cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 510
- Apr 23, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Rate of turn has very little to do with rate of climb. The only thing that links rate of climb to turn at all is excess power, which is need to sustain a steep turn. The rate of turn depends in airspeed and bank angle, but you need sufficient lift and excess power to sustain a level turn if that is your aim. So, while the rate of turn depends on arispeed and bank angle, it assumes sufficient lift and power are available. If not, you will descend while turning (insufficient power) or stall (insufficient lift).In truth they were all after it all. faster, better rate of roll, turn and climb. The Zero was agile because it was light, it was light to give it a huge range. The Spitfire had a good rate of turn because it had a good rate of climb. All sorts of things were done to the Spitfire improve rate of roll throughout its service ending up with completely different wings. Same for the P-51 and especially the P-38 with powered ailerons etc.
Galland was outmaneuvered by Spitfires on at least two occasions causing him to both run out of fuel plus he climbed vertically as steep as he could and fired his guns hoping the smoke from the exhaust and guns plus showering the pursuing Spit in empty casings would persuade it to give up, I don't know his name but one of the leaders of JG26 also mentioned he didn't like it in JG26's biography because of the reasons explained, what you do read about in everything air combat was the split S.Never saw that one anywhere in print. Doesn't mean it isn't, I just never saw that written anywhere. They were observed to do that (nose over to escape) on numerous occasions.
Not at 400+mph in a 109 thoughI haven't read that anywhere. I am a pilot and have done that maneuver many times and it is actually quite fun. Akin to a roller coaster drop.
The pilot is well strapped in in a 109, his head can't hit the canopy unless he was rather tall, which would be a rarity. Rall was a good friend, he never mentioned anything that you claim.Not at 400mph in a 109 were your head touches the canopy in normal flight though
This is my opinion so take it as such, I think the 109 pilots did bunt over, a more accurate term but only at the very start before rolling into a split S, from a pursuing Spit/Hurricane it would look like a negative G dive as they shot past, like I said my opinion reading pilots notes/reports.If a Bf 109 bunts into a nose over the RAF have just had a tactical victory, the bombers are still up "there" and he isnt.
Watch from 5:40, the British pilots head is level with the top windscreen frame and he is a small man, the German pilot is larger but look at how much room he has in the Spitfire.The pilot is well strapped in in a 109, his head can't hit the canopy unless he was rather tall, which would be a rarity. Rall was a good friend, he never mentioned anything that you claim.
So, un named sources, vs the 3rd highest scoring Ace in the world.
It seems that this might have been a key factor in the initial preference for maneuverability that the Japanese had prior to Pearl Harbor, with fast designs such as the Ki-28 rejected in favor of nimbler designs like the Ki-27, a preference bolstered by the experiences of pilots over China. The Japanese just seemed to be 3-5 years, at best, behind the designs of other powers in terms of speed, with the main weakness being engine power. Even the smaller economy of Italy was able to produce the overpoweringly fast Macchi M.C.72 in 1931, with indigenous engine design, albeit with two engines mated together, with a configuration similar to that of the still slower, non-indigenous-engined failure that was the Ki-64, which flew over a decade later. The closest Japanese aircraft with Japanese engines in terms of speed, recorded speed anyways, was the twin-engined Ki-83; I'm unsure about the veracity of the >750km/h speed that has been mentioned on occasion, and of the speeds of late-war aircraft like the Ki-87. On a side note, I've noticed that there is quite a number of Japanese aircraft close to, above, or below 580km/h in terms of maximum airspeed, a bit of an oddity I've noticed (Ki-61-I, Ki-100, Ki-44-I, N1K1-J, Ki-102b, as examples). All this doesn't speak well to Imperial Japan's industrial capacity and self-sufficiency, and calls into question its status as a major power of the time.Although there is a general agreement in this thread that performance trumps maneuverability, defeating more maneuverable fighters could be difficult...
Never said everyone nosed over to avoid getting shot down.Galland was outmaneuvered by Spitfires on at least two occasions causing him to both run out of fuel plus he climbed vertically as steep as he could and fired his guns hoping the smoke from the exhaust and guns plus showering the pursuing Spit in empty casings would persuade it to give up, I don't know his name but one of the leaders of JG26 also mentioned he didn't like it in JG26's biography because of the reasons explained, what you do read about in everything air combat was the split S.
He also never claimed that?Not at 400+mph in a 109 though
What exactly do you mean "performance?"Although there is a general agreement in this thread that performance trumps manoeuvrability, defeating more manoeuvrable fighters could be difficult. I found some (translated) comments from Johannes Steinhoff at Johannes Steinhoff – First Aero Squadron Foundation ™ on fighting against Yak-9s:
"I passed one that looked as if it was hanging motionless in the air (I am too fast!). The one above me went into a steep right-hand turn, his pale blue underside standing out against the purple sky. Another banked right in front of the Me's nose. Violent jolt as I flew through his airscrew eddies. Maybe a wing's length away. That one in the gentle left-hand curve! Swing her round. I was coming from underneath, eye glued to the sight (pull her tighter!). A throbbing in the wings as my cannon pounded briefly. Missed him. Way behind his tail. It was exasperating. I would never be able to shoot one down like this. They were like a sack of fleas. A prick of doubt: is this really such a good fighter? Could one in fact, successfully attack a group of erratically banking fighters with the Me 262?"
Gary / Gents,The pilot is well strapped in in a 109, his head can't hit the canopy unless he was rather tall, which would be a rarity. Rall was a good friend, he never mentioned anything that you claim.
So, un named sources, vs the 3rd highest scoring Ace in the world.
You can take a look in this forum, there is a lot of topics covering japanese aircraft, and many contemporary docs can be found, as well as Allied flight tests and assessments.Pardon the rambling. I am hard-pressed to find a proper resource anywhere online on Japanese aircraft performance, especially in English
Russia also favored smaller, "more traditional" fighters until the jet age, because Soviet industry didn't have the tech to make a really good 1500+hp engine, the Shvetsov M-82 not withstanding (even that was based on the Wright R-1820 Cyclone as far as heritage).
And the Mikulin AM-42 made over 2000 hp, but was only good for the Il-10 ground attack/close support aircraft (and that engine was cobbled together from a BMW VI-based engine block, reduction gear from a Rolls-Royce Buzzard and a supercharger taken design-wise from the Allison V-1710).
The AM34 (and later versions) were based on the M17, which was a license built BMW V1 V12. Development did remove it from it's origins (just like the Klimov M100s Shevestov radials diverged from the H-S 12Y and Wright Cyclone respectively), but it was still the starting point. Not to mention an AM42 taken from an Il-10 that was being restored showed the supercharger assembly, which looks like it was cribbed directly (design-wise) from a single stage Allison.You can take a look in this forum, there is a lot of topics covering japanese aircraft, and many contemporary docs can be found, as well as Allied flight tests and assessments.
Here is also a lot of data: WWII Aircraft Performance
Why should we discard the M-82? Or AM-38 for that matter?
Woah.
Any sources that confirm that AM-42 was a cobbled-together engine with prevailing foreign bits and pieces?