Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually.
Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.
Soren said:At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually.
Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.
You know that is just about contradicted by every single other test carried out wit the two aircraft. The Fw-190 was known for its easy and stable controls at high speeds, on the other hand the P-51 wasnt !
P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck ! Also the P-51 Redlined at 505 mph, and its controls locked up.
RG_Lunatic said:P-51 elevator response starts getting heavy at about 400 ias, but not horribly so. The problem occured at somewhere over 505 IAS (the stick would start oscillating). The ailerons on the other hand, were easy to operate, smooth and responsive right up to the mach limit of the laminar flow part of the wing which was up over 0.9 M (the fuselage/canopy/tail dropped the entire planes mach down to about 0.82 M).
Also, the NACA is a pretty solid source.
=S=
Lunatic
Soren said:RG_Lunatic said:P-51 elevator response starts getting heavy at about 400 ias, but not horribly so. The problem occured at somewhere over 505 IAS (the stick would start oscillating). The ailerons on the other hand, were easy to operate, smooth and responsive right up to the mach limit of the laminar flow part of the wing which was up over 0.9 M (the fuselage/canopy/tail dropped the entire planes mach down to about 0.82 M).
Also, the NACA is a pretty solid source.
=S=
Lunatic
Yes the main problem were the elevators, but the ailerons would also stiffen.
Soren said:And your chart doesnt show 'wich' FW-190 model.
Soren said:Btw looking at your chart, the Fw-190 and P-51's roll rate's are first equal at 373 mph or so.
KraziKanuK said:All Fw190 A and D a/c had the same wingspan, 10.5m. One can't use ws to determine the model.
The lines on the graph were calculated, with some a/c using British data.
The Jug Rules! said:I thought that the laminar flow wing was the best.
By the way, what is so special about the laminar flow wing???
You miss the point behind the eliptical wing. It's not supposed to improve lift characteristics, it's supposed to improve alierlon efficiency.
But in this point we agree, the gains were minimal and the production cost high - the eliptical wing was not worth it.
The higher thickness ratio of the 109 wing also implies higher drag and a lower mach number.
My point all along has been that the Spitfire and the 109 were generally well matched planes. The 109E was probably a little bit better than the Spit I.
The 109F was about equal to the Spit V.
The 109G was slightly inferior to the Spitfire IX.
The 109G-10/K-4 were more noticeably inferior to the Spit XIVe.
Soren said:The higher thickness ratio of the 109 wing also implies higher drag and a lower mach number.
Yet the 109 was always faster, until the Spit XIV. Anyway combined with superior speed the 109 had greater lift-loading, wich equals better turning ability ! (Not to mension its slats)
Soren said:The 109G-10/K-4 were more noticeably inferior to the Spit XIVe.
I agree, the Spit XIV was Superior, but also inferior in some ways, you must remember that the G-10 and K-4 had almost eleminated the aileron and Elevator problems at high speed for the 109 ! In a T&B fight the Spit XIV would be equal at best, but overall it was a better aircraft though. So here we agree.
On paper maybe
(and this is quite debatable), but in fact the Spitfires, after the 109E, were always rated as having better rates of turn. Time and time again, both British and the bulk of German sources credit the Sptifire as having been the superior turning plane.
And how did the G-10 and K-4 eliminate elevator and aileron problems? I've never seen anything to indicate this.
The 109K was a bad rolling plane at even moderately high speed.
The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
KraziKanuK said:The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
Always like this 'worn out and damaged' line.As if the Germans did not fly older a/c or put a/c that had been damaged back into combat.
A German a/c that had 60% or more damaged was considered a write-off. Less than 60% meant the a/c wwas repaired and put back into service.