Well, that was not entirely cricket, what? The AFDU and RAE should have been jolly ashamed of themselves, misleading the chaps like that - it lead to all sorts of embarrassment when up against the Fw 190 wallahs. We all know the nazis were a totally unsporting, nasty pack of bounders, but this behaviour really takes the cake for rottenness; sneaky, underhanded pack of cads!
Ki-100 follow-up thread on P-51/Me-109/P-47/Spitfire/FW-190A wingloading
- Thread starter Gaston
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Well, that was not entirely cricket, what? The AFDU and RAE should have been jolly ashamed of themselves, misleading the chaps like that - it lead to all sorts of embarrassment when up against the Fw 190 wallahs. We all know the nazis were a totally unsporting, nasty pack of bounders, but this behaviour really takes the cake for rottenness; sneaky, underhanded pack of cads!
Matt308
Glock Perfection
This is just about to derail. 
This is just about to derail.
My Apologies Matt308.
I believe I already expressed myself quite clearly in my responses to Gaston's questions, but apparently he is still not understanding.
If there is anyone else who needs more data, please let me know because otherwise I don't see a point in continuing this discussion.
- Ivan.
Shortround6
Major General
too late.
Is help on the way????
Is help on the way????
Glider
Captain
So to sum up the examples you gave
1) S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron
The gaps in the narrative make it unclear. Two FW 190 which ha just taken off were climbing and therefore going slowly. The one passed underneath me then one of the enemy aircraft did an orbit. At what speed, an important consideration if the FW was going slowly as was clearly at the atart of the narrative, the Spit would be a fool to stay in the turn. He would have being going so much faster he would have overshot and ended up in front of the Fw190. What is the whole narrative
2) RCAF John Weir
SOmeone who never fought a Fw190 and flew Hurricanes, what on earth has that got to do with it
3) Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944
The FW stayed with him after comming up, was he going slower probably but he didn't goin on the Spit or when he opened fire the Spit would have been a gonner.
4) -"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere The Fw 190 stayed in the fight and didn't just dive and climb
You don't have to turn to stay in the fight. The FW190 had a huge advantage over the Spit V in almost every way and didn't have to fight in the vertical and also didn't have to turn which would have been foolish. For instance the FW 190 had a much better roll rate. one tactic used in the Fw190 was to roll in one direction through 270 degrees (say to the right) and then turn to the left when the roll gets that far. This was tested by those much maligned RAF test pilots who proved that even if the Spit (including mk IX) were ready and expecting the FW to make this manoeuver then the SPit couldn't stay with it. Also the FW had a clear 40mph ish speed advantage as long as the FW kept their speed up they were a difficult target even to a Spit pilot who was right behind.
The narrative didn't say that it was a turning fight just that the FW didn't just dive and zoom in a manner used by the Me109 pilots. Anything else you have put into your version is a guess nothing more, nothing less and you do have form re making wild assumptions as to what hapened. (remember the five split S 's at 100 ft)
5) Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf
This is the only one that comes close but even here its worth remembering that he was in a Spit V far outclased by the FW and he was in his first combat with the FW.
I do find it interesting that iro 2) you think this is a valid view when you discount all the test reports done by all the research organisations of all the nations. When the aircraft are flown by test pilots often with combat experience, who in the case of the RAF were trained test pilots.
1) S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron
The gaps in the narrative make it unclear. Two FW 190 which ha just taken off were climbing and therefore going slowly. The one passed underneath me then one of the enemy aircraft did an orbit. At what speed, an important consideration if the FW was going slowly as was clearly at the atart of the narrative, the Spit would be a fool to stay in the turn. He would have being going so much faster he would have overshot and ended up in front of the Fw190. What is the whole narrative
2) RCAF John Weir
SOmeone who never fought a Fw190 and flew Hurricanes, what on earth has that got to do with it
3) Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944
The FW stayed with him after comming up, was he going slower probably but he didn't goin on the Spit or when he opened fire the Spit would have been a gonner.
4) -"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere The Fw 190 stayed in the fight and didn't just dive and climb
You don't have to turn to stay in the fight. The FW190 had a huge advantage over the Spit V in almost every way and didn't have to fight in the vertical and also didn't have to turn which would have been foolish. For instance the FW 190 had a much better roll rate. one tactic used in the Fw190 was to roll in one direction through 270 degrees (say to the right) and then turn to the left when the roll gets that far. This was tested by those much maligned RAF test pilots who proved that even if the Spit (including mk IX) were ready and expecting the FW to make this manoeuver then the SPit couldn't stay with it. Also the FW had a clear 40mph ish speed advantage as long as the FW kept their speed up they were a difficult target even to a Spit pilot who was right behind.
The narrative didn't say that it was a turning fight just that the FW didn't just dive and zoom in a manner used by the Me109 pilots. Anything else you have put into your version is a guess nothing more, nothing less and you do have form re making wild assumptions as to what hapened. (remember the five split S 's at 100 ft)
5) Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf
This is the only one that comes close but even here its worth remembering that he was in a Spit V far outclased by the FW and he was in his first combat with the FW.
I do find it interesting that iro 2) you think this is a valid view when you discount all the test reports done by all the research organisations of all the nations. When the aircraft are flown by test pilots often with combat experience, who in the case of the RAF were trained test pilots.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Have you ever been in and aircraft with a stick and seen how much the control surfaces move with 3/4 of ONE inch?!?!?!? Do you realize that there might be that much play in a control circuit from worn terminal ends?!?!?!
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I'm still waiting on the answer from his citing of the Youtube video. When I typed in his stated search criteria, a bunch of WW2 simulation game shots came up. Gaston, please post the Youtube URL for the video you cited above.
As much as I want to stay out of this, I do have to ask you a question Gaston.
Do you base everything off of computer games?
Do you base everything off of computer games?
- Thread starter
- #29
Well what about German tests by KG 200 that found their underpowered P-47 out-turned the Me-109, while the P-51 stalled and killed one of their pilots?
Or what about the modern 1989 test by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" SETP, that found the 6 G corner speed on the P-51/F6F/FG-1/P-47D was near maximum level speed, contrary to previous assumptions, and that the P-47 tracked targets much better than the P-51 during a turn?
But you don't like those test don't you? And that is how you find tests to be uncontradictory.
And what about the British wartime test that found the P-51 out-turned the Me-109 even with full underwing drop tanks, but could not out-turn the FW-190A when clean? Sure, they probably didn't use the slats properly, since the two are close, but it at least does show the P-51 could not out-turn the FW-190A even when clean...
And what about the test of the P-38G vs FW-190A that found the FW-190A out-turns the P-38 at all speeds except below 140 mph?
Do you know how the Me-109 squares against the P-38 in tests?
So let's just say you like some tests, but not others... Good solid science...
--------------------------------------------
Spitfire: 952 mph?
Here is the US handling report:
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc61034/m1/10/med_res/
Page 10: "Less than 5° movement of the elevator was used to reach maximum lift coefficient in pull-ups from level flight"
3° up elevator corresponded to 3/4 inch stick travel, so 5° means it is less than about 1.5 inches of stick travel at any level flight speeds...:
Page 9: "Only 3° up elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first signs of the stall. This movement corresponds to stick deflection of 3/4 inch."
The reality of the real machine, guys... But I'll bet there's something wrong with that test isn't it?
Page 11: "The small elevator travel required to reach maximum lift coefficient was evident in turns as well as a pull-ups"
But they didn't calculate the lift coefficient correctly right?
But I am the one who picks and chooses right?
And the issue of pilot skill... We all know how desperately low was German pilot skills by 1945 right?:
Osprey, RAF Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces, P.42:
Sq. Lt. Hearner (No 19 Sq) commenting 11 April 1945 battle over Lister airfield (P-51 Mk IV vs late Me-109Gs or Ks):
"The 109s we encountered were obviously an experienced bunch of boys. Their turning circle is decidedly better than ours at low speed. The lowering of 20 degrees of flaps may just enable us to hold them in the turn, although I feel they could outclimb us." (Note: RAF P-51s of this period typically used 80 inches of manifold pressure boost with 150 octane fuel, higher than the 72 inches US Mustangs used in Europe. Similar boost to RAF 80" boost was only used in Iwo Jima by the USAAF.)
And of course George Preddy, top P-51 ace in Europe, probably was the "pilot skill" factor in this:
"The P-51 Mustangs of Major George Preddy" EC # 100, Eagles Editions limited.
P.20: "Preddy spotted two 109s and got into a lufbery with the first one. Neither was gaining much advantage when all of a sudden another 109 cut in front of him."
If that's so, then those P-47s were then much more skilled against the same aircraft type, obviously:
Osprey, P-47 Thunderbolt units of the 12th Air Force.
P.32: 15th May 1944, 87th Fighter squadron operational report (Paddle-blade propellers only starting to be delivered to the group in late may 44, and only with new aircrafts).
That afternoon, the 87th FS took off (16 aircrafts) with 32 X 1000 lbs bombs underwing to add to the destruction in Acquapedente. Target Acquapedente bridges.
"A flight of 15 Me-109s and 5 FW-190s was encountered. One section kept the fighters occupied while the remainder attacked the bridges. Three enemy fighters were destroyed for one of ours damaged.
A gratifying result of this engagement was that a P-47, not considered a low-altitude aircraft, can maneuver advantageously with Me-109s almost on the deck, even though under the handicap of being on a bomb run." (2 X 1000 lbs of bombs underwing)
Yes, there's nothing like lugging around 2000 lbs of bombs in an on-the-deck dogfight, with 8 vs 15 odds, to build-up pilot skills that get you a 3:0 score...
It's the pilot levitation skills you know: You hold your hands out while humming, and watch the bombs rise in their shackles...
Oh but wait, on the deck lugging 2000 lbs of bombs, their must have used vertical maneuvers to outwit those Me-109s you know... Those guys were truly Yoda-grade levitators I tell you...
Gaston
Last edited:
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Keep pushin' the envelope Gaston and you are guaranteed to be an observer and not a participant. Make your points without the sarcasm.
I'm a bit flummoxed with you P-47 closing remarks. Based upon that single quote how do you make the leap in logic that the P-47s were in tight combat maneauvers with 2000lb of ordnance slung under their wings? I can envision lots of scenarios, wherein the ordnance was dropped or having a suprise advantage on the run-in as to just make a single high speed pass enroute to the target drop zone and then resume air-to-air. To many variables that you either didn't quote or are highly embellishing the unfolding of this encounter.
And per my post above, please post that Youtube URL before posting further. Thanks.
I'm a bit flummoxed with you P-47 closing remarks. Based upon that single quote how do you make the leap in logic that the P-47s were in tight combat maneauvers with 2000lb of ordnance slung under their wings? I can envision lots of scenarios, wherein the ordnance was dropped or having a suprise advantage on the run-in as to just make a single high speed pass enroute to the target drop zone and then resume air-to-air. To many variables that you either didn't quote or are highly embellishing the unfolding of this encounter.
And per my post above, please post that Youtube URL before posting further. Thanks.
Instead of just sneering at everybody else, and casting aspertions on their objectivity and expertise - including making snide comments about the RAE and ADFU - how about posting some actual physical evidence from these "reports" to prove what ever the heck it is you are trying to prove? For example; still awaiting: RAE report Spitfire v P-51D - at the very least a reference to allow others to find it.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gaston, despite what the report says, if ever were in a high performance single engined aircraft, let alone ANY aircraft, it would be quite obvious that this statement is a far stretch. I could tell you BY EXPERIENCE that if you took just about any WW2 fighter and moved the stick 3/4 inch, (assuming you're talking accurately measuring at the top of the stick) you would hardly see any measurable movement in the control surfaces. Did you ever try to stop and think HOW this was measured in the air?!?!? Do you think test pilots have calibrated eyeballs that could accurately track stick movement during adverse maneuvers under possibly adverse environmental conditions?!?!?
Do yourself a favor - put the joystick down, refrain from buying some sims and take a few flying lessons, maybe look for a place that has a citabria. Get a new perspective on things and then let's see if your gibberish minimizes.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I was gonna comment on his stick movement "linearity", wherein he equates x-amount of stick movement always results in z-amount of flight surface deflection. Apparently he has never seen a real airplane rigging where the use of cams result in linear input equating to non-linear output.
Post that URL or you are gone. I'm frankly tired of your insulting sermon.
Post that URL or you are gone. I'm frankly tired of your insulting sermon.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
So let me get this straight: Of all the responses to your...ummm...musings, you go after my post where I just questioned why you don't accept other facts?? I'm amazed you were able to glean all that concerning my opinion just off that one little post of mine. Wow. So, why can't you provide this "source material" when others ask you for it? Like Matt308's question??
Why?
Why?
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I'm afraid it might take him awhile to find it. Its not exactly at his finger-tips!
.
3/4 of an inch stick travel is pretty much an established figure. Valid for a stick length of 33 7/8 inch, to centre of spade grip. Yes, that's about nothing, but that's the way it was. And I guess, no matter what instrumentation the tested plane was equipped with, a pilot has a pretty good idea how much stick travel brings his aircraft to the stall. The Spitfire V as tested only displayed marginal longitudinal stability in the cruise condition, in other conditions it actually was unstable. This means very little elevator input, or even inverted control. I'd happily give you the link to the report, but the NACA technical report server is down for silly reasons (might still be open to US IP range?). Feel free to look for the following somewhere on the web, or let me know when the NACA server is back up:
Wartime reports:
MEASUREMENTS OF THE FLYING QUALITIES OF A SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE VA AIRPLANE
STALLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE VA AIRPIANE
Wartime reports:
MEASUREMENTS OF THE FLYING QUALITIES OF A SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE VA AIRPLANE
STALLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE VA AIRPIANE
Fortunately I downloaded both the report on the Spitfire VA flight control characteristics and the stalling characteristics ages ago:
View attachment Spitfire VA Control Characteristics.pdf
View attachment Spitfire Va stalling characteristics.pdf
Plus, a NACA report on the P-47D-30:
View attachment Republic P-47D-30 Longitudinal Stability.pdf
I'm not really that interested in this particular "discussion" because I have seen exactly these same lectures being pushed by Gaston in another forum, with equally little convincing evidence.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The point is our friend here is taking this (and some other stuff) as gospel. I don't know if you fly or not but I can tell you that when I fly a plane with a stick I do have an idea ABOUT where the plane will stall with regards to stick travel (you also have to factor at what pitch attitude you're doing the stall) but to place a measurement on this is a real wag, but as you said, "that's the way it was."
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Spitfire Vbs from mid 1941 onward (as early as July) were fitted with an inertia weight in the elevator control circuit (the famous 6 1/2 lb 'bob weight') to increse the amount of force per G required to deflect the elevators. There were also some modifications to the control spade linkage, to increase the amount of play. There were also changes to the elevator mass balances and the elevator shape itself in early 1942, which further improved longitiudinal stability.
Of course, this has been pointed out to Gason before, by me and by others, in this forum and others...
A lot of pilots didn't like the modification (mod 352 from memory). They complained it made the aircraft less responsive and more difficult to loop and dive. With the elevator redesigns coming in in 1942, the bob weights were eventually removed from the aircraft. Definitely for the Mk VIII airframe, maybe for the Mk IX (not 100% sure there).
Of course, this has been pointed out to Gason before, by me and by others, in this forum and others...
A lot of pilots didn't like the modification (mod 352 from memory). They complained it made the aircraft less responsive and more difficult to loop and dive. With the elevator redesigns coming in in 1942, the bob weights were eventually removed from the aircraft. Definitely for the Mk VIII airframe, maybe for the Mk IX (not 100% sure there).
- Status
