most manoeuvrable aircraft in ww2

GrauGeist said:

Was there a speed factor applied?

No sir, no speeds or radius of turns were given.
For some calculated figures: Corner Velocity Times and Radii . I need to study these
figures more. Many seem on the optimistic side.

As we know, the A6M was the champ of low-speed turning...

No sir, the Ki.27, A5M and the Ki.43 could all turn inside the Zero and in a shorter time period.
I have seen the Ki.27 listed in several different publishings that indicate it to be the most maneuverable monoplane first line fighter ever produced.


and the IAR 80 was able to out-turn the P-38 during their battles. In the case of the P-38/IAR 80, these were during Ploesti missions, where the P-38s were escorting the bombers, not CAP.

Click to expand...

I do not know all the situations of combat at Ploesti. I do not have any great input on the IAR 80
other than what I have already posted. I have read that even the boosted maneuvering flapped
P-38s had an initial slight delay before the roll kicked in...? I'm still researching.

CORSNING said:

I do not know all the situations of combat at Ploesti. I do not have any great input on the IAR 80
other than what I have already posted. I have read that even the boosted maneuvering flapped
P-38s had an initial slight delay before the roll kicked in...? I'm still researching.

Click to expand...

I posted a video on here earlier from what I guess is a cockpit mounted GoPro in a P38. It was shot at Chino and you you can see the control input lag. Wes mentioned earlier about getting all that mass moving which is what caused me to go looking, and he was right. I have no doubt the boosted versions rolled much easier, however there would still be slow initial response as compared to the SE fighters.

Cheers,
Biff

Thank you for your reaffirming information Biff. A further note, Wes's P-38 was
probably not further laden with guns, ammunition and full internal fuel which
would cause even further delay in reaction.

The guns and ammo not so much as all are close to the center line. Once they put the fuel in the leading edge of the wing that could slow response though. Off course as the fuel in those tanks is used up the initial roll response is going to change.

Shortround is right, I should have divided my statement. The added weight
of guns and ammunition would have taken its toll on maneuverability in other
aspects of flight.

The effect of wing span wise loading on roll inertia and the way a plane "feels" in roll can be rather dramatic. For most single engine fighters this might be as ammunition, external fuel tanks, bombs, rocket tubes and whatnot. My own experience with this was a short hop from Dallas to San Fransisco in a 747 400. Not having much cargo and the fact that fuel was much cheaper in Dallas, we loaded a lot of fuel. On approach we still had 117,000 kg of fuel and the roll inertia was very apparent! That aircraft has extremely effective roll controls, so control was not an issue, but boy did it "feel" different.

Certainly the greater roll inertia of a multi engine aircraft such as the P-38 would be a factor. However depending on the design of the ailerons the actual effectiveness at varying speeds and altitudes can be limited by the available pilot input force. Even a very light aircraft such as the Zero Sen had serious roll issues at speed. A boosted control aircraft might still be better under certain conditions.

In another case, Winkle Brown was involved in the service flight testing of the Fairy Firefly, a very interesting and long lived airplane. The "Youngman" flaps for both cruise and maneuvering added considerable capability to the aircraft. Both in turning circle (which was very good) and interestingly in cruise. My experience with cruise flaps was in the DHC-2 Beaver and even minor adjustments had considerable effect. Sort of a trim the wing to the situation.

Cheers: T