P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

[Soren]

You're a joke GregP..

The 109's wings could take up to 13 G !!

I seriously believe that about the Fw 190. When I hear the same thing once or twice, I may doubt it. Ten pilot reports saying the same thing get my attention.

I'd like to see all ten please.

The Ta-152 turned quite well at high altitudes, but was extremely vulnerable to "regular" Allied fighters at lower altitudes ...

That is so very untrue, and just shows how little you really know on the subject !

The Ta-152H pretty much proved itself invincible at low altitude, aqcuiring an 11 to 0 kill ratio ! And the pilots who flew the bird all made it quite clear that there was NO allied fighter they couldn't out-maneuver or out-run.

The Ta-152H didn't just turn excellently at high altitude, compared to other fighters it turned even better at low alt. The no.1 recommendation given to the Ta-152H pilots was infact to turn fight the enemy fighters, the high AR wings providing very high lift and very little drag in turns.

and it had to get through the lower altitudes while ascending and descending from height. So, all we had to do was wait on it and it would come to us eventually

Again you know nothing of what you're talking about GregP... The Ta-152H only fought at low altitude during WW2, so please go another place to spread your lies.

... same as the Me 262 and Me 163 did. Kill 'em when they land ...

Oh brother, you're comparing a prop fighter to these ?

I have read extensively on the Bf 109, not just William Green. All of the Allied testing I have read (including Russian tests) points to a general stiffening at anything over 350 mph, becomming almost rigid at 400 mph and above. All also indicated the Bf 109 to be excellent at 220 to 330 mph, right where it was designed to be.

Again you rely on the dubious Allied test reports.

Infact the P-51 had greater issues with its elevators than the Bf-109 ever did:

Robert C. Curtis - P-51 Pilot:
My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control.

Thomas L. Hayes - P-51 Pilot:
Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness.

Finnish pilots;

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish Bf-109 pilot:
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."

Väinö Pokela, Finnish Bf-109 pilot:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."

The dive speed limit of the 109 is 750 km/h !

That comes from multiple sources, all pilot reports I might add, and is confirmed by pilot reports from Merlin-engined Spanish 109s as well.

Oh I would so like to hear it personally from their mouths, esp. since I've talked to so many of them !

 

[GregP]

Hi Parmigiano! Well said!

About the stick length ... it does not matter how long the stick is; it matters where the fulcrum is. You need to know the length of stick UNDER the pivot point (specifically, the length to the cable or pushrod attachment point) as well as ABOVE the pivot point. If you want a technical discussion ... you should not have missed that. Leverage means a ratio, not a stick length.

Sorry, but even German references state the Bf 109's characteristics at above 400 mph. Maybe you are reading Luft46, where they think EVERYTHING German was the best in the world and still, to this day, cannot understand reality? Sorry Kurfurst, your arguments just don't hold up to the facts as I read them but you are, of course, certainly entitled to your opinions as am I mine.

As for Soren, where should I start?

I don't believe I ever said the Bf 109 would collapse at any particular g-force. In fact, I didn't mention g-force ... you did. In total, the Bf 109 was a great fighter.

As for the much-vaunted Ta-152, they only made 67 of them in the entire war! How big an effect could they possibly have? The first production prototype was tested in January 1943, but they didn't make any production planes until 21 November 1944, and only completed ten Ta-152H-1's by the war's end. The rest were a mixed bag of prototypes.

Yeah ... BIG effect in the war. Tell me about it. They're gonna' shoot down the Allied Air Forces with 67 fighters, many of which were unserviceable on any given day?

I don't follow that. These same guys who vaunt the Ta-152 as the "best of the best" refuse to consider the P-51H or the P-47M. We built more than 67 of BOTH before the war ended ...

You can read pilot reports as well as I can. Go to Google, type Bf 109 or Me 109 and read. I bet you can do it; I did. And I compared that with my own library, which is decent if not library sized. They almost all say the same thing.

Basically, they say the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were very closely matched over the entire war, with each having some better characteristics than the other at any particular time. After the Bf 109F, it got heavier and had almost viscious handling characteristics at lower speeds.

Despite that, the Germans made more Me 109Gs than any other type. I can respect that. They were desperate and losing the war.

The Me 109 COULD NOT have been a bad fighter. It was the most-produced fighter ever in history and that says a lot about it. But it DID have its bad pionts and that's where I firmly disagree with the diehard Messerschmitt fans. They all seem, like you, to think it had no faults, and that just isn't so. It DID have faults, as did ALL fighters produced by all manufactureres of all sides and nationalities. There was NO fighter that was best at everything.

If we can agree on THAT, maybe we can find out our real differences and go from there?

I'll forego insults if you will, your joke comment aside.

So getting back to reality, the German fighters had faults. You mentioned 700 kph, which is 435 mph. Yes, the Bf 109 could be pulled out of a dive at that speed, IF there was enough altitude. It was not a thing a German pilot would have done on purpose at much faster a speed.

Hhmmmmm ... let's see, how about if I quote two of the greastest German Aces? Would that suffice?

1) ...Nicknamed Gustav, the BF 109G was well armed but not as light as the earlier E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose inital climb rate sent it soaring to 18,700 ft. in six minutes but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle. ...Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes.

Jill Amadio, Günther Rall: a memoir, (Tangmere Productions, Santa Ana, CA), pp. 148, 242.

2) The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control.

Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111.

The above quotes were from 1942 - 1943 timeframe. Why don't we agree to disagree? ... and let it go at that.

I'll give you this much, the German Messerschmitt Me 109 and Fw 190 series were two of the finest fighters built in the WWII era.

There were others equally deserving of the same statement, and that can be said of American, British, Soviet, Italian, and Japanese aircraft.

 

[Soren]

Spare me the backpaddling GregP, either you're making up stuff along the way or you're just hanging on to old and dispelled myths.

And about Günther Rall, well he never flew the 109 to the edge after a near death experience early in his carrier - something which has been explained countless times. And as to Steinhoff, well this gentleman has unfortunately been misqouted many times in order to promote other a/c, and most often falsly.

I can give you plenty of quotes which say exactly the opposite of what you have said GregP, and funny enough is the fact that these can be proven - which I btw will be happy to do for you ?

 

[Kurfürst]

Sorry, but even German references state the Bf 109's characteristics at above 400 mph.

'German references' we've never saw, and neither did you, probably... hot air.

Sorry Kurfurst, your arguments just don't hold up to the facts as I read them but you are, of course, certainly entitled to your opinions as am I mine.

You have no facts to argue with, basically. Basically I base my opinion on the wartime German trials, of which I have copies - several thousend pages of reports and stuff on the Bf 109, not popular books or revisionist sites.

After the Bf 109F, it got heavier and had almost viscious handling characteristics at lower speeds.

Hogwash. One of the pilots who flew it has to say this on the 109F successor ..

"He flew only the Bf 109G, of which he said:

It was very manoeuverable, and it was easy to handle. It speeded up very fast, if you dived a little. And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109, and go very easy out of the spin. The only problems occurred during take-off. It had a strong engine, and a small, narrow-tread undercarriage. If you took off too fast it would turn [roll] ninety degrees away. We lost a lot of pilots in take-offs. "

As for the weight increase arguement, it's hypocritic. All fighters took up weight during their development - the 109 less than many others. Compare early war 'Bolts, Mustangs, Spits to late war models please...

So getting back to reality, the German fighters had faults. You mentioned 700 kph, which is 435 mph. Yes, the Bf 109 could be pulled out of a dive at that speed, IF there was enough altitude. It was not a thing a German pilot would have done on purpose at much faster a speed.

British reports on test flying a 109F showed that at 420 mph IAS, to qoute them, 'fairly tight turns were still possible'. Doesn't sounds like there was a special problem pulling out, now does it?

Mind you, 420 mph IAS is very near or at higher altitudes, it's even above the 109's redline speed. Basically it means the aircraft could be pulled up 'fairly tightly' from dives up to the maximum allowed speed. It did require phyisical effort, but was possible without much ado, and the stickforce also prevented the pilot from overstressing the airframe or blacking himself out with fatal results during the pullout. The RAF otoh found in 1940 and 41 that great many Spitfire Is and Vs simply broke up in the pullout because the elevator stick force was so light, the pilot could far too easily apply so much force that was just too much for him and the airframe to bear.

Hhmmmmm ... let's see, how about if I quote two of the greastest German Aces? Would that suffice?

1) ...Nicknamed Gustav, the BF 109G was well armed but not as light as the earlier E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose inital climb rate sent it soaring to 18,700 ft. in six minutes but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle. ...Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes.

Jill Amadio, Günther Rall: a memoir, (Tangmere Productions, Santa Ana, CA), pp. 148, 242.

That appears to be the words of Jill Amadio, not Günther Rall. I don't know any LW aces names 'Jill Amadio'. He is a writer, repeating popular aviation books as a side issue in a biographical work.

2) The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control.

Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111.

LOL, a pure copy-paste affair from spitliarperformance dot com.

Well perhaps you should post the whole quote in it's context, instead of manipulating it. A few pages back Steinhoff mentions he was briefed by the local CO of the unit about the experiences on arrival, who gossiped that lately there are some new Spits had extended wings - these must have been Mk VIIs or VIIIs which had extended wingspan for high altitudes and Merlin 61s.

Nothing extraordinary there, the unit equipped with normal altitude fighters (G-6s at the time I believe) met with some specialized, low production number high altitude fighters with high altitude engines and extended wignspan. And they found that, amazingly, high altitutude fighters with high altitude engines and extended wingspan fly better at altitude. Lower spanloading comes with less drag and 'grabs' the air better. The extreme case is the Ta 152H, which you seem to hate for some reason very much.

Now of course, the vast majority of Spitfires built were with normal ellipitic (or sometimes, clipped) winged MkVs and Mk IXs fitted with low-medium altitutude engines.

Simply physics... It should, hence why Steinhoff notes 'at 28 000 feet'. Of course, if Steinhoff's unit would have been JG 1 for example, which had high altitude, GM-1 boosted, pressurized 109G-1s or G-3s, it would have been a different matter.

Now simply to put, if you want to show how much of a crap the Bf 109G was, maybe you should try better than quoting selected quotes taken out of context from revisionist fanboy sites.

 

[pbfoot]

The stance on the 109 under cart is wider by 6" or 12 cm then that of the Spit

 

[lesofprimus]

Quote:
The Ta-152 turned quite well at high altitudes, but was extremely vulnerable to "regular" Allied fighters at lower altitudes ...

That is so very untrue, and just shows how little you really know on the subject !

The Ta-152H pretty much proved itself invincible at low altitude, aqcuiring an 11 to 0 kill ratio ! And the pilots who flew the bird all made it quite clear that there was NO allied fighter they couldn't out-maneuver or out-run.

The Ta-152H didn't just turn excellently at high altitude, compared to other fighters it turned even better at low alt. The no.1 recommendation given to the Ta-152H pilots was infact to turn fight the enemy fighters, the high AR wings providing very high lift and very little drag in turns.


Quote:
and it had to get through the lower altitudes while ascending and descending from height. So, all we had to do was wait on it and it would come to us eventually

Again you know nothing of what you're talking about GregP... The Ta-152H only fought at low altitude during WW2, so please go another place to spread your lies.


Quote:
... same as the Me 262 and Me 163 did. Kill 'em when they land ...

Oh brother, you're comparing a prop fighter to these ?

This whole part of the discussion disturbs me.... Greg, u really need to educate urself alot more on the 152.... Ur embarassing urself..... Ur getting into an argument with some heavy hitters who've made more than 100 posts like urself....

Oh, and BTW, what was the P-51H and the P-47M kill ratios again???

 

[Rapecq]

Hi

GregP wrote:

As for the much-vaunted Ta-152, they only made 67 of them in the entire war! How big an effect could they possibly have? The first production prototype was tested in January 1943, but they didn't make any production planes until 21 November 1944, and only completed ten Ta-152H-1's by the war's end. The rest were a mixed bag of prototypes.

Yeah ... BIG effect in the war. Tell me about it. They're gonna' shoot down the Allied Air Forces with 67 fighters, many of which were unserviceable on any given day?

I don't follow that. These same guys who vaunt the Ta-152 as the "best of the best" refuse to consider the P-51H or the P-47M. We built more than 67 of BOTH before the war ended ...

My little observation: in this topic we are not trying to assess the German industry situation in 1944-45 and we're not trying to show how great influence on the war P-51 or Bf 109 had.In my opinion making an assessment (of fighter's characteristics) based on the number of produced is a bit unjust and unfair.

Regards

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sorry, but even German references state the Bf 109's characteristics at above 400 mph. Maybe you are reading Luft46, where they think EVERYTHING German was the best in the world and still, to this day, cannot understand reality? Sorry Kurfurst, your arguments just don't hold up to the facts as I read them but you are, of course, certainly entitled to your opinions as am I mine.

I would never use Luft46 as my main source and I dont think that the Germans built everything superior and never have, but I also dont think the Allies did the same either as a lot of people seem to do...

As for the much-vaunted Ta-152, they only made 67 of them in the entire war! How big an effect could they possibly have?

Who cares what kind of effect it had. We are not talking about the effect of the war. We are talking about individual planes. The P 80 had not effect on the war but everyone seems to want to throw it around...

See my point.

Yeah ... BIG effect in the war. Tell me about it. They're gonna' shoot down the Allied Air Forces with 67 fighters, many of which were unserviceable on any given day?

I don't follow that. These same guys who vaunt the Ta-152 as the "best of the best" refuse to consider the P-51H or the P-47M. We built more than 67 of BOTH before the war ended ...

Again read my post above. Who cares about effect on the war when comparing aircraft performance and capabilities.

Oh and using your logic, we can automatically throw out the P-51H. It saw absolutely no combat in WW2. Yeah ... BIG effect in the war.

The Me 109 COULD NOT have been a bad fighter. It was the most-produced fighter ever in history and that says a lot about it. But it DID have its bad pionts and that's where I firmly disagree with the diehard Messerschmitt fans. They all seem, like you, to think it had no faults, and that just isn't so. It DID have faults, as did ALL fighters produced by all manufactureres of all sides and nationalities. There was NO fighter that was best at everything.

Im a Bf 109 freak, it is my favorite plane but I dont think it was without faults...

 

[Juha]

"German tests done on a well worn 109F in late 1944 (it should be considered the 109G had more rigid, reinforced wings, so wing flexing would be less noticable) show that the aircraft could have a maximum stick deflection with 30 kg stick force, and still possess have it's peak ca.80-90 degrees/sec roll rate at ca 625 km/h TAS at 3 km altitude."

Kurfürst,
funny how different people draw different conclusion from same graph and text. A Finnish expert, Jukka Raunio, wrote in a article that the tests showed that the max rollrate of the 109F used in the tests was achieved at a bit over 500km/h (TAS), when the full roll took 4½ sec. And my interpretation from the report is the same, ie. max roll rate was achieved in the tests at c. 525-530km/h (TAS). I admit that I had time only look the pages 10-13 of the report. IMHO the 30 kg curve is calculated, not flown.

 

[GregP]

Well, I see at least some of us are willing to discuss different opinions. The others have little tolerance for another opinion; shows who they are inside. All this "put down" of other opinions does you all an injustice. Be adults, make your points and leave out the insults, how about it?

I've been studying WWII aviation since about 1960 and, if you'll give me credit for even modest intelligence, I cannot have gotten it ALL wrong in that time, especially since one of the three higest-scoring aces in the history of the world, and a German ace at that, agrees with me. That would be Gunther Rall.

You're probably ruight, what does HE know? He's only in the top 3 aces of all time ... I talked with him at an art show for about 30 minutes and he verified the handling of the Bf 109s and Fws HE flew in combat, down to the high-speed and low-speed manners. Sorry guys, he was there and I believe HIM. There is nothing saying YOU have to do so, please believe as you choose.

Maybe you guys have flown all the WWII flight simulators, I don't know. What I DO know is that some of what you say has basis in what I have read and heard over many years, but some doesn't ... you are entitled to believe as you choose. Please do so in good health.

And sorry guys, the sixty seven Ta 152s didn't make a scratch in the Allied war effort, nor did the Me 262s. They never got more than a bit under 300 Me 262's into combat and they didn't do much to stem the tide of bombs coming from thousands of B-17s escorted by thousands of good old P-51s.

Both of these planes were really small bands of prototypes that were forced into service early due to the fact that Germany was losing the war. The brunt of the war was fought b y the Bf / Me 109 along side the radial-engined Fw 190 series with a small bit of help from the Fw 190Ds ... the only liquid-cooled 190s that made into into anything like service. The best known is perhaps the Fw 190 D-9 and enough were built that it can be considered as a combat aircraft in the classic sense. That is, enough were built to make it seem like an actual production machine.

You guys will probably disagree (shock!), but I think the Fw 190D-9 was the best fighter the Germans fielded in anything like production quantities. In the D-9 mark, it was everything a P-51D or late-model Spirfire could handle and possibly a bit more. It was enough better that it MAY be the case that the outcome of combat was more dependent on the planes than the pilot.

If you disagree, please just say so and leave out the personal comments. You don't know me and I don't know you, so you don't know what you're talking about when you make personal comments.

You guys that make sweeping statements about the Ta 152s must have personal knowledge that no one else in the world sems to have. Not enough of them were built to really make it into combat (most never SAW combat or even FLIGHT due to lack of both pilots and fuel), and the pilot reports that everyone quotes are from Kurt Tank, a designer ... NOT a combat pilot. What in the heck would HE know about combat? He never did it.

Pulling away once from some Mustangs that had no idea they were fighting anything special doesn't say anything about the capabilities of either the Mustangs or the Ta 152. It says that a scared aircraft designer, using war emergency power, was able to outrun some cruising Mustangs who didn't bother to chase a single Focke-Wulf late in the war. And that's ALL it says. Let's remember they were over Germany and were a long way from home. Might have been very different if they were over Allied territory, were mad as hell that day, or happened to be in a better tactical position at the start of the engagement.

Whatever you claim, one or two, or even several outcomes don't define the performance of a fighter type. The aggregate record does. And Spitfires, Mustangs, Yak-3s and La-5/7s shot down a LOT of Focke-Wulf 190s anf Bf / Me 109s. And that is a fact you can't discount, even in a fantasy world.

If we had not invented jets, the question of the best piston fighter might well ahve been answered, and it could have been any one of MANY planes. In REAL fact, most of the combatants chose to give up on piston fighter design and development and concentrate on the development of jets.

So, we are left to discuss the relative merits of the piston planes that existed. Probably none of us in here have flown them in anger. I have some front-seat T-6 time and some back-seat TF-51 time, and I can't say how they fly at the edge of the envelope since we carefully avoided the edge of the envelope on my flights. Weren't MY planes and, if they were, I'd STILL avoid the edges of the envelope unless a rich uncle would pay for the engine rebuild.

So, I wonder how you can all be so sure which one is "best" or what it characteristics were at the limit, especially since the best pilots I know, pilots who fly WWII aircraft EVERY WEEKEKND, don't know. They take the word of the pilot's manuasl. And those manual tell what the designers found in flight tests.

I'm outta' here and into a place where the forum members DISCUSS WWII aviation like they were actually interested in various viewpoints. If you happen to find that forum, please join the discussion and leave the antics here, where the real joke resides. HE has over 1900 posts, but can't discuss them unles you agree with everything he has to say ... and THAT just isn't discussion.

 

[lesofprimus]

That would be Gunther Rall.

You're probably ruight, what does HE know? He's only in the top 3 aces of all time ... I talked with him at an art show for about 30 minutes and he verified the handling of the Bf 109s and Fws HE flew in combat, down to the high-speed and low-speed manners. Sorry guys, he was there and I believe HIM. There is nothing saying YOU have to do so, please believe as you choose.

Ive met Mr. Rall on several occasions and discussed many different things.... I can confirm the stick force issue, but ur making it bigger than it was...

and the pilot reports that everyone quotes are from Kurt Tank, a designer ... NOT a combat pilot. What in the heck would HE know about combat? He never did it.

Ummm, I think Mr Reschke saw alittle combat back then didnt he???

I'm outta' here

See ya, dont let the door kick u in the ass on the way out... U gotta have thick skin here... U aint the first to cry like this on these very pages, and u wont be the last....

please join the discussion and leave the antics here, where the real joke resides.

And that snyde ass little comment gets u

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

He meant by "real joke resides" one of the members or just the forum?

Not trying to get myself banned here or anyone else but GregP was called a joke too in an earlier post.

Anyway, put it behind, doesn't seem like he wanted to come back, what now?

I think it's generally seen by everyone, the P-51 was a bit of a turkey at low altitude manuvering. I heard high speed helped the P-51's roll rate rather than hindered it?

By the way this thread went, it's interesting how the characteristics of the Bf 109 are needed to see the characteristics of the P-51, but I guess thats the only way to tell. The manuverabilty of the P-51 depends on how well it fared in combat and how it's opponents could best it, and not just testing by the mother country.

Sorry, off topic but was the tightest turner the Ta-152 or the Spitfire Mk VIII? What about the Spitfire XIV?

 

[Kurfürst]

"German tests done on a well worn 109F in late 1944 (it should be considered the 109G had more rigid, reinforced wings, so wing flexing would be less noticable) show that the aircraft could have a maximum stick deflection with 30 kg stick force, and still possess have it's peak ca.80-90 degrees/sec roll rate at ca 625 km/h TAS at 3 km altitude."

Kurfürst,
funny how different people draw different conclusion from same graph and text. A Finnish expert, Jukka Raunio, wrote in a article that the tests showed that the max rollrate of the 109F used in the tests was achieved at a bit over 500km/h (TAS), when the full roll took 4½ sec. And my interpretation from the report is the same, ie. max roll rate was achieved in the tests at c. 525-530km/h (TAS). I admit that I had time only look the pages 10-13 of the report. IMHO the 30 kg curve is calculated, not flown.

If you read the report, it shows indeed the roll rate tops out at ca 500 km/h, then it remains about the same up to about 610 (full deflection is still achieved), then goes down as on other roll graphs which shows full deflection is not longer possible.

Indeed the 30 kg curve is 'calculated' - like all graphs in the report, flights were done at various deflections, then the results were extrapolated for various stickforces from the flight test results. This was done because the testbed aircraft was destroyed by enemy action before the tests were concluded.

Bottomline, that DVL report was about measuring theoretical behaviour of aircraft structure (wing elastasy effect on roll rate), not determining the roll rate of the bf 109. Moreover, it can be safely presumed the 109F they used for tests, produced sometimes in 1941, was probably well worn out by the tests were made with it, in late 1944.

In any case, the roll rate doesn't seem to be a problem at the speeds the aircraft can reach in level flight at those altitudes (3 km), it starts to decrease at speeds which can be only achieved in dive, and it is fairly reasonable up the dive speed limits of the aircraft at that altitude.

 

[Soren]

Not trying to get myself banned here or anyone else but GregP was called a joke too in an earlier post.

Yes he was and with good reason.

Read his last post, there are so many things he's got no clue about. He starts to refer to the incident where Tank out-ran some Mustangs as if that is our evidence that the Ta-152H was a much better a/c - we never even mentioned it ! Why does he do this ? cause he doesn't even know about the achievements of the Ta-152H in combat and has never read about the plane.

Anyway, put it behind, doesn't seem like he wanted to come back, what now?

Agreed.

I think it's generally seen by everyone, the P-51 was a bit of a turkey at low altitude manuvering. I heard high speed helped the P-51's roll rate rather than hindered it?

That is correct, at high speed the P-51 felt at home - unless you went absolutely ballistic ofcourse.

By the way this thread went, it's interesting how the characteristics of the Bf 109 are needed to see the characteristics of the P-51, but I guess thats the only way to tell. The manuverabilty of the P-51 depends on how well it fared in combat and how it's opponents could best it, and not just testing by the mother country.

Sorry, off topic but was the tightest turner the Ta-152 or the Spitfire Mk VIII? What about the Spitfire XIV?

Tough question as they're so close.

The Ta-152H was probably as good or better than the Spitfire Mk.XIV in turns, but the Mk.VIII is better.

 

[lesofprimus]

Sorry Welch, but he was slamming the whole board, not just a single poster... We all kinda came down hard on him with his lack of knowledge etc etc, but dammit, this is a tough place....

And Welchy, u'd have to go pretty far for me to ban u, as I think u have something to add to this place... Noobs are easier to deal with....

 

[lesofprimus]

Chinganook coming back as the ass hole he always was....

 

[Brain32]

I would just like to add a few things, first about that turn-rate chart, it's a nice piece of info, but I found some contradiction looking at separate ADFU trials. For example look at this, MustangIII vs unknown FW190A:

42. Turning circle
Again there is not much to choose. The Mustang is slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwhile maneuver with the Mustang III when attacked

Maybe it's just me but words like "not much to choose" or "slightly better", especially when used against a captured airplane in unknown condition don't sound too superiour do they?

As for combat reports, they are as all pilot stories of anegdotal value only, the guy that survived the fight had to out-something the guy that did not.
Note that I'm not saying that P51 was POS, far from it, but it wasn't a wonder weapon either believe it or not 8)

 

[lesofprimus]

Note that I'm not saying that P51 was POS, far from it, but it wasn't a wonder weapon either believe it or not

And about 80% of all WWII aviation enthusiasts feel the same way....

 

[J. Fenimore Cooper]

I am a dork...

I have no life and therefor act like a little child that does not get there way.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Idiot...