Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If US Merlin Mustang, has the same turning rate than US FW 190, and better turning rate than US 190, may only show that US FW-190 has better turning rate than US Bf-109.
I won't praise the lack of accuracy of some US, british, german tests....
Hehe, trust me Altea, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Bf-109 turns a lot tighter than either the P-51 or Fw190, both in the form of testing and pilot testimonials. According both to pilots physics the Bf-109 was even a close match for the Spitfire when it came to turning. I believe the Spitfire generally might have been a bit better though, except for the Mk.XIV vs the 109 K-4.
I don't understand well why should i (we) trust you that Bf-109 G turns tighter, moroever a lot tighter than the P-51D. I don't care a lot about testimonials and their contradictions (well if i do, it's far, far away in the last place and even for a very few of them...), and all testing we have are showing exactly the opposite.
According both to pilots and physics Bf 109 was outurned by virtually all oponents in so called TsAGI test trials you have previously quoted: Spit, P-40, P-39, P-63, Hurricane, Yak-1, La-5F, 5FN...Exception are made by MiG 3, early La-5, and some heavy late 1941's, early 42's Yak-7 and LaGG-3 without slats and old M-105P engine.
What was worn and what was damaged???????????Sorry but that's quite simply false Altea. Check out the 109F2 which managed 19 sec to 360 deg in Soviet tests, and that was with a worn and damaged a/c.
What was worn and what was damaged???????????
I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.
Sorry but that's quite simply false Altea. Check out the 109F2 which managed 19 sec to 360 deg in Soviet tests, and that was with a worn and damaged a/c.
Certainly not 19, but 19.8-20.6 that makes 20,2 s to me.
Moreover the plane reached 515 km/h at SL, so it wasn't that damaged, and AFAIK tested without it's guns and ammo, those being send to another NII-APIB test center in the meantime.
In it's turn soviet Mustang was reaching only 459 nom. and 483 km/h forced (5min WEP) at S.L. And it took full 10.5 or 9 min to climb to 5 000 m. So if there were be a worned and damaged plane, it should be that one.
It changes nothing to the fact that no P-51 D was never tested at NII.
But just out of pure curiousity, would you care to show me the physics which prove that the Bf-109 didn't turn tighter?
If you would give me the full TsAGI, NACA or STAé wind tunnel results for the both planes, then certainly i will. And you?
Regards
I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.
Apologists for the Germans beware...you lost.
Would the Mustang tested by the Soviets be one of the 10 Allison Mustangs received from the British?
Certainly not 19, but 19.8-20.6 that makes 20,2 s to me.
Moreover the plane reached 515 km/h at SL, so it wasn't that damaged, and AFAIK tested without it's guns and ammo, those being send to another NII-APIB test center in the meantime.
In it's turn soviet Mustang was reaching only 459 nom. and 483 km/h forced (5min WEP) at S.L. And it took full 10.5 or 9 min to climb to 5 000 m. So if there were be a worned and damaged plane, it should be that one.
It changes nothing to the fact that no P-51 D was never tested at NII.
If you would give me the full TsAGI, NACA or STAé wind tunnel results for the both planes, then certainly i will. And you?
Regards
Altea - I have never seen a 'full set' of full scale wind tunnel tests for any of these birds and certainly not for a fully functioning B/C/D Mustang with Radiator in operation generating potential thrust - and certainly not a full range of both Parasite drag and trim drag at various Reynolds Numbers and angles of attack.
If you go back and check the various threads, we have been down many a manueverability rathole and the required data to model these birds through a full range of asymmetrical, various altitude, different inital airspeed, for different flight regimes has not been available for good modelling.
Additionally I have often wondered about the intangible of stick forces at high speed as well as the slat effects and true change to CL at high AoA for the 109.. I'm agnostic regarding actual increased delta CL for the 109 or more contribution to stall retardation as AoA/Airspeed reaches critical points? One, Both? and how does one prove it?
What are your thoughts on this?
Yes, even if they were 3 points kiss-landed on soviet (allied) side by slovakian renegades or german pilots due to navigation errors and Kursk magnetic anomaly, captured dry of fuel on airfields or bought directly to german manufacturers.
Certainly not 19, but 19.8-20.6 that makes 20,2 s to me.
Moreover the plane reached 515 km/h at SL, so it wasn't that damaged, and AFAIK tested without it's guns and ammo, those being send to another NII-APIB test center in the meantime.
I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.
I don't understand well why should i (we) trust you that Bf-109 G turns tighter, moroever a lot tighter than the P-51D.