Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[drgondog]

Drgondog,

Excellent clarification! However CV is not the smallest possible turn radius for all aircraft. I'm not sure if that is due to design, or if it's how the military teaches or charts aircraft performance.

Cheers,
Biff

Biff - CV at the Manuever Point is the optimum velocity for both radians/sec and smallest turn radius R for that aircraft.

Both Rmin and Omegamax when both CL and N (max permissible G) are simultaneously maximum


In a level turn, if you are not at CLmax and at G Max you are not optimizing the turn for either rate or radius.

Rmin = [2/(*W)/(rho*32.2*CLmax*S)]

As CL approaches maximum, Radius approaches minimum.

Omega min = 32.2*SQRT [(rho*CLmax*N)/(2*(W/S))]

As CL reaches maximum and Permissible Design load N reaches maximum (at Maneuver Point CV) you can see that for a specific a/c with same W/L and altitude and max CL the turn Radius (Omega) will be minimum for that airplane..

Ergo CV at the Maneuver Point for an F-16 is the same as any other exactly loaded and configured F-16 at the same altitude.. same for 109 vs 109 but 109 CV and Rmin and Omega min are not the same as the F-16.

In the 109 vs F-16 the huge differentiator for the 109 smaller radius is the 2:1 Wing Loading factor plus the difference in CLmax to be offset somewhat by the F-16 superior N.

 

[BiffF15]

Drgondog,

I will only speak for the Eagle. I have briefed that diagram to many Weapons School Graduates via my Flight Lead Up Grade (FLUG) thru Instructor Pilot Upgrade (IPUG). I can not speak to why that chart is done in that manner, only that it is (I don't have your AERO background or knowledge). I also don't know if it's due to the Eagle's wing twist. Common sense tells me that what you are speaking sounds right, however memory from that chart and times I have reguritated it tells me something different.

I asked another Eagle guy tonight to validate my memory. I asked him in such a manner that I didn't give the answer I wanted to hear, yet he spouted the numbers (that DNA shiza again).

Cheers,
Biff

PS Don't know if you have access to those charts where you work, but if you do it might "speak" to both our points of view.

 

[drgondog]

Biff - since I don't have the chart you reference in front of me, the key question is "Are you referring to a V-n" chart published for F-15 by MacDac? If so, all look the same and all are calculated the same. There are a variety on this site of Pilot handbooks with V-n diagrams to acquaint the fighter jock the difference between 'awesome dude" and 'awsh%t bonehead" - the latter is either "you just departed" or "you broke your bird".

Wing twist and camber are all about generating the compromised section airfoil characteristics leading to desired lift and drag (as you know). The emerging CL/CD characteristics of the wing, along with Aspect ratio - fix Induced Drag and Max CL.

In the discussions leading to V-n the Max CL has nothing to do with stall during level flight, everything to do with bank angle and the maximum lift at extremely high bank angle to enable curved flight at a certain velocity and constant altitude... the carved turn.

Once there, the airframe structures guys design the internals of the wing, to match the bending load due to the Pressure (normal and stress) distribution. That arcane art leads (conservatively) to a Limit Load factor (right up to bend but short of) and a Ultimate Load factor (usually around 1.5 limit load with steel and aluminum - but I don't know about newer composites) - the point where the bird has been irreparably bending and now breaks.

The V-n diagrams show the curves for plotted N (G) right up to Limit as a function of V (both positive and negative G). At the right hand limit of V-n is the dreaded Q Limit Load shutting the door on continued existence on the Plane of existence in That airplane. On the right hand side of the plot where Velocity-N is plotted, is serenity and contentment with your state of existence because you ain't 'pushing the envelope' because you didn't reach the maneuver point of Corner Velocity at Max Limit G in a turn.

On the left hand side however, you yanked too much elevator and either flat plated your bird or departed in an embarrassing way.. and if some gomer with evil intent was following you, then you are toast.

Summary - it is counter intuitive that Corner Speed combines max G turn with minimum turn radius and maximum turn rate over say floating at much less speed and G but its all about pushing the bank angle to the aerodynamic and structural limits

 

[drgondog]

PS Biff - I work at 'Retired', well off enough to raise Wolfhounds but not enough to continue flying..

 

[BiffF15]

Drgondog,

Congrats on retiring, it sounds like it's "good" work!

As for the charts, I'm referring to what we called the "rate radius" diagram. In it the min radius occured below corner. The only thing I can think of is that it's a sustained chart, or in other words it depicts the smallest circle one can sustain versus circle size from the corner chart (intantaneous).

There is an Eagle Weapons School Graduate here and I will try to track him down tomorrow.

Cheers,

PS I've been reading the Dietmar book on the Ta-152H. Pretty cool plane, however they (the Luftwaffe) didn't have enough fo them to scratch the paint on the assets lining up against them.
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Okay Gents, here is my rough opinion on the four aircraft comparison (Spit, Me-109, P-51 Fw-190 + variants). I will say the time frame is the last 6 months of the war.

From my perspective aircraft can be sliced and diced in several different methods in the BFM / dogfighting arena, which is not definitive nor all inclusive (this is called leaving myself an out).

The different methods involve:

1. speed (entire envelope from slow flight, thru acceleration, to top speed both at low and high altitudes) and this is directly related to power output at a given altitude
2. turn (max g load, turn circle size both at low and higher altitudes, and energy sustainability or bleed rate)
3. weapons and the ability to employ them (mostly via gun sights or TLAR in WW2)
4. flying qualities

On the speed part of the equation some airplanes are fast up high, others are fast down low, and few dominate at all altitudes and it depends on how the motor was optimised.

As for turn, the same rules apply, and as it's been previously stated and reiterated here, planes are compromises. Some turn better higher up, some down low, and at that time of the war I don't think one dominated all others to such a degree to make a difference.

My favorite weapon of them all, the gun, was in WW2 a very good weapon limited by gun sights or skill. There have been many comments by aces about letting the enemy fill your windscreen before you shoot (E. Hartmann) which takes gun sights and TLAR our of the equation. Also it means more rounds on target with a shorter trigger pull.

Lastly flying qualities. I say this with a grain of salt. Of the four aircraft in this comparison (I'm sure there will be spears on this), from what I have read by guys who are flying them today, the Me-109 was the most difficult of them all to fly. Cramped cockpit with so so visibility, slats that didn't employ together, poor flight control harmonization and that narrow gear for take offs and, after a taxing sortie, for landings. Having said that I also know that the top two scoring aces of all time got their kills in the 109 (and they had the lead by a huge margin). More on this later. The Spit (MkXIV) is the plane I've read the least about but shows tremendous promise due to it's engine and the airframe mod's built around that. From what I've read it was an easy plane to fly, outstanding rate of climb, and with the "blown" canopy outstanding visibility. The Mustang has had so much written about it (to the victor go the spoils and the writting of history...). I have an Eagle bud who is flying one now, and he has said that it flies great but an accelerated stall can be very tricky. Blown canopy means great vis, well harmonized flight controls means it's easy to fly, great gun sight and weapons, not the best on top speed but close, not the best on turning but close, not the best but good at everything. Lastly the Fw-190 / Ta-152H. I will use the H as my point of view. Optimised for high altitude means it will suffer at lower altitudes, well harmonized flight controls (from what I've read) meaning easy to fly, and a single lever for throttle prop and mixture means the pilot doesn't have to use brain cells to run the motor, just push it forward to go faster, pull it back to go slower. Good to excellent weapons and good visibility (not quite on par with the blown canopies, but way better than the Me-109).

The Spit and 109 are what today could be called point defense fighters. They have big motors, small airframes, and small fuel tanks. Race cars, meant to perform well but not go far from home. The Mustang and the Ta-152 were both designed around longer flights and higher altitudes (edge here goes to the Ta-152). So if you have to go deep, the latter two are better rides, if you are staying close to the airpatch, the first two are very good choices.

Now to the point. We have seen that guys could rack up huge kill scores in planes that had what I would call bigger drawbacks, however they flew the plane in combat for years. YEARS. This means the pilot was able to overcome the deficienies in his aircraft through skill and tactics. We have also seen guys do terrible in planes (using German gun footage of guys getting hammered in Mustangs, Lightings, Spits, and Jugs) which means to me that a great handling plane can be shot down as well. I will boil my two cents down to this. The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner. The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.

If I had to pick one, I would probably go with the Ta-152 as my first choice in a pure 1 v 1 scenario. If it was many versus many, would take either the Mustang or the Spit 14 in that order, and if I had to go deep, then the Mustang alone (long legs, lots of friends / other Mustangs).

Remember, this is my OPINION only.

Let the spear chucking begin!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[drgondog]

Okay Gents, here is my rough opinion on the four aircraft comparison (Spit, Me-109, P-51 Fw-190 + variants). I will say the time frame is the last 6 months of the war.

From my perspective aircraft can be sliced and diced in several different methods in the BFM / dogfighting arena, which is not definitive nor all inclusive (this is called leaving myself an out).

The different methods involve:

1. speed (entire envelope from slow flight, thru acceleration, to top speed both at low and high altitudes) and this is directly related to power output at a given altitude
2. turn (max g load, turn circle size both at low and higher altitudes, and energy sustainability or bleed rate)
3. weapons and the ability to employ them (mostly via gun sights or TLAR in WW2)
4. flying qualities

On the speed part of the equation some airplanes are fast up high, others are fast down low, and few dominate at all altitudes and it depends on how the motor was optimised.

As for turn, the same rules apply, and as it's been previously stated and reiterated here, planes are compromises. Some turn better higher up, some down low, and at that time of the war I don't think one dominated all others to such a degree to make a difference.

One aspect of aero which is not well understood is the discussion of AoA related profile drag - i.e. what is the contribution of adverse pressure gradients of separation of flow over wings and fuselage at high AoA related to High CL in high G maneuver... the P-51 was pretty good here but there is no indication that I could turn or climb with a Spit XIV.. but equally it would turn with 109G and K and should turn well with 152 and 190D.

My favorite weapon of them all, the gun, was in WW2 a very good weapon limited by gun sights or skill. There have been many comments by aces about letting the enemy fill your windscreen before you shoot (E. Hartmann) which takes gun sights and TLAR our of the equation. Also it means more rounds on target with a shorter trigger pull.

The K-14 computing gunsight was a game changer for guys that did not understand 3D lead concepts.

Lastly flying qualities. I say this with a grain of salt. Of the four aircraft in this comparison (I'm sure there will be spears on this), from what I have read by guys who are flying them today, the Me-109 was the most difficult of them all to fly. Cramped cockpit with so so visibility, slats that didn't employ together, poor flight control harmonization and that narrow gear for take offs and, after a taxing sortie, for landings. Having said that I also know that the top two scoring aces of all time got their kills in the 109 (and they had the lead by a huge margin). More on this later. The Spit (MkXIV) is the plane I've read the least about but shows tremendous promise due to it's engine and the airframe mod's built around that. From what I've read it was an easy plane to fly, outstanding rate of climb, and with the "blown" canopy outstanding visibility. The Mustang has had so much written about it (to the victor go the spoils and the writting of history...). I have an Eagle bud who is flying one now, and he has said that it flies great but an accelerated stall can be very tricky.

Any accelerated stall in high speed - high G for a 51 or 190 is a tricky departure - most often experienced by one not acquainted with the warning signatures.. an F-100 made both docile by comparison

Blown canopy means great vis, well harmonized flight controls means it's easy to fly, great gun sight and weapons, not the best on top speed but close, not the best on turning but close, not the best but good at everything. Lastly the Fw-190 / Ta-152H. I will use the H as my point of view. Optimised for high altitude means it will suffer at lower altitudes, well harmonized flight controls (from what I've read) meaning easy to fly, and a single lever for throttle prop and mixture means the pilot doesn't have to use brain cells to run the motor, just push it forward to go faster, pull it back to go slower. Good to excellent weapons and good visibility (not quite on par with the blown canopies, but way better than the Me-109).

Works that way with 51. Push the throttle - go fast, retard it - lots of drag

The Spit and 109 are what today could be called point defense fighters. They have big motors, small airframes, and small fuel tanks. Race cars, meant to perform well but not go far from home. The Mustang and the Ta-152 were both designed around longer flights and higher altitudes (edge here goes to the Ta-152). So if you have to go deep, the latter two are better rides, if you are staying close to the airpatch, the first two are very good choices.

With the 152 and great wing loading at high altitude - it was wonderful.. could get up there and fly well, equivalent to P-51H or slightly better - but in ETO the 152 had to be judged at 30K to 15K where several advantages at 40 K disappear. It then becomes a battle of skill and experience

Now to the point. We have seen that guys could rack up huge kill scores in planes that had what I would call bigger drawbacks, however they flew the plane in combat for years. YEARS. This means the pilot was able to overcome the deficienies in his aircraft through skill and tactics. We have also seen guys do terrible in planes (using German gun footage of guys getting hammered in Mustangs, Lightings, Spits, and Jugs) which means to me that a great handling plane can be shot down as well. I will boil my two cents down to this. The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner.

On a one on one basis, IMO, this worked the same way from 1939 through Sept 2, 1945

The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.

For what it is worth we are in violent agreement

If I had to pick one, I would probably go with the Ta-152 as my first choice in a pure 1 v 1 scenario. If it was many versus many, would take either the Mustang or the Spit 14 in that order, and if I had to go deep, then the Mustang alone (long legs, lots of friends / other Mustangs).

Remember, this is my OPINION only.

Let the spear chucking begin!

Cheers,
Biff

No chucking from me.

I would pick the AAF pilot in the ETO or USN fleet pilot in 1945 over any cross section of pilot skill in the world in 1945. The combination of national resources, great training weather, great experience rotating from Combat to Training Command was unprecedented in WWII.

You put 20,000 of these in 1944 (and Nobody else could) in the air with any of the airplanes you mention - and they win.


When the a/c are close the stick and the training win out.

 

[wuzak]

No chucking from me.

I would pick the AAF pilot in the ETO or USN fleet pilot in 1945 over any cross section of pilot skill in the world in 1945. The combination of national resources, great training weather, great experience rotating from Combat to Training Command was unprecedented in WWII.

Not to mention being able to be trained outside a war zone.

Same could be said, to a lesser extent, of Commonwealth pilots. But not of Luftwaffe pilots.

 

[Aozora]

For interest, because slightly OT, but relevant. On 7 March a highly experienced New Zealander, Sqn Ldr Evan Mackie (O/C 80 Squadron, flying Hawker Tempest Vs), with about 17 victories credited at the time, engaged an Fw 190D-9 of III./JG 26 in a turning dogfight which lasted about ten minutes, and ranged between s/l 3,000 ft: every time Mackie got a bead on the 190 it evaded him and came very close to shooting Mackie down in return. Finally, the 190 pilot, more than likely a Uffz. Otto Salewski of 10./JG 26, was momentarily distracted when he noticed some aircraft in the vicinity, and Mackie shot him down. Mackie said it was the toughest fight he'd ever gotten into and felt he was lucky to survive.

What's interesting is that Salewski joined JG 26 direct from training in November 1943 and, 16 months later, Mackie was almost his first kill.

...The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner. The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.

Cheers,
Biff

+1 Luck - that intangible element - can also come into it for experienced pilots: in this instance the pilots, the aircraft and the tactics were well matched with Mackie (probably) being more confident because he had shot down other aircraft - yet he nearly lost. I think what told in the end was that Mackie remained focused on the combat in hand, whereas Salewski was distracted for just a couple of seconds.

 

[silence]

Couple note:

Being close in means that your rounds are also going to hit with more KE. That can't hurt (well, depending on your point of view)!!

If it counts, I'd probably go for a Dora-13 over a 152H - especially if the Dora has the 213EB engine. IIRC, all it really gives up to the 152 is max altitude while gaining some speed and some climb (I think - brain is tired).
They could (but not sure if they did) have 4 bag tanks in the wings for extra internal fuel and/or MW50 tankage.
I also really like the synchronized 3x20mm MG 151 arrangement for fighter vs. fighter and the boosted ailerons.
I would like to see it have the two-piece landing gear doors like the 152 and P-51; those landing gear holes with the gear up just bug me. Same with not having fully retractable tail wheels with doors.

AOZORA: that is a helluva story! Is the full text available online somewhere? It reminds me of Hawker and Richthofen.

 

[BiffF15]

On 7 March a highly experienced New Zealander, Sqn Ldr Evan Mackie (O/C 80 Squadron, flying Hawker Tempest Vs), with about 17 victories credited at the time, engaged an Fw 190D-9 of III./JG 26 in a turning dogfight which lasted about ten minutes, and ranged between s/l 3,000 ft: every time Mackie got a bead on the 190 it evaded him and came very close to shooting Mackie down in return. Finally, the 190 pilot, more than likely a Uffz. Otto Salewski of 10./JG 26, was momentarily distracted when he noticed some aircraft in the vicinity, and Mackie shot him down. Mackie said it was the toughest fight he'd ever gotten into and felt he was lucky to survive.

What's interesting is that Salewski joined JG 26 direct from training in November 1943 and, 16 months later, Mackie was almost his first kill.



+1 Luck - that intangible element - can also come into it for experienced pilots: in this instance the pilots, the aircraft and the tactics were well matched with Mackie (probably) being more confident because he had shot down other aircraft - yet he nearly lost. I think what told in the end was that Mackie remained focused on the combat in hand, whereas Salewski was distracted for just a couple of seconds.

Aozora,

Excellent story and excellent points. There are also a couple of layers to this as well. To begin with, there is what is considered a newbie holding off the old hand. Even though he had no kills, he did have 16 months in a serious combat zone. What I can't answer is how the Germans conducted "training", and who did it.

On the other side of that coin you have a triple ace who almost "buys" it at the hands of a much less experienced pilot. It could be he due to aircraft (not sure how the Tempest V stacked up against the 190D), it could be due to over confidence, and it could also be to what I will call rock paper scissors. The latter is where pilot A can beat pilot B (paper takes rock), B takes C (rock takes scissors), and C can take A (scissors takes paper). I have seen this all too many times in a squadron. It boils down to the techniques and tactics that work so well for one pilot can be foiled by someone of "lessor" skill consistently. At first blush this might not make sense, but time and again it occurs.

The last is the "distraction" point. It's tough to tell as no flight data recorder (FDR) exists to tell us what was going on in his cockpit, but distraction is the bane of flying. Having flown many BFM / dogfighting sorties, and talked at length with my fellow drivers, it is a group opinion that he who makes the least or smallest amount of errors usually wins.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Couple note:

Being close in means that your rounds are also going to hit with more KE. That can't hurt (well, depending on your point of view)!!

If it counts, I'd probably go for a Dora-13 over a 152H - especially if the Dora has the 213EB engine. IIRC, all it really gives up to the 152 is max altitude while gaining some speed and some climb (I think - brain is tired).
They could (but not sure if they did) have 4 bag tanks in the wings for extra internal fuel and/or MW50 tankage.
I also really like the synchronized 3x20mm MG 151 arrangement for fighter vs. fighter and the boosted ailerons.
I would like to see it have the two-piece landing gear doors like the 152 and P-51; those landing gear holes with the gear up just bug me. Same with not having fully retractable tail wheels with doors.

Silence,

Great point on the KE / rounds on target! I think a classic example of this was Hans-Joachim Marseille who had a reputation for getting in close and using very little ammo.

I also agree with you on the gear doors, however the 737 is a modern example of it (areo hubcaps vice gear doors)

Cheers,
Biff

 

[CORSNING]

The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)

"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Combat Weight: 10,473.75 lbs.

Armament: 1 x 30mm/2 x 20mm

Wing Area: 252.96 sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 41.40+lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.586 lbs./hp.[/QUOTE]



1 on 1? I believe I will go with the the Spitfire Mk.XIV...unless I had to fly 300 mls or more from home base (P-51). I believe the Ta was probably slightly easier to fly (automation). I believe the Ta's high altitude (25,000 ft.+) abilities were unequaled by the other contenders. From what I have read here and elsewhere, I believe it could probably turn the tightest/fastest (once into the turn).


With all that being said, there is still the weight vs. thing; 7,923 vs. 10,473 lbs. I believe at most altitudes the Spitfire could out climb and out accelerate the others in this group. I also believe it could probably out roll the Ta-152 (not sure).

Good night guys, Jeff

 

[wuzak]

The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)

"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Combat Weight: 10,473.75 lbs.

Armament: 1 x 30mm/2 x 20mm

Wing Area: 252.96 sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 41.40+lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.586 lbs./hp.



1 on 1? I believe I will go with the the Spitfire Mk.XIV...unless I had to fly 300 mls or more from home base (P-51). I believe the Ta was probably slightly easier to fly (automation). I believe the Ta's high altitude (25,000 ft.+) abilities were unequaled by the other contenders. From what I have read here and elsewhere, I believe it could probably turn the tightest/fastest (once into the turn).


With all that being said, there is still the weight vs. thing; 7,923 vs. 10,473 lbs. I believe at most altitudes the Spitfire could out climb and out accelerate the others in this group. I also believe it could probably out roll the Ta-152 (not sure).

Good night guys, Jeff

I think the Spitfire will out-turn the Ta 152, but the Ta 152 will out-roll the Spitfire.

 

[awack34]

Going from whats written and actual testing, the TA 152 h seems to be a generation ahead of the Spitfire XIV, the TA seems to have 34 mph speed advantage at their best height, the 18 boost XIV has about 580 or 700 fpm advantage in climb rate if we use the 3936 fpm climb for the TA posted above, side by side testing was done with late war spitfires after the war, the TA could turn with and out turn the spitfire at medium and high altitudes, this was with out any boost for the TA, operational ceiling for the Spitfire is around 43.500ft and for the TA, its around 48.500ft, as far as range is concerned, the Spitfire had different load outs, please some one correct me if im wrong, the typical XIV had a rang of around 400 miles, the TA had a range of 755 miles, I have no idea who had the better roll rate, I would assume that the TA could out dive the XIV, in most combat situations, even though the spitfire cannons had a higher velocity, I definitely have to give edge to the TA in fire power with its 2X 20mm and 1 30mm cannons with its mine shells, the fire power had to have been devastating.....cockpit layout and view would go to the TA, I have not found any evidence that the tear drop canopied XIV ever saw combat in Europe they came just a little too late, I also don't know if the TA got the ez42 gun sight, if not, the Spit would have a nice Advantage in shooting.

 

[tomo pauk]

<grabs popcorn>.

 

[wuzak]

Eric Brown:

The take-off of the Ta 152H-1 was shorter than that of teh Spitfire XIX [I assume it is supposed to be XIV] and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter. But once the 9,145m (30,000ft) mark had slipped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 9,145m (30,000ft), there being little to chose between that altitude and 10,670m (35,000ft), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on teh way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 10,670m (35,000ft), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 684km/h (425mph), or about 56km/h (35mph) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of. But, of course, the availability of GM1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the Ta 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.

From Wings of the Luftwaffe.

It isn't surprising that the Ta 152H held the advantage at high altitudes - it was designed for that role specifically, and had a long span high aspect ratio wing for the task. The wingspan was 3.2m (10ft 6in) greater than that of the Spitfire's.

Brown also mentions that the Ta 152H had much less roll performance than the Fw 190 - whose wingspan was less than the Spitfire's.

Certainly the Spitfire's performance could have been improved with the intsallation of the 100-series Griffons, which used a 3 speed supercharger drive in place of the 2 speed drive and had a full throttle altitude (without ram) 2000ft above the Griffon 65. That could help with the high altitude performance of the XIV, but probably not help with the manoeuvrability above 35,000ft.

Let's not forget that the XIV was an interim/stop-gap version of the Spitfire. The definitive Griffon version was the 21, which would probably have taken over if the war lasted another year. The 21 gave slight improvements in level speeds (5-6mph), had similar climbing characteristics and, I presume, turn radius, but was much superior in roll rate and firepower (4 x Hispano Mk V). That would also have gained some benefit form the 100 series Griffons.

 

[wuzak]

I gave the German fighter its head on teh way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 10,670m (35,000ft), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 684km/h (425mph), or about 56km/h (35mph) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of.

The XIV's top speed is generally acceptad as ~448mph, which gives a 23mph advantage over the Ta 152H according to Brown's numbers. However, that speed is achieved at a lower altitude than the full throttle test. At 35,000ft the XIV still would appear to have the advantage, by about 15mph (~440mph @ 35,000ft).

 

[Milosh]

Brown also mentions that the Ta 152H had much less roll performance than the Fw 190 - whose wingspan was less than the Spitfire's.

And nothing came close the Fw190s roll rate. So the question is, how much did the long wing decrease the roll rate?

 

[BiffF15]

The XIV's top speed is generally acceptad as ~448mph, which gives a 23mph advantage over the Ta 152H according to Brown's numbers. However, that speed is achieved at a lower altitude than the full throttle test. At 35,000ft the XIV still would appear to have the advantage, by about 15mph (~440mph @ 35,000ft).

Wuzak,

I've been trying to think through how much of a speed advantage would be usable or noticable. In a scenario where you are doing a hit and run, having the advantage of dive speed combined with a higher top speed, you can hit and leave with almost immunity. In a turning fight that starts co-speed, the "higher top speed" will rarely come into play (only scenario I can imagine is where the higher top speed aircraft wants to leave, and is at or beyond the weapons range of "other" aircraft when he makes his out move). This latter event can be difficult as you are going "ass to the fight" and banking on your eyeball range finder being accurate. If you are able to go tail to the fight and see him shooting at you, the decision can be made then to either keep going (I think he is shooting beyond his max range), or turn back and defend (I didn't judge it right the first time so have to turn back and defend).

I flew F-15's in turning engagements against a variety of A/C, almost all of which were faster (top speed) down low than me, and slower up high. It was almost a moot point in reality. However the ability to accelerate or climb better was a much more useful asset. Often fights would end up in "trees" (high low stack where the high guy wants to keep climbing to get enough turning room to dive down and employ on the low guy, and where the low guy wants to fly slowly enough that the high guy gets out in "front" allowing him to then accel and zoom up to employ) or in a rolling scissors (two aircraft continiously turning towards each other, which can have offensive / defensive role swaps occuring, where each aircraft is manuevering to bring it's nose to bear / employ). Either one of those fights in a WW2 fighter the advantage would go to the aircraft which could climb better and at a slower airspeed (all other factors being equal).

It is my opinion that a higher top speed was not as important as climb capability (higher rate slower speed) in turning fights.

In retrospect, the number one ace of aces preferred the hit and run tactic which is part of the reason he both had the highest score AND lived to the end of the war. Turning fights are more fun than hit and run, however they have a much greater risk of failure (too many variables can come into play whcih could turn the outcome against you even in a better performing aircraft).

All food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff