Ki-100 follow-up thread on P-51/Me-109/P-47/Spitfire/FW-190A wingloading

Matt308 said:

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.

Click to expand...

There you go: From 6:09 to 7:33, with several interruptions I suppose when the P-47 was out of the camera's view: That's at least four full 360° turns, some of them really high rate in the beginning...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7YbUVbZ6xo

The P-47D is apparently a Razorback, and does nothing but full level turning... At least from the point of view of obsessive turning tactics, it is one of the most consistent and sustained turning battle I have seen: At no point does the P-47 do anything but turn...

To put it in perspective, I have never seen anything remotely close from Spitfire, Me-109 or P-51 footage... But would be glad to...



Quote: " 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?"


The key factor is the mention that 8 of the 16 were dispatched to protect the remaining 8: If the actual bomb run had already started, it would have been over in minutes, with the bombless P-47s attacking the Germans in gradually increasing numbers: That is not how it happened, because if it had, then there would be no specific number of "protective duty" P-47s dispatched, matching exactly two flights of four.

8 had to be assigned for protection, because they all still carried their bombs, which were the primary purpose of the mission.

Quote: "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."

If you are not carrying bombs, then you are not "under the handicap of being on a bomb run"

Furthermore, if one section had dropped its bombs prematurely (as the precise separation of duties you claim would entail), it would, first of all, have been mentionned, second, it would at least have been done without joining "maneuver advantageously" and "handicap" and "gratifying" all in the same sentence: Without bombs you can still "maneuver advantageously", but not with the "handicap of being on a bomb run", and, if you are made to drop your bombs, then that is not "gratifying".

You could argue the section of eight could be construed as a numerical "handicap" (probably what you are clinging to): But that would still entail losing half the bomb load prematurely, which bombs are the primary purpose of the mission: That is not "gratifying" by any stretch of the imagination...

The intended meaning of the sentence is that despite the handicap of bombs underwing, the P-47s could still out-maneuver the Me-109Gs on the deck.

Remove any one of the first two, and there is no reason to call it "gratifying".

I know this sounds completely unbelievable to your point of view, but that is the simplest explanation.

It is unbelievable, but true: The extent to which you don't believe what the sentence actually means simply underscores the extent to which you are wrong.

Gaston

Gaston said:

There you go: From 6:09 to 7:33, with several interruptions I suppose when the P-47 was out of the camera's view: That's at least four full 360° turns, some of them really high rate in the beginning...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7YbUVbZ6xo

The P-47D is apparently a Razorback, and does nothing but full level turning... At least from the point of view of obsessive turning tactics, it is one of the most consistent and sustained turning battle I have seen: At no point does the P-47 do anything but turn...

Click to expand...

I watched the video, the attitude of the P-47 appears to remain level but there is no way to tell if he's climbing or diving. You're basing your argument (whatever that is at this point) from watching a video in a 2 dimensional perspective with little or no understanding on how much a P-47 could climb or dive during a combat turn, more than likely without trim, probably a typical perspective for a gamer with no real flying experience........

Gaston, is your first language english? I ask this question in sincerity.

I can't see how that much touted video explains anything really, except that an Fw 190 was attacking a P-47. For instance what was the P-47's speed v the 190? Rate of turn? Altitude? Looks to me more like the P-47 was in dive followed by a spiraling climb with the Fw 190 keeping up with it enough to do some damage to the left wing root at 7:23 - as for "four full 360° turns some of them really high rate"? - impossible to tell without some reference such as the horizon or aircraft instruments, otherwise, as Flyboy has noted, this is a 2 dimensional film, and it was mostly against a cloud backdrop with no real way of knowing how tight the turns were, albeit there were some wingtip contrails from the P-47.

Part of that fight was in a loop, or near loop, because you could the ground full screen , in other words the camera was pointed straight down, or close to it.
Plus most gun camera footage is shot at high speed, I think 32 frames per second, and played back at 24 frames per second, it's slow motion that you're watching.
Or is it shot at 24, and played back at 16 ??

Its just a personal view but it does look to me as if the combat was a turning combat and the Fw 190 was matching the P47 in the turn.
However I don't see that as unexpected. The combat flight tests are clear that if the combat is at a slower speed the Fw190 has the advantage the higher the speed the advantage goes to the P47 and at high speed the P47 has a clear advantage.

The difference in the turn doesn't seem to be very great or the Fw would have ended the combat quickly.

The altitude isn't high so the P47 cannot use its dive advantage and the P47 is a razorback. We don't know what version buts its quite possible that its an early one and the one thing they didn't do well was climb. So the P47 pilot is in the worst possible scenario, he cannot dive, the combat would have slowed down as the turning continued, the Fw is right behind him, his aircraft is possibly sluggish in the climb and unless help turns up quickly he is in serious trouble. At one point he does seem to be trying to gain height in the turn but all that happened was the Fw got a better lead on him as he lost speed. Even if he can climb it would be a risk as during the transition to the climb he would present an easy target.

One thing the P47 seems to take some heavy hits but keeps on going and the Fw is a well armed aircraft. Towards the end there seemed to be the start of a fire in the port wing root but it went out.

Something else worth pointing out is that the film doesn't show how this combat ended - presumably if the P-47 had gone down the Germans would want to show that!

good point!!!!

JtD said:

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

Click to expand...

Here is a further clarification:
The Spitfire as originally designed was longitudinally unstable.
This was of course unacceptable.
The "solution" was to increase the aerodynamic balance on the elevators to the point where they were overbalanced.
You can check this by looking at drawings or photographs starting about at the Mk.V and see that the elevator balance starts to go from diagonally outward at a 45 degree angle to two angles with the outter part at 90 degrees.
This made the aircraft barely stable but also made the elevators overly sensitive.

I found this in a book about Supermarine fighters a few years back.
JtD is right, but I figured a bit more explanation might help.

FWIW, the FW 190 had a similar "problem" in that its longitudinal controls were balanced in such a way that the stick force per G was way too low at high speeds at least by American standards.

The 952 mph quote is probably more like 952 Kilometers per hour.
Kurt Tank took one of his D-9s out for a test during the Autumn 1944 and quotes this kind of speed in a dive. 600-something mph is also a typical number quoted as the terminal velocity of a Spitfire.

I figured this discussion was done, but I guess I was wrong.
- Ivan.

Gaston said:

There you go: From 6:09 to 7:33, with several interruptions I suppose when the P-47 was out of the camera's view: That's at least four full 360° turns, some of them really high rate in the beginning...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7YbUVbZ6xo

The P-47D is apparently a Razorback, and does nothing but full level turning... At least from the point of view of obsessive turning tactics, it is one of the most consistent and sustained turning battle I have seen: At no point does the P-47 do anything but turn...

To put it in perspective, I have never seen anything remotely close from Spitfire, Me-109 or P-51 footage... But would be glad to...

Gaston

Click to expand...

First of all, FWIW, *I* fly simulators.... A LOT. I don't believe that invalidates what I have to say though.

My interpretation of this gun camera footage is a little different than Gastons:

The FW 190 does appear to pull a pretty good rate of turn initially. (This part agrees.)
My opinion is that the FW 190 is having a very tough time getting enough lead on the P-47 to use its guns.
If you look at the footage, you will see that the view alternates between the sky and the ground and has quite a few frames without the P-47 in the picture at all.
The alternating between sky and ground looks to me like the FW 190 is flying a High Yo-Yo which is what I was saying about 350 posts ago was a typical tactic. It certainly shows that this was not a level turn.
The P-47 leaving the cameras view and then coming back looks a bit like the FW 190 pilot is flying a lag pursuit which also would negate a turn advantage by the P-47.

The only real agreement I see here is that the P-47 seems to do nothing but hold a consistent left turn and because the camera was running for a bit over a minute, the two planes probably made around 3 full 360 degree turns each.

The next encounter shows the FW 190 trying to chase down a P-51:
It looks to me from all the gyrations that the FW 190 flipped out of the turn in an accelerated stall.

Opinions?
- Ivan.

Are those gun camera films being played back at real speed or slow motion ?
I know they were filmed at a high speed frames per second, so they could be played back in slow motion and evaluated easier. But is what we're watching slow motion or normal ?

The 952 mph quote is probably more like 952 Kilometers per hour.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that number I quoted was a sarcastic respond to the ridiculous factoid that was presented about the Spit. It was a number plucked out of the air to illustrate the utter nonsense of the previous quote. I'm quite sorry I caused confusion with it. I thought it would be glaringly obvious.

Ivan1GFP said:

First of all, FWIW, *I* fly simulators.... A LOT. I don't believe that invalidates what I have to say though.

My interpretation of this gun camera footage is a little different than Gastons:

The FW 190 does appear to pull a pretty good rate of turn initially. (This part agrees.)
My opinion is that the FW 190 is having a very tough time getting enough lead on the P-47 to use its guns.
If you look at the footage, you will see that the view alternates between the sky and the ground and has quite a few frames without the P-47 in the picture at all.
The alternating between sky and ground looks to me like the FW 190 is flying a High Yo-Yo which is what I was saying about 350 posts ago was a typical tactic. It certainly shows that this was not a level turn.
The P-47 leaving the cameras view and then coming back looks a bit like the FW 190 pilot is flying a lag pursuit which also would negate a turn advantage by the P-47.

The only real agreement I see here is that the P-47 seems to do nothing but hold a consistent left turn and because the camera was running for a bit over a minute, the two planes probably made around 3 full 360 degree turns each.

The next encounter shows the FW 190 trying to chase down a P-51:
It looks to me from all the gyrations that the FW 190 flipped out of the turn in an accelerated stall.

Opinions?
- Ivan.

Click to expand...

You're oppinion has rationale behind it....

If the -190 is using a yo-yo it's obviously compensating for either being out-turned or not being able to get a firing solution - or both.

Njaco said:

Sorry but that number I quoted was a sarcastic respond to the ridiculous factoid that was presented about the Spit. It was a number plucked out of the air to illustrate the utter nonsense of the previous quote. I'm quite sorry I caused confusion with it. I thought it would be glaringly obvious.

Click to expand...

Hello Njaco,
The reason this number stood out to me is because I was just reading about Kurt Tank's flight test of a FW 190D-9.

He did a dive from high altitude.
Maximum speed was 700 kph IAS @ 6000 meters.
This works out to 955 kph TAS.
The pull out was at 7G and there was no mention of controllability or compressibility issues.

- Ivan.

ah-hah!

I am sticking to my standard response whenever Gaston engages in his pontificating...

Yawn.

Glider said:

Its just a personal view but it does look to me as if the combat was a turning combat and the Fw 190 was matching the P47 in the turn.
However I don't see that as unexpected. The combat flight tests are clear that if the combat is at a slower speed the Fw190 has the advantage the higher the speed the advantage goes to the P47 and at high speed the P47 has a clear advantage.

The difference in the turn doesn't seem to be very great or the Fw would have ended the combat quickly.
.

Click to expand...

Well we agree for once... See how consistent is anecdotal evidence?

The only problem is that you just seem to be unaware of where the the P-47 and FW-190A both stand in the schemes of things...: I've posted 20+ combat accounts showing how the P-47D out-turns the Me-109G, sometimes with bombs on: I've found two accounts of the opposite, both by the same pilot... So far no one has provided one other opposite account...

And the Germans seemed to know it as well (the hard way): After all, I've never seen it adressed by anyone why it is that KG 200's conclusion (in "On Special Missions: KG 200") is that the early P-47D Razorback with needle tip prop : "out-turns our Bf-109G"... And yet the same is not said of the P-51 (for good reason)...


I recall hearing it said that this is a violation of physical laws... I even remember reading the claim that this is is like claiming to have a perpetual motion machine... This shows you how clueless are those who claim this violates physical laws...

Unlike energy, yes you can get more force out of something than you put in... If you don't think this is true, you don't understand the difference between force and energy...

Yes a lighter plane can bend its wings more than a heavier one, even during the same G turn: The possibility of this is written in the most basic laws of physics...

Gaston

Jesus, you are an annoying prick. May you live short and not reproduce.

*boom*

........and the world is normal once again.

I've got a great anecdote that, for me, put the somewhat nebulous 'turn performance' quality in perspective for all time.

From (then Flight Lieutenant) Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr), shortly before Dieppe.

At Duxford one day a US Army Captain arrived unexpectedly with a P-38. Like the other Air Corps pilots, he had no battle experience and asked if he could get somebody to dogfight with him in a Spitfire IXb. Flight Lieutenant Clive, implying that he was in charge, said he would be glad to cooperate. He would fly the Spitfire himself. We were all a witness to the P-38 outmanoeuvre Clive, even turning inside him. When they landed, Clive came into Dispersal sweating profusely and stated the P-38 could outmanoeuvre the IXb. The Captain asked if he could have that in writing to show his Commanding Officer.

'Certainly,' said Clive, 'I'll have it ready for you by lunchtime.'

Now, imagine if the story ended here, as it easily could have. Think of how us internet nerds would pour over this controlled, seemingly decisive 'combat'. How those that have some strange, personal investment in the performance of seventy-year old aircraft would either swoon or gnash their teeth at the outcome of this impromptu contest. It would have been 'ammunition' on forums and bulletin boards for decades.

However, it doesn't end there. Godefroy continues ...

I was convinced this was wrong, and pleaded with Campbell-Orr to let me fly against him before issuing any report. The Captain supported me in my request, and off we went. I was able to show that there was no way he could come anywhere near me in the Spitfire. To demonstrate the turning ability, I let him get on my tail. In two complete circles from this position, I was able to get in firing position behind him. The Captain was not a bit upset, he had come to learn the truth. I told him I thought a good pilot in a 109F would give him a lot of trouble.

Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get completely opposite results. Something to keep in mind next time you're reading anecdotes on things like turn performance.