Ki-100 peformance

[Ivan1GFP]

Seems like there is a fight here and I am not about to get into it other than to note that I have never seen any source that claimed the P-51D was more maneuverable than even a Spitfire XIV.

The 407 mph figure from TAIC testing was a J2M2 or Jack 11. The J2M3 Jack 21 (I believe the tail number was S 12) was about 10 mph faster. I have seen multiple sources quote this but haven't seen the actual US test results. The most recent quote I found was from Famous Airplanes Of The World. I can get a scan from that if anyone wants, but I will warn you in advance that it is all in Japanese.

Regarding fast climbing fighters, even the J2M3 has the Spitfire IX beat by a LOT. The Spitfire XII and Spitfire XIV also have the Mk.IX beat. The early FW 190A and early Spitfire IX were about evenly matched for climb up to about 20,000 feet.

Just to throw another wrench into things, did you all know that the P-51A was the fastest wartime version of the Mustang below 10,000 feet? Surprised me when I saw this. Another surprising thing is that its top speed is about 410 mph but at only 10,000 feet.

- Ivan.

 

[Gaston]

More horse pucky

RAE test please. I'll take a link, the title of the test or even a secondary source that contains a reference to the test.

Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof. I've asked you for this evidence on several different websites over the course of several years, and you've yet to even acknowledge my request...

Just to show everyone else how full of it you are:

Aces High BB post from 2009:



So, is it a 180° turn or a 360° turn?

If your reading skills are not below fifth grade, you would see I did say in my recent post it was 180°:

Quote of my previous post: "and the P-51D could definitely out-turn the Spitfire for 180° (thus only briefly) above 300 mph (tighter radius): British RAE tests: P-51D: 450 yards radius. Spitfire Mk XIV: 625 yards radius. Both tests at 400 mph."

Can't you read the early part of a sentence?

About the Spitfire XIV having a larger unsustained turn radius than a P-51D at 400 mph, there is here something extraordinary only in your mind: Did you know that the Spitfire pilot -at high speed for which 400 mph certainly qualifies- could not pull his spade-stick top back more than 3/4 inch without rumbling the wings and starting to stall? Granted he could probably go deeper, but that doesn't inspire great confidence in out-turning the P-51 at 400 mph does it?...

This did not change that it far outperformed in high speed turns the FW-190A (whose handling hated high speeds like you probably can't conceive)...

As for my years-old typo between 625 yards and 650: Big deal: For the record, from Skychimp's post it was precisely 625 yards vs 450 yards at 10 000 ft. and 400 mph for 180°.

And the source for that was Skychimp, who did claim he brought NACA 868's roll rate chart to light (on Il-2 at least), a claim I haven't heard contested by anyone, least of all you: Why don't you ask him where this (to you) mind-boggling data comes from?: You are certainly more interested in it than I am...

And BTW how does those TSaGi tests fit with your conception of the world?: P-39D turn time: 17.5 seconds. Spitfire Mk IX: 17.5 seconds...

But then they did say the early P-47 Razorback was at 27 seconds, or something just about as funny...

P-47D pilot quote at 22 000 ft.: "The Me-109s went around with us, but after three or four turns they quickly lost interest and split-essed out of it"

Damnned! These pilots must have been poorly trained to be so little interested in the turn superiority conferred to them by flight physics!

Gaston

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If your reading skills are not below fifth grade, you would see I did say in my recent post it was 180°:

ONE WARNING! KNOCK IT OFF!!!

 

[Ivan1GFP]

About the Spitfire XIV having a larger unsustained turn radius than a P-51D at 400 mph, there is here something extraordinary only in your mind: Did you know that the Spitfire pilot -at high speed for which 400 mph certainly qualifies- could not pull his spade-stick top back more than 3/4 inch without rumbling the wings and starting to stall? Granted he could probably go deeper, but that doesn't inspire great confidence in out-turning the P-51 at 400 mph does it?...

This did not change that it far outperformed in high speed turns the FW-190A (whose handling hated high speeds like you probably can't conceive)...
Gaston

What are your sources for these claims? The British testing of FW 190A versus Spitfire versus Mustang pretty much contradicts your claims. The Spitfire in any mark has a higher lift airfoil, more wing area and is lighter than the P-51D.

The FW 190A didn't have too many problems pulling Gs at high speed. Its roll rate slowed down a bit at very high (400 mph) speeds but still was very good. That was supported by testing of Arnim Faber's 190 and the G-3 tested by the US later in the war. Neither report is hard to find.

- Ivan.

 

[Gaston]

What are your sources for these claims? The British testing of FW 190A versus Spitfire versus Mustang pretty much contradicts your claims. The Spitfire in any mark has a higher lift airfoil, more wing area and is lighter than the P-51D.

The FW 190A didn't have too many problems pulling Gs at high speed. Its roll rate slowed down a bit at very high (400 mph) speeds but still was very good. That was supported by testing of Arnim Faber's 190 and the G-3 tested by the US later in the war. Neither report is hard to find.

- Ivan.

Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague, and being used mostly as a boom and zoom high speed fighter, which did not exclude it out-turning other types for short durations at high speeds after a dive. (I really don't know if the P-51 was better at high speed unsustained turns than the Spitfire was: I assume the edge was to the P-51, but not huge, given how well the Spit does at high speeds)

The Spitfire's dislike for sustained low-speed turns was so pronounced the Soviets tried to lighten it by removing the outer guns, and, this failing to yield any improvement, they resorted to using it differently from their own fighters, and used boom and zoom tactics with it, avoiding turning combat. (Source: Fana de l'Aviation)

Every combat report shows the FW-190A to have terribly poor handling at high speeds, but it will typically out-turn the Spitfire in prolonged low-speed horizontal turns:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day."

Johnny Johnson's more detailed account: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Quote: (in a multiple consecutive 360° horizontal contest near the water) "I asked the Spitfire Mk V for all she had, but it was only a matter of time -And he would have me in his sights-"

Similarly, in low-speed prolonged multiple 360° turns at all altitudes, the superiority of the P-47D over the Me-109G is quite extraordinary (not quite so at high speeds unsustained turns!). (See Mike William's WWII aircraft performance site at "P-47 combat reports"):

P-47 Encounter Reports


Most test flights of the FW-190A show tail-down "sinking" when trying to pull-out, this having a strong "tendency to black-out the pilot" despite a very loose resulting curve trajectory: The "Gs" of a FW-190A at high speed are really partly nose-up deceleration: See Italy front-line P-47D comparison to a FW-190:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

That is why you mistakenly think "The FW 190A didn't have too many problems pulling Gs at high speed."

It did.

For the REAL Gs related to the actual trajectory at least...

And that includes Kurt Tank's 7 Gs claim at 400 mph with only 14 pounds pulling on the stick: As many as 2 of those 7 Gs where probably deceleration through mushing Gs, making the maximum a much more modest 5 G or so trajectory...

A better illustration of this phenomenon here:

Lone Sentry: Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190 (WWII Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943)

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible.

As a result to the above:


-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."


But if you want to believe physics just applies directly, without any counter-intuitive complexity, to nose-pulled WWII fighters, hey, knock yourself out...

Gaston

 

[razor1uk]

I have noticed a 'tiney wheeny wafer thin' (in a Mr Creasote's Ma-tra 'D accent) trend which upon the commencement of a thread regarding any aircraft, it always seems to end up mostly about the merits faults and theories (or the viewed of perceptions of them) about the rustang, spitmire or messerschlat/fockerolf, irrespective of the original topics A/C choice.

So to spur on the topic, my totally fictional Ki-100-I a Ki-61 virtual air racing skins/pic's, including carbon fibre textures replacing the traditional fabric surfaces - from IL-2 Shturmovik; 1946 v4.11m

 

[Edgar Brooks]

It would be interesting to know what massive improvements North American made to the P-51D's manoeuvrability, since, in a series of multi-airframe tests, it was found that the Spitfires IX XIV both turned inside the Mustang III (P-51C.) Before there are any accusations of a fiddle, the report says that there was little to choose between the Mustang III and an early Fw190A, and the Mustang's rate of turn was better than the Tempest.
We also need to know how the Spitfire XIV's performance deteriorated, so markedly, since the radius of turn, of the Mk.I, was given as between 595 - 880 feet.
Edgar

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hey Gaston, this is a flight test DATA sub-forum. How about providing some actual flight test data to back up your claims, instead of anecdotal evidence? Like, a link to that Mk XIV vs P-51D report, a name or date of the test, or even a secondary source with the report in it.

You could even put it in the Spitfire and P-51 flight test data stickies.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

How about providing some actual flight test data to back up your claims, instead of anecdotal evidence? Like, a link to that Mk XIV vs P-51D report, a name or date of the test, or even a secondary source with the report in it. You could even put it in the Spitfire and P-51 flight test data stickies.

I fear that you're doomed to disappointment, there, since the R.A.E. did not get involved with between-aircraft testing; this was normally the province of A.A. E.E., Boscombe Down, or F.I.U., Duxford, or the F.D.U., and reports never mention turning circles (since they varied depending on speed, height, and angle of bank,) they only reported which aircraft could turn inside which.
The only report, that I've seen, regarding turning circles, was done specifically with that in mind, on the then-new Spitfire II, and got all sorts of answers. At 12,000' a Merlin II-powered Spitfire could turn in a radius of 695' (not yards.) The Spitfire II achieved the same, at the same height, at a bank angle of 68 degrees, but, at 20000' it was 1630', at 25,000' it was 1930', at 30,000' it was 2720', and, at 35,000' it was 2790', but take into consideration that all were done at a relatively gentle 39-51 degrees of bank, due to the thinner air, presumably.
As for this business of only moving the stick back 3/4", at 400mph, one can only wonder how the XIV ever pulled out of a 500+ dive; certainly, I've never seen any mention of this dimension, anywhere, and I can't see any airframe being passed for Service use, with that sort of constraint.

 

[Jabberwocky]

And BTW how does those TSaGi tests fit with your conception of the world?: P-39D turn time: 17.5 seconds. Spitfire Mk IX: 17.5 seconds...

Gee, Gaston, maybe they match the other Spitfire and P-39 comparative tests, conducted both in the US and in the UK, which found that the two aircraft were closely matched in turns under 15,000 feet.

 

[Oreo]

Is there another thread somewhere that lists the known Max speeds for all the Japanese fighters? Every coffee table book out there indicates that Japanese fighters never managed to break the 400 mph mark, making them look highly inferior compared to the smug 400+ mph speeds of many Allied and German fighters. I would love to see the "real" max speeds laid out for all the types for which it is known. I always felt the Japanese sections of the books were prejudiced against them.

 

[krieghund]

Richard Dunn author of "Exploding Fuel Tanks" asserts on the website J-Aircraft.com Untitled Document that Japanese document references to an aircraft's speed is under "normal full power" (military or 30 minute rated power) not over boost (roughly "war emergency power" in U.S. terminology. Point being if performance is being cited from captured documents this may be the reason for the differences in speeds.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague, and being used mostly as a boom and zoom high speed fighter, which did not exclude it out-turning other types for short durations at high speeds after a dive. (I really don't know if the P-51 was better at high speed unsustained turns than the Spitfire was: I assume the edge was to the P-51, but not huge, given how well the Spit does at high speeds)

The Spitfire's dislike for sustained low-speed turns was so pronounced the Soviets tried to lighten it by removing the outer guns, and, this failing to yield any improvement, they resorted to using it differently from their own fighters, and used boom and zoom tactics with it, avoiding turning combat. (Source: Fana de l'Aviation)

Every combat report shows the FW-190A to have terribly poor handling at high speeds, but it will typically out-turn the Spitfire in prolonged low-speed horizontal turns:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day."

Johnny Johnson's more detailed account: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Quote: (in a multiple consecutive 360° horizontal contest near the water) "I asked the Spitfire Mk V for all she had, but it was only a matter of time -And he would have me in his sights-"

Similarly, in low-speed prolonged multiple 360° turns at all altitudes, the superiority of the P-47D over the Me-109G is quite extraordinary (not quite so at high speeds unsustained turns!). (See Mike William's WWII aircraft performance site at "P-47 combat reports"):

P-47 Encounter Reports


Most test flights of the FW-190A show tail-down "sinking" when trying to pull-out, this having a strong "tendency to black-out the pilot" despite a very loose resulting curve trajectory: The "Gs" of a FW-190A at high speed are really partly nose-up deceleration: See Italy front-line P-47D comparison to a FW-190:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

That is why you mistakenly think "The FW 190A didn't have too many problems pulling Gs at high speed."

It did.

For the REAL Gs related to the actual trajectory at least...

And that includes Kurt Tank's 7 Gs claim at 400 mph with only 14 pounds pulling on the stick: As many as 2 of those 7 Gs where probably deceleration through mushing Gs, making the maximum a much more modest 5 G or so trajectory...

A better illustration of this phenomenon here:

Lone Sentry: Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190 (WWII Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943)

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible.

As a result to the above:


-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

I wish I had followed this subject when this was posted a couple months ago. Pardon us for digressing from th topic, but I believe this kind of assertion needs to be addressed.

I don't doubt that you can find some combat reports to support your claim, or just about ANY claim, but I don't believe that the majority of combat reports really prove the CAPABILITIES of the aircraft even if they are a faithful account of what happened. Just because a Spitfire IX pilot chooses to Boom Zoom doesn't mean his plane isn't good in a turn fight.

Whose combat reports are showing FW 190A as having poor high speed handling? The test of Faber's machine and the USN FW 190G-3 sitting now at Udvar Hazy show otherwise. The German tests that I have read show it to be a pretty fair fighter. It DID have a tendency to sink IF THE PILOT PULLED TOO HARD on the stick. FW Test Pilot Heinrich Beauveis (spelling?) demonstrated that properly flown, it COULD loop much better than the the Luftwaffe pilot (Gordon Gollob?) who was working with him had thought.

There are also comments in Allied tests that the ailerons vibrated at high speeds which is noted in a German maintenance document as being an indication of poor aileron adjustment. Pity the Germans never shared that with Allied mechanics trying to maintain a plane without documentation.

Regarding claims that the P-47D could outturn the Me 109G, that would be an assertion that the P-47 could outturn the P-51 which was tested against the 109G-6/R-6 cannonboat and did not turn as well at low speeds. The G-6/R-6 tested here was also a lower end model and only capable of the often quoted 386 mph maximum speed.

Regarding the Kurt Tank 7G quote. Look at simple physics. If you experience 7G of acceleration, your change in trajectory is 7G rate (possibly +1G due to Gravity depending on your orientation). No such thing as phantom G.

For your quote of Al Deere, there isn't a statement here that the 190 could outturn his Spitfire. When German pilots were asked how they were flying their turns, the demonstration looked more like "High Yo-Yo".

Regarding Johnny Johnson in his Mk.V Spitfire versus 190's, Mike Spick made a comment in one of his books that the 190 had enough engine power to use partial flaps and muscle their way around turns. Keep in mind that the energy loss can be overcome by excess thrust.

- Ivan.

 

[Rohit]

I registered in this forums reading Gaston's ridiculous theories about fw 190 outturning spitfire, p47 outturning 109 etc.

There are two main things that help a plane to win a sustained turn fight. One is power to weight(Or more exactly speaking thrust to weight). The better the power : weight ratio, the better the plane is in sustained turn rate. This is because the plane can afford to use more of its elevators to help the turn without bleeding off its speed and stalling.

The second thing is wingloading. A plane with high wingloading would be generating less lift for its weight, to stay level in a flat turn. This means the plane is forced to increase its angle of attack, which generates more drag, thus if you want to keep the plane at its sustained turn speed, and not stall off, you must reduce the angle of bank, which decreases the turning rate(sustained).

The spitfire was clearly superior to fw 190 in having a lighter wingloading, as well as a better power to weight ratio. On top of all, the spitfire elliptical wing had a low induced drag which allowed it to use more turn rate without the speed falling off.

Reading ridiculous things like reducing power to do a better sustained turn etc. was just too laughable.

 

[Gaston]

I wish I had followed this subject when this was posted a couple months ago. Pardon us for digressing from th topic, but I believe this kind of assertion needs to be addressed.

I don't doubt that you can find some combat reports to support your claim, or just about ANY claim, but I don't believe that the majority of combat reports really prove the CAPABILITIES of the aircraft even if they are a faithful account of what happened. Just because a Spitfire IX pilot chooses to Boom Zoom doesn't mean his plane isn't good in a turn fight..

Maybe, but when in hundreds of combat reports little else is done, it suggests it insn't too good at sustained turning... Especially when no opposite low-speed example exist...

In addition, the Russians, whose test establishment claim such impressive sustained turn times of 17.5 secs, had to change, in the field, their usual turn tactics to accomodate the Spitfire's lack of success in turns. They even tried to remove the outer guns to make it lighter and turn better, but to no avail (Fana de l'Aviation #496).

Whose combat reports are showing FW 190A as having poor high speed handling? The test of Faber's machine and the USN FW 190G-3 sitting now at Udvar Hazy show otherwise. The German tests that I have read show it to be a pretty fair fighter. It DID have a tendency to sink IF THE PILOT PULLED TOO HARD on the stick. FW Test Pilot Heinrich Beauveis (spelling?) demonstrated that properly flown, it COULD loop much better than the the Luftwaffe pilot (Gordon Gollob?) who was working with him had thought.

This one among many: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

If you don't pull hard, then the turn or loop is quite loose... "Tendency to black out the pilot" is also a symptom of an abrupt nose-up which produces large high-G mushing decelerations with little provocation...

Regarding claims that the P-47D could outturn the Me 109G, that would be an assertion that the P-47 could outturn the P-51 which was tested against the 109G-6/R-6 cannonboat and did not turn as well at low speeds. The G-6/R-6 tested here was also a lower end model and only capable of the often quoted 386 mph maximum speed..

Read a few hundreds combat reports between the two, and you will see how grotesquely the P-47D out-turns the Me-109G in nearly all low-speed circumstances.... Typically it gains over 90° per 360° in sustained level turns, and a small advantage remains even in a slow speed multiple spiral climbs from ground level (probably against a gondola equipped Me-109G-6 version).

The only close turning contest in hundreds involved what was a late 1943 battle with maybe a G-2: It was a high speed spiral dive to the right: When it shifted to the left the P-47D regained a small but significant advantage. In level turns there is no chance at all for the Me-109G, and this at any altitude...

Regarding the Kurt Tank 7G quote. Look at simple physics. If you experience 7G of acceleration, your change in trajectory is 7G rate (possibly +1G due to Gravity depending on your orientation). No such thing as phantom G...

That's precisely the problem: Physics-based predictions are simple to make, and are also so ridiculously contradicted by actual combat results that the real physics is unlikely to be simple..

If you don't have a good exterior visual reference point, the FW-190A pilot himself may not even be aware some of the Gs he experiences are due to sinking... If you are nose up, pulling up at 5.5Gs (actual trajectory), and 1.5 extra G of that is due to deceleration while sinking (totalling 7Gs), how will he even be aware of it, if the direction of the deceleration is nearly the same as gravity?

The fact that Kurt Tank claims 14 pounds of stick pull for 7 Gs shows the aircraft was likely not in a normal flight mode: The FW-190A was not known for excessively light high speed controls (like the Spitfire or P-47D for instance), and yet 14 pounds of stick force for 7 Gs is very low, and would lead to overcorrection if such light controls were not stabilized by "sinking"...

For your quote of Al Deere, there isn't a statement here that the 190 could outturn his Spitfire. When German pilots were asked how they were flying their turns, the demonstration looked more like "High Yo-Yo".

That's what Eric Brown said also: Yo-yos have nothing to do with sustained turns anyway, they are 180° maximum rate turns, and they thus have nothing to do with how FW-190As actually fought, which is very well described by Russian first hand sources......

Regarding Johnny Johnson in his Mk.V Spitfire versus 190's, Mike Spick made a comment in one of his books that the 190 had enough engine power to use partial flaps and muscle their way around turns. Keep in mind that the energy loss can be overcome by excess thrust.

- Ivan.

Pushed from the tail maybe, but when pulled by the nose current flight physics are obviously wrong on this aspect. The fact that the Spitfire Mk V out-turns or equals the Mk IX in low-speed sustained turns, with so much less power to weight and only a slightly lighter wingloading, is indicative of that.

Gaston

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Gaston, et al.

I was unable to log in here for a while because I had forgotten my password and cookie that kept me logged in finally went away. I saw this post when I first came back, but realised that this reply would be a high effort kind of thing.

Maybe, but when in hundreds of combat reports little else is done, it suggests it insn't too good at sustained turning... Especially when no opposite low-speed example exist...

In addition, the Russians, whose test establishment claim such impressive sustained turn times of 17.5 secs, had to change, in the field, their usual turn tactics to accomodate the Spitfire's lack of success in turns. They even tried to remove the outer guns to make it lighter and turn better, but to no avail (Fana de l'Aviation #496).


This one among many: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

If you don't pull hard, then the turn or loop is quite loose... "Tendency to black out the pilot" is also a symptom of an abrupt nose-up which produces large high-G mushing decelerations with little provocation...

As I stated earlier, Combat reports just tell what happened. They don't state capabilities. I will get back to this later.

Keep in mind that the Spitfires that were given to the Russians were typically not new aircraft. They were not in the best shape.

I don't know about "blacking out the pilot", but if I remember this particular report, the P-47 pilot was a Fighter pilot. The FW 190 pilot had more hours but was not a fighter pilot. He was a bomber or transport pilot but probably not accustomed to high-G maneuvers. This was really not a fair comparison. The seat on the FW 190 was a bit more inclined and was stated to reduce the effect of G on the pilot.

As for the idea of "Phantom G", look at the design of Inertial Navigation Systems. They keep a pretty good record and estimate of where the vehicle is by calculation based on the G experienced by the instrument. Bottom line is that G that is felt is felt because of a change in trajectory. In other words, if you feel G, you are moving. No such thing as Phantom G, at least not until we get to the Star Trek world with inertial dampers.

Read a few hundreds combat reports between the two, and you will see how grotesquely the P-47D out-turns the Me-109G in nearly all low-speed circumstances.... Typically it gains over 90° per 360° in sustained level turns, and a small advantage remains even in a slow speed multiple spiral climbs from ground level (probably against a gondola equipped Me-109G-6 version).

The only close turning contest in hundreds involved what was a late 1943 battle with maybe a G-2: It was a high speed spiral dive to the right: When it shifted to the left the P-47D regained a small but significant advantage. In level turns there is no chance at all for the Me-109G, and this at any altitude...

As I stated earlier, Combat reports just tell what happened. They don't state aircraft capabilities.

By the stage of the war where P-47s were roaming over Germany, the typical German pilot was no longer well trained. Even with hotter fighters such as a 109K or FW 190D, they were getting shot down in large numbers. Consider that even the Me 262 was getting shot down by lesser fighters unless you believe that combat reports indicate that the 262 was inferior.

That's precisely the problem: Physics-based predictions are simple to make, and are also so ridiculously contradicted by actual combat results that the real physics is unlikely to be simple..

If you don't have a good exterior visual reference point, the FW-190A pilot himself may not even be aware some of the Gs he experiences are due to sinking... If you are nose up, pulling up at 5.5Gs (actual trajectory), and 1.5 extra G of that is due to deceleration while sinking (totalling 7Gs), how will he even be aware of it, if the direction of the deceleration is nearly the same as gravity?

The fact that Kurt Tank claims 14 pounds of stick pull for 7 Gs shows the aircraft was likely not in a normal flight mode: The FW-190A was not known for excessively light high speed controls (like the Spitfire or P-47D for instance), and yet 14 pounds of stick force for 7 Gs is very low, and would lead to overcorrection if such light controls were not stabilized by "sinking"...

As stated earlier, if you are experiencing the G, you are changing direction. Sinking G is the same as any other G except that you are bleed off a lot of airspeed. Please note also the statement earlier about Gordon Gollob and Heinrich Beauvais.
The 190 also had a control reversal above a certain speed which might explain the low stick forces.

That's what Eric Brown said also: Yo-yos have nothing to do with sustained turns anyway, they are 180° maximum rate turns, and they thus have nothing to do with how FW-190As actually fought, which is very well described by Russian first hand sources......

Not commenting about Eric Brown. I was commented on German pilots themselves demonstrating how they turned.
You also appear to using "sustained turn" and turn rate interchangeably. They are not interchangeable.

The British typically measured turn radius. The Russians measured turn rate. They are different.
With turn radius, often the extra engine power doesn't help because your limit is typially what your wing will support without stalling. With turn rate, your aircraft may be dumping a lot of energy very quickly which hopefully engine power will help. Your wing may still be a limiting factor, but more likely it is the structural strength of the aircraft that is the limit. In other words, if you are already pulling 7G in the turn and about to black out, then what does it matter if your maximum AoA isn't reached until 9G?

Pushed from the tail maybe, but when pulled by the nose current flight physics are obviously wrong on this aspect. The fact that the Spitfire Mk V out-turns or equals the Mk IX in low-speed sustained turns, with so much less power to weight and only a slightly lighter wingloading, is indicative of that.

Gaston

The only real difference between pushed from the tail and pulled by the nose is whether there is a propeller pushing air past the tail surfaces over and above the airspeed of the aircraft. Tractor props make for better low speed controllability. Nothing contradictory about that.

Until you get to relativistic velocities, plain old Newtonian physics seem to describe the world quite well.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

As stated in the earlier post, Combat reports may be useful, but they must be taken in context.
I take them as anecdotal only and certainly not as proof of capabilities of various aircraft.

Consider the following:

Saburo Sakai while flying a A6M5 Zero met about a dozen Hellcats. Although blind in one eye and tiring quickly, he was able to keep from getting shot down even though the Grummans were the most maneuverable fighters he had fought. It was obvious to him that the American pilots were not as good as their aircraft.

If you were reading the American combat report, what would you say? They encountered a "Super Zero" that maneuvered so well they could not hit it?

How about Pug Southerland in a F4F against Sakai in a A6M? Southerland was able to control two other Zeros before Sakai came along to interrupt the fight. Does that mean that the F4F is a more maneuverable plane when it can control two Japanese Zeros?

Consider also:

In the book "Genda's Blade", the 343 Kokutai was formed from the most experienced of the remaining Japanese pilots and equipped with the N1K2-J Shiden KAI. The was "the best" fighter available to the Japanese Navy at the time. Their fighting skills impressed the USN pilots they faced.

Yet when you read through the combat reports, the 343 Kokutai was losing about 3 aircraft for each American loss. Does that mean the N1K2-J was not as good an aeroplane as the F6F or F4U? It has been stated elsewhere that the Hellcat was considered to be "an easy kill" for the George, but the loss records don't add up to that.

These are all fairly well known accounts which are nice stories or history but really don't give a fair evaluation of the aircraft involved in the fights.

- Ivan.

 

[Glider]

Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague, and being used mostly as a boom and zoom high speed fighter, which did not exclude it out-turning other types for short durations at high speeds after a dive. (I really don't know if the P-51 was better at high speed unsustained turns than the Spitfire was: I assume the edge was to the P-51, but not huge, given how well the Spit does at high speeds)

Hello again Gaston
I see you still haven't lost your habit of quoting the combat reportrs to support your case without actually using the combat reports to support your case. For the simple reason that the aforsaid combat reports dont support your case.

S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa, commented on a 3 April 1943 combat

Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling off
F/Lt. Irving "Hap" Kennedy
We were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and turn. I admit that in this combat report he didn't actually use the turn but clearly he wasn't going to avoid a urning fight if one came his way.
Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943)
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control
Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying
The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable
Pierre Clostermann
The "109" tried to turn inside me, but at that height his short wings got insufficient grip on the rarefied atmosphere and he stalled and went into a spin. Once again the Spitfire's superior manoeuvrability had got me out of the wood.
P/O J. Stewart (Rhodesian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942
They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one.
S/Ldr. D. H. Watkins of 611 Squadron
I throttled back and easily turned inside the enemy aircraft and fired a short burst at 45° deflection - I saw one cannon strike behind the e/a cockpit and he flew straight inland

I could go on but think the point has been made. The questions I have for your are :-

a) Why did you say quote Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague when clearly they didn't.
b) If you cannot use those reports to support your case, why did you say that you could?
c) It is against for forum rules to accuse someone of lying, so to quote Churchill, why are you so economical with the truth. (it was a form of words used and accepted in the House of Commons so I am hoping its good enough here).

While you are at it can you quote many, indeed any, examples of a P47 getting into a slow speed turning fight turning fight with the German fighters and winning. I say this as I have looked and so far have not found any.

Finally can I see any evidence to support this statement
In addition, the Russians, whose test establishment claim such impressive sustained turn times of 17.5 secs, had to change, in the field, their usual turn tactics to accomodate the Spitfire's lack of success in turns.

 

[Gaston]

The exampe of turning you quote for the Spitfire is at very high altitudes (which does favour the unusually large Spitfire wing at such heights), and the description of an "astonishingly small" radius does not constitute evidence of sustained turning performance at lower altitudes...


Neither does the description of superior Spitfire Mk IX straight-line performance to the FW-190A (?)...

I will concede the Spitfire can probably out-turn the FW-190A in any circumstances above 20-25 000 ft., including sustained turns, since even the Me-109G could beat the FW-190A up there as well: The maximum practical ceiling of the FW-190A seemed to be around 25 000 ft, and its handling drastically deteriorated above 20 000 ft. or so...




On the contrary, there is, if not massive, then close to massive evidence of the opposite: I'll just get my favourite quote out of the way: John Weir, RCAF:

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

As far as selecting the Spitfire combat quote, I didn't, since all the FW-190A out-turning quotes belong to one of the two caveats: Too high (as yours), or no mention of low speed and/or multiple consecutive circles.


Yes it is "selected" evidence, but nothing prevents the contrarians from selecting the opposite (which I would be happy to see).

The fact opposite anecdotal is near impossible to find (comparatively), should serve as a clue, not to mention KG 200's evaluation opinion: "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G"

Tactical and technical trends, Nov. 5-11 1942:

-"Maneuverability--Except at lower speeds-around 140 MPH(!)- The FW-190 is superior and will out-turn the P-38" (A FW-190A-4)

-1943 British test: "The P-38G and FW-190A-4 are roughly similar in turning ability"


Note this combat of a P-38G against a Me-109G:

Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944

" I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight." [!!!!]

Here are a few P-47 combat reports with my comments:

Inability of the FW-190A to make large high speed turns at 500 mph, instead doing "skidding turns":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/355-russell-2march44.jpg

Roughly matches poor high-speed performance here:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html

Poor FW-190A high-speed handling (400 MPH speed, elongated loop, abrupt pitching-up, blacking out the pilot as in the "tendency to black-out the pilot" in the P-47 test two links above (nose high deceleration in a broad curve of course), snapping completely out in 400mph turns etc...):

http://www.spitfireperformance...0-murrell-2dec44.jpg

Inability of the FW-190A to make turns at 500 mph: "He tried short sharp turns right and left, and what seemed skidding turns down. There was no violent evasive action at all.":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/355-russell-2march44.jpg

Superior P-47D turn rate against Me-109G (contrast later to FW-190A):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-mudge-1dec43.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg

Lesser or nil P-47D superiority in turns to right vs Me-109G (as example of why the opposite could be demonstrated: It seems the P-47D out-turned the Me-109G severely to the left mostly):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-truluck-27sept43.jpg

Now contrast this to the FW-190A-8, late in 1944 (The P-47 has to escape in a zoom...):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bonebrake-19dec44.jpg


More Me-109G turnfight-beating links

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bosworth-7oct44.jpg

"I easily out-turned them (2 Me-109Gs) from 9000 ft to 2000 ft":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-brown-15march44.jpg

"We started turning with several 109s, and were having no difficulty doing it at 23500 ft. with full tanks"

"About 4 (109s)across the circle from and five pulling in on us from six o'clock. But as we pulled deflection on the others across from us, the rest seemed to lose interest in the fight and disappeared"

10 000 ft.: "The e/a started trying to turn, and we out-turned them immediately"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-19may44.jpg


Rare, rare, RARE case of the Me-109G causing the P-47 trouble in a Luftberry: Only one of two I am aware of so far...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-brasher-11feb44.jpg

Another rare case of a P-47 in trouble vs a Me-109, by Covelle again, despite him having no trouble with his tanks full previously, now had trouble with one out 109 out of several (but equal to the others): Then, out of ammunition and still fighting(!): "I broke into this 109 and he tacked on to me, but I managed to out-turn him until I reached the clouds":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-covelle-7june44.jpg

Interesting mixture of turning and dive/zooming by a FW-190A: I would call it an unusually equitable use of both turning and dive and zoom: He gets killed in a zoom:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-brown-23march44.jpg

Against a late FW-190A-8, no so easy...: "We fought a long running and turning fight eastward, during which which I was out-turned several times which necessitated climbing and allowing the e/a to run" Just before that a Luftberry alone with 3 Me-109s had resulted in a kill...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bonebrake-19dec44.jpg

Earlier needle-tip prop (pre-Jan-1944) P-47Ds also showed a significant superiority in sustained turns to the Me-109G, except that to the right the margin is closer: "My excess speed was about gone but I was gradually getting inside and nearer to him" ---Despite being in a right-turning Luftberry: Close to stalling but still gaining...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-bonebrake-19dec44.jpg

Luftberry

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/361-naedele-8april44.jpg

Turning`

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/361-merritt-22feb44-b.jpg

two turns around hangar and "I was continually out-turning him"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/361-eckfeldt-8april44.jpg

two luftberrys. I closed on the last E/A

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/355-woertz-29nov44.jpg


"tight luftberry. My excess airspeed was about gone, but I was gradually getting inside and nearer to him (Me-109)"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-truluck-27sept43.jpg

"In this engagement we succeeded in out-diving and out-turning the enemy (Me-109) at any altitude"

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-thomton-12may44.jpg

8000 ft-"We had no difficulty turning and climbing with them":

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-luckey-19may44.jpg



In another example of P-47D turn assymetry vs the Me-109G, notice how, against the very same Me-109G, the contest is a LOT longer and closer when to the RIGHT (several P-47 pilot quotes confirm the strong preference of the P-47D for the left turn)...:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...wilkinson-1dec43.jpg


Again, long turning battle with the FW-190A, a rough match:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/353-field-22april44.jpg

Again,"not being able to hold any more deflection" against a FW-190A:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/361-kruzel-8march44.jpg

"Not being able to tighten my turn any further" against a FW-190A, and "overrunnning" him twice in the same sentence:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/361-kruzel-8march44.jpg


So the invitation is out there to match this with even half or less of the amount of valid contrarian examples ("valid" meaning not hugely high or above 25 000 ft., preferrably below 20 000, and the mention of a reasonably low starting speed, thus no previous diving, and, most important, mention of multiple consecutive circles)...

Gaston

 

[JtD]

Richard Dunn author of "Exploding Fuel Tanks" asserts on the website J-Aircraft.com Untitled Document that Japanese document references to an aircraft's speed is under "normal full power" (military or 30 minute rated power) not over boost (roughly "war emergency power" in U.S. terminology. Point being if performance is being cited from captured documents this may be the reason for the differences in speeds.

This is very important when looking at Ki-100 performance, and also when comparing its performance with the earlier Ki-61. The Ha-112-II as installed in the Ki-100 produced about 1200 at altitude at the normal (Military) rating, for which the speeds are given in post 1. However, it produced about 1400 at WEP, and this would give it a considerably increase in speed. The Ki-61 I on the other hand, did not get a big performance boost, the difference between Military and WEP being about 50hp. The net result would be around 5% speed increase for the Ki-100, and 1-2% for the Ki-61I, making the Ki-100 as fast and faster than the Ki-61 I.