most manoeuvrable aircraft in ww2

[GrauGeist]

I like it when the rules change from original intent of the thread just to suit someone else

View attachment 526426​

They did ask about the "most maneuverable aircraft" while adding suggestions.

So I'd propose the following (in no particular order):
Fiesler Fi156
Piper L-4
Fiat Cr.42
Taylorcraft L-2
Polikarpov Po-2 (U-2)
Gloster Gladiator
Henschel Hs123
Stinson L-5
Flettner Fl282

 

[fliger747]

Most of the aircraft on that list would be considered "targets".

 

[Brooke]

Robert L Shaw's book "Fighter Combat" is a thorough examination of tactics and energy vrs angles tactics. Evaluating an opponents energy, potential and future can be difficult. Angles Maneuvering bleeds energy and if lured into a turning fight the energy fighter can easily loose it's energy advantage. Different airplanes bleed energy in different ways. She aircraft are much better at converting a dive and acceleration back into potential energy in a zoom climb, others may have lost too much through drag at high speed.

He goes through various scenarios of energy vrs angles fighter etc and strategies employed.

Excellent book.

Thanks, I have the book on order.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I'll vote for the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache

 

[GrauGeist]

Most of the aircraft on that list would be considered "targets".

*IF* you could get low enough and slow enough to get them in your sights.

One of the reasons why the U-2 (Po-2) was so successful at it's harassment missions...it was hard to shoot down.

 

[special ed]

I am reminded of a tail I was told of an F-94 driver in Korea in an effort to rid the area of Po-2 bedcheck Charlies was vectored to a target (at night) which turned out to be four Po-2s in formation which resulted in a collision and fatalities for all involved. I have not found any record of this and it should be easy to verify as there were very few F-94 squadrons in Korea.

 

[CORSNING]

OK Cat, it seems to me everyone who has posted so far is right.
However, I believe your listing in your first post was an attempt
to classify your thread file. So if I am understanding the title, directed
by your first post, you are asking the following question.

"What WW2 Monoplane Fighter Was The Most Maneuverable?"

I tried to send a post earlier but I had to bring in the groceries
from my wife's SUV, feed the dogs, change the right head light
in the minivan, explain the bills to my wife...etc., etc,....etc. So
when I finally had time to post it the site told me I had to check
in again and most of my post was gone. . I have to go and
prepare for work tomorrow (I get up at 3:45 a.m.), but if I get a
chance tomorrow I will repost the rest.

 

[Zipper730]

I forgot about helicopters...

1. I suppose this could be amended to tightest-turning fixed-wing aircraft...
2. Out of curiosity: How many helicopters existed in WWII?
3. Also, were any autogyros still around, and how tight could they turn compared to helos and fixed-wing?

It's important to specify under what parameters you are trying to define maneuverability.

I would figure you could use

1. Turning Circle: Everybody intrinsically understands what it means, though it fails to factor in speed and rate-of-turn, and there are creative ways to generate turns at zero speed (Many can hop and do a 360...). Also many aircraft do not maintain a continuous rate of speed through the turn, which complicates things.
2. Rate of Turn: Measured in degrees a second, it is better for determining how rapidly the turn takes place. With true airspeed known or able to be calculated, you can also determine the average g-load within the turn. The problem is that, unless you are calculating the rate of turn throughout the whole duration, you do not have an exact rate of turn, but an average.
3. Corner velocity: This is a measure of having the lift available to pull the maximum normal-rated or absolute maximum load-factor. One computes it by taking the stall speed at the aircraft's weight and multiplying by the square root of the load factor in question (i.e. at 9g, the speed will need to be 3 times the stall speed or greater... I would assume that one would measure the power-on stall-speeds based on the effects of the propeller slip-stream, but I could be wrong).
4. Control-Surface Loads: The aircraft might have enough lift to pull the turn, and be structurally strong enough to take it, but control loads get so heavy that nobody can execute the maneuver.

Another parameter that might also be useful is the amount of time it takes for the aircraft to build-up the g-load based on the responsiveness of the controls.

 

[GrauGeist]

2. Out of curiosity: How many helicopters existed in WWII?

Several, actually.
Excluding prototypes, these are the ones used operationally:
Flettner Fl282
Focke-Achgelis Fa223
Sikorsky R-4
There were also autogyros used operationally, too.

In regards to the turning debate, it would be tough to nail down the "best overall turning fighter" because there are quite a few variables.

Like the A6M, for example...it was perhaps one of the best turning fighters of the war at lower speeds. At higher speeds, it lost it's advantage.
Then there was the Fw190, which was hard to out-turn at lower altitudes, but higher up, it lost that edge.
The Me262 had the ability to turn well at high speeds, but once it bled off it's speed, it became an easy target.

So perhaps find the fighter that had the best turning profile at all altitudes (or as close to it as possible) and within a reasonable speed-set.

 

[Zipper730]

Several, actually.
Excluding prototypes, these are the ones used operationally:
Flettner Fl282
Focke-Achgelis Fa223
Sikorsky R-4

Fascinating, I do know there was one tested in the late 1930's, I just didn't know about operational variants.

There were also autogyros used operationally, too.

Do they turn tighter than fixed wing aircraft (I wasn't planning on including it since mostly the subject is fixed wing)

In regards to the turning debate, it would be tough to nail down the "best overall turning fighter" because there are quite a few variables.

True, when it comes to modern aircraft you have airspeed and mach-number: Airspeed tells you how much air goes over the plane, and the mach number tells you your relationship to the speed of sound, and how that air behaves as it goes over the plane.

In those days you had just indicated airspeed which sometimes produced erroneous readings at altitude, and the propeller efficiency rarely favors high subsonic speed: So you're left with maneuverability low, medium, high airspeed at low altitude; maneuverability, low medium, high airspeed at medium altitude, and so on for high altitude.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, I am not sure how well the Autogryos performed in regards to turning, diving, climbing.

I'm sure that they had a certain degree of manouverability over fixed wing, but also keeping in mind that they wouldn't have been as nimble as a true helicopter.

The Autogyros used operationally were:
Focke-Achgelis Fa330 (towed)
Cierva C.30 (also Avro Rota, Focke-Wulf FwC30, Kellet KD-1)
Cierva C.40
Kayaba Ka-1
Kamov A-7

 

[rednev]

OK Cat, it seems to me everyone who has posted so far is right.
However, I believe your listing in your first post was an attempt
to classify your thread file. So if I am understanding the title, directed
by your first post, you are asking the following question.

"What WW2 Monoplane Fighter Was The Most Maneuverable?"

Maybe early war aircraft such as claude,nate , i 16 maybe pzl ?
So many variables the Japanese fighters did well against the i 16 over china but was that pilot training better aircraft or both ?
Maneuverability without the speed to engage or disengage is only an aerobatic display

 

[stona]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned gliders.

This is from Richard Wright's 'Wooden Swords', an account of the development of British airborne forces.

"In February the squadron had an interesting day out. A German airborne invasion still being expected, the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford was required to study the chances of shooting down gliders, towed and free, and to recommend tactics for both sides. In perfect visibility, five of our Tigers towing five Kites flew in formation to a rendezvous at Royston, to be met and attacked by fighters armed with camera-guns. My proposal to retaliate with Verey pistols from the tugs was rejected, but I was allowed to bring my Leica to bear. A Hurricane, with flaps down, came at the formation head-on, and doubtless scored hits on our leaders, but I got him fair and square with my first shot. The gliders then released, and proved almost hopeless targets when free. A fixed-gun fighter flying four times as fast as a glider cannot keep on its tail as it circles. lt has to break away after a short burst, and begin each attack afresh. But a free-gun fighter, turning outside the glider on the same centre, can keep constant deflection and take steady aim. This was proved after a second take-off, from Duxford, when Professor Melville Jones picked gliders off at leisure from a Defiant."

This is the photograph Wright took with his Leica.

He did mean 'head-on'!

Cheers

Steve

 

[fliger747]

The issue with the Me 262 at low speed was thrust. The actual power produced by a pure thrust engine is dependent on speed and at low speed it was very easy to get behind the power curve. Lots of speed, lots of power, slow, bad corner to be in. Additionally the Jumo 004 really had no fuel control unit, the throttle was in actuality just a variable fuel cock. Moving the lever too quickly could easily cause a rich or lean zone flame out.

 

[MIflyer]

The USAAF said its most maneuverable fighter was the P-61.

I suspect by that they meant how tight it could turn. But roll rate is a big component, too. The P-47 was great at rolling, but was not noted for tight turning.

A friend of mine a B-52 pilot, described out-turning a couple of ROK F-5's. I would not think of a B-52 as being maneuverable, but it seems that at altitude it can out turn an F-5.

During the making of the BoB movie in 1969, after filming one day one of the Spanish 109's dove on the B-25 camera plane. After a few tight turns the B-25 got on the tail of the 109 and the only way the fighter could escape was to do a half roll and dive - the same way it would have gotten away from a Spitfire. So which is more maneuverable, a 109 or a stripped B-25?

 

[CORSNING]

Cat, I was hoping you would hack up a furball and confirm my statement
about the title and your first post.

What WW2 [1939-1945] Monoplane Fighter Was The Most Affectively Maneuverable?

You see I worked an extra word in there? Well, I got to thinking about such aircraft
as the M.S. 406, P-66, P-36A and CW-21. They were all extremely maneuverable aircraft
but for one reason or another just didn't have all the right qualities. The M.S. 406 put its
pilot at risk because of its limited rounds of armament and like the CW-21 & P-66 just
couldn't take much punishment. The P-36 could take the punishment but it did not have
enough maneuverability or initial diving speed to escape the even more maneuverable
Japanese fighters it apposed. Against the Bf.109E it just did not have the speed or
diving ability to dictate the terms of battle.

You know, in my original POST #27, I had listed the F2A-1/B-239 because of the effective
way the Finish used it. The truth is guys, I always believed there success was due to the
(in)ability of their adversaries. If they had been facing the seasoned pilots of Japan flying
Ki.43-Is or Ki 27s I believe the story would have been vastly different...in my limited opinion.

OK then, I have to apologize to everyone. I came home from work tonight not feeling
very well. I am an old fart that needs to get a shower before I can eat supper with my
wonderful wife, so I'm going to leave you with my definition of Aircraft Maneuverability.
I hope to feel better tomorrow and post my personal lists.

Aircraft vs. Aircraft Maneuverability:
An aircrafts ability to have a controlled change in movement or direction in order to reach
a certain position or point in the sky in order to give you a favorable advantage over your
opponent. ( Biff, you can step in and correct me or add more information anytime.)

Good night all, Jeff

 

[Zipper730]

The USAAF said its most maneuverable fighter was the P-61.

Ironic, if that's true: It was the USAAF's biggest fighter

A friend of mine a B-52 pilot, described out-turning a couple of ROK F-5's. I would not think of a B-52 as being maneuverable, but it seems that at altitude it can out turn an F-5.

And this was like at 45000+ feet? I can believe that, the B-52 was built to fly at high altitudes, particularly if it was light, it might very well be able to keep maneuvering.

 

[BiffF15]

Aircraft vs. Aircraft Maneuverability:
An aircrafts ability to have a controlled change in movement or direction in order to reach
a certain position or point in the sky in order to give you a favorable advantage over your
opponent. ( Biff, you can step in and correct me or add more information anytime.)

Good night all, Jeff

Jeff,

Your definition sounds good, and would only add the pilot as an additional variable. Skill levels vary from pilot to pilot, and some aircraft are easier than others to max perform.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[fliger747]

The Finn's did well with the "Buffalo". Initial testing of the F2A presented a very maneuverable aircraft with an OK climb rate, however as was commonly the case, especially for a Naval Aircraft, additional equipment (Crap?) was added till the performance declined significantly. The Finn's were quite good at adapting sow's ears into silk purses. I have several of their WWII rifles modified from Russian Mosin Nagants, with the new free floated Sako barrels, new sights, re worked trigger and whatnot, quite a nice, effective and reliable military rifle!

I expect for their mission profile they were able to simplicate and add lightness and develop good tactics.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-36 could take the punishment but it did not have
enough maneuverability or initial diving speed to escape the even more maneuverable
Japanese fighters it apposed. Against the Bf.109E it just did not have the speed or
diving ability to dictate the terms of battle.

Actually...
During the Battle of France, the Hawk 75's of the French made quite a showing for themselves against the Bf109E/D.

The P-36 was a very nimble aircraft and it was one of the leading types of the late 1930's. It had a lower wing-loading making it very capable of turning, it had a climb rate comparable to, or better, than the A6M2 or the Bf109E/D.
It's only shortcoming, was it's light armament and no self-sealing tanks or pilot armor. Otherwise, it was on a par with it's adversaries - and remember, of the P-40s and P-36s that managed to get up on 7 December, it was the P-36 that drew first blood against Japan, by downing two A6Ms.