P-47 vs P-51 in a dive

[GregP]

The P-51D/K has the same wing thickness, chord (except root chord), and area as a P-51A. We have one of each that is flyable, and they DO fly, and I can tell you that from personal knowledge. All that happened in the "D/K" model was the guns were mounted upright, the feed was modified, and the root chord was a bit longer. After the wing kink for the wheel well from the root chord, the wings are identical.

The Me 109 was almost unrollable at over 400 mph. The full defelction tat could be obtiained by a normal pilot could only generate maybe 15° per second or less. The REALLY scary thought is the pitch rate wasn't much better ... ask any Me 109 pilot.

I am hearing in here that:

1. The P-38 was never called "the fork tailed devil" by the Luftwaffe, and we had it confirmed as true for the upteenth time this last weekend by former Luftwaffe pilots at out P-38 event that they DID call it that name).

2. I hear that there are new data coming out stating the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were, in fact, better and faster than previously thought. That won't change their mediocre combat record and will not be believed unless it can be demonstrated ... good luck.

3. The Me 109 can out dive a P-51! Never hear that and we have had presentations by almost all the living P-51 pilots and not many less Luftwaffe pilots.

4. There is a thread in here where the speed of the P-51 at low level is questioned and people are debating it ... but we fly them almost every weekend and they are as fast as the specifications. Al sea level, the P-51 is VERY fast. There is a Google hit for a tactical trial of early P-51 performance and it is bogus. The report in the Google hit has no report number (not possible in WWII) and the people back then knew how to spell ... the report has too many mispellings, including some common words. The numbers in Wikipedia are ridiculous ... they don't match North American Aviaion, the US Army Air Corps tests, or the USAAC Fighter Group tests.

Gotta' say, I am a disbeliever in people trying to make the Mustang performance lower in the "popular press." If I didn't know the people flying them today, I might bite ... but the people flying them get book performance at book weights ... and BETTER performance at lighter weights. The Me 109's I know of are getting book performace at book weights and better performance at lighter weights ... and the Me 109, when going faster than 400 mph, was fleeing the combat scene, not attacking, because the Me 109 was traveling in more or less a straight line at anything above 400 mph.

You are free to rewrite whatever performance specs you want if you are authoring a PC flight sim game but, if you want historically accurate data, stick with the specifications as given by the manufacturers at the time. Sorry guys, I don't buy the performacne rewrites 70 years later because I know people who fly them now, and THEY don't buy it either. Even our A6M5 Model 52 meets specs, just like our Northrop N9MB Flying Wing does. The only reason most of the Hawker Sea Furies don't meet spec is they aren't flying with Bristol Centaurus engines anymore, mostly; they have Wright R-3350's mostly and are quite a bit faster and more powerful than stock hawker specs ... not slower.

 

[CobberKane]

I guess it all depends on how you define 'dogfight.' I don't think the the P-51 was ever renowned as a turn fighter, although it was considered to be somewhat better than contemporary 109s and 190s in this respect. Perhaps that what Hans Lerch meant. i recall an interview with Clayton Gross where he recalls engaging in a turning fight against a 109 for the better part of ten minutes before the other pilot bugged out - it's hard to imagine the German would have survived that kind of fight against a spitfire.
Eric Brown considered the Mustang to be the best 'American' dogfighter (assumedly compared to the P-38 and P-47). He preferred the Spit IX but noted that wherever the P-51 lost out (climb, turning circle) it made up in other areas (rate of roll, speed). For the record he considered the best dogfighters to be the Spitfire XIV, The Fw 190D and he P-51D, in that order, with the caveat that he could have thrown a postage stamp over the three of them.

 

[Juha]

Hello Siegfried
First of all, like all its contemporaries. or at least most of them, 109 suffered wing twist at very high speed, 109F theoretical aileron reversal speed was appr. 980km/h TAS at 3000m according to DVL test. If one put DVL test results on to NACA 868 results one sees that 109F rolled better up to 190mph IAS at 10000ft than USAAF fighters but P-40F and P-63A. It also rolled better than Hurricane and Typhoon but normal wing Spitfire rolled better through entire speed range and at high speeds Spit rolled clearly better than 109F at 10000ft, at least up to 390 mph IAS where NACA graph ended, and at low speeds too. But between 280 and 310mph IAS there was not much difference between Spit and 109F. And Spit achieved its peak roll rate at 200mph IAS 109F around 280mph IAS. Fw 190 was in class of its own up to 370mph IAS where first P-51B and then Tempest get better in rolling. And Spits elevators were very light but its ailerons got heavy at high speeds.

Juha

 

[drgondog]

I guess it all depends on how you define 'dogfight.' I don't think the the P-51 was ever renowned as a turn fighter, although it was considered to be somewhat better than contemporary 109s and 190s in this respect. Perhaps that what Hans Lerch meant. i recall an interview with Clayton Gross where he recalls engaging in a turning fight against a 109 for the better part of ten minutes before the other pilot bugged out - it's hard to imagine the German would have survived that kind of fight against a spitfire.
Eric Brown considered the Mustang to be the best 'American' dogfighter (assumedly compared to the P-38 and P-47). He preferred the Spit IX but noted that wherever the P-51 lost out (climb, turning circle) it made up in other areas (rate of roll, speed). For the record he considered the best dogfighters to be the Spitfire XIV, The Fw 190D and he P-51D, in that order, with the caveat that he could have thrown a postage stamp over the three of them.

Eric Brown flew them all - in one book he cited the F6F as 'America's Best' but more consistently the 51. Gunther Rall considered the Mustang to be the Allies 'best' but he shaded it by extolling the range Combined with excellent (not best) attributes in all manueverabilty parameters...

The reason it is inaccurate to say that the '109 turned better' is because that statement was inaccurate perhaps 1/2 the time. In the hands of a world class pilot who could push the 109 to the edge w/o stalling vs same 51 pilot and middle range loading, the 109 should eventually get on the tail of the 51 in that middle range speed/altitude.

 

[mhuxt]

GregP has access to Zekes and Flying Wings and Sea Furies?

No disrespect man, but at this moment I really ****ing hate you.

 

[tomo pauk]

Same here, Mark; he also has access to the Bf-109s, Fugwerk Fw-190s, P-38s...

 

[davparlr]

The P-51D/K has the same wing thickness, chord (except root chord), and area as a P-51A. We have one of each that is flyable, and they DO fly, and I can tell you that from personal knowledge. All that happened in the "D/K" model was the guns were mounted upright, the feed was modified, and the root chord was a bit longer. After the wing kink for the wheel well from the root chord, the wings are identical.

The Me 109 was almost unrollable at over 400 mph. The full defelction tat could be obtiained by a normal pilot could only generate maybe 15° per second or less. The REALLY scary thought is the pitch rate wasn't much better ... ask any Me 109 pilot.

I am hearing in here that:

1. The P-38 was never called "the fork tailed devil" by the Luftwaffe, and we had it confirmed as true for the upteenth time this last weekend by former Luftwaffe pilots at out P-38 event that they DID call it that name).

2. I hear that there are new data coming out stating the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were, in fact, better and faster than previously thought. That won't change their mediocre combat record and will not be believed unless it can be demonstrated ... good luck.

3. The Me 109 can out dive a P-51! Never hear that and we have had presentations by almost all the living P-51 pilots and not many less Luftwaffe pilots.

4. There is a thread in here where the speed of the P-51 at low level is questioned and people are debating it ... but we fly them almost every weekend and they are as fast as the specifications. Al sea level, the P-51 is VERY fast. There is a Google hit for a tactical trial of early P-51 performance and it is bogus. The report in the Google hit has no report number (not possible in WWII) and the people back then knew how to spell ... the report has too many mispellings, including some common words. The numbers in Wikipedia are ridiculous ... they don't match North American Aviaion, the US Army Air Corps tests, or the USAAC Fighter Group tests.

Gotta' say, I am a disbeliever in people trying to make the Mustang performance lower in the "popular press." If I didn't know the people flying them today, I might bite ... but the people flying them get book performance at book weights ... and BETTER performance at lighter weights. The Me 109's I know of are getting book performace at book weights and better performance at lighter weights ... and the Me 109, when going faster than 400 mph, was fleeing the combat scene, not attacking, because the Me 109 was traveling in more or less a straight line at anything above 400 mph.

You are free to rewrite whatever performance specs you want if you are authoring a PC flight sim game but, if you want historically accurate data, stick with the specifications as given by the manufacturers at the time. Sorry guys, I don't buy the performacne rewrites 70 years later because I know people who fly them now, and THEY don't buy it either. Even our A6M5 Model 52 meets specs, just like our Northrop N9MB Flying Wing does. The only reason most of the Hawker Sea Furies don't meet spec is they aren't flying with Bristol Centaurus engines anymore, mostly; they have Wright R-3350's mostly and are quite a bit faster and more powerful than stock hawker specs ... not slower.

Your experience and knowledge with all these types of aircraft and pilots is an invaluable contribution to this site.

 

[CobberKane]

Hello Siegfried
First of all, like all its contemporaries. or at least most of them, 109 suffered wing twist at very high speed, 109F theoretical aileron reversal speed was appr. 980km/h TAS at 3000m according to DVL test. If one put DVL test results on to NACA 868 results one sees that 109F rolled better up to 190mph IAS at 10000ft than USAAF fighters but P-40F and P-63A. It also rolled better than Hurricane and Typhoon but normal wing Spitfire rolled better through entire speed range and at high speeds Spit rolled clearly better than 109F at 10000ft, at least up to 390 mph IAS where NACA graph ended, and at low speeds too. But between 280 and 310mph IAS there was not much difference between Spit and 109F. And Spit achieved its peak roll rate at 200mph IAS 109F around 280mph IAS. Fw 190 was in class of its own up to 370mph IAS where first P-51B and then Tempest get better in rolling. And Spits elevators were very light but its ailerons got heavy at high speeds.

Juha

I think the 109 always had a reputation as a nasty staller in tight turns. Posibly only the best pilots were game to approach its best turn performance for fear of spinning out without warning. I've also read that the spitfires great sturn performance was enhanced by the elliptical wings tendacy to stall progressively from the wingroots out, shuderrring and giving the pilot plenty of warning. Is this correct?

 

[GregP]

Thanks for the compliment, but I am only a volunteer at the Planes of Fame. I just happen to be a very INTERESTED volunteer and I ask Steve Hinton too many questions from time to time. he probably hates to see me walking up ...

My project, with 3 or 4 other guys, is the restoration of a Bell YP-59A Airacomet, the USA's first jet aircraft. We are about $50k away from flight test. If we had the money, it would be flying in 2 months. Until then, we refine our restoration to make it better when it DOES fly. My team of 3 guys built a new sliding canopy from scratch and we are now doing a new windscreen and windscreen top frame bow and sheet metal. We are close to being finished.

Seriously, go out to a flying museum and volunteer. After awhile as a restorer, you get to know the planes pretty well. The pilots give me their take on performance, even relative performance versus the OTHER types they fly or flew. Our Mustang pilots include Steve Hinton, his son Steven Hinton Jr (current Reno Unlimited Champion), Kevin Eldrige, 3 or 4 other Reno unlimited pilots, and some other guys who are real-estate ageents that happen to be F-16 drivers in the National Guard, and quite a few well known pilots.

I am not "friends" with all of them, but am freindly with most when we see each other. So, although I appreciate the thoughts, I just help restore these things and dream of flying them. When I fly, it is usually a Cessna not a warbird! Wish it were otherwise. My desire is to built an RV-7 or Harmon Rocket. The Rocket is my sentimental favorite, but the RV-7 puts the weight on the wing spar at the CG, so two big guys can fit without going out of aft CG limtis ... so RV-7 ... it I get the money.

Keep 'em flying and come visit, If you come on any Saturday, I'd be happy to show you around personally. During the normal workday, I work with Joe Yancey building Allison V-1710 engines. That is a lucky accident of life as I was an electrical engineer for 32 years before that and never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever think I'd be living in California, volunteering at the Planes of Fame and workling with Joe Yancey.

Keep 'em flying!

 

[Juha]

I think the 109 always had a reputation as a nasty staller in tight turns. Posibly only the best pilots were game to approach its best turn performance for fear of spinning out without warning. I've also read that the spitfires great sturn performance was enhanced by the elliptical wings tendacy to stall progressively from the wingroots out, shuderrring and giving the pilot plenty of warning. Is this correct?

I'd say no, rather other way around. Because of heavy elevators it was difficult to stall 109 and slats made it even more difficult and the deployment of slats gave clear warning that the plane was near stall. The deployment of slats also lightened elevator. If one still pull harder while speed decreased 109 began shake if one still kept pulling left wing and nose dropped if one easy off the pull the turn continued. Of course some inexperienced pilots lightened the pull when slats came out and so didn't fly the plane to the its limits. Spinning was forbidden but 109 didn't went into spin easily, in fact that was one of demands in the original specifications.

On the other hand Spit had very light elevators and it was easy to stall the plane by tightening the turn too much. So British found out in 1940 while testing a captured 109E that even if Spit could turn tighter many pilots were afraid to turn as tightly as possible because it was so easy to pull too much and the captured 109E could out-turn them. Someone else surely can tell more on Spit turning behaviour. I have somewhere pilots' descriptions on that, but not time to dig them out.

So IMHO 109 was easier plane to fly to its limits than Spitfire.

Juha

ADDUM: Michael Potter on Spit Mk IX: "Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch… the stall characteristics are benign. With flaps and gear down and the weights we fly at today, stall speed is less than 60 knots. There is lots of warning, little tendency for a wing drop, and recovery is routine and immediate."

 

[riacrato]

2. I hear that there are new data coming out stating the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were, in fact, better and faster than previously thought. That won't change their mediocre combat record and will not be believed unless it can be demonstrated ... good luck.

Again, just like in the other thread, please elaborate on the poor combat record of the Ta 152.

You know, when I was in school, Pluto was still a planet and Tyrannosaurus rex the largest land carnivore ever. Now, damn those researchers, how dare they uncover new evidence and prove that to be wrong.

 

[Juha]

Hello Riacrato
IIRC 4 Ta 152s were lost in air combat and they claimed 10 air victories.

Juha

 

[riacrato]

Hi Juha,
I didn't have the exact numbers at hand but that more or less conforms to what I recalled. Given the circumstances, hardly poor or even mediocre, but rather good. Yet that small a sample is not very good for evaluating the aircraft's performance.

 

[wuzak]

I'd say no, rather other way around. Because of heavy elevators it was difficult to stall 109 and slats made it even more difficult and the deployment of slats gave clear warning that the plane was near stall. The deployment of slats also lightened elevator. If one still pull harder while speed decreased 109 began shake if one still kept pulling left wing and nose dropped if one easy off the pull the turn continued. Of course some inexperienced pilots lightened the pull when slats came out and so didn't fly the plane to the its limits. Spinning was forbidden but 109 didn't went into spin easily, in fact that was one of demands in the original specifications.

On the other hand Spit had very light elevators and it was easy to stall the plane by tightening the turn too much. So British found out in 1940 while testing a captured 109E that even if Spit could turn tighter many pilots were afraid to turn as tightly as possible because it was so easy to pull too much and the captured 109E could out-turn them. Someone else surely can tell more on Spit turning behaviour. I have somewhere pilots' descriptions on that, but not time to dig them out.

So IMHO 109 was easier plane to fly to its limits than Spitfire.

Juha

ADDUM: Michael Potter on Spit Mk IX: "Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch… the stall characteristics are benign. With flaps and gear down and the weights we fly at today, stall speed is less than 60 knots. There is lots of warning, little tendency for a wing drop, and recovery is routine and immediate."

So, by adding that addendum you have contradicted yourself?

If in 1940 RAF pilots were reluctant to turn tighter and risk a stall does it not speak to their relative inexperience more than the on-the-limit handling of the Spitfire? After all, up to 1940 LW pilots had more training and, generally, had a lot more experience.

 

[Juha]

So, by adding that addendum you have contradicted yourself?

If in 1940 RAF pilots were reluctant to turn tighter and risk a stall does it not speak to their relative inexperience more than the on-the-limit handling of the Spitfire? After all, up to 1940 LW pilots had more training and, generally, had a lot more experience.

Not necessarily, note "...but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch...", so it was easy in the heat of the combat tighten the turn too much. In 1940 both sides had inexperience fighter pilots, both had suffered losses during the French Campaign, in fact 109 units more than Spit units because France had been mostly HUrri show. And regulars had plenty of experience on flying on both sides even if only Germans had significant combat experience.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Riacrato
IIRC 4 Ta 152s were lost in air combat and they claimed 10 air victories.

Juha

do you know also the date of first air combat?

 

[Njaco]

How much would the gravity-type carbs fit in to the turning/stall problem in turns on the early Spits?

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
I don't know the first combat but the first claim I'm aware was 1 March 45, when Josef Keil claimed P-51D.
On the other hand the info that Loos claimed 3 Yaks while flying Ta-152H seems to be unreliable, so it seems that Ta-152 loss-kill-ratio was after all 4 to 7. Or probably lower because of some overclaiming is probable.

Juha

 

[GregP]

Hi Riacrato,

In a thread in here (can't recall the title) it was suggested by a member that he had uincovered new data on the Ta-152 series that suggested it was quite a bit better than thought. He gave no timeline but suggested they were not far from publishing the data.

With the popwer of the Ta-152 (choose a model) and an airframe similar to the fw 190D, the aerodynamics suggest the very speeds the specifications so often quoted claim to be true. To have someone suggest that the planes were, in fact, quite a bit better some 70 years later naturally gives me a lot of doubt. We have already discussed their combat record and the figures aren't very impressive. The losses are from one to four, depending on who you believe (combat losses, not operational losses). At the end of teh war, the only operational Ta-152's in service were two C-models. TWO! Now that is a war winner, huh?

The kills are from 7 to 10. So the kill-to-loss record is anywhere from 10 to 1 down to 7 to 4. Naturally, there are those who pick the best number and latch onto it just as there are those who pick the lowest number and latch onto it. I tend to think the real number is about 8 or 9 to 2 or 3 since theose number are in the middle of the range. Either way, it is not very impressive to me. I don't doubt the fact that the Ta-152 was a good aircraft and I feel the mediocre numbers are more of an indication of how the war was going at the time, with few German planes flying (a few veteran pilots) and hordes of Allied fighters roaming about.

Nevertheless, I find it VERY hard or impossible to think of an aircraft with this combat record as the best of anything. Good? Yes. The best and contributed to the war effort? No way. It is an interesting footnote at best, at least to me. Other opinions may vary and do.

 

[riacrato]

Hi GregP,

I think Erich is the forum mod / member who is compiling that data (don't know for sure). If so I have little doubt it will be well researched and not biased, as he didn't give me any other impression in the past.

I think you give the Ta 152 too little credit. It started combat at a time where the collapse was already in full swing. No plane could hope to fare well in those circumstances. The kills recorded are predominantly at heights where the Ta 152 was not at its best. And yet apparently it was to score a record of better than 1:1, at a time where every other German fighter (maybe Me 262 excluded) was scoring 1:5-1:10.

Certainly not a poor kill ratio.