Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was it a I-153 with a M62 or a M63 engineI-153 (1939) "Gukll"
- 11.4-14 sec (Finnish tests 12 sec, radius 110m, maybe the most feared opponent to )
Slots?LaGG-3 series 28 (1942)
- 19 (Finnish tests for war booty LaGG-3 series 4 (LG-1) with wings mod with slots: 23s with 40km/h speed loss,
Very possible, 28 series were buided since spring-summer 1942.IMHO in early 44 Soviet LaGG-3s should have been at least series 28 or later. Finns concluded that LaGG-3 turned more or less as well as 109G.
There were as much Lavotchkin's as produced planes. The production quality was very hetereogenous.La-5F (1943)
- 19-20 (Finns thought that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level, high back La-5, which Finns called LaGG-5, was more or less equal to 109G-2 in low-speed turning fight at low level)
La-5FN (1943)
- 19 (Finns thought that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level)
Yes, but with soviet 91 octane fuel and 4 extra ShVAK guns, 17-18 without them.Hurricane IIA
- 19-20 sec
So as for Lavotchkins, MiG 1/3 weights were ranging from 3095 to 3450kg. Some had wing slats, some had not.MiG-3 (1942)
- 23 (Finns: at lower level not very manoeuvrable in horizontal plane)
Hello VG-33
Thanks a lot for the interesting info.
On I-153, I don't know the engine, the turn info was given in connection of Gladiator test as for comparison figure.
Finns modified wings of LG-1, they added five small slots to each wing. LG-1 c/nr 070171, LG-2 c/nr 0110072, LG-3 c/nr 3121357.
Thankfully
Juha
Like I've said before I'd take the Soviet data above with a large handful salt. But that's just my advice to you guys, you are free to believe in what you want ofcourse. I will however note that the Hurricance was in general considered a better turnfighter than both the Spitfire Bf-109.
If you want to know the true turn performance of these fighter aircraft then I suggest you take a look at the physics, in my experience it never lies, ever.
Soren - the 'models' based on amateur physics seem to consistently miss real flight test results - turn perfrormance is not easily reducable to consistent analytical results when the curvilinear model is not linear!
.Nice info. I am very surprised at the "comparatively" slower times for the Spitfire
Is there any data, that can compare to what you have posted, for the P-51 and just for fun, the P-47?
Hello Mike
I don't have additional data if one British test on Airacobra Mk I which compared it to Spit Mk V and Bf 109E doesn't have exact turn times. I don't have now time to dig up an article which gives some info on the test, especially because I recall that there are only verbal descriptions in it.
Juha
And vary for a plane to another, and from a day to another even on the same plane.Maybe that's because real flight test results vary wildly, and to no surprise as pilots aren't all equal in their handling of an a/c, and we both know this.
No, not only. Listen i'v got some 90 hours flight in light aviation; Cessna, Rallye, Jodel...and 150 hours in gliders. So i will find the best speed with ease, the best climb or glide ratio after some attempts, and the best turn rate after a lot af trials. The problem that you have to find the optimal angle of attack on turn, only reading speed and side inclination.Only the experts of the types can push them to the limit, hence why you see so many different opinions.
The main difference is that the expert will find it immedialtly, a test pilot much faster as i would do, but physical limits of the plane are the same for everyone.
So if the Soviet, Finish, Hungrian, British test pilots did not succeed to make a better turn, handling the 109G-2, than in 22 secunds for instance, dispite your calculations that are giving 10 s, the problem may occur in your mathematical simplified model, not in test pilots handling capabilities.
Best regards,
VG-33