most manoeuvrable aircraft in ww2

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Me-262 was not a good turner. As Maj "Kit" Carson described an Me-262 encounter, the Mustang could easily outturn the Me-262 but the 262 could fly around the outside of the larger turn circle as fast as the Mustang could track it. Thus the Mustang could not always pul a lead on the 262 in a turning fight if the jet kept its speed up. And this was at low altitude; the 262 was strafing a PBY that was picking up a downed pilot. If the P-51 had been a P-61, with its legendary turning ability and top turret, things likely would have been different.

The Me-262 had an extendable control stick to give the pilot more leverage to overcome the aileron forces at high speeds.

I wonder about the P-38L. The later models had hydraulically boosted ailerons that really boosted the roll rate. Capt Eric Brown said it, "Rolled like a dingbat." Combined with the lack of P-factor concerns I wonder if the P-38L so equipped could have out-turned just about anything. There was at least one occasion in which Gerald Johnson in a P-38 used what sounds like a high speed yo-you maneuver and the hydraulically boosted ailerons to out-turn a Japanese fighter.
 

I am sorry I have not been on in a while.
 
MIflyer said:
The Finn's B-239's had three blade props. See attached, from the Profile Publication no 217 (now available for free).
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction. It still appears it was smaller in diameter and lighter than the later props. As is should be considering the amount of power of the engines and the speed of the propeller. Some of the later Buffaloes had 20% more power at altitude than the early ones.
 
CatTheCool said:
I am sorry I have not been on in a while.
Click to expand...

That's OK Cat, we're having fun. You have posted a very interesting thread.
I have spent every available minute the last few days putting together a list
of candidates that I believe to be the most maneuverable monoplane fighters
of WW2 under given conditions. I just need to know if that was what you
originally intended...?

If not, let the Bucker Bu133 Jungmeister fly.
 
I forgot to mention that I believe the Brewster Buffalo's normal loaded
weight might just be a little more important than its empty weight. The
loaded weight gives us a better indication of what was actually in the air.
Normal average loaded weights went like this;
B-239 (F2A-1): 5,325 lb.
F2A-2: 5,942 lb.
F2A-3: 6,321 lb.
 
Here's the Aviation Magazine page with the "first good photo" of the XF2A-1 from May 1938. It appears that the US was more advanced that Great Britain in propellers just before WWII. We not only did not have to install two blade fixed pitch props on our latest fighters but I believe also made full feathering props on multi-engined aircraft pretty much standard, something the RAF did not do until well into 1942.
 
An aircraft flying faster and making a larger turn radius would have to pull a lot more G load to make a turn at an equal or greater rate in deg/second. Most likely the P51 as mentioned earlier might not be able to achieves a guns solution due to range and deflection. The 262 was really designed to be effective against the "four motors" as the Germans called them with the 30 mm canon armament. For the faster plane some variation of energy tactics involving "out of plane" maneuvering would be optimal.

Most of the light aircraft including the Super Cub, which I still own, do have a small turning diameter due to their high CL wings and low stalling speeds. I have utilized this property many times. What they generally do not have is a high instantaneous maneuverability, the initial roll rate is generally not that great due to the relatively high aspect wing.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this thread is to examine how flat out maneuverability became a less critical item as the war wore on. Maneuverability is a desirable quality, but every item that is emphasized in a design comes at the expense of others. Maybe the thing that most drove this change was the availability of improved (more powerful) power plants.
 
biff mentioned that pilot skill could affect manouverability. I accept that, but it got me thinking. What does a pilot do to get an aircraft to turn more tightly
 
ACM is more complex than just who can make the tightest level turn. Even the F6F could hang with a Zero Sen for maybe 1/4-1/2 turn. If starting with an excess of energy and firing parameters could be reached in that time, possibly a useful gambit. If unsuccessful a disengagement and extension would be prudent. Yo yo's; lag pursuit, rolling scissors, outside barrel roll pursuit etc all aid the fighter that may begin with superior energy against an angles advantage opponent. Pilot training also plays a part here, USN pilots were trained in crossing snapshots (deflection shooting) which can greatly increase the guns opportunities. The more tricks in a pilots bag, the more options to gain advantage.
 
Well, Anti-G suits were introduced late in the war and the Germans installed a semi-reclining seat in the FW-190. Well harmonized controls helped by not making it hard to figure out how much aileron and rudder to use together. Lower control forces helped a lot as well.

But given the example of the P-38, its roll rate was not that great until the power boosted ailerons were introduced - but that power boost was non proportional and actually interfered with flying the airplane when it was not doing tight turns. The P-38 did not have the P-factor and torque problems of single engined prop fighters and as a result under the right circumstances could effectively out-turn an FW-190 by using a right climbing turn.

Another hard to quantify factor is fear. An aircraft that does not behave well around the stall or recover easily causes a pilot to be cautious; the FW-190 was one of those.
 
parsifal said:
biff mentioned that pilot skill could affect manouverability. I accept that, but it got me thinking. What does a pilot do to get an aircraft to turn more tightly
Click to expand...

Parsifal,

A couple of things come to mind. First some guys can squeeze more out of an airplane than others. Fly closer to a stall, and or make his pull on the stick such that he gets closer to the G limits faster therefore flying a smaller circle than someone more hesitant or les confident with such maneuvers. This is in relation to the maneuvers.

The other or an additional part is maneuvering in relation to another aircraft. If you are 3000' at dead six on an opponent who starts maneuvering, gun is the only weapon, the question is when do you start your turn. In modern parlance this is called entering your opponents turn circle. If you go immediately (pure pursuit) you will end up with a high angle fleeting event called a snap, or snap shot. Lower Pk employment. used when you want / need to leave the fight (fuel low, outnumbered, or stronger adversary). If you wait to long to go after the guy, you will be stuck with your nose in lag (pointing behind the opponent) and will not get an opportunity to employ. The key is knowing when to go and here is where individual pilot skill comes to fruition. This guy goes for the higher Pk shot, maneuvering to the control zone (riding position), seeking the controlled shot. This is done more in a pristine environment, no additional bandits, as it's more time consuming. There are also many variations in between, depending on the players skill, the fight set up, and additional adversaries, fuel or weapons states, etc.

To get a plane to turn more tightly, the pilot can either pull more quickly to the aircrafts limits, or exceed (over G) limits, or overboost. Also there is some coordination required flying a SE prop fighter. That's assuming identical planes.

Long winded answer, but hope this adds some clarity.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
Love the Hawk 75. I usually prefer In-Line engine aircraft, but the P-36 is just a very well per-portioned, attractive airplane. I have previously read RAF reports on the French Hawks they accepted into service, and it was easily the more agile aircraft between itself and the Hurricane/Spitfire. Did the French Hawks have armour and self-sealing tanks?
 
There was no protection for the pilot from incoming fire from the front (aside from the engine, I suppose). There was a 6mm armour plate behind the pilot but both the French and later the British noted the metal was of poor quality.

I've seen no mention of self-sealing tanks.
 
Yes, an interesting aircraft and philosophical departure from the Zero Sen. The aircraft incorporated an automatic maneuvering flap which would help with some types of maneuverability (there is more to maneuverability than just a turning radius). This aircraft amazingly began life as a float plane and was modified to the land based fighter role.

Apparently it took a more experienced pilot to take advantage of it's capabilities as it had a very nasty accelerated stall that could turn into an unrecoverable spin. Additionally maintain and reliability issues were present, possibly not so much as to any issues with design, but production and materials disruption in Japan as the war wound on.

Only somewhat over 400 were built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Most Manoeuvrable Superprop Fighter/Interceptor Possible
Replies
13
Views
2K
drgondog
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
tomo pauk
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
677
GTX
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
587
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register