, look Jak airframe could only carry one 20 mm, one 12,7mm... because of it carried this amount of gun was so small, no room for improvement etc. But then, a later version carried three cannon, a more heavy armament than Spitfire, but with 2/3 wing size.. do you not still see through this examples where you are mistake lay?

It is wrong thinking imho that if something was done, it means more was not possible..


----------



## Juha (Sep 27, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju

Quote: ” Yet Jak 3 turns better and is much faster.”

No problem with that Jak-3 turned better than Spit at low level but much faster? Much faster than Spit Mk V but when Jak-3 appeared at front, Spit Mk VIII and IX had been there a year ot two, and they had appr same max speed as Jak-3 and Spit Mk XIV was almost exact contemporary with Jak-3 and it was clearly faster than Jak-3

And the 3 cannon Jak-3 production began in Apr 45 IIRC

And the “gunboat” G-2 aka G-2/R6 max speed was 636km/h, if early with semi-retractable tailwheel or apr. 628km/h if late G-2 with fixed tailwheel.

Finns loaded the central gun of 109G with 140 rounds, they were tipped by Germans that with full 200 ammo load the belt breakage was too common and so it was better load only with 140 rounds. 

Quote:” Why is simple to answer. Plane tasked with attacking bombers is busy, it is vulnerable. It needs cover. One gun or three gun version, does not matter. You put it like as this tactic only apply to gunboat, but it applied to any plane tasked attacking bombers,”

In fact, see for ex Priens Stemmer’s II./JG 3, some Gruppen were in Autumn 43 designed as light Gruppe and they didn’t use underwing gungondolas or not even drop tanks and had the duty to protect heavy Gruppen.

Quote:” You could probably redesign 109 wing with Spitfire like front spar, but this would sacrifice wing rigidity, and lead to similiar aileron reversal/wing flex trouble as on Spitfire.”

Was there aileron reversal problem with Spit? wing flex yes but still Spit after they got metal ailerons rolled better than 109G at all speeds. But there wasn’t so big difference between 410 – 520km/h (255-323mph)IAS between 109G and normal wing Spit Mk V.

Quote:” 109 regular flew with 3 cannon and two MG/HMG”

I’d say that every 109G could take the 2 underwing cannon but they were not normally armed with them and when time passed the underwing canon came progressively more rarer.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Sep 27, 2011)

TanteJu, the 109 received a bigger oil cooler radiator to help dissipate the extra heat generated.

FO987 replacing the FO870


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Yes, your thesis sounds good if you do not make analysis, but look at above number, they do not lie.



I guess it depends on how much we can bend or twist them before it is a "lie". 

Both planes suffer degraded performance. Which is the basic argument or at least mine. The Differences in climb and ceiling make it hard for a unit with mixed aircraft to maintain combat formations. I have told that that there was little difference between a 3 cannon 109 and a 1 cannon 109 and while there is little speed difference the ceiling penalty is somewhat greater. While the speed penalty is just 1.5-2.3% the ceiling difference is 5%, What is the climb penalty and more importantly what is the climb penalty at the higher altitudes? 

Service ceiling is usually 100ft/min or 0.5m/s. It is not uncommon for the differences between individual aircraft to mean that they cannot fly in formation with each other at this height so some air forces us an "operational" ceiling at which the planes have to do a nominal (average) 500ft/min climb or 2.5m/s. This should mean that a small group of planes can at least stay in formation. To actually engage in combat and have some hope of staying at the altitude (or near it) that one started at (excluding attacks that just dive through the enemy formation) some air forces had a definition of a "combat ceiling" which was 1000ft/min or 5m/s. 
While losing 1.5-2.0 a second off the peak climb rate may not sound like much, loosing 1-1.5m/s in climb can affect the altitude the plane can fight at by hundreds of meters. 

Gravity is not biased. Both planes suffer. I just get tired of hearing that 3 cannon 109s had negligible performance penalty. 

As far as my thesis goes, the difference in power between the VB and VC was minimal, Under 1%, 0.2lbs out of a total manifold pressure of 24lbs. 

The question of armament and aircraft design is not so simple. You want to turn it to which was more effective which is another whole set of arguments. The Spitfire designers could no more pick and chose the types of guns to arm their fighter with than anybody else could. For most of the war it was .303 Brownings or Hispanos. One or the other, how many can you fit in. There was no lighter cannon to pick from. 
The Spitfire carried a greater weight of armament than the 109, that is a fact. as I just said, the effectiveness is another argument. 

As for the armament you give for the 3 cannon 109, can you give a source please. Most of mine say 150 rounds for the fuselage cannon (200 rounds for the F with the 15mm gun) and 120rpg for the under wing guns. what is 90 rounds between friends? 

And lets compare those tops speeds shall we.



Tante Ju said:


> and speed, top, at 7000 m.
> G2 5 guns = 650 km/h
> VC 4 cann= 579 km/h...



Spitfire VC at 7000meters had under 6lbs of boost. Which means it had just over 1000hp. The G2 had what? 1230HP at that height? 



Tante Ju said:


> That is all nice thesis, but I am sorry. You say there was more potential in Spitifre to carry more heavy weight, and suffer less penelty. But number show its climb decrease similiar when you add 90% of weight, and at altitude it is still 70 km/h (!!!) slower, and still has less firepower.. just answer my question, look at the above, and which one you would fly, "gunboat" 109G or Spitfire VC with four cannon?



Well, in 1941 I would choose the Spitfire. The 109 G doesn't show up until about a full year after the MK V. 

I wonder what a four cannon Spitfire would have performed like with a 1942 engine? 




Tante Ju said:


> Why is simple to answer. Plane tasked with attacking bombers is busy, it is vulnerable. It needs cover. One gun or three gun version, does not matter. You put it like as this tactic only apply to gunboat, but it applied to any plane tasked attacking bombers, say Spitfire providing top cover to Hurricane. Hurricane was not bad fighter for time, but it could not protect one self when flying straight at enemy bomber. Fighter needs to manuver to protect it self, plane that is locked to straight attack runs cannot do that.



Why not use all three cannon fighters for flexibility? Hurricane wasn't "bad" but the British knew it wasn't quite up to snuff against the 109. Using Hurricanes to fight 109s while Spitfires went for bombers would have given worse results. 

Look again at the two Spitfire reports. While max ceilings were with in a few hundred feet of each other the operational and combat ceilings where much further apart. At 30,000ft the standard Spitfire could out climb the 4 cannon one by just over 19% instead of the 11% at lower altitudes. If the 3 cannon 109 showed a similar penalty at altitude it could explain a lot. 




Tante Ju said:


> Yes, now please compare speed and power of Jak 3, 109 any version to Spitfire, thank you... Jak 3 with 1200 HP is faster by 40 km/h at SL than Spitfire with 1700 HP.. and turns better, too. Or compare 109G, 1300 HP, to IX Mark, 1300 HP... latter is 30 km/h slower (all ground level, because it simpler, not have to worry about different power ratings at altitude). This should tell you about drag.



OK, lets, Yak 3 goes 351mph. MK XII Spitfire goes 346mph. Yak has less drag but where is the 40kph? Yak is carrying less armament. 




Tante Ju said:


> So did He 100, Bf 109, Jak 3, Jak 9, MC 202, P-51 etc. Point?



You just made it. DO you have any idea how successful these different designs were at getting the Meredith effect to work? I don't. I would guess that the P-51 was the most successful with the He 100 the least ( why retract the radiator in flight if it is giving thrust?). Without knowing what parts of the air frames and engine installations contributed what % to total drag it is a little hard to pick just one thing on an airplane and say "this was bad". 

one set of figures for the Spitfire (at a very low speed) show that the wing was responsible for 20.3 pounds of profile drag out a total for the plane of of 60.2 pounds for all drag, not just profile. The tail wheel was worth 2 pounds. While making the wing smaller would have reduced the the profile drag even reducing 1/3 of 1/3 of total means that fitting a retracting tail wheel and smooth paint would have made half the difference of the smaller wing.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> How do you want to figure fuel loads?
> 
> The Number of the Chart for the M was 13,275lbs. try sticking just 130gals US in a P-47M and see how far you get



You have a point there. How about comparing weight at 34,000 ft., getting there is not important, with enough fuel for 5 min WEP and flying 50 miles, approach and landing and reserve. This would be a more realistic comparison.



> An older P-47 could use 91 gallons of fuel just warming up, takeing off and doing a combat climb to 25,000ft while weighing 12,500lbs. At 14,000lbs it 98 gallons to get to 25,000ft.


 
All done with already burned fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Soap operah continues, part 24333!



You got that right. 




Tante Ju said:


> Of course cool requirement increased on German engine, too. You can see radiator size increase from 109F to G for example. But this was much less extreme then in British case. Reason was that German engine did not rely on supercharging to increase power so much, but also on "free" factor.



TANSTAAF

Increase RPM does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller. [/QUOTE]

Wrong. Increase rpm increases internal friction. Friction goes up with the square of the speed. Increasing for 2500 rpm to 2800 rpm increases friction by 25%. Stronger valve springs increase drag on the cams. 



Tante Ju said:


> Increase piston bore does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.



Better, 80% of internal friction (rule of thumb) comes from piston to cylinder scrubbing or piston ring friction. Germans increased wall scrub area by 2.6% rather small increase but not FREE.



Tante Ju said:


> Increase compression ratiodoes not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.



Increasing compression from 6.9:1 to 8.5:1 increases MEP by about 10% Increasing compression from 6.9:1 to 8.5:1 increases peak cylinder pressure by about 20%. You need heavier construction to hold the strain. All fuel burned may be power to the propeller but it is not FREE power. 



Tante Ju said:


> Increase scavange time does not cost wasted supercharger power - all fuel burned becomes power at propeller.



OK this sounds good, but the engines that used the increase overlap cams also used a special auxiliary intake system for idling. Extra cost, weight and complication. 



Simple example. You have 1300 IHP engine at 2500rpm Say it consume 0.3 liter/HP, this case, 390 liter per hour, total. You give 200 HP to supercharger (60 liter), engine friction is 100hp (30 liters) the propeller gets remaining 1000 HP. 
That is 1000 (useful) HP for 390 liters, thats 2.56 useful HP / liter fuel carried for an hour.

Now you increase the rpm to 2800rpm. Engine now gives 1456Ihp still at 0.3 liter/HP 
Supercharger still takes 200hp? it won't, it needs to move 12% more air so it is 224hp.
Internal friction is now 125hp. 
leaves 1107 for propeller.
Consumption is still 0.3 liter/IHP. or 436liters per hour or 2.54 useful hp/liter carried for an hour. 

Better than the RR supercharger perhaps but don't tell me it is free. 





Tante Ju said:


> It seems to be case (this was discussed other forum). Reason was cooling effect of MW boost, and 1800 hp mw-boosted engine actually radiated less heat than when operating at 1475 HP.
> Radiator size was same on 1800 HP and 1475 HP DB 605A(M)



Sounds like smoke an mirrors to me. British used after cooler to cool intake charge. 1.8 AtA is just under 12lb of boost. I am not understanding the last part. the MW/50 carried away the extra 325hp worth of heat out the exhaust? Possibly but what about the engines not using MW/50? like using the engine with C3 fuel and no MW/50.




Tante Ju said:


> There was no questionable entry. You have been shown real data, now you dismiss it! Okay, I do not agree, but then tell us what was range of 109F, G, K.



Using what for speeds? I am having trouble relating power levels to actual speeds. I will give it another try though, Using British figures from Black 6 on Kurfurst's web site. 5 min emergency power, 20 minutes combat power, 20 minute reserve at 2100rpm/1.0 ATA (probably too high) leaves how far can you go at 1065hp for 29 minutes? This assuming you dropped the external tank upon going into emergency power and used no internal fuel on take-off or transferred fuel. 





Tante Ju said:


> Refer to the above, and you will see why I disagree strongly. But basic difference is this, I try to define reasons, quantify analysis, you repeat 'Spitfire had more room to get worse, Spitfire had more room to get worse'. Opinion is okay, but if you do not have more to offer than opinion, ie. some unpartial arguements like mathematics to support, I have to agree to disagree only. As we say - "taste and power of slapping are different from person to person"  I do believe however, that so far your thesis is built much more on subjective opinion - taste if you like - than mine.



I may repeat some things but getting bogus facts does not help the argument. Like free hp from increased rpm. or speed differences that don't seem to stand up.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Jak 3 had version with 3 20mm in nose - and it was only 20 kg heavier than base version. 370 20mm round in total. Spitfire had 240 for two guns..



You really missed the target with this one. 


Tante Ju said:


> I do not get idea of weight of gun. Why does it matter? Explain me. Fighter is mostly limited by fitting space, not weight. This is where "big wing" theory is wrong. Actual execution is much more important, than size.
> If I weld a big piece of lead to the B20 it makes it more impressive? Or do you think 20 kg differences matters substential to a 3000kg airframe..??
> 
> BTW it also shows the error of reasoning. You seem think - hey, look Jak airframe could only carry one 20 mm, one 12,7mm... because of it carried this amount of gun was so small, no room for improvement etc. But then, a later version carried three cannon, a more heavy armament than Spitfire, but with 2/3 wing size.. do you not still see through this examples where you are mistake lay?



You seem to have missed that the model 20mm cannon that the Yak-3P was fitted with only weighed 25kg, just about the same as the 12.7mm UB machine gun and 17KG less than the 20mm ShVAK cannon that the earlier versions carried. While the armanet was much more effective it actual weighed NO MORE than the earlier armament of one 20mm gun and two 12.7mm machine guns. 

Are you Beginning to see your mistake? For the same weight of guns as 2 Hispanos and two .50 cal Brownings you could fit a Spitfire with SIX of the Russian 20mm B-20 cannon. You might be little light on ammo (105rpg)so you could fit just four such guns and a whole lot of ammo. 120 rounds of Hispano ammo weighs the same as 168 rounds of the Russian ammo. 250 rounds of US .50 cal ammo weigh as much as 153 Russian 20mm rounds. 




Tante Ju said:


> It is wrong thinking imho that if something was done, it means more was not possible..



It is wrong thinking IMHO that if something was done, it means more was possible despite leaving out important facts.


----------



## post76 (Sep 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> a few points.
> Some Spitfires "puttered out" at 43,000-45,000ft depending on engine.


I was looking at FTH, not the cielings. 
I'm unaware of any Spit or Mustang with an FTH above 30k ft, which is usually why the Spit gains in climb from being a lighter air frame (above FTH).



> An indication of the planes ability to sustain a turn might be ( i could be wrong) reflected in it's climbing ability at a given altitude. A MK XIV in one test is shown climbing at 1800ft/min at 34,000ft. which is several hundred ft/min better than P-47M.



As i understood it, climb is usually a reflection of weight. You can see this with same model aircraft retaining top speed ability, but a more noticeable difference in climb rate because of load. 

Holding a climb at climb speed is not a reflection of sustained turn ability. Usually, climb speed is under optimum sustained turn performance.
Furthermore, drag because of weight drops off with speed. Which is why heavier aircraft usually accelerate slower from lower speed ranges.
Can i call it low end acceleration? Top end acceleration/performance would not be dealing with drag because of weight. 
Which is why on that chart i'm vaguely referring to, if the speed gets slow enough, the Spit does retain a sustained turn advantage.
Also, don't misunderstand me, acceleration is not an indicator of sustained turn ability, just another way to illustrate drag because of weight becomes less an issue with speed. 

Acceleration is an important factor, however.
If a plane takes two minutes to reach top speed, while the other takes 1 minute and their top speeds are only with in 10mph, how do you think
that would effect sustained turn performance. (lets assume drag because of weight is not an issue.)

Also, its important to clarify sustained turn, from a turn. One implies the aircraft doesn't slow beyond a certain speed, the other implies a smaller radius (usually for a loss of speed).



> OK, lets, Yak 3 goes 351mph. MK XII Spitfire goes 346mph. Yak has less drag but where is the 40kph? Yak is carrying less armament.


If you're referring to weight of the armament, i'd disagree. If the armament, such as wing cannons, causes more drag then i would agree.
Underwing cannons, pylons, etc. They all add drag to slow the plane down. 
That 40kph could mean the Yak is just a faster plane, period.


----------



## Hop (Sep 28, 2011)

> Seen it, both test reveal similar figures for both planes.



I've never seen "similar" dive limits for the P-47. It had relatively thick wings which meant it entered compressibility at lower speeds. There's no getting away from that.

It's not important at lower altitudes, but at high altitude it is a major limitation.



> Is it about mach, or is it about speed/acceleration?



It's about both. It's no good being able to accelerate quickly if you lose control. 

Note also the instructions in the P-47 manual not to enter a dive at full throttle because you have to throttle up during the dive to prevent the nose dropping further. That's going to limit acceleration, too.



> The P-47 got there in 8000ft (22k ft) and in 12 seconds, albeit also in thicker air, while the Spit took nearly 15,000ft and 40 secondsfrom 40k ft.



The P-47 was diving at a steeper angle. (and that's not say the Spitfire couldn't, just that the RAE had a standard test procedure)



> We can use other tests that put the mach number for the P-47 above .90...but who's counting.
> I think the Spit actually cleared 0.95 in one test (677mph)....1948, diving all the way to deck from above 40,000ft.



There are all sorts of anecdotes around. Better to stick to properly tested figures. 



> You mean a 3 minute google search doesn't reveal that chart?
> Man....I got to do all the digging.



If you are quoting figures from a chart, it is really your responsibility to present that chart. Not mine to look for it for you 



> The chart was at 22,000ft between SpitIX and P-47D-22.
> Different figures may have been revealed at higher altitudes and using later profiles.
> At that height, the P-47 outperformed the Spit in sustained turns above XGs, and at XXXmph....
> I haven't been able to find the chart, but its there somewhere in cyberspace.



So not at high altitude then? 

I'd really like to see the chart that shows a P-47D outturning a Spitfire IX at 22,000 ft.



> drag and power profile, particularly at altitude, if we're still talking about sustained turns.
> There's also a saw tooth to the power chart because of the supercharger stages, which despite aircraft having "pretty much" the same engines
> they can end up performing quite differently at different heights.



If you compare a Mustang at it's best performance height against a Spitfire with different supercharger gearing at its worst performance height, you're not comparing like with like.

Certainly there might be very brief altitude bands where the Mustang would be superior, but there will be far greater ranges where the Spitfire would turn better.


----------



## Hop (Sep 28, 2011)

> Drag has 2 elements. Induced drag is lower on Spitfire because low wingload. Parasite drag is very high for same reason compared to any other, probably greatest of any comparing WW2 fighter.



Parasitic drag on the Spitfire was about the same as the 190, a lot less than something like the P-47.



> You make it look like as turn would be only about induced drag, but sorry, this is wrong. It is also about parasite drag.



All flight is about both. Of course, the tighter the turn the more important induced drag becomes.



> Second. Drag is only one part of formula of turn. You are miss half of story, sorry... Sustained G hold capacity is dependent on which G load can fighter drag = fighter thrust.
> 
> You missed thrust complete. Thrust is very important. If you have more thrust, you can have more drag.
> 
> For this reason, your statement is not true. Both Soviet Jak 9 and Jak 3 fighters could hold higher sustained G than Spitfire.



At high altitude? You did see that the statement was in reference to performance _above_ 20,000ft?

But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?



> Yes, now please compare speed and power of Jak 3, 109 any version to Spitfire, thank you... Jak 3 with 1200 HP is faster by 40 km/h at SL than Spitfire with 1700 HP.. and turns better, too. Or compare 109G, 1300 HP, to IX Mark, 1300 HP... latter is 30 km/h slower (all ground level, because it simpler, not have to worry about different power ratings at altitude). This should tell you about drag.



You are arguing for the "light" fighter. That argument was settled long ago in favour of the heavy fighter. An aircraft has certain fixed weight items regardless of size: pilot, guns, ammunition, radio, iff, oxygen etc. The light fighter has to sacrifice somewhere, be it fuel, guns, radios etc.



> RR practice was to put in only a more powerfuel supercharger, give supercharger more horsepower from engine to drive it. All that horsepower given to supercharger consumed fuel, but added directly no



Fighters spent a lot of time cruising, very little time in combat. Fuel consumption in combat is very much a secondary consideration.

RR approach allowed for low fuel consumption on cruise, high power during combat. Increasing the supercharger power had very little effect on cruise fuel consumption. You can see that by comparing cruise consumption of the Spitfire I (Merlin III): Spitfire Mk I K.9787 Trials Report

and the Spitfire VIII (Merlin 66):







The Spitfire VIII is at 20,000 ft rather than 15,000, which helps account for the better consumption, but even so it's clear that improvements to the Merlin didn't come at a cost of greater fuel consumption outside combat.



> Jak 3 had version with 3 20mm in nose - and it was only 20 kg heavier than base version. 370 20mm round in total. Spitfire had 240 for two guns..



Not all 20mm guns are equal. The Russian gun fired a 95 g shell at 790 m/s, the Hispano a 130 g shell at 860 m/s. Tony Williams ranks the power of the Hispano, round for round, at nearly twice that of the Russian 20mm.


----------



## post76 (Sep 28, 2011)

Hop said:


> I've never seen "similar" dive limits for the P-47. It had relatively thick wings which meant it entered compressibility at lower speeds. There's no getting away from that.
> 
> It's not important at lower altitudes, but at high altitude it is a major limitation.



I'm just clarifying mach speeds vs actual speed. 
The Spit makes mach .88, the P-47 makes mach .85.
Where's the TAS at? oh... they are the same at different heights.
Furthermore, both are dove at 45 degrees, the Spit starts off shallower. 
Do you have those to look at, you sound like you are familiar with those.



> The P-47 was diving at a steeper angle. (and that's not say the Spitfire couldn't, just that the RAE had a standard test procedure)


Why do you think that is?
Not to say the Spit could not be dove more aggressively, i just haven't found anything to show for it. 
I think the Spit starting off at a shallower angle is evidence of the need to trim as it increased in speed. 
It also shows that constant negative pressure on the control column was required to hold it in dive. 
That's why those tests can be informative and probably why the source used them in his book. 

When proper procedure was realized, the P-47 was not hard to control or recover from compressibility. 
A major contributing factor to accidents or loss of control, was when pilot's intuitively throttled back in the dive which would increase tuck and steepen dive. 
Proper procedure recognizes that leaving room to increase throttle in the dive, helps with recovery. 
That's a whole 'nother discussion but you can read the manual yourself. 



> It's about both. It's no good being able to accelerate quickly if you lose control.


(there is no special code or formula here)
Diving beyond a certain angle is usually not advised in any aircraft.
An aircraft need not reach compressibility in a dive to lose control or become less responsive. 
Looking at the manuals, a loss of control can be avoided by using proper pull out procedure. 



> Note also the instructions in the P-47 manual not to enter a dive at full throttle because you have to throttle up during the dive to prevent the nose dropping further. That's going to limit acceleration, too.


It doesn't appear that made much difference.
At half throttle, lets assume (2600hp/2) is 1300hp pluss 13,000+ weight. Then the pilot increases throttle as he falls.
Me thinks acceleration isn't an issue unless from very low speeds, such as where acceleration from gravity (32ft per second) is nearly the same for both planes. 

Comparing speed limitation charts by two different aircraft is going to lead to issues in the analysis.
It assumes both aircraft use the same instruments, for one. 
And usually there is safety margin in both cases. 
However, its no secret, the Spitfire had a high mach limit.
Was it faster?

Yeah. But lets put that speed into context.
As shown before, acceleration matters. 

Why it matters....see below. 



> Originally Posted by Shortround6
> The P-47 could accelerate better in a dive, no question, and that is a very practical thing. A plane that accelerates quicker in a dive and use the increased separation to break contact before the slower accelerating ,but ultimately fast plane can catch up.


Altitude and speed are advantages, you trade one for the other, and the plane that gains more speed for less altitude will not only gain separation, but would save a height advantage.

Wouldn't a plane create enough separation to turn around or also zoom? I can't speculate move for move, but the premise that the faster plane eventually catches up ignores those two possibilities.
The Spit catching up also assumes that the dive is extended long enough for it to do so. 
In the case of the P-47, it could create that separation relatively fast with out dumping all its altitude, and hold a higher sustained turn to head back in the direction of
the Spit and could do so with out losing the speed it gained from the dive.


Need I mention, the Spit needs to dive to hold the same speed as the P-47 in level flight at 40,000ft. 
Are you still convinced the Spit was ideal for high altitude support?


----------



## post76 (Sep 28, 2011)

> But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?


The problems with comparisons usually come down to altitude.
Are you aware of the limitations for boost use on the Spitfire?
I read on this forum, 25lbs was limited to a specific and narrow altitude range, otherwise it was 18lbs max and even that had a limited band width.
It probably says in the manual for the engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

post76 said:


> I was looking at FTH, not the cielings.
> I'm unaware of any Spit or Mustang with an FTH above 30k ft, which is usually why the Spit gains in climb from being a lighter air frame (above FTH).



Puttered out is a rather imprecise term. And while you are correct that no Spitfire or Mustang had a full throttle height over 30,000ft they still seemed to perform pretty well up there. It is also well to point out that the P-47s that had critical heights over 30,000ft were rather few in number. In fact most planes have two FTH, one in climb and one for level speed which is ussually several thousand ft higher due to the increased ram in the intake duct. Even the P-47 had a FTH of 28,000ft when climbing while it's FTH in high speed level flight was 32,000ft. A MK XIV Spitifre could do about 421mph at 39,000ft which most people wouldn't consider "puttering out" 




post76 said:


> As i understood it, climb is usually a reflection of weight. You can see this with same model aircraft retaining top speed ability, but a more noticeable difference in climb rate because of load.



True but it is an indication of excess power at a certain speed. That speed being the climb speed. Since any maneuver or departure from straight and level flight except a dive increases drag it is useful to know what sort of power is available to to counter the drag or to accelerate back up to speed when the drag from the maneuver lessens. Granted it does not take into account the drag of a particular airframe. But a heavier plane will have more drag at a given airspeed even if only a small amount. However in a turn things get complicated. Say we have two Mustangs and for what ever reason one weighs 1000lbs more than the other. 8000 to 9000lbs. Difference in speed is just a few mph in level flight. this is due the slightly greater angle of attack the heavier airplane needs to generate the extra lift for the extra weight. Now do a 3 g turn with both aircraft. Both planes need to increase their angle of attack to generate the needed lift. The heavier airplane needs to generate enough lift to counter 27,000lbs not 24,000lbs, it may need even more angle of attack to get this lift compared to the lighter plane than in level flight. it is creating more drag. Neither plane is going full speed any more. While they are not down to climb speed (at least not yet) which plane has the most excess thrust (better power to drag ratio) to help counter the speed loss of the maneuver? The lighter plane or plane with the better climb rate. 

Exceptions can probably be easily found but it seems to be an indicator not an absolute rule. 

Since most planes (all) could burn off speed in maneuvers faster than their engines could make up for it acceleration is important because it restores the energy potential of the aircraft quicker once the maneuver/s stop or lessen. 



post76 said:


> If you're referring to weight of the armament, i'd disagree. If the armament, such as wing cannons, causes more drag then i would agree.
> Underwing cannons, pylons, etc. They all add drag to slow the plane down.
> That 40kph could mean the Yak is just a faster plane, period.



If you want to a carry 700lbs worth of of guns and ammo instead of 350lbs worth of guns and ammo you need a bigger plane unless you are willing to sacrifice something else, like protection or range or field length, etc. The bigger plane will have more drag. 

try sticking the engine from a Cessna 152 into a Cessna 172 and see what kind of performance you get. Or just stick 350lbs of lead on the floor of the 152 and see what happens. Extreme I know but this almost constant divorce that seems to be going on between the performance of planes and their payload is getting tiresome. If you want a certain amount of guns, ammo, fuel and protection and you want a certain landing speed or field length you make certain choices in the design of the airframe, If the required payload is 20-30% larger or smaller you make other choices.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

post76 said:


> Need I mention, the Spit needs to dive to hold the same speed as the P-47 in level flight at 40,000ft.
> Are you still convinced the Spit was ideal for high altitude support?



As always, which Spitfire, which P-47 and when. 

Another question is by how much. if the difference is 15-20mph out of 390mph it may not make a lot of difference even if technical correct. At this point there may be as much difference from one airplane to another as their is between different types of airplane. One test of a P-47D in Oct 1943 shows a rate of climb at 38,000ft at 500ft/min. an early 1944 test of a MK IX HF shows rates of climb at 36,000ft of 1270ft/min and 40,000ft of 610ft/min. Spit may be slower but it climbs a lot better. Must be out of putter though


----------



## post76 (Sep 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> As always, which Spitfire, which P-47 and when.
> 
> Another question is by how much. if the difference is 15-20mph out of 390mph it may not make a lot of difference even if technical correct. At this point there may be as much difference from one airplane to another as their is between different types of airplane. One test of a P-47D in Oct 1943 shows a rate of climb at 38,000ft at 500ft/min. an early 1944 test of a MK IX HF shows rates of climb at 36,000ft of 1270ft/min and 40,000ft of 610ft/min. Spit may be slower but it climbs a lot better. Must be out of putter though


good point.
My statement was in reference to the Spit XIV and contemporary P-47D, probably closer to M, in service.
If the Spit need dive to hold the same speed, it is still less than ideal. 
The Spit can slow down to climb, but then hey, you'd be letting them get away...
Lets look at output to define "putter out".
again the engine manual or power chart would say. Its a bit more abstract than a 3 minute google search. 
You might notice my google searches are more thorough. 
Its probably my band width, though I'm only a 50 ft sea level. I'm sure if our heights were the same you might return better searches.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Another question is by how much. if the difference is 15-20mph out of 390mph it may not make a lot of difference even if technical correct.


 
I disagree with this statement. Closure rate and pull away rate, the important variables in speed, is an absolute, not a percentage. If you close with a 20 mph advantage, the time that it will take to close on a target at a given distance is the same whether you are traveling 350 mph or 200 mph. If you are on the highway traveling 70 mph and a car passes you at 90 mph, you would say wow, he is traveling fast. That perception would be the same at 500 mph, which would be rather eye opening if your closure rate on a turning rejoin maneuver is 20 mph hot (personal experience!). In my opinion, a real 20 mph advantage in speed is significant, at any speed.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2011)

Some data I’ve assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!

I broke the time period down into three segments based on significant F4U upgrades. Note, data is base on normalized fuel loads between the F4U and FW-190A-4/5. Data shows SL speed (mph)/SL climb(ft/min)/Max speed(mph)/speed 25k (mph)/climb 25k (ft/sec). I put in 25k data as this is B-17 penetration altitude, something the AAF was interested in.

Dec 42 (F4U-1) deployed

F4U-1 350 3250 417at23k 410 1600
Fw-190A-4 355 3600 410at21k 406 1600
Spitfire IX 329 3740 413at24k 408 1800

Nov 43 (F4U-1A(water) deployed

F4U-1A(W) 365 3350 422at 20k 420 1750
Fw-190A-5 355 3300 408at21k 400 1400	
Spitfire XIV (?) 360 5000 447at26k 446 3000

Apr 45 (F4U-4 deployed)

F4U-4 375 4150 446at26k 440 2800
Fw-190D-9 385 4430 431at16k 418 2165
Spitfire XIV 389 5000 447at26k 446 3100


Trying to compare aircraft over time is difficult. This is some snapshots of performance with a lot of guesswork including boost levels. This is probably a rough order of magnitude estimate and does not include other important parameters such as turn rate, roll rate and dive speed.

Just looking at the parameters listed, it appears to me that, when the F4U-1 was deployed, the three aircraft was, for all practical purposes, equal in performance. The Spitfire was rather slow at SL.

When the water injected F4U-1A appeared, it had a noticeable advantage over the Fw-190A-5 and Spitfire Mk IX. The powerful Mark XIV was appearing but I am not sure how successful it was in integrating into the RAF.

Very late in the war when the F4U-4 appeared, it was slightly inferior to the Fw-190D-9 at lower altitudes but had a significant advantage at higher altitudes. The overall edge would have to go to the Spitfire XIV due to its equivalent speed and noticeably better climb at all altitudes.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Sorry but I think you hope too much for Spitfire. It was very good aircraft, but in my opinion airframe was somewhat obsolate by World War II. It represents peak technological advancement of 1935, but progress was fast, and Spitfire never developed to new results, only like garage tuning. No real modernisation program.


To me this comment borders on the arcane. The Spitfire performed quite ably in every stage of the war and was also capable of being upgraded with weapons, wings, and engines to maintain it effectiveness. Just comparing the performance of the Mark XIV to the vaunted Fw-190D-9, posted above, demonstrates how the Spitfire could compete with one of the best, and much later, Luftwaffe aircraft of the war. To say the Spitfire was obsolete at the beginning of the war is like saying the F4 was obsolete at the beginning of the Vietnam War.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Some data I’ve assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!
> 
> Just looking at the parameters listed, it appears to me that, when the F4U-1 was deployed, the three aircraft was, for all practical purposes, equal in performance. The Spitfire was rather slow at SL.
> 
> ...



I think that is a pretty good summing up the situation.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I think that is a pretty good summing up the situation.



Thanks. By the way, to be able to fly nose-to-nose with some of the best fighters of WW2, and be carrier qualified, is an amazing accomplishment, in my opinion. Kudos to the Vought company for building an outstanding aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Sep 28, 2011)

Don't forget that the Corsair had a significant advantage in range over the other two either on internal fuel or with belly tanks. A Corsair with two belly tanks could have as much as a 550 mile combat radius.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2011)

YES! Certainly. I should have pointed this out. The F4U-1 had over 200 gallons more internal fuel capacity than the Fw-190, probably more compared to the Spitfire. Later versions had less but still had about 100 gallons more internal fuel capacity. Lots of flexibility here. Another Kudos.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Some data I’ve assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!
> 
> I broke the time period down into three segments based on significant F4U upgrades. Note, data is base on normalized fuel loads between the F4U and FW-190A-4/5. Data shows SL speed (mph)/SL climb(ft/min)/Max speed(mph)/speed 25k (mph)/climb 25k (ft/sec). I put in 25k data as this is B-17 penetration altitude, something the AAF was interested in.
> 
> ...



Just one question - was the IX a IX (M61), LF IX (M66) or HF IX (M70)? If it was an HF IX that would probably explain the slow sea level speed.

Regarding the (?) on the XIV I presume you were asking if that used water injection/ADI. If that was the case then the answer is no.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2011)

post76 said:


> good point.
> My statement was in reference to the Spit XIV and contemporary P-47D, probably closer to M, in service.
> If the Spit need dive to hold the same speed, it is still less than ideal.
> The Spit can slow down to climb, but then hey, you'd be letting them get away...
> ...



The Spitfire XIV was in service a year before the M/N. The D a year earlier.

From Joe Baugher's site:



> One Pratt and Whitney R-2800-59 Double Wasp eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, war emergency power of 2535 hp. *Maximum speed was 429 mph at 30,000 feet*, 406 mph at 20,000 feet, 375 mph at 10,000 feet, 350 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute. Climb rate at 30,000 feet was 1575 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 40,000 feet, and range was 950 miles at 10,000 feet. Range with maximum external fuel was 1800 miles at 10,000 feet at 195 mph. Weights were 10,700 pounds empty, 14,600 pounds normal loaded, and 17,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 1 3/4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.



A Spitfire XIV was 8mph slower at 39,000ft (SR's numbers) than the P-47D at its best altitude.

For the N:


> Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.



Critical altitude of the turbocharger was 32,500ft. What was the service ceiling?

The M was slightly faster than the M, but was only made in a handful of numbers and didn't make it into service before the end of the European war.
Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft


----------



## davparlr (Sep 29, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Just one question - was the IX a IX (M61), LF IX (M66) or HF IX (M70)? If it was an HF IX that would probably explain the slow sea level speed.



I have limited resources on the Spitfire and I don't know much about it. This seems to be the Merlin 70 values, but I do not think the Merlin 61 was much better. Later versions using the Merlin 66 don't seem to be particularly fast at SL. One test indicated 340 mph at SL using 18 lbs of boost. If you have better performance figures for Dec. 42 to Nov. 43. let me know. I really do not have a good source for RAF aircraft performance.



> Regarding the (?) on the XIV I presume you were asking if that used water injection/ADI. If that was the case then the answer is no.


Actually the (?) was due to my uncertainty of whether the XIV was actively deployed by the RAF at this time.


----------



## post76 (Sep 29, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire XIV was in service a year before the M/N. The D a year earlier.
> 
> From Joe Baugher's site:
> A Spitfire XIV was 8mph slower at 39,000ft (SR's numbers) than the P-47D at its best altitude.



keyword there is "contemporary" which would indicate aircraft used in service the same time.
I've seen tests for the SpitXIV in 1944, but when it saw service is another question.
The P-47D in '44 was considerably faster than the P-47B figures you posted.
It varies from source to source. 
I still haven't found anything that shows the SpitXIV reached 421 at 39k ft.
There is a MkVIII prototype test with those numbers. 
Other SpitXIV tests reveal it reached closer to 400mph at that height.
The P-47D-30 made 420mph at 40kft.
All that info is on the Mike Williams website, including the other SpitXIV tests.



> The M was slightly faster than the N, but was only made in a handful of numbers and didn't make it into service before the end of the European war.
> Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft


They made 300 Ms, and retrofitted D's with the 57C engine. 
The M prototype reached 488mph and other test figures show closer to 480 with ballasts. 

To digress a bit, the SpitXIV would retain air superiority performance at lower altitudes.
I don't think there was any other plane that would come close to its performance other than a Lavochkin-7. 
The Fw190A-8 or 9 might also give it a hard time.
The only American fighter that came comparatively close at those altitudes would be the F4U-4.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 29, 2011)

post76 said:


> I still haven't found anything that shows the SpitXIV reached 421 at 39k ft.
> There is a MkVIII prototype test with those numbers.
> Other SpitXIV tests reveal it reached closer to 400mph at that height.


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg
This shows about 415 mph. This is similar to the prototype, which are reasonable numbers. All the others appear to be low altitude.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess it depends on how much we can bend or twist them before it is a "lie".
> 
> Both planes suffer degraded performance. Which is the basic argument or at least mine. The Differences in climb and ceiling make it hard for a unit with mixed aircraft to maintain combat formations. I have told that that there was little difference between a 3 cannon 109 and a 1 cannon 109 and while there is little speed difference the ceiling penalty is somewhat greater. While the speed penalty is just 1.5-2.3% the ceiling difference is 5%, What is the climb penalty and more importantly what is the climb penalty at the higher altitudes?
> 
> ...



I do not say performance did not suffer. Suffer was not significant though. You claim perofrmance loss was worse on 109, but data shows you are wrong. 
And this makes your whole thesis go bad, since you wanted to proof your idea - big wing of spitfire meant it had less performance penelty when weight was added. It is simply not true.



Shortround6 said:


> The question of armament and aircraft design is not so simple. You want to turn it to which was more effective which is another whole set of arguments. The Spitfire designers could no more pick and chose the types of guns to arm their fighter with than anybody else could. For most of the war it was .303 Brownings or Hispanos. One or the other, how many can you fit in. There was no lighter cannon to pick from.



I agree. If in Russia only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Yakovlevs and Lavochkins, and armament would be heavier. If in Germany only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Messerschmitts and Focke Wulfs, and armament would be heavier.



> The Spitfire carried a greater weight of armament than the 109, that is a fact. as I just said, the effectiveness is another argument.



Yes, because the guns available for the Spitfire were heavier, it is only reason. Again, what was weight of armament Spitfire could carry? If you want to argue weight.. I do not believe gun weight is an issue for either 109 or Spitfire, but OK.

I can find datasheet showing maximum weight of armament for 109 being 823 lbs, plus 326 lbs of ammunition (and 200 lbs of armor). 

Tell me, which Spitifire carried more than 1150 lbs of guns and ammunition?



Shortround6 said:


> As for the armament you give for the 3 cannon 109, can you give a source please. Most of mine say 150 rounds for the fuselage cannon (200 rounds for the F with the 15mm gun) and 120rpg for the under wing guns. what is 90 rounds between friends?



You are simply wrong, sorry. Please look up any German load sheet for 109F,G/K. All says this information. Ammunition for centerline 20mm gun was 200, ammunition for gondola guns were 145, each gun. Btw all of ammunition was carried in wing. If you want to prove it was not, go ahead, show loading sheet of Bf 109.. Spitfire carried less rounds in the wings probably because lay of guns was not so ideal for ammo boxes. Btw 20 mm version of MG 151 used exact same cartridge, just shorter, "necked" out so 20 mm round would fit.



Shortround6 said:


> Well, in 1941 I would choose the Spitfire. The 109 G doesn't show up until about a full year after the MK V.
> I wonder what a four cannon Spitfire would have performed like with a 1942 engine?



In 1941 Spitfire, you will have 8 machineguns or two cannons with only 60 rounds each, because C wing was not produced yet. Look at British test. Early 1942 date. In 1942, standard Spitfire was VC. Standard 109 was F4 and G-2, very similiar performance because F4 engine was uprated at time to G2 engine rating.

Again, subject is which airframe is more adoptable, not which aircraft was "better" at given year. From this POV, Mark is meaningless. Mark V is good example because rating was very similiar to DB 601/605. Later Merlins in 1943/44 are better, but it shows my theory correct, Spitfire was kept effective and good fighting machine with heavier, more powerful engines, in airframe that was show its age not very effective anymore in using current technology.

If you use equal technology - same engine, same guns etc. - with different airframe, Spitfire will not make very good use of it and will have worst performance of all. It shows age of airframe, design concept of early 1930s actually, unchanged essential..

You doubt? Give 1200 hp Yak 3, very poor and obsolate Russian engine to Spitfire, and see what is happening.. plane will be like 60-90 km/h slower at all altitudes with this power than Yak 3.



Shortround6 said:


> Why not use all three cannon fighters for flexibility? Hurricane wasn't "bad" but the British knew it wasn't quite up to snuff against the 109. Using Hurricanes to fight 109s while Spitfires went for bombers would have given worse results.



Reason because Spitfire escorted Hurricanes was again practicality. Spitfire squadrons when "scrambled" climbed to alttiude faster, so they are in position to provide top cover.



> Look again at the two Spitfire reports. While max ceilings were with in a few hundred feet of each other the operational and combat ceilings where much further apart. At 30,000ft the standard Spitfire could out climb the 4 cannon one by just over 19% instead of the 11% at lower altitudes. If the 3 cannon 109 showed a similar penalty at altitude it could explain a lot.



I think I showed you service ceiling data - 5 cannon 109 was worse somewhat, at 9000m it climbed 2 m/sec worse than 3 cannon one, but could still climb at 6 m/sec. Difference was similiar, actually little greater at low altitude.
This was still bester than any fighter tested by Soviet at time, including 2-cannon Spitfire VB (5,95m/sec, so about equal) and 4-cannon VC (4,97 m/sec) in British test.
Of course weight difference was greater, so this change figure somewhat if we add added weight of 109 was 20% greater than in case of Spitfire VB vs VC, and probably low wing load helped somewhat at big altitude, when plane flies like very slow at low altitude.

Small text of bottom - I do not see difference that would take my breath, especially as there is good deal of difference in conditions - Spitfire carry 20% lighter load increase, measurement error between planes etc. 



> OK, lets, Yak 3 goes 351mph. MK XII Spitfire goes 346mph. Yak has less drag but where is the 40kph? Yak is carrying less armament.



Soviet trial shows Spitfire IX could make 530 km/h with 1700 HP engine and Yak 3 567 km/h with 1240 HP engine. 
Yak is carrying less armament? Since when 3 20mm cannons is "less" than two?

So what advantage did the big Spitfire wing offered over the tiny Yak 3 wing? I see none. Tell me. But I can see what advantage small and streamlined fighter has over Spitfire. THAT is very easy to see.



> You just made it. DO you have any idea how successful these different designs were at getting the Meredith effect to work? I don't. I would guess that the P-51 was the most successful with the He 100 the least ( why retract the radiator in flight if it is giving thrust?). Without knowing what parts of the air frames and engine installations contributed what % to total drag it is a little hard to pick just one thing on an airplane and say "this was bad".



I do not understand then why you mention "Spitfire had meredith effect", like if it was special, and all others were bad. It sounded like that...



> one set of figures for the Spitfire (at a very low speed) show that the wing was responsible for 20.3 pounds of profile drag out a total for the plane of of 60.2 pounds for all drag, not just profile. The tail wheel was worth 2 pounds. While making the wing smaller would have reduced the the profile drag even reducing 1/3 of 1/3 of total means that fitting a retracting tail wheel and smooth paint would have made half the difference of the smaller wing.



Interesting. So explain why is Spitfire much slower than anything else, if power is equal. It is much slower than Yak 3 on equal power. It is much slower than Bf 109F, G or K at equal power. It had progressive less range with any new Mark, while other fighters had better range. It is even slower than radial Fw 190A at equal power.
Tell me what is wrong then with Spitfire, if its not wing. Was surface so bad? Was fuselage so bad? Was it too many "bumps" on the airframe as it was "developed"? Because slower and less range is fact.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 29, 2011)

Hop said:


> Parasitic drag on the Spitfire was about the same as the 190, a lot less than something like the P-47.



This is both radial engined fighters.. say 190 was very good, low drag for a radial. It do not give very good diploma for Spitfire, which is column engine fighter. 
In its own category, other column engine fighter, Spitfire is likely near end of list, if I look up engine power and airspeed..



Hop said:


> All flight is about both. Of course, the tighter the turn the more important induced drag becomes.



Yes but as you say, 2-3g is best realistic figure for WW2 fighter for sustain turn. Induced drag has greater weight in the formula as you say (at least: low speed turn), but alone this say is meaningless because you have to look at all factors, which is why Yakovlev fighter outturn Spitfire, despite probably greater induced drag of Yakovlev design (high wing load). 



Hop said:


> But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?



Then please look up figures.. but, I think you miss point. This is not really question of: was for example 1945 type Spitfire XIV best fighter or Yak 3, as usual. It is: which airframe is better, more easy to adopt, if all technical things are equal.



Hop said:


> You are arguing for the "light" fighter. That argument was settled long ago in favour of the heavy fighter.



By who, you?  But, again designer seem to disagree. Please tell F 16 pilots, which was design of light fighter, and perhaps most successfull all things considered.. and tell also Me 110 pilot the good knews, that arguement was settled in their favour.

Tragic part is, Spitfire is a "light" fighter that just got very heavy.. just heavy, not more capable, or like "heavy" fighters like P-47, Typhoon that were less manuverable, but could carry bigger bombs, further etc.



Hop said:


> An aircraft has certain fixed weight items regardless of size: pilot, guns, ammunition, radio, iff, oxygen etc. The light fighter has to sacrifice somewhere, be it fuel, guns, radios etc.



Heavy fighter is also a sacrifice in performance, however. It is always compromise. 



Hop said:


> Fighters spent a lot of time cruising, very little time in combat. Fuel consumption in combat is very much a secondary consideration.
> 
> RR approach allowed for low fuel consumption on cruise, high power during combat. Increasing the supercharger power had very little effect on cruise fuel consumption. You can see that by comparing cruise consumption of the Spitfire I (Merlin III): Spitfire Mk I K.9787 Trials Report
> 
> ...



Sorry I remove picture, too big. But People can see. But your table does not show power developed, do you have perhaps table where power is shown, consumption is shown? It makes difficult comparison. I suppose Merlin 66 developed less (propeller) power at equal setting, since it has greater loss of power due to bigger supercharger, which engine drives constant.



> The Spitfire VIII is at 20,000 ft rather than 15,000, which helps account for the better consumption, but even so it's clear that improvements to the Merlin didn't come at a cost of greater fuel consumption outside combat.



That is interesting, because Spitfire range was less less and less with later Types. Spitfire I range was 595 miles. Spitfire VA range was 500 miles, VB range 480 miles, IXF 430 miles, XII only 329 miles... you seem to say engine was same, but airframe detoriated very quickly in drag during development, if I understand you. Because something was reason so that range was going down, my friend. 



> Not all 20mm guns are equal. The Russian gun fired a 95 g shell at 790 m/s, the Hispano a 130 g shell at 860 m/s. Tony Williams ranks the power of the Hispano, round for round, at nearly twice that of the Russian 20mm.



Yes but Tony Williams only takes into account kinetik energie. KE is less significant part compared to explosive power when talking of cannons. Hispano had good ballistic, but was only avarage in destuction power. It shell were not very good and it fired slow. Soviet gun was much superior, since it fired 1/3 more shells at 1/2 the weight. I believe shell design also better on Soviet gun, but need to look up.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Better than the RR supercharger perhaps but don't tell me it is free.



You know engine very well, thanks for explanation, very useful. Also thank you for accepting my point.  You know see why DB engine fuel effiency improved. So you also see why 109 range improved, with no need for heavier load of fuel. 



> Sounds like smoke an mirrors to me. British used after cooler to cool intake charge. 1.8 AtA is just under 12lb of boost. I am not understanding the last part. the MW/50 carried away the extra 325hp worth of heat out the exhaust?



Yes, British used aftercooler device, but tell me, from where and what does after cooler cools, and how efficiently, compared to water that evaporate inside engine where heat is generated? Aftercooler cools charge in supercharger, not walls of engine.. anyway DB sheet says this data.



> Possibly but what about the engines not using MW/50? like using the engine with C3 fuel and no MW/50.



I do not know answer to that, but I suppose it would generate a lot more heat than without MW? OTOH such was only used on 605DC engine (G-10, K-4, these probably less in problem, because their high altitude engine already called for bigger radiator size), and 801 engine.



> Using what for speeds? I am having trouble relating power levels to actual speeds. I will give it another try though, Using British figures from Black 6 on Kurfurst's web site. 5 min emergency power, 20 minutes combat power, 20 minute reserve at 2100rpm/1.0 ATA (probably too high) leaves how far can you go at 1065hp for 29 minutes? This assuming you dropped the external tank upon going into emergency power and used no internal fuel on take-off or transferred fuel.



Why are you returning again and again after shown data? Real data for range is at Micheal Rautsch page for F4. http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22

410 km/h at 130 liter/h. Complete tankage 400 liter, 1260 km is possible, but of course its lot less with climbing etc. In cruise, 8.9 mpg is possible.

But please show me how its poor compared to other. Remember you set following criteria for range:

spend 5 minutes at 685 km/h (emergency power performance of G-2, but this was banned early)
spend 20 minutes at 660 km/h
spend another 20 minutes at ca. 550-600 km/h

Say the standard you set to assess the 109 range is impossible to even achieve by 99% of WW2 fighters..



> I may repeat some things but getting bogus facts does not help the argument.



Yes, but I believe, after so long repeat, you should put something factual on the table (call it bogus facts) not just argue argue argue.. anyone can argue, in fact most people on internet just argue. But I learn from those who also put fact on table, like I did when you posted about engines now.


----------



## Glider (Sep 29, 2011)

I have to admit that my head is starting to spin.

Going back to basics.

Weight. I promise that any designer in any country who saved 100ib in weight would be doing cartwheels and buying all the drinks that night. The rule of thumb that I was taught was that if you add a pound in dead weight you would have to add ten to keep the same performance. Bit of strength added here, more power to keep the climb the same, more fuel for the bigger engine. In Short *WEIGHT MATTERS*.

Comparing a three gunned 1945 almost missed the war fighter against a 1942 fighter be it a 109F/G2 or Spitfire IX is hardly a fair comparison. If you want to get equal compare against a Spit XX or a 109K4

Saying that speed of one aircraft against another is the be all and end all doesn't even come close. If plane A was as fast or faster than plane B on a lower powered engine then something had to give. In the case of all the russian fighters that I am aware of it was range/payload/altitude = flexibility. Show me a photo of a Russian air to air fighter carrying 1,500/2,000 pd of bombs in combat and I will conceed. 

Trusting Russian charts on aircraft like the SPit XIV must be treated with caution, after all how many did they have, did they have the right fuel, the spares to keep a one off engine in tip top condition? I would trust a British or US chart on say a Yak 9 with similar caution.

The changing range of a fighter as it developed shows the balance well. The drop in range of the Spitfire (and other types) as the varients passed is well known. But it is equally well known that they started carrying drop tanks which got bigger until the still air range of the Mk IX varied from 434 miles with the original single tank, to 1,420 miles with the bigger main tank, rear tank and 90 gallons externally. Assuming sufficient power, size gives you flexibility


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 29, 2011)

Tante Ju, your reliance on Russian figures is doing you no favours.
On the Mk.IX, the Soviet figure of 530km/hr is equal to a fraction over 331 mph; the IX's top speed was rated as 408mph (652 km/hr.) 
Your climb rates, for the Mark Vs, are just as wildly inaccurate, since a climb of 5,95 m/sec is equivalent to about 1178 ft/min; the initial climb rate of the V was 4,740 ft/min, 3240 @ 5,000', 3,250' @ 15,000' 1750' @ 39,000', which makes your figures look rather like Russian propaganda. 
Get some true, believable figures, and we can look again at the Spitfire, for which you seem to have such contempt.
Edgar


----------



## post76 (Sep 30, 2011)

The Russian figures might differ for a couple reasons.

One, they tested aircraft with guns installed.
Seeing as most Spitfires, particularly later models became available to them post war, and with a certain amount of mileage. 

British figures often tested factory fresh aircraft where armament may not have been factored in, (or was it?)

Its also been demonstrated that Spitfires in the field with a certain amount of upkeep and maintenance still performed 10-20kph less than
what factory testing showed. 

Differences in aircraft speeds of two separate models built in different countries could also be a matter of differences in instrumentation.
When the 109 tested against the French D520, the 109 instrumentation showed a 20kph advantage despite both aircraft doing the same speed.

Obviously this is where the literature is as important as the numbers posted from particular articles or tests.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm afraid that is totally wrong; ALL of Russia's Spitfires were delivered during the war, starting in 1943, and the vast majority were brand new, having been delivered straight from a Maintenance Unit, so they had no previous "mileage." If you wish, I can give you the names of the ships, and their arrival dates in Russia. The last lot were taken on charge in June 1945 (when Russia decided to get involved in the Pacific.)
ALL flight testing, in the U.K., was undertaken with guns installed, and full fuel and ammunition load. Guns were installed by the factory, otherwise the compressed-air firing system would have leaked, causing all sorts of problems for the pilots.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2011)

post76 said:


> The Russian figures might differ for a couple reasons.
> 
> One, they tested aircraft with guns installed.
> Seeing as most Spitfires, particularly later models became available to them post war, and with a certain amount of mileage.
> ...



The British Goverment tests say in the notes if the test aircraft was armed or not, if not armed which was rare, they carried ballast weight to simulate armament. It was noted wither or not gun muzzles were taped, what kind of rear view mirror was used and other details that would affect performance. Testing specially prepared 'light' aircraft rather defeats the purpose of the test. They weren't trying to make their aircraft 'look good', they were trying to find out the actual performance so as to either develop new models or develop tactics for existing models.


----------



## Hop (Sep 30, 2011)

> This is both radial engined fighters.. say 190 was very good, low drag for a radial. It do not give very good diploma for Spitfire, which is column engine fighter.
> In its own category, other column engine fighter, Spitfire is likely near end of list, if I look up engine power and airspeed..



Certainly a larger aircraft tends to have more drag. The answer isn't simply to built the smallest aircraft possible. That requires too many compromises in other areas.



> But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?
> Then please look up figures.



I have. I can see a slight superiority at low altitude for a Yak 3 against a clipped wing Spitfire LF IX E running at 18 lbs. 25 lbs boost added 300 hp with no extra weight. Full span winged aircraft turned a bit better. The advantage shifted to the Spitfire as altitude increased.

Indeed, try the same tests at 10,000 and 20,000 ft and the Spitfire would have a huge advantage over the Yak. 



> It is: which airframe is better, more easy to adopt, if all technical things are equal.



And I'd say the Spitfire airframe is clearly superior. It's an older design than the Yak, yet still allows for greater performance and better load carrying. Compared to the Yak 3 the Spitfire IX had a higher ceiling, better range, tighter turn, carried more armament and had similar speed. 

Of course a lot of that is down to the more powerful engine. But then if you have a more powerful engine, why not design your aircraft accordingly?

The Spitfire was designed from the start for a 1000 hp engine. The 109 was designed for 650 hp, hence the smaller size (and less flexibility)



> By who, you? But, again designer seem to disagree. Please tell F 16 pilots, which was design of light fighter, and perhaps most successfull all things considered.



Tell the F15 pilots. The USAAF and most other forces decided on the heavier fighter a long time ago. Light fighters still have a place because they are cheaper, but top of the range fighters are heavy.



> Heavy fighter is also a sacrifice in performance, however. It is always compromise.



A heavy fighter has to sacrifice less because the essential equipment makes up a smaller proportion of its total weight.



> But your table does not show power developed, do you have perhaps table where power is shown, consumption is shown?



No. 



> I suppose Merlin 66 developed less (propeller) power at equal setting, since it has greater loss of power due to bigger supercharger, which engine drives constant.



I wouldn't have thought so. Remember, the Merlin 66 has a two speed supercharger. At cruise it operates at the lower speed. Because it's behind the throttle, it's operating at lower air pressure.



> That is interesting, because Spitfire range was less less and less with later Types. Spitfire I range was 595 miles. Spitfire VA range was 500 miles, VB range 480 miles, IXF 430 miles, XII only 329 miles



And yet look at the consumption of the Spitfire I and VIII.

What is "range"? Does it include allowances? How are those allowances calculated and did they change?

Lets look at the 2 consumption tests. For the Spitfire I you say range was 595 miles from 85 gallons.

The best consumption figure quoted for the Spitfire I on test was 8.26 mpg, so you'd need 72 gallons to travel 595 miles. That leaves 13 gallons for starting, takeoff, climb and reserves.

The best figure for the Spitfire VIII was 10 mpg. For a Spitfire IX with 85 gallons, that means you'd need 43 gallons to travel 430 miles. That leaves 42 gallons for starting, takeoff, climb and reserves.

Clearly the same standards aren't being applied.



> Because something was reason so that range was going down, my friend.



Yes. The Spitfire I clearly can't make 595 miles and have reserves. 595 miles includes takeoff, climb and cruise at most economical speed.

The Spitfire IX, on the other hand, has about 30 gallons left after covering 430 miles at the same profile as the Spitfire I. I suspect the difference is accounted for by higher cruise speeds, reserves, not taking account of range covered during the climb, etc. 

The consumption of the aircraft in flight is clearly similar.



> Yes but Tony Williams only takes into account kinetik energie



No. From his own description:



> In other words, an HE/I shell of a given weight that contains 10% chemicals will generate twice the destructiveness of a plain steel shot of the same weight and velocity. If the shell is a high-capacity one with 20% chemical content, it will be three times as destructive. If it only has 5% content, the sum will be 150%, so it will be 50% more destructive, and so on.



The Russian 20mm HE shell had only 6 grammes of explosive content, compared to the Hispano's 10.4. So the Hispano fired a heavier shell, with more explosive content, at a higher velocity.



> KE is less significant part compared to explosive power when talking of cannons.



Agreed. See the much greater HE content for the Hispano, though. 



> Hispano had good ballistic, but was only avarage in destuction power. It shell were not very good and it fired slow. Soviet gun was much superior, since it fired 1/3 more shells at 1/2 the weight. I believe shell design also better on Soviet gun, but need to look up.



Let's compare the firepower of the Yak 3 and Spitfire IX from the Tsagi test.

Spitfire IX - 2 20mm, 2 12.7mm
On Tony Williams scale, the ammunition had a total "power" of 7,200, the guns fired with a total of 510 per second.

Yak 3 - 1 20mm, 2 12.7mm

The guns fired 290 per second, total ammunition "power" 4,170.

So the same duration of fire from the Spitfire was 76% more powerful, the total ammunition carried by the Spitfire was 73% more powerful.

I'm still failing to see the superiority of the Yak 3.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> T They weren't trying to make their aircraft 'look good', they were trying to find out the actual performance so as to either develop new models or develop tactics for existing models.


 
This is a very good point that needs to be reiterated. Flight test are rarely used to promote the performance of the aircraft and it is even more rare for a user force test to promote the performance. Most test are for the tasks identified by Shortround. Overstating an aircraft performance by the user force was very dangerous to the combat pilot, expecting more from the aircraft than it will provide. Knowing the limitations of one's aircraft is one of the vital requirements of successful air combat. It is, however, not unusual to find that the aircraft has been "cleaned up" by filling gaps, polishing and/or taping gun ports. This is probably done for several reasons, one of which is to provide max performance possible, another may be to minimize aircraft variables such as manufacturing tolerances. Most test reports identify the condition of the aircraft at the time of the test.

There may be some test that indeed are meant for the aircraft to "look good". These are usually limited to subcontractor test to sell the aircraft to the military or foreign governments, or for the military to get more funding from the government.

Several type of data sets are usually available on-line. One is manufacturers estimates of performance. These are usually based on aerodynamic calculations of aircraft performance and generally represent an optimized performance and should be taken as informational unless no other data is available. An example of this is found on this Mike Williams site.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-46-130-chart.jpg

The most reliable data set is provide by calculated, or plotted, data verified by actual test points performed. This is a typical, and accepted by industry and military as a valid performance methodology. This can be quickly identified by in the inclusion of an identified aircraft tail number and test weight and often other data such as engine type, fuel type, etc. Also, it often identifies a test engineer. Below is an example of this type of data. Some data may look official but lack identification. 
In this case, it should be examined in context, e.g., is it associated with a test report. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-level.jpg

Mike Williams site is excellent for the data it provides.


----------



## Altea (Sep 30, 2011)

Hello M jim



jim said:


> Mr Readie
> 1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)


I don't understand what du you mean. Wasn't it cleared -or reduced, at leastst for quoted Bf-109 trials?



> 2)Merlin was a superb effort but you must remember a) in 1940 time combination merlin/spit was inferior to DB/Bf109 .


I don't know if M Williams site is biaised, or *that* biaised, it's far from being *that** unsustainted. Why do you think the airframe/ engine combination was better for the Bf-109 in 1940?

* as your own post...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Yes, but I believe, after so long repeat, you should put something factual on the table (call it bogus facts) not just argue argue argue.. anyone can argue, in fact most people on internet just argue. But I learn from those who also put fact on table, like I did when you posted about engines now.



You ask and you shall receive. But then I have asked for figures or facts from you and gotten little but arguments. Not actual drag figures but vague comparisons to other aircraft. 



Tante Ju said:


> You know engine very well, thanks for explanation, very useful. Also thank you for accepting my point.  You know see why DB engine fuel effiency improved. So you also see why 109 range improved, with no need for heavier load of fuel.



Thank you for the compliment. I will not deny that DB engine fuel effiency improved, I just don't think it improved as much as you do. I know that is not a fact but I will return to this. Engines can show different 'efficiencies' and different speeds or power outputs. Since "there is no such thing as a free lunch", improvements have to paid for somehow. Like fuel injection, it is more efficient than carburetors but it is more costly and difficult to manufacture and maintain. 




Tante Ju said:


> Yes, British used aftercooler device, but tell me, from where and what does after cooler cools, and how efficiently, compared to water that evaporate inside engine where heat is generated? Aftercooler cools charge in supercharger, not walls of engine.. anyway DB sheet says this data.



The after cooler cools in the intake charge, not the engine, you are quite correct in this. But consider this, intake heat goes right through the engine. By this I mean that if you increase the temperature of the air going into an engine by 100 degrees you will increase the peak temperature inside the cylinder by 100 degrees and the exhaust temperature by 100 degrees. R-R figured (measured) that the evaporation of the fuel in supercharger of the early Merlins lowered in the intake charge temperature by 25 degrees C. This is what some of the MW/50-ADI-water injection does for an engine. At any given pressure, the lower the temperature the denser the gas/air/intake charge. The denser the more power. 
There is a limit for any given fuel on the amount of boost, cylinder compression ratio and intake charge temperature that can be used before detonation sets in. Change one factor and you can/have to change another. Every model of engine responds a bit differently so the limit on one model is not the limit on another. The Germans had no fuel evaporation in the supercharger except on a few select engines. Some of their engines in the 1400-1600hp category could pick up around 100hp by using water injection WITHOUT increasing boost just due to the lower charge temperature as could certain models of the JU 211 engine that used an after cooler on their single stage supercharger (I think the ONLY aircraft engine in WW II to use an aftercooler on a single stage supercharger?) The after cooler on the two stage Merlin allowed for a much lower intake temperature than would other wise be the case for an manifold pressure that high. This not only allowed for a higher boost level to be used but lowered (or traded) the thermal load. More fuel burned means more heat generated but if the air in the cylinder is lower in temperature to begin with the peak temperature in the cylinder may not be that much different. That is the theory anyway. 
The DB engines used a low level of boost for most of the war and didn't need such tricks as after coolers and ADI until they went for the 1.8-1.98 AtA levels of boost. I notice that they didn't try to increase the RPM any more after the DB601E. Back to the " there is no such thing as a free lunch". The Merlin gained a little bit of weight in the block and other parts at time went on. It gained a lot of weight when it went to the two stage supercharger. The DB engine went from 590KG in the 601A-0 model to 745KG in the 605DC model. First 605 model went 720KG. The increased RPM and bore size were not "FREE". They cost over 100kg of engine weight or about 22%. Which is about the same (with in a couple of %) as the weight increase from a Merlin III to a Merlin 61 not including the intercooler radiator and fluid. But then the Merlin 61 could put out a lot more power than an early DB 605 couldn't it? And do it higher up. 



Tante Ju said:


> Why are you returning again and again after shown data? Real data for range is at Micheal Rautsch page for F4. http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22
> 
> 410 km/h at 130 liter/h. Complete tankage 400 liter, 1260 km is possible, but of course its lot less with climbing etc. In cruise, 8.9 mpg is possible.




Ok, Lets look at that data. 

Bf109F-4 at 1000meters

315kph/196mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/26.4imp gal, 101 miles per 100lbs of fuel
425kph/264mph for a fuel burn of 215liters/47.3imp gal, 76 miles per 100lbs of fuel

Spitfire MK V at 2000ft/606 meters
.
327.4kph/203mph for a fuel burn of 140.9liters/31imp gal, 89.8 miles per 100lbs of fuel
377.4kph/234mph for a fuel burn of 159liters/35imp gal, 91.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel
411.3kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 83miles per 100lbs of fuel

Bf109F-4 at 3000meters

370kph/230mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 109.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
465kph/289mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 85.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 10,000ft/3048 meters.

362kph/225mph for a fuel burn of 132liters/29imp gal, 106.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
452kph/281mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 91.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Bf109F-4 at 5000 meters

400kph/248mph for a fuel burn of 145liters/31.9imp gal, 106.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
505kph/314mph for a fuel burn of 250liters/55imp gal,,, 78 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 20,000ft/6096 meters. 

423kph/263mph for a fuel burn of 164liters/36imp gal, 100 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
483kph/300mph for a fuel burn of 209liters/46imp gal, 89.3 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Bf109F-4 at 7000 meters

410kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 121.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
510kph/317mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 94 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Bf109F-4 at 9000 meters

490kph/305mph for a fuel burn of 185liters/40.7imp gal, 102.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
540kph/336mph for a fuel burn of 220liters/48.4imp gal, 95.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 30,000ft/9144 meters.

455kph/283mph for a fuel burn of 186.4liters/41imp gal, 94.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
539kph/335mph for a fuel burn of 214liters/47imp gal, 97.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

You know, I am just not seeing the huge advantage of the 109 here. Sometimes it is better and sometimes it is not. On average I guess it is better but we are talking an advantage in the single digits and low single digits at that most of the time. 

Where is the extra drag of that 1930s airframe? where is the low efficiency of the Rolls-Royce engine? 


Your arguments about the increased armament of the Soviet fighters are hollow. Replacing one 42kg gun and two 25kg guns with three newer 25kg guns may be more effective but it certainly doesn't increase the weight of the installed armament does it? Some LA-7s received three 25kg guns instead of the older two 42KG guns. More effective but the weight of the installed armament posed no penalty to the aircraft did it? Apparently the room was there for three guns, why didn't the Soviets install a third 42kg gun if adding weight of guns doesn't affect performance? 

Entire history of WW II Soviet fighters was a search for more firepower balanced against what weight the planes could carry without loosing too much performance.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 30, 2011)

Tiny questions: when was the 109F-4 1st used in combat, and in what time frame it was produced? Thanks in advance?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2011)

One book says it reached the front lines in June of 1941, about 1840 (?) produced. First "G"s show up in June of 1942. How long it took to replace the "F" of for the "F" to fade from service?????


----------



## Milosh (Sep 30, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Tiny questions: when was the 109F-4 1st used in combat, and in what time frame it was produced? Thanks in advance?


As Shortround said. One of the first losses was WNr7020 piloted by Oblt. Lossnitz of 8./JG52 on July 1 1941 when it truck the ground, killing the pilot.

WNr 6999-7660 5.41-12.41 WNF
WNr 13001-13391 12.41-4.42 WNF
WNr 8267-8399 6.41-8.41 Erla
WNr 8400-8806 8.41-12.41 Erla
WNr 10001-10290 1.42-5.42 Erla

for operations see The Luftwaffe, 1933-45

from the Prien/Rodieke 109 book


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 2, 2011)

Thanks, people


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 14, 2012)

davparir,
I read this thread and saw your post #221. You posted figures for the F4U-4, Fw-190D-9 and Spitfire XIV that show the F4U-4 at a disadvantage to the Fw-190D-9 at lower levels. My sources show this is not so.
An official document in Dietmar Harmann's book show that the 190D-9 performance was 380mph/S.L at W.E.P and Max Climb of 3,641fpm at military power. I think 4,430fpm at W.E.P. is very believable. Spitfire XIV at sea level you listed at 389mph and 5,000fpm. However these figures for the Spitfire were reached at +25 lbs. boost. I have read that it is not known if +25 was used in actual combat during WW2. At +21 the Spitfire reached 366mph at S.L. Climb rate for the Spitfire 14 at +18 was 4,700fpm. I haven't seen any document at this time for +21 boost. Please post if you have one. The military document I have on the F4U-4 give S.L. figures as 383mph and 4,770fpm. Your statement "Very late in the war when the F4U-4 appeared, it was slightly inferior to the Fw-190D-9 at lower altitudes" doesn't seem right. I am not an authority on German fighters so please let me know where your figures came from on the Fw-190D-9. It would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Jeff.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 15, 2012)

The Corsair held an edge in speed to both the Spitfire and 190D-9 up to 24,000ft. It definitely held a brute power advantage (2,760hp.WEP). It had no problem out climbing or climbing with either to that altitude (20,000ft/4,9min.) It could carry more than twice the load of the others. Ruggedness, no contest. All off the deck of a carrier if needed. That about puts it in the same league (at least or better).


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 15, 2012)

here F4U Performance Trials i can see, at best
F4U-4 speed a s.l. wep 328 knt (378 mph) climb s.l wep 4360 fpm
And the F4U-4 is the younger of the group

edit 2760 hp i think it's too high


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 16, 2012)

Vincenzo,
The R-2800-18W was rated at 2,450hp.W.E.P. and the later R-2800-42W was rated at 2,760hp.W.E.P. I haven't found any documents that say when the -42W began to be installed. For the performance figures I quoted, go to the sight you listed above and scroll to the bottom. Click on F4U-4 PERFORMANCE SUMMERY. In the foot notes (on page 3, I think) it gives maximum speeds in CLEAN CONDITION without pylons. If your going to compare two interceptors against the F4U-4 you have to deck the Corsair out in the same mode. Notice the performance figures are with the R-2800-18W engine.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 16, 2012)

R-2800-42W was commonly reported installed from august 1946.
ty for the indications 
strange that the actual test show lowest performances


----------



## NeilStirling (Jan 16, 2012)

F4U-4B Bu No. 97486 onwards, constructed after 16th August 1946 were built with the R-2800-42W as standard. Vought F4U Corsair, page 116, by Martin W Bowman.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks Neil and Vincenzo.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> davparir,
> 
> An official document in Dietmar Harmann's book show that the 190D-9 performance was 380mph/S.L at W.E.P and Max Climb of 3,641fpm at military power. I think 4,430fpm at W.E.P. is very believable.


This is close to the data I have


> Spitfire XIV at sea level you listed at 389mph and 5,000fpm. However these figures for the Spitfire were reached at +25 lbs. boost. I have read that it is not known if +25 was used in actual combat during WW2. At +21 the Spitfire reached 366mph at S.L. Climb rate for the Spitfire 14 at +18 was 4,700fpm. I haven't seen any document at this time for +21 boost. Please post if you have one.



The Spitfireperformance site 
150 Grade Fuel
does state at the bottom,



> 100/150 grade fuel was introduced into Spitfires of 83 and 84 Groups during January 1945: 43


And also implies 25 lb boost was approved for the XIV.




> The military document I have on the F4U-4 give S.L. figures as 383mph


Most Navy tests I have seen has the SL speed at 375 mph but this is well within error.



> and 4,770fpm.



This is where the data gets interesting. “America’s Hundred Thousand”, an excellent book on American fighters, shows SL rate of climb of 3700 ft/min at combat power, this is suspect. One official looking source, which you may be using, shows a ROC of 4800 ft/min. This also looks suspect to me, and is confusing. Several flight test shows the F4U-4, at Mil settings, has a rate of climb of about 3700 ft/min, which would explain the error in AHT. AHT shows max hp of the F4U-4 as 2380, or about 300 hp over Mil. This is similar to the P-47D increase from Mil to WEP. Calculating increase in ROC with 300 hp and comparing a similar increase in P-47 power implies a ROC of the F4U-4 at around 4300 ft/min at SL. This is also compatible with the F4U-4 Specification requirements.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/80765-climb.jpg




> The Corsair held an edge in speed to both the Spitfire and 190D-9 up to 24,000ft. It definitely held a brute power advantage (2,760hp.WEP)



I think you got the hp rating mixed up with the F4U-5. I could not find any reference that shows the hp of the F4U-4 higher than 2380 (AHT)-2450 (Great Book of WW2 Airplanes).

Now, based on the above information, and calculating F4U-4 ROC based on 4300 ft/min at SL, I have the following performances showing airspeed and ROC at altitudes. I threw in the P-51B (with post May ’44 performance, no racks) just for perspective.

SL
F4U-4 375 mph 4300 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 385 mph 4429 ft/m in
Spit XIV 377 mph * 5090 ft/min*
P-51B *386 mph* 4430 ft/min

5k
F4U 394 3700
D-9 *405* 4134
XIV 395 *5000*
P-51 400 4420

10k
F4U 417 3600
D-9 *428* 4134
XIV 414 * 4450*
P-51 420 3900

20k
F4U *451* 3300
D-9 423 2902
XIV 433 *4000*
P-51 442 3200

It is obvious that all four aircraft are comparable at these altitudes, with varying advantages, especially for the XIV in climb (climb data for the XIV specifically from interpretation from Mike Williams site and appear reasonable). However there is a time line issue in that the P-51B and XIV were contemporaries (late ‘43), the D-9 didn’t show up till Fall, ’44, and the F4U-4 didn’t become operational until about VE day, mid ‘45.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The M was slightly faster than the M, but was only made in a handful of numbers and didn't make it into service before the end of the European war.
> Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft



Wuzak - the 56th FG flew M's starting in December (with ignition harness issues) and lost their first P-47M-1 in combat on February 4, 1945.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 16, 2012)

davparl i don't think that 25 lbs boos was available fo Spit XIV, almost not in time for effective use in Europe, 
in this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg the 15th march '45 was delivered Spit XIVE with a interim version on 21 lbs boost


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> davparl i don't think that 25 lbs boos was available fo Spit XIV, almost not in time for effective use in Europe,
> in this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg the 15th march '45 was delivered Spit XIVE with a interim version on 21 lbs boost



I think that most of the data I used was at 21 lbs.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft



The P-47M speed at 39k was about 468 mph.


----------



## joedee (Jan 16, 2012)

I hope this part of the thread is read again, because I read the account you mention in a library book a long time ago. I can not remember the P-38 pilot's name and I hope someone could tell me his name or even the name of the the book I read the account in. The book was about WWII fighters pilots. In the account you describe, the dog fight ended when the (38 ) finally was able to damage Galland's engine. Fate was on Galland's side because he was able to slip into a cloud bank nearby, and if I remember correctly he was able to land or crash land at an air field nearby. You know sometimes it comes down to one nationality claiming their greatest fighter was the best, even never outclassed, etc, but I believe these great designs, especially the later models whether English, American, German, or Russian were close enough in performance that it was ultimately the skill of the pilot in how he started the fight, or how well he was able to use the positive characteristics of his weapon against his enemy. The P-38 in Europe was not a complete success. It was only when Lockheed finally got it right in the (L) model did they really have a weapon as good as anything flying, but it took someone who was really good to get the most out of it, but then that's the way it is with flying any high performance aircraft. When they finally got the right (38 ) in Europe, the USAAF reduced its escort role greatly. Lockheed should have resolved the Aerodynamic and intercooler problems long before they did. In reality, I believe, in defence of Lockheed the Compressibility/maneuvering flaps units that helped prevent the (38 ) compressibility dive problems were lost when a troop ship they were on that was headed for a Mediterranean P-38 group was sunk by a German TV guided rocket launched by an ME-110. This lost in itself cost about another (6) months in getting them retro fitted on existing models. Yes the P-38 was a climbing fool and had very quick accelleration in comparison to the other top US fighters. In addition, nothing could match it in a zoom climb. In it's later version(J &H) it was a match for anything in capable hands- "Ask Galland". To say it was the best of the best- never get that from me. You guys with more know than I can throw mph, roll-rates, fpm, dive speed, turn rates, accell., etc at each other till dooms day and there won't be a definitive winner.
Joedee


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 17, 2012)

davparir,
I read the report on 44-1 fuel that you posted. It said the merlin 66 in the Mk.IX was cleared for +25 and the Mk.XIV was cleared for +21 boost. I saw the general statement."It is understood that the maximum permissible boost pressure in these engines is plus 25-lbs per sq.inch". The statement was saying that of all the engines tested safely, that +25 boost was the maximum permitted in ANY of them. Not ALL of them.
Later Griffon engines were cleared for +25 boost, but not the Griffon 61/65. At least not for combat durring WW2. It was tested extensively in hopes of catching V-1s though.
I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm. That was a prototype for the Mk.XIV. I believe the maximum climb rate of the Spit 14 at +21 is somewhere in the middle of 4,700-5,100fpm. Like I said, I have not seen figures or graph showing the climb rate of the Mk.14 at +21 boost. I would love to though.
I'm agreeing with Vincenzo on this one.
Oh, and one last thing The F4U-4's figures in clean (no pylons) are: 383mph/SL AND 4,770fpm/SL. (actually the climb rate is with the double clip wing pylons). Apples to apples and interceptor to interceptor.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 17, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> davparir,
> 
> I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm.



The Mk VIII used a Merlin engine.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 17, 2012)

Milosh,
That's correct except for the one used for the Mk.14 prototype. They had to take a Spitfire frame from somewhere for the tests.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 17, 2012)

davparlr said:


> F4U-4 375 4150 446at26k 440 2800
> Fw-190D-9 385 4430 431at16k 418 2165
> Spitfire XIV 389 5000 447at26k 446 3100



IIRC the top speed of the Fw 190D-9 was about 438 mph with MW50 at about 16k.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 18, 2012)

spicmart said:


> IIRC the top speed of the Fw 190D-9 was about 438 mph with MW50 at about 16k.



Yes, much of the data about the FW 190D-9 is testing data from FW done for aerodynamic purposes and not to ascertain top speed.
The Basic Jumo 213A was a bomber engine and ran at 1750hp on 87 octane B4 fuel. Three power raising boost systems were introduced within a few weeks of intial service entry.
1 A rich mixture system that injected fuel into the eye of the supercharger, this achieved 1900hp.
2 The Oldenberg system of MW50 water methanol injection, installed by Luftwaffe technicians. Supercharger pressure was used to pressurise the MW50 tank and blow the mixture into the inlet.
3 A more developed high flow MW50 system that pumped the mixture in, this required control system modificatcations by junkers technicians, this was the 438mph version.
4 There was also a version which combined the above with C3 (96/130) octane fuel may have seen servive on eastern front.

It should be noted that the speed of 438mph is respectable given the low altitude it was achieved at and the 87 octane fuel.

The Jumo 213A used on the Fw 190D-9 engine was a bomber engine left over from cancelled Ju 188 production. It had a single stage two speed supercharger. A proper fighter engine would have been the Jumo 213C which incorporated all of the power boostiing systems and produced 2000hp on C3 alone. It also had the mountings for an engine canon and the required propeller. Jumo 213A was interim solution. The 213C probably fell foul of high octane fuel issues.

The Fw 190D-13 had a Jumo 213F or (potentially EB engine) with a two stage 3 speed supercharger of around 2240 or 2300+ power. It also had hydraulic boosted ailerons. Speed was 458mph. A few got into service and Goetz's Yellow 12 survives in the NASM.

Of course the FW 190D series itself were also interim to the more modified long span high altitude Ta 152H and Ta 152C (which had shorter wings for more agillity)

Some versions of the D-13 were to get wing tanks for considerably greater range, where the outer 20mm guns were.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 18, 2012)

Thanks for the info, Siegfried!


----------



## jim (Jan 18, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Yes, much of the data about the FW 190D-9 is testing data from FW done for aerodynamic purposes and not to ascertain top speed.
> The Basic Jumo 213A was a bomber engine and ran at 1750hp on 87 octane B4 fuel. Three power raising boost systems were introduced within a few weeks of intial service entry.
> 1 A rich mixture system that injected fuel into the eye of the supercharger, this achieved 1900hp.
> 2 The Oldenberg system of MW50 water methanol injection, installed by Luftwaffe technicians. Supercharger pressure was used to pressurise the MW50 tank and blow the mixture into the inlet.
> ...


 
Mr Siegfried
Could you answer me a few questions? You have great knowledge
a) The version that combined the high pressure Mw50 with C3 fuel was the mythical 2240 hp rating? It is the first time after years that i read somewhere that this version saw service. But it is true that i have read reports of Dora pilots on the eastern front that praised the aircraft ( the same aircrft that soviets test pilots considered ,post war, inferior)
b)In Hermann s book Ta 152, page 133, there is a mention about future use of MW100. Do you have any idea what was that?
c) In most books i see 1750/2050 hp with Mw 50 for the 213F. You confirm 2240hp? Interestingly,after 8/5/45 , a D13 fought well in mock compat,at low level with Tempest which produced ,according to our anglosaxons friends, 3000+++ hp at 13 lb boost
d) In Hermann book i read about integral engine cowling planned for the Ta 152 that would boost speed. Uhfortunately the book is not written with precision .Do you know what this modification was? Could this apply to D9 as well?
e) Was ever consider to use DB 603 A supercharger on jumo 213 A ? Would be possible? 213 s supercharger appears that was not only giving mediocre medium-high altitude performance but was relatively unreliable as well
f) D13 was using a radiator type of lower drug ?(drum type?)
g) While the aircraft had great potential , from the varius books i read, i have the impression that only a minority of the service aircrafts fully achieved the performance goals due to varius difficulties. Do you agree ?
h) Do you believe that would be possible for Lw to face fighters like P51H, Spit 24 , F4U-5 using B4 fuel?
Thank you in advance


----------



## Denniss (Jan 18, 2012)

The Jumo 213C was just a 213A with the ability to install a Motorkanone. Changes from the 213A is some secondary equipment moved to different places to free-up space for the gun barrel.
Getting 2240PS was only possible with a different supercharger setup optimized for low altitude operations.
MW-100 wouldn't make much sense as it would be pure Methanol. AFAIR they experimented with MW-30 and EW-30 systems, using just 30% Methanol or Ethanol.
The 213E/F couldn't deliver that much power with MW-50 as the supercharger consumed more engine power and the gear setup might have been a litle different as well.
I don't think it was possible to use a DB supercharger on a Jumo engie - too different setups and space requirements.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 18, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> davparir,
> I read the report on 44-1 fuel that you posted. It said the merlin 66 in the Mk.IX was cleared for +25 and the Mk.XIV was cleared for +21 boost. I saw the general statement."It is understood that the maximum permissible boost pressure in these engines is plus 25-lbs per sq.inch". The statement was saying that of all the engines tested safely, that +25 boost was the maximum permitted in ANY of them. Not ALL of them.
> Later Griffon engines were cleared for +25 boost, but not the Griffon 61/65. At least not for combat durring WW2. It was tested extensively in hopes of catching V-1s though.
> I know that the Mk.VIII with the Griffon installed was capable of around 5,100fpm. That was a prototype for the Mk.XIV. I believe the maximum climb rate of the Spit 14 at +21 is somewhere in the middle of 4,700-5,100fpm. Like I said, I have not seen figures or graph showing the climb rate of the Mk.14 at +21 boost. I would love to though.
> I'm agreeing with Vincenzo on this one.


 
I believe the data I posted was at 21lbs.



> Oh, and one last thing The F4U-4's figures in clean (no pylons) are: 383mph/SL



I can agree with this. I do not know the configuration of the Spit or D-9 relative to racks.



> AND 4,770fpm/SL.


I have wrestled with the inconsistency of the F4U-4 climb data for many years and I am still not satisfied with an answer. Flight test on the F4U run by the Navy in August ’45 and March ’48 on tail number identified aircraft clearly indicates that the rate of climb of the F4U at 2100 to 2250 hp is around 3700 to 3750 ft/min. The F4U-4 hp from WEP to Mil varies from 2380 to 2450 for WEP to 2250 to 2100 for Mil, a delta of between 130 to 350 hp. The P-47D, with an increase of hp from 2200 to 2600, a delta of 400 hp gives an increase in climb of 500 ft/min. Now the F4U is a noted better climber than the P-47 so it should do better. The F6F, a better climber than the F4U, shows an increase of 280 hp generates about 400 ft/min. The F4U-1 (W) was tested at 3400 ft/min ROC at 2095 hp and a 3700 ft/min at 2250 hp. That’s 300 ft/min for 165 hp increase. Doubling the horsepower gain to 330 hp, the ROC would increase to only 600 ft/min ROC. The F4U-4 itself is tested at an 800 ft/min increase at a 400 hp increase. So, comparing the data with all other F4U testing, a reasonable rate for the F4U-4 at SL would be more accurately put at around 4400 ft/min. It is unreasonable that a max of 350 hp is going to increase the climb of the F4U-4 by 1000 ft/min, maybe with a 1% air vehicle and engine. 



> (actually the climb rate is with the double clip wing pylons).


Pylons (wing racks) have little impact on climb other than some added weight.



> Apple s to apples and interceptor to interceptor.


I’ll correct my data so all your apples line up.

SL
F4U-4 (no racks) 383 mph 4450 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 385 mph 4429 ft/m in
Spit XIV 377 mph *5090 ft/min*
P-51B (no racks) *386 mph* 4430 ft/min

5k
F4U 402 3200
D-9 *405 *4134
XIV 395 *5000*
P-51 400 4420

10k
F4U 425 4200
D-9 *428* 4134
XIV 414 *4450*
P-51 420 3900

20k
F4U *457* 3500
D-9 423 2902
XIV 433 *4000*
P-51 442 3200

The fuel weight of the tested F4U tended to be more (heavier) than the other aircraft, however, it also tended to consume more, so it would probably use more fuel than the other aircraft for a given mission.

All of these aircraft performance levels fall pretty close to the testing/manufacturing variables and thus are roughly equal for this envelope. Pilot proficiency and engagement situation would far outweigh any performance differences.

It is interesting to note that the P-51B/D was operationally capable of performing at these levels in May, 1944, one full year before the F4U-4 was operational. While the F4U-4, the Spitfire XIV, operational at these levels in the spring of ’45, and the Fw-190D-9, operational in the fall of ’44, are powerful, capable fighters, the P-51B/D with its upgraded fuel was still pretty even in performance with these great fighters later in the war.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2012)

davparir,
I totally agree with your summation. I also agree with joedee's ending sentence. There is no definitive winner. Except possibly in categories: Low altitude interceptor, Long range escort, High altitude air superiority, Ground attack...etc. And even then it all boils down to "WHAT DO YOU NEED THE A/C TO DO?". All the late war first line fighters had their pros and cons. Any one of them was lethal in the right hands or situations. We kick around numbers to try to get a little better clarification on what each A/C's limits really were, but they were actually whatever the pilot was willing to take them to.

For the record. The following figures for the F4U-4 were taken directly from the USN report of 1947. Except speeds other than sea level, 25,000ft and over. Other altitudes are calculated on the basis that the pylons added between 8-12 mph. drag. Height (ft.)/Speed (mph.)/Climb (fpm): Combat weight of 12,480 lbs.

.......0....383/4,770
.3,280....397/4,780
.5,000....404/4,790
.6,560....411/4,800
.9,840....424/4,910
10,000....428/4,825
13,120....439/4,290
15,000....447/4,300
16,400....445/4,340
19,680....458/3,880
20,000....463/3,800
22,960....463/3,300
25,000....449/2,900
30,000....441/2,090
35,000....426/1,200

Figures for the Spitfire and Focke-Wulf I'll leave to those who have researched them more than I.
Ahaaaaa...Just one more thing. Hey Soundbreaker (cool handle) the answer to your original question is YES.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2012)

davparir,
Where did the Spitfire and 190 figures come from? Can you post a graph with info? I would love to see them.
Great stuff buddy. Thanks, Jeff.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2012)

davparlr said:


> SL
> 
> P-51B (no racks) *386 mph* 4430 ft/min
> 
> ...



i'm not sure that P-51 was operationally at these levels from may, but a month or two more is not a large difference
the trouble is you use 75" boost but 8th AF used 72" boost, in other 5k climb it's for lightweight 51


----------



## davparlr (Jan 20, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> davparir,
> Where did the Spitfire and 190 figures come from? Can you post a graph with info? I would love to see them.
> Great stuff buddy. Thanks, Jeff.


 
In general, I have very poor references to British aircraft. The data I used was from a graph on Spitfireperformance on Spit XIV based on estimated 21# performance. It’s the best I have.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

As for the Fw-190D-2, I have a Fw chart showing all the speeds of various Fw products including Fw-190A-9, Fw-190D-9, Fw-190D-12, Ta-152H, and more. Unfortunately, it was provided to me on a private message and I don’t feel free to share. However, spitfireperformance site chart showing comparisons of various D-9 sources, shows very similar performance using the D-9 line showing the best performance.

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


Climb data came from the attached chart.

CORSNING, could you provide me with the data source for the performance you have quoted. I am missing this important data point. It will not solve my conundrum on the variances of the F4U-4 testing but it certainly will weigh it. Thanks.



Vincenzo said:


> i'm not sure that P-51 was operationally at these levels from may, but a month or two more is not a large difference



You are correct on the date of implementation. I only identified the time when 75” was approved by the AAF.



> the trouble is you use 75" boost but 8th AF used 72" boost,


But 75” was approved by AAF, and that did not mean that it was not available or that it was not used.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg
The fact that these pilot noted this performance in there encounter reports indicate three things to me, one, they were aware 75” was available, two, they used it when they needed it, and, finally, and importantly, they were not concerned about stating that they exceeded any doctrine direction to their commanders. They used what they needed. You can bet every pilot had this tucked away in his mind.


> in other 5k climb it's for lightweight 51


I am not sure where I came up with the value for 5k. However, on looking at the climb test for the 44-1 fuel in detail, this shows actuals where test points are actually noted by *.
SL 4310 ft/min
.9k * 4390
2.9k * 4300
5k * 4180 .
10k 3800
19.8k * 3210
Also noted however, was tested weight, which was 9680 lbs including full internal fuel. “America’s Hundred Thousand” which goes into detail of the weight of aircraft, identifies a fighter weight for the various aircraft. In the case of the P-51B, it calls out fuel weight as full internal fuel not including the extended range fuselage tank, which makes sense in that the aircraft is unstable with fuel fuselage tank fuel and this tank is depleted first. Using the AHT criteria of using the 180 gallons of the wing tanks, the fighter weight for the P-51B is 9024 lbs, or 656 lbs less than tested weight. Using North American chart for the P-51D, 400 lbs of weight loss equates to about 200 ft/min rate of climb increase at SL, about 100 ft/min at 20k. In this case the numbers would be 300 ft/min ROC increase at SL and 150 ft/min at 20k. So, this would make the P-51B, at fighter weight, climb data the following, estimated.
SL 4610 ft/min
.9k 4690
2.9k 4600
5k 4400
10k 4000
20k 3410 

This is, of course, using the 75" of boost.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-46-130-chart.jpg


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 21, 2012)

davparir,
Thanks for the info.

The figures I used for the F4U-4 came from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com. I have seen it posted on other Corsair sights also. It can be viewed at that sight or you can go back to Vincenzo's post #250 on this thread and just click on F4U-4 Performance Summery. Speeds given in the foot note on page 3 titled CLEAN CONDITION show 383/S.L. and 463.76 mph/20,600 ft. This shows that pylons slowed the plane 8-12 mph. Speeds and climb can be taken off the graphs on page 4. Page 2 shows F4U-4 loading condition (2) that was used for the graphs. 

I checked on Mike Williams sight concerning 100/150 fuel. In a letter marked HEADQUARTERS EIGHTH AIR FORCE Technical Operations QPO 634 dated 4 April 1945 it states: " b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June (1944). As of that date operationhs with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945." 
This is backed up by a Recommendation in a flight test report on the P-51B-15 No.43-24777 dated 20 May 1944 that states: " A. It is recommended that the war emergency rating of the V-1650-7 engine as installed on the P-51B airplane and using 44-1 fuel be increased to 75 in.Hg. manifold pressure and 3,000 RPM."

On QPO 634 it shows that the 100/150 was also used in P-38s and P-47 and gives a summery of results. It appears that a "Pep" 100/150 plus fuel was used for a while but that must not have worked because they switched back to the standard 100/150 in 1 April 1945.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2012)

for the 5k climb
there is a chart for a 8460 lbs P-51B-5 that show 4520 fpm,
ones for a 9680 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
ones for a 9335 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
ones for a 9260 lbs Mustang III tah show a bit less of 4000 fpm (+25" boost)

on encounter reports maybe, it's also possible that a few pilots giving all boost thinked to give 75" but they were 72" alone. just for readers is same site that report the limit to 72" for the 8th AF


----------



## davparlr (Jan 23, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> davparir,
> Thanks for the info.
> 
> The figures I used for the F4U-4 came from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com. I have seen it posted on other Corsair sights also. It can be viewed at that sight or you can go back to Vincenzo's post #250 on this thread and just click on F4U-4 Performance Summery. Speeds given in the foot note on page 3 titled CLEAN CONDITION show 383/S.L. and 463.76 mph/20,600 ft. This shows that pylons slowed the plane 8-12 mph. Speeds and climb can be taken off the graphs on page 4. Page 2 shows F4U-4 loading condition (2) that was used for the graphs.


 
Alas, I was aware of this data bit and it was indeed the source of my confusion, that and the data provided by “America’s Hundred Thousand” which was completely opposite with a low figure.


Vincenzo said:


> for the 5k climb
> there is a chart for a 8460 lbs P-51B-5 that show 4520 fpm,
> ones for a 9680 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm
> ones for a 9335 lbs B-15 that show 4000 fpm


And this represents a problem with comparing old performance tests. In the first one, the North American data has several unexplained apparent errors. The first one is the claim that the P-51B normal gross weight is 8460 lbs. This obviously is in error. The empty weight of the P-51B is 6988 lbs. Gun installation, pyrotechnics, and trapped fuel and oil raise the basic weight to 7325 lb. That would leave 1135 lbs for the pilot (200lbs), oil (94 lbs), and ammo (325lbs), which leave 516 lbs for fuel, or 86 gallons, which is slightly less than one wing tank (the P-51 has two). Gross weight as stated by Wagner in “American Combat Planes” is 9800 lbs (P-51C). I calculated the plane full up with 180 gallons (full wing tanks) as 9024 lbs. In no way is 8460 lbs normal gross weight. This looks like a 1000 lb error in the weight statement. A second problem is that it does not match the AAF test in the variation of the climb rate of 67” as compared to 75”. This chart shows SL difference of 300 ft/min increase. The AAF test shows a 560 ft/min, almost twice as much. I think there is a problem with the NA charts, which does not identify a tail number.

Now, another interesting issue is with the last two test above, done by the AAF. The first one shows a gross weight of 9680 lbs performed on 10 May, 1944, on aircraft 43-24777, and the second one shows a weight of 9335 lbs performed on 15 May, 1944, on aircraft 43-24777, tests on the same aircraft five days apart and about 345 lb different weight. This is okay except when examining the actual data points and the linear interpretation of the data. They are identical! Only some of the writing and typing is different. With that weight difference there should have been an almost 200 ft/min ROC difference at SL. If the first test is correct, the second one is not.



> ones for a 9260 lbs Mustang III tah show a bit less of 4000 fpm (+25" boost)


This Mustang III had a Merlin 100 engine and not the V-1650-7. I do not know the difference but I don’t think you can compare the performance differences.



> on encounter reports maybe, it's also possible that a few pilots giving all boost thinked to give 75" but they were 72" alone. just for readers is same site that report the limit to 72" for the 8th AF


We know the AAF approved the 75”. We have discussed the 8th AF requirements, 72”, which were apparently taken with a wink. What about the 5th AF, 9th, the 11th AF, the 12th AF, the 14th AF, the 15th AF, 20th AF, and the FEAF? All had P-51s and apparently had the option of how much boost they would allow up to 75”.

In reality, every individual test has it variables and these can show up as some interesting data. We have a lot of data on the P-51 and most American aircraft and this indeed shows up. German data is often quite limited and we may not have more than one source for a specific aircraft. In that case we often use it a gospel and in reality, it is only one data point.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 23, 2012)

duplicate post


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2012)

The lightweight in test was reported also in the first test available, a B-1 at 8430 lbs, so i'ts possible that this "normal" was with no full fuel in wing tanks or we have 2 similar errors in 2 different test.. sure it's also possible a error in the NA charts
Actually graphs for the two test on B-15 appear the same, and a full read of report it's same test, the right data are i think that for 9335 lbs where is available the full report.
Full agree on Mustang III with the Merlin 100, i've just not read the engine name

i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.

The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2012)

Vincenzo - the 100/150 grade fuel arrived in May 1944 and by mid June was at every 8th AF fighter base in the UK. It is documented in the 4th and 355th FG Histories on Microfilm at USAFHRC as well as Mike Williams' site.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2012)

drgondog you have not understand, sorry


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.
> 
> The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability



Vincenzo - I responded to "none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and have no data this was available out ETO'.. did you mean 'outside' ETO?

Also not sure what you meant by FEAF never operated with Mustang? Tex Hill had victory credits ober Oscar and Damaged on a Tojo in 1943 while flying P-51A and over Hamps in P-51B in 1944 while flying with 23rd FG. The 23rd FG had P-51A's then P-51B's from late 1943 through the EOW.

The First Air Commando group flew P-51A, P-47 and P-51D from 1942 to end of war... CBI also.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 23, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Actually graphs for the two test on B-15 appear the same, and a full read of report it's same test, the right data are i think that for 9335 lbs where is available the full report.



We don’t know which one is correct on weight; however I tend to agree with you. If the tested weight was 9335 lbs, the climb values for the P-51B at a fighter weight of 9077 lbs (full wing tanks and ammo), would be the following:
SL 4460 ft/min
.9k 4530
2.9k 4450
5k 4230
10k 3375
Still very impressive for an aircraft that was operational in the Fall of ’43 with only a fuel type change.




> i'm sure that you known that 8th AF was the larger user of P-51 (Merlin), and also that FEAF never operated with Mustang (was disactived in feb '42), neither 11th AF used this in the WWII, and at moment we have none evidence that the others AF used 75" boost, also because the 72" and 75" boost need 100/150 grade fuel and we have no data when this was available out ETO.


Even in the 8th, I am sure 72" was a maintenance issue and not a performance one. I would be surprised if all the pilots did not know this and I am sure that the use of 75" was not necessarily frowned upon if it was done for a good reason, like chasing an enemy aircraft.



> The variability ot single fighter or of the single test need to take in the count so also few hundreds fpm on 4000 maybe simply variability



But then one needs the variable data, which is typically calculated from several trials or test, otherwise it is just a guess.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2012)

Hello Vincenzo
my understanding is that those Mustangs that operated against Japan from Iwo used 100/150oct fuel and high manifold pressure.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2012)

x Juha so we known that from april '45 the Mustang of 20th AF used 100/150 grade fuel, high 75 or 72?

x Davparl the weight of B-15 combat was 9210 lbs, the report tell that tested was 125 lbs over weight

x Drgondog, yes, simply because FEAF (Far east air force) was not active at time, and 23rd FG was a 14th AF group, similary also the 1st ACG was not a FEAF grop. if you interpreted FEAF as Far east air forces this included 5th AF, 13th AF and others that fightning in late war in SWP area, and yes the FEAFs used P-51, but units in your example were not in FEAFs


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> x x Drgondog, yes, simply because FEAF (Far east air force) was not active at time, and 23rd FG was a 14th AF group, similary also the 1st ACG was not a FEAF grop. if you interpreted FEAF as Far east air forces this included 5th AF, 13th AF and others that fightning in late war in SWP area, and yes the FEAFs used P-51, but units in your example were not in FEAFs



Actually the Far East Air Force was the pre-war designation for the US Army Air Corps organization in the Phillipines - which was disbanded in Feb-March 1942. Although the pilots and crews were absorbed into the 5th AF it was not FEAF, or 14th, etc, etc. Why was FEAF even a reference for you when it was disbanded just as the RAF Mustangs flew their first combat missions in ETO. So, yes as FEAF was disbanded in April 1942, I interpreted your connection of P-51s to USAAF units in the Far East (PTO/CBI/SWP, etc) versus Aleutians, ETO, MTO, etc.

I guess i should ask you to clearly define what you mean before entering into a discussion


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Actually the Far East Air Force was the pre-war designation for the US Army Air Corps organization in the Phillipines - which was disbanded in Feb-March 1942. Although the pilots and crews were absorbed into the 5th AF it was not FEAF, or 14th, etc, etc. Why was FEAF even a reference for you when it was disbanded just as the RAF Mustangs flew their first combat missions in ETO. So, yes as FEAF was disbanded in April 1942, I interpreted your connection of P-51s to USAAF units in the Far East (PTO/CBI/SWP, etc) versus Aleutians, ETO, MTO, etc.
> 
> I guess i should ask you to clearly define what you mean before entering into a discussion



As i writed FEAF, Far east air force was not active when the P-51 coming (and here we are talking of P-51 with merlin). I was replying to Davparl that have writed of P-51 in FEAF. As i writed the 5th and 13th were assigned in mid '44 to Far east air forces FEAF(s), not the 14th or the 10th, the AFs in CBI were not under FEAF(s) comand.
I'm happy to give all definition, i known that my english is very bad, i'm also happy if people reading my post not separate from the earlier


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Still very impressive for an aircraft that was operational in the Fall of ’43 with only a fuel type change..



I think they are not so different from also oldest plane, i think to spit IX


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 24, 2012)

The question I raise from this thread is, all these paper stats are neat, but what about the way the aircraft responds to the pilot. The intangible aspect of flying a fighter. It seems that most any pilot, that was an ace in a particular craft believes he can take on any other pilot / airplane. And even more so with the Mustang and Spitfire, which arguably seems to have perhaps the greatest love of those who flew them in combat. I think the Corsair is similar or close, but not to the extent of either of those two. I have read a few autobiographies of pilots of the the Focke Wulf, and believe it was well liked by most pilots, but not sure if to the same degree as a Mustang or Spitfire pilot.

So I guess what I am asking, all the performance data included together, along with the confidence the aircraft naturally gives to a pilot because it responds to his commands, would the average Corsair pilot feel confident he could take on all opponents in his F4U?


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2012)

The Corsair would always be a demanding airplane as far as landing and taking off. The P51 was also. From pilots I have talked to and have read about the Corsair was a joy in the air with few vices. It was noted for having great control harmony about all three axes and was a very steady diving airplane. A good gunnery platform. One pilot I read about who flew both Mustang and Corsair said that at high speeds the Mustang flew like it was on rails whereas the Corsair had the agility of a big cat.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> I think they are not so different from also oldest plane, i think to spit IX



I can't agree. Most of the sources I examined indicate that the Spit IX had competitive to great climb, but airspeed was quite low for this group, even with 25 lb boost.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> So I guess what I am asking, all the performance data included together, along with the confidence the aircraft naturally gives to a pilot because it responds to his commands, would the average Corsair pilot feel confident he could take on all opponents in his F4U?



General consensus of the fighter conference was that the F4U was very nice to fly. Most powerful fighters require pilots to know what they are doing and tend not to be particularly forgiving.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 25, 2012)

davparlr said:


> General consensus of the fighter conference was that the F4U was very nice to fly. Most powerful fighters require pilots to know what they are doing and tend not to be particularly forgiving.



I am aware of that. It seems most everything I have ever read of Air Corps pilots getting a chance in a Corsair , they came away with glowing reviews. Man I wish the Corsair was used in Europe more than it was, so we had a real world evaluation against the Fw 190 and Me 109. I would say there were more Mustang and Spitfire pilots, and more written about them than the Corsair, so it doesn't get its due respect sometimes as a premier fighter.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 25, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> I am aware of that. It seems most everything I have ever read of Air Corps pilots getting a chance in a Corsair , they came away with glowing reviews. Man I wish the Corsair was used in Europe more than it was, so we had a real world evaluation against the Fw 190 and Me 109. I would say there were more Mustang and Spitfire pilots, and more written about them than the Corsair, so it doesn't get its due respect sometimes as a premier fighter.



I think the Corsair is generally recognized as one of the great WWII fighters and is highly respected. You are right, there just tends to be more people familiar with the Spit and Mustangs.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Jan 29, 2012)

Also don't forget that the P-38 got the power assisted airlons and the compressability flap for the J-25 batch. This helped the pilot manuver much easier than the earlier models. Some pilots complained that it lost it's feel but the improvement out weighed the feel issue. I've read that the P-38 could manuver with thw best fighters after this and outmanuver them under the right conditions.


----------

