Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The weight of the K-4 was 3,364 kg, and the weight of the Bf-109G-10 was 3,148 kg IIRC. Which is abit heavier than the 3,050 kg of the G-2, that's true.
Anyway a 18.8 sec turn time for the K-4 seems very reasonable for a 525 hp increase in power while weight increased only by 286 kg.
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.
Hello
I updated my list according to the new info provided by VG-33 and Claidemore.
Many thanks to Claidemore and specially to VG-33
Juha
Here is the USAAF tests of P-51A versus P-40F and P-39D
P-51 Tactical Trials
The operative phrase is none of these tested had an appreciable advantage over the other in turn performance..
Ah a P-51A, I was talking about the B, C D Bill.
Odd with the results though, considering the very poor results achieved in the Soviet tests.
The published soviet tests had the P-40 and P-39 in sub 20's. The 51B/C/D with the extra Hp should compare well with those same ships despite a 200 pound growth in weight from P-51A to P-51B (w/o 85 gallon fuselage tank)
Just goes to show that these tests are infact very unreliable, just like I've pointed out a multitude of times by now.
Hello VG-33
Didn't notice your follow-up question on the slots on LG-1, I own copies of a couple books in which there are photos in which the slots show up but no scanner.
But lets try, there was a row of 5 narrow slots side by side in each wing, the outermost hinge of aileron was more or less in line with the narrow gap between the outermost slot and the next slot inwards. Not very scientific but I tried to figure out this from a photo, not from drawings, if I find better info I'll post it.
Juha
I would have to see some serious wind tunnel data to believe that it could maintain and sustain altitude in even a 60 degree bank angle
Hello VG-33
thanks a lot for the new info.
BTW
the P-39 without info on subtype, 19 sec. I wonder if it is after all D-2 with wing armament, bacause we have P-39D-2 (with wing armament) - 17,7-18,7 sec and P-39Q-15, without gunpods.- 20-21sec. The higher end of D-2 turntime,
Juha
Well all esle being equal a higher lift to weight ratio should mean a better turn performance Bill, that's all I'm saying here.
lower wing loading is an important factor - but not the only important factore. Total wing body parasite drag is huge in energy retention
Let's also not forget that the P-51's wing wasn't so well suited for turn fighting, the laminar type airfoil would limit the Clmax as it was lower than that of ordinary airfoils. Drag was however ofcourse much lower in straight flight.
Drag was lower in all flight regimes. The CLmax was an honest ~1.5 at high AoA. What is not well known is what the CLmax values are for any of the aircraft we are debating while in a high AoA and steep bank angel.
But to no surprise I'd expect the Bf-109 to perform a good deal better than the P-51 when it comes to turn performance, atleast at low to medium altitude. I'd expect the Fw-190 to only do a little better or similar at the same alts. But at high altitude the P-51 was however in its element, having a lot more power available than most 109's 190s, and I highly suspect that the P-51 would turn with most a/c at high alt.
Also regarding the US tests, maybe they were carried out at high alt. The Soviets however, being used to only flying at low alt, would've probably done their tests at low alt.
Two of the USAAF comparisons and several USN comparisons were made at low, medium and medium high altitudes so the flight tests were made for a variety of combat conditions - which made sense as USAAF was fighting against Zeros at medium altitudes, 109s/190s at all altitudes
Just my thoughts.
Anyway low speed turn performance had so very little importance by mid 42 that it is largely to be ignored in most circumstances, esp. considering that all a/c in question would be capable of unsustainable amounts of G's at speeds as low as 350 km/h. And the P-51 did sport great controllability = maneuverability at high speeds, which is what matters. The Fw-190 was considered a better dogfighter than the 109 by some LW vets for the same reason, it was much easier to maneuver at high speeds.
The Bf-109G10 was just as heavy as the G-2, yet it featured over 400 more horsepower, now that would yield atleast a 1 sec improvement if you ask me.
Now I must admit that actually does make sense.