- Thread starter
- #21
A-1 Skyraider vs A-26
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fubar57
General
That's it, I'm outta here. I used to come to the tech section to be informed and now I spend most of the time scrolling. You guys keep him up here
GregP
Major
Hey Shortround,
Maybe they need to fit it with a multi-stage supercharger? Ya' think?
Of course, you didn't need one for ground attack ... but that's another story, and you never know when some poor old WW2 bomber is sneaking it at 30,000 feet to bomb the carrier, and only a Skyraider can go get it because all the jets are down for overhaul ...
Maybe they need to fit it with a multi-stage supercharger? Ya' think?
Of course, you didn't need one for ground attack ... but that's another story, and you never know when some poor old WW2 bomber is sneaking it at 30,000 feet to bomb the carrier, and only a Skyraider can go get it because all the jets are down for overhaul ...
wuzak
Captain
No, not that close in reality.
At 12,000ft the Spitfire could turn with 20% less radius, 7% more speed, 26% greater G load and complete the turn in 25% less time.
Spitfire I vs Bf 109E as tested by the RAE.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Hi guys,
Been a while since I've been around, but recently, been checking things out again and that's when I ran across this thread.
Not saying I have all, if any, of the answers, but the topic of turn radius ability brought up a very distinct memory in my mind.
Sometime, either during or just after, the war, the Russians did some tests on front line fighters (possibly as R&D for their own fighters).
I recall one being, simply, how fast could a certain plane could maneuver through a 180 degree turn at 2000 metres.
I think there were some British officers on hand for those tests, too.
...ring any bells out there?
Not sure where the thread is that I saw that, or the website it linked to (it was about 10 years ago that I read that), but I remember the 109 was one of the slower planes to tackle that maneuver, taking about 25-27 seconds.
Top fighters of the time, like the P-51 and the Spitfire, were around 19-23 seconds, if I recall correctly.
The P-40 was actually up in the high teens. Something like 17-19 seconds.
The one stat that surprised everyone was the lowly Brewster Buffalo had the fastest time! (or one of the fastest).
Granted, this was the much lighter first gen version we ended up selling to the Finns (aka B-239).
I think the time was about 7 seconds.
Seems there were other fighters that were close, but I don't recall any that were faster (I could be wrong, it was a long time ago).
Anyway, not sure if they tested any twin engine aircraft, but I didn't notice anyone in this thread bring that up, either.
Just thought it might be worth checking out.
Evis
Been a while since I've been around, but recently, been checking things out again and that's when I ran across this thread.
Not saying I have all, if any, of the answers, but the topic of turn radius ability brought up a very distinct memory in my mind.
Sometime, either during or just after, the war, the Russians did some tests on front line fighters (possibly as R&D for their own fighters).
I recall one being, simply, how fast could a certain plane could maneuver through a 180 degree turn at 2000 metres.
I think there were some British officers on hand for those tests, too.
...ring any bells out there?
Not sure where the thread is that I saw that, or the website it linked to (it was about 10 years ago that I read that), but I remember the 109 was one of the slower planes to tackle that maneuver, taking about 25-27 seconds.
Top fighters of the time, like the P-51 and the Spitfire, were around 19-23 seconds, if I recall correctly.
The P-40 was actually up in the high teens. Something like 17-19 seconds.
The one stat that surprised everyone was the lowly Brewster Buffalo had the fastest time! (or one of the fastest).
Granted, this was the much lighter first gen version we ended up selling to the Finns (aka B-239).
I think the time was about 7 seconds.
Seems there were other fighters that were close, but I don't recall any that were faster (I could be wrong, it was a long time ago).
Anyway, not sure if they tested any twin engine aircraft, but I didn't notice anyone in this thread bring that up, either.
Just thought it might be worth checking out.
Evis
Shortround6
Major General
Without either speed or radius of the turn this doesn't tell us much of anything.
A Cessna 172 may be able to do a 180 degree turn in about 12 seconds at 140mph while pulling 2 "G"s which is hardly fighter performance.
The other question is IF the exit speed of the aircraft matched the entry speed of the turn and if NO height was lost in the turn.
A Cessna 172 may be able to do a 180 degree turn in about 12 seconds at 140mph while pulling 2 "G"s which is hardly fighter performance.
The other question is IF the exit speed of the aircraft matched the entry speed of the turn and if NO height was lost in the turn.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Now that you mention it, I do believe there was some kind of "standard speed" they all had to maintain through the turn, because I also remember the reason for the different times was a reflection of how tight they could make that turn.
Obviously, I'm leaving a lot out, but as I stated before, it was a long time ago.
I just did a quick google check and came up with nothing, so chances are, the webpage no longer exists.
Elvis
Obviously, I'm leaving a lot out, but as I stated before, it was a long time ago.
I just did a quick google check and came up with nothing, so chances are, the webpage no longer exists.
Elvis
GregP
Major
The aircraft minimum turn radius depends only on the square of the velocity divided by 1 over (g * tan [bank angle]). Naturally, the square of the velocity dominates. If they had to maintain a standard speed, then it is almost impossible for the Buffalo to have done the turn in 7 seconds when a Bf 109 took 25 - 27 seconds.
There is no way a Bf 109 could only turn 7.2° per second while a Buffalo moving at the same speed could make 25.7° per second! The power to weight ratio of the Bf 109 was one of the better ones on the Altantic side of the war. It certainly could climb away from most of the opposition.
25.7° per second may not be possible in a WWII fighter. I might believe a turn time of some 12 - 15 seconds is possible, but the Bf 109 was a strong, capable airplane, and was a considerably better fighter than any Buffalo! I hope someone manages to find that study because I suspect you may disremember a time or two in there, Elvis.
I certainly have made a couple of memory errors in here, and it's not intended as an insult or anything like that. It's more of a "I'd love to see that study" type of thing, and make sure it wasn't released during Kruschev's time as Premier Minister in the 1960s. That was a large portion of history was re-written to suit the Party ... and they may have just been afraid of the Finns flying Buffalos, and needed an excuse to avoid being an unfortunate part of a purge.
Cheers.
There is no way a Bf 109 could only turn 7.2° per second while a Buffalo moving at the same speed could make 25.7° per second! The power to weight ratio of the Bf 109 was one of the better ones on the Altantic side of the war. It certainly could climb away from most of the opposition.
25.7° per second may not be possible in a WWII fighter. I might believe a turn time of some 12 - 15 seconds is possible, but the Bf 109 was a strong, capable airplane, and was a considerably better fighter than any Buffalo! I hope someone manages to find that study because I suspect you may disremember a time or two in there, Elvis.
I certainly have made a couple of memory errors in here, and it's not intended as an insult or anything like that. It's more of a "I'd love to see that study" type of thing, and make sure it wasn't released during Kruschev's time as Premier Minister in the 1960s. That was a large portion of history was re-written to suit the Party ... and they may have just been afraid of the Finns flying Buffalos, and needed an excuse to avoid being an unfortunate part of a purge.
Cheers.
- Thread starter
- #30
It wouldn't add any performance at low altitude far as I know, but the plane was both a heavy-attack and light-bomber in one, so it would be useful with the level-bombing variants I guess. A lot of design changes would have had to been made.GregP said:
I didn't realize it was still that different even at lower-speeds. All I knew was that the turn-rates were closer at lower speeds than at higher ones.
Actually yeah
wuzak
Captain
The report also notes that the less experienced RAF service pilots were not making the most of the Spitfire's abilities, and the RAE test pilots could often out-turn them with their captured Bf 109E.
This would, no doubt, account for the theory that the Bf 109E could turn with or out-turn the Spitfire. When, in fact, it was the skill and courage of the experten Bf 109 pilots against the relative novices of the RAF during the BoB.
But with the RAE pilots in the Spitfire (and the Hurricane also tested) they found the turning margin to be quite wide. The difference is that the RAE pilots were more comfortable flying the Spitfire much closer to the stall.
What it says more
What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a a wingtip almost in the treetops.
Never mind the A-26 and the BF-109, the fight to watch would be A-1 vs A-10!
GregP
Major
I've never seen a real turn comparison between equivalent Spitfire and Bf 109 models. All I have seen is people fropm both sides making claims. If would be good to see a test from both the German and the British side of equivalent aircraft versions!
I'm not making a statement either way, I'm saying I don't really know, and especially don't know what would happen at lower speeds or higher angles of attack when the Bf 109 slats come open. There have been some extraordinary claims made in here about the slats, but they only amount to about 24% of the wing's span, and basically cover the ailerons, so they do NOT affect most of the airfoil. Instead they serve to keep the ailerons effective while adding a small amount of lift.
Still the Bf 109 is one of history's greats, yet gets maligned and even ignored regularly. A definitive test from both sides would be very welcome. Until then, I'd say they swapped the title of "best fighter in the ETO" back and forth throughout the war, at least as far as British and German planes go. I'm thinking of pure fighter-interceptor roles, not of escoprt or fighter-bombers. Naturally, the mission would determine the better choice, but, in general, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 were always good ones with respect to one another.
No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!
Cheers.
I'm not making a statement either way, I'm saying I don't really know, and especially don't know what would happen at lower speeds or higher angles of attack when the Bf 109 slats come open. There have been some extraordinary claims made in here about the slats, but they only amount to about 24% of the wing's span, and basically cover the ailerons, so they do NOT affect most of the airfoil. Instead they serve to keep the ailerons effective while adding a small amount of lift.
Still the Bf 109 is one of history's greats, yet gets maligned and even ignored regularly. A definitive test from both sides would be very welcome. Until then, I'd say they swapped the title of "best fighter in the ETO" back and forth throughout the war, at least as far as British and German planes go. I'm thinking of pure fighter-interceptor roles, not of escoprt or fighter-bombers. Naturally, the mission would determine the better choice, but, in general, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 were always good ones with respect to one another.
No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!
Cheers.
What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude, and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a wingtip almost in the tree tops.
Never mind the A-26 and the BF-109, the fight I want to see is A-1 vs A-10!
Shortround6
Major General
Not really a "test" but calculations by the British.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
and
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif
Now if some can find the report/s or test/s that these are based on or confirmed by?
wuzak
Captain
Report BA 1640, September 1940
