Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They did ask about the "most maneuverable aircraft" while adding suggestions.I like it when the rules change from original intent of the thread just to suit someone else
Thanks, I have the book on order.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.
*IF* you could get low enough and slow enough to get them in your sights.Most of the aircraft on that list would be considered "targets".
1. I suppose this could be amended to tightest-turning fixed-wing aircraft...swampyankee said:I forgot about helicopters...
I would figure you could useIt's important to specify under what parameters you are trying to define maneuverability.
Several, actually.2. Out of curiosity: How many helicopters existed in WWII?
Fascinating, I do know there was one tested in the late 1930's, I just didn't know about operational variants.Several, actually.
Excluding prototypes, these are the ones used operationally:
Flettner Fl282
Focke-Achgelis Fa223
Sikorsky R-4
Do they turn tighter than fixed wing aircraft (I wasn't planning on including it since mostly the subject is fixed wing)There were also autogyros used operationally, too.
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 regards to the turning debate, it would be tough to nail down the "best overall turning fighter" because there are quite a few variables.
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
Ironic, if that's true: It was the USAAF's biggest fighterThe USAAF said its most maneuverable fighter was the P-61.
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.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.
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
Actually...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.