Some thoughts on "combat effectiveness/performance" factors that are often hidden.

[Steamed_Banana]

No, the 109 will easily out-turn the Spitfire in prolonged circles, even as the Spitfire has the harder initial high speed turn... (Emil vs Spit I, 880 feet to 1025 feet, true circles in the RAf's own testing), and the 109 at least matched the P-40, P-39, LaGG-3 and the Yaks in circles.

Oh, you are one of those. I have read dozens of pilot's memoirs, letters, and after combat accounts of air combats from the MTO and Spitfire pilots (as well as Hurricane and Kittyhawk pilots) always noted that they could easily out-turn any Bf 109 let alone the Fw 190. I can quote some if you like though I have a feeling it won't matter. The only one who argues as you do was Pierre Clostermann, who is obviously an outlier.

Worth noting that Soviet turn time tests show Bf 109 way behind the Spitfire as well as the other types you mentioned:
(where there are two times shown it's right / left turn times)

LaGG-3 series 29 - 21-22 seconds (1943)
LaGG-3 series 66 - 18-19 seconds (1943)
La 5 - 19 seconds (1943)
La 5FN - 19-19.5 seconds (1943)
Spitfire VB - 18.8 seconds (1943)
Spitfire F Mk IX - 17.5 seconds (1944)
Spitfire LF Mk IXE - 18.5 seconds (1945)
P-39D - 19 seconds (1943)
P-39L - 18.5 seconds (1943)
P-39Q - 19.5 seconds (1943)
P-40C - 18 seconds (1942)
P-40E - 19.2 seconds
P-40M - 18.8 seconds (1943)
Yak-1 - 19-20 seconds (1941)
Yak-1 - 18-19 seconds (1942)
Yak-9T - 18-19 seconds (1943)

Bf 110 30 seconds (1940)
Bf 109E-3 23-26 seconds (with 1.33 ata - 1940)
Bf 109E-3 26.5-29 seconds (with 1.26 ata -1940)
Bf 109F-2 19.6 - 19.8 seconds
Bf 109F-4 19.6 - 20 seconds
Bf 109G2 20-21.5 seconds (1942)
Bf 109G4 20.5 - 21 seconds (1943)
FW 190A-4 22-23 seconds turn time
FW 190A-5 21-22 seconds turn time (1942)
FW 190A-8 21-22 seconds turn time

Not that this proves turning in combat, it's just one data point. But it's clear the German fighters turn times are generally worse. The only Allied fighter in the list which is out turned by any version are the LaGG-3 Series 29 and the 1941 Yak 1, and the only German fighters which can out turn them are the Bf 109F-2 and F-4, but these both have inferior turn times to the Spitfire, P-39, and P-40. As do all the other versions.

Read Spitfire Encounter Reports: All high speed, all dives. Many tried circles, not just turns but circles, and we don't have their writings now for a reason, as Clostermann explains... "Those who tried the Spitfire "turn legend" did not come back to complain about it."

Clostermann is the outlier on that one, as I noted already .

Could it be any plainer than that?

Yes the I-16 will out-turn the 109 by a wide margin, but that was pretty much it in the European monoplanes. There is a reason the numerous 109 "replacements" failed.

Yeah, just not true mate

Yes, the Zero's pilots figured out it could turn, but in reality they didn't sustain the turns (by doctrine) and did not lower power while doing these brief turns, as the USN pilot above rightfully excoriates them for it, particularly the not cutting the throttle part....

Again read Zero combat accounts: Turns, loops, but never circles.

I have read many

Do you think these guys went against their doctrine?

Circles is the key. Cir-cles.

Yes, you aren't making an revelations here, just spouting flat earth theories

 

[Steamed_Banana]

When doctor takes your blood, does he take all of it?

Just face it: Zeros turned but hardly ever made circles. Ki-43s did. Lots of Ki-43 pilots were walking around post-war saying: "We owe our lives to the Ki-43."

Sakai owes his life to having spent the worst years in the hospital.

Boomer historians went with what US pilots said of flying captured Zeros, and what they said THEY would do with it...

Read first hand accounts of actual Zero encounters, and you will see circles are rare to non-existent. Sakai's duel with a Wildcat was one of the rare ones I can recall: He was getting so much nowhere after 3 circles (the Wildcat had a bigger wing than the Ta-152H, try to out-turn THAT), that he had to quit his turn and loop to finally nail it... It did loop great.

If you think the Zero made circles... Man o man... Boomer historians did their number on you.

Let me guess, you read all this in the library in... Atlantis?

 

[Greg Boeser]

When doctor takes your blood, does he take all of it?

Just face it: Zeros turned but hardly ever made circles. Ki-43s did. Lots of Ki-43 pilots were walking around post-war saying: "We owe our lives to the Ki-43."

Sakai owes his life to having spent the worst years in the hospital.

Boomer historians went with what US pilots said of flying captured Zeros, and what they said THEY would do with it...

Read first hand accounts of actual Zero encounters, and you will see circles are rare to non-existent. Sakai's duel with a Wildcat was one of the rare ones I can recall: He was getting so much nowhere after 3 circles (the Wildcat had a bigger wing than the Ta-152H, try to out-turn THAT), that he had to quit his turn and loop to finally nail it... It did loop great.

If you think the Zero made circles... Man o man... Boomer historians did their number on you.

Three circles, so after a minute Sakai chose to do a vertical circle, changed the geometry of the fight.
your reports of pilots locked in circle fights for hours suggests you are the one with a credulity problem.

 

[cherry blossom]

The Japanese Navy used A5Ms and the A6M2 in China. Their initial opponents included Gloster Gladiators and later the I-15. Might they have developed boom and zoom tactics against these opponents and possibly continued to use them against American opponents.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Japanese Navy used A5Ms and the A6M2 in China. Their initial opponents included Gloster Gladiators and later the I-15. Might they have developed boom and zoom tactics against these opponents and possibly continued to use them against American opponents.

Energy fighting was often the best strategy regardless. You might be able to fairly easily out-turn one opponent, but unless you are isolated and only facing one opponent, slowing down to turn fight can make you very vulnerable when more enemy aircraft arrive in a higher E state.

 

[yulzari]

Just because one fighter has a better turning circle does not mean that it will win. It requires the enemy to join in the game. À Fokker Triplane can out turn á Hawker Tempest but at the very best it will dodge the Tempest's fire and thus possibly survive. Demonstrated in practice in Auster v Hawker Hunter trials and Supermarine Spitfire v English Electric Lightning trials.

Which leads on to my major factor which is pilot training at which the British and Americans excelled once the programs were up to speed. The British made the decision pre war to establish a major world wide training program whist the Axis gave no priority to training and continuously subordinated pilot training to operational resource needs and did it in inadequate numbers and to abbreviated durations. Resulting in an airframe industry that could churn out fighters in quantities which were then given to ill trained pilots who largely died before they could become effective. In the above situation á well trained pilot will recognise the situation and opt for one of the several strategies which he has been taught to recognise and select and has practiced. Á well 'tuned' pilot is at least as valuable as a well 'tuned ' engine or airframe. It requires at least as much investment and brings at least as much benefit.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Oh, you are one of those. I have read dozens of pilot's memoirs, letters, and after combat accounts of air combats from the MTO and Spitfire pilots (as well as Hurricane and Kittyhawk pilots) always noted that they could easily out-turn any Bf 109 let alone the Fw 190. I can quote some if you like though I have a feeling it won't matter.

Why don't you post them and see?

After all I did post multiples, including from the RAF mission record holder, who is the only one to detail that the Spitfire out-turned others at high speed, and got out-turned at low speed below 200-220 knots indicated (where it gets into circles. Cir-cles you know?).

No one else went into this distinction, and no other pilot (that I know of) gave wartime conferences on German fighters while showing gun camera footage.

But then what I hear is the RAF mission record holder is not reliable. Ever heard of projection? No, not the projection of gun camera footage: The other projection...

Not to mention the top Spitfire ace saying "It was only a matter of time" when in circles against a 190A-4....

This Spitfire thing, "I have the quotes but won't show them to you" is tired.

I can't wait to see all these Spitfire quotes involving circles...

I expect none of your "quotes" will. I saw one (in thirty years) that mentioned winning in ONE circle over a FW-190A after a dive from above. It's the one where he mentions firing repeatedly. Let's see the new ones involving circles that have been "all over the place" for 30 years...

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Just because one fighter has a better turning circle does not mean that it will win. It requires the enemy to join in the game. À Fokker Triplane can out turn á Hawker Tempest but at the very best it will dodge the Tempest's fire and thus possibly survive. Demonstrated in practice in Auster v Hawker Hunter trials and Supermarine Spitfire v English Electric Lightning trials.

Which leads on to my major factor which is pilot training at which the British and Americans excelled once the programs were up to speed. The British made the decision pre war to establish a major world wide training program whist the Axis gave no priority to training and continuously subordinated pilot training to operational resource needs and did it in inadequate numbers and to abbreviated durations. Resulting in an airframe industry that could churn out fighters in quantities which were then given to ill trained pilots who largely died before they could become effective.

Aside from the Battle of Britain which is a bit of a special case, training was generally poor to mediocre for the Allies where most of the fighting was happening between 1940-42, both because they lacked training in general (or certain types of training, like gunnery training) or were new on type, having been so recently introduced to the aircraft they would fight with that they had not yet learned their strengths, weaknesses, and special quirks and nuances which one needed to understand to survive. This was a particular problem for example for the French in the Battle of France (as well as for many Polish volunteer pilots who were thrown into the breach in a variety of new, experimental, and / or questionable types like the Caudron 714); for the British and Commonwealth pilots in North Africa, many of whom didn't get gunnery training and hadn't been taught finger - four / wingmen tactics; for the Australians in New Guinea who were so new to their aircraft that they destroyed half of them just flying to the combat zone, and once they had learned the hard lesson of energy fighting, had to fight with their own high level commanders to use it (famously costing the life of very brave and skilled (and vitally needed) squadron commander John Jackson; for US pilots in the Philippines who went into action days after receiving their new fighters; and for RAF and Commonwealth pilots fighting in Malaya and Burma.

One important exception to this was the US Navy, to some extent the USMC, and the RAF had some good pilots including Battle of Britain veterans but many of these were kept in the home front to defend the kingdom, with pilots sent to the Colonies, allegedly, often being the less trained or less well regarded by the authorities for various reasons. There certainly seemed to be a degree of neglect of the Colonies.

Ultimately, the German and Japanese training systems while initially very good, and greatly complimented by early combat experience in places like Manchuria and Spain, were never streamlined for mass production of pilots, whereas the British, Commonwealth and American systems were. The US were training pilots in 9-12 months and 250 flight hours, the RAF initially took 18-24 months and 200-320 flight hours, but also benefited greatly from the Commonwealth pilot training program and for fighter pilots, the use of OTUs; the Luftwaffe initially took 18-24 months and 200-300 flight hours (later in 1943 cut in half when the pilot shortage became acute); the IJN took 3 years and 500-700 flight hours (this was also cut down drastically later in the war). The Soviets started with an 18 months training course but as staggering losses hit they cut this down to 12 months or considerably less. Later it was standardized at roughly 12 months and 100 flight hours (and quality of training improved greatly after 1943).

So the result was very well trained Axis fighter pilots very early on, but a system which took too long to keep replacements flowing in, as the Allied systems ramped up, so this was another thing which hit hard during the 'tipping point' of the war from Q3 1942 through Q1 1944.

In the above situation á well trained pilot will recognise the situation and opt for one of the several strategies which he has been taught to recognise and select and has practiced. Á well 'tuned' pilot is at least as valuable as a well 'tuned ' engine or airframe. It requires at least as much investment and brings at least as much benefit.

Yes, I think this is very true. Many experienced Allied units active in the MTO, Pacific, and CBI Theaters learned specialized strategies for combatting the enemy - energy fighting and Thach Weave in the Pacific, energy fighting in the CBI, 'Big Wing' and strict discipline in the MTO etc., but they also clearly broke the rules as they became more familiar with the enemy aircraft and tactics and more experienced and able to judge the circumstances. Allied pilots did turn fight with the Japanese for example, they just learned that they had to keep their speed up to survive, resulting in a mix of energy and turn fighting, with tactics that would later be calle 'Low Yo Yo' etc.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Why don't you post them and see?

Let's make a deal. How many Spitfire pilots and German fighter pilots commentaries do I need to post to get you to concede a point? What criteria are you going to accept? Will 3 get you to rethink your sweeping claims? 5? 10?

I know, and given that you say you've been at this for thirty years, you certainly know as well, that this particular issue (Spitfire maneuverability vs Bf 109 and Fw 190) has been argued to death many times on the interwebs. And frankly it is more than settled. So any hold outs tend to be fanatics.

I smell a fanatic and a true believer here, and experience tells me taking the effort to transcribe anything will just intensify the argument, which will go nowhere

After all I did post multiples, including from the RAF mission record holder, who is the only one to detail that the Spitfire out-turned others at high speed, and got out-turned at low speed below 200-220 knots indicated (where it gets into circles. Cir-cles you know?).

Did you? I must have missed that! Clostermann is a well known outlier on this issue.

No one else went into this distinction, and no other pilot (that I know of) gave wartime conferences on German fighters while showing gun camera footage.

But then what I hear is the RAF mission record holder is not reliable. Ever heard of projection? No, not the projection of gun camera footage: The other projection...

Far be it from me to question a wartime fighter pilot, except that Clostermann is a specific case where he contradicts hundreds of other fighter pilots, and has been shown to have made numerous errors in his memoir. I have his memoir, incidentally, and I like Clostermann, but I also recognize that a pilot is not a God and their specific experiences in wartime were their own, and not necessarily universal. Are you suggesting that there is something about Pierre Clostermann that makes his opinion more valid than that of all the others?

Not to mention the top Spitfire ace saying "It was only a matter of time" when in circles against a 190A-4....

I don't see how that contradicts anything

This Spitfire thing, "I have the quotes but won't show them to you" is tired.

Ok, so how many quotes do I need to provide then?

I can't wait to see all these Spitfire quotes involving circles...

Ah, so does it have to specifically use the word 'circles' or else you will dismiss it? Is that the trick?

I expect none of your "quotes" will. I saw one (in thirty years) that mentioned winning in ONE circle over a FW-190A after a dive from above. It's the one where he mentions firing repeatedly. Let's see the new ones involving circles that have been "all over the place" for 30 years...

Oh now it's getting a bit tighter. It's got to be a circle after a dive from above? Or not after diving? What are the exact criiteria you need to see after thirty years. That a Spitfire out-turns Bf 109 at low speed, at high speed? Or something more specific?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey wrathofatlantis,

re

No, the 109 will easily out-turn the Spitfire in prolonged circles, even as the Spitfire has the harder initial high speed turn... (Emil vs Spit I, 880 feet to 1025 feet, true circles in the RAf's own testing), . . .

Where did you get these numbers? And which marks are the numbers referring to? (sorry if I missed it up thread)

The reason I ask is that the only numbers I have run across show 885 ft best sustained (ie no loss of height) radius for the 109E, and 696 ft for the Spit Mk I, both at 12,000 ft and full throttle. Spit Mk I at ~6000 lbs and 109E at ~5600 lbs.

The charts below show the same basic performance although they use different terms and are displayed differently:

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hey wrathofatlantis,

re


Where did you get these numbers? And which marks are the numbers referring to? (sorry if I missed it up thread)

The reason I ask is that the only numbers I have run across show 885 ft best turn for the 109E and 696 ft best sustained (ie no loss of height) turn rate for the Spit Mk I, both at 12,000 ft and full throttle. Spit Mk I at ~6000 lbs and 109E at ~5600 lbs.

The charts below show the same basic performance although they use different terms and are displayed differently:

View attachment 873947
View attachment 873948
View attachment 873950

Remarkable that this matches the Soviet turn time tests so closely.

What helped the Bf 109F close the gap quite a bit was their leading edge slats finally being made to work properly, from what I understand. But this only helped at low speed, and it was never enough to out-turn a Spitfire (or most of the other Allied fighters).

 

[Shortround6]

these charts are indicators and can show why things happened, but most of the action reports leave a crap load of stuff out.
If pilot A is turning at 2.1-2.6 Gs at a constant speed and height and pilot B is behind him, Pilot A is not long for this world (a few seconds?)
Pilot B can pull more Gs and turn a smaller radius but he will lose speed. If he only has to "cut" the corner a small amount things are really going in Pilot Bs favor.

Bf 109Fs got a big advantage over E, not that they could really turn tighter but the lower drag airframe coupled with the higher powered/thrust engine/s allowed for higher speeds at any given G loading before losing altitude. Later Mark Spitfires with higher powered engines also could use higher speeds without have to trade altitude for speed.
Now both planes might not be able to turn quite as tight as the lower weight early versions but a 6750 lb Spitfire with a 1300hp engine is going to be able to a lot of things in turns that a 6000lb Spitfire with 1050hp cannot do.
The Stall boundary on the charts is going to move to right a bit but the curve of the straight climb is going to move up.

Going back to the action reports, If either plane (Spit I or 109E) was actually turning at 4 Gs for very long they would either stall or diving at 10 degree or higher angle.
Nobody had G meters. Nobody was watching their rate of climb/decent gauge/meter very closely.

I am not saying that pilots didn't make 3 or more complete turns (or throught they did? passed the same church steeple 3 times? watched the compass do 3 complete revolutions and still gave the right heading after being tipped on it's side for nearly a minute) .

Maybe there were pilots who did 3 complete 360 degree turns at 4 Gs or more without losing altitude but it wasn't with an early airplane.
Lower altitude may help some. denser air may keep you in the air without stalling while pulling high Gs. Of course if you do stall pulling 4 Gs at under 1000 meters you are probably going hit the ground really quick.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The Atlantean's argument is that by slowing down you can turn faster. Get it?
So we need charts for when the planes are at half throttle, or even idle.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

these charts are indicators and can show why things happened, but most of the action reports leave a crap load of stuff out.

No doubt, and as stipulated I think

If pilot A is turning at 2.1-2.6 Gs at a constant speed and height and pilot B is behind him, Pilot A is not long for this world (a few seconds?)

Agreed, and both the British and Soviets were well aware of this. I think these turn-time tests were a way to benchmark basic turning performance i.e. turning rate of the wings / airframe, but (as you note below), both maximum engine power and pulling Gs were a major factor in any dog fight, as were some of the adjuncts like slats and combat flaps, and emergency boost. Tactics also play a role. (more on all this in a sec)

Pilot B can pull more Gs and turn a smaller radius but he will lose speed. If he only has to "cut" the corner a small amount things are really going in Pilot Bs favor.

yes, and he can even do so without losing speed simply by incorporating a nose-down vertical turn

Bf 109Fs got a big advantage over E, not that they could really turn tighter but the lower drag airframe coupled with the higher powered/thrust engine/s allowed for higher speeds at any given G loading before losing altitude. Later Mark Spitfires with higher powered engines also could use higher speeds without have to trade altitude for speed.

Bf 109Fs had several advantages for a sustained fight compared to the E:

• More power so better acceleration
• Slats worked (this allows them to ride a stall and thus keep turning at low speed for longer, as you know)
• Better roll rate at higher (medium) speed.
• Substantially better climb rate (very helpful in vertical maneuvers)
• Lower drag (lose speed less quickly in a dogfight)
• Combat maneuvering flaps setting* (which the Spitfire did not have as far as I know) allowing better low speed turn
• More accurate gun (motorkanone) with more ammunition for the heavy gun.

Spitfire V was improved with

• more engine power including,
• higher boost ratings up to +15-+18 boost with higher octane fuel availability
• improved roll (metal ailerons and / or clipped wings),
• also slightly better dive acceleration and less drag with the clipped wings,
• use of Malcolm hoods and rear-view mirrors to improve situational awareness,
• improved streamlining / lower drag such as by putting the BP windscreen inside the cockpit,
• more cannon ammunition from Spit VC onward
• and eventually with the Spit IX and VIII, (maybe earlier?) Bendix carbs.

The existence or lack thereof of the problem Vokes filter was another big factor, which was fixed with the Spit VIII and IX, but also Spit V as well at some point (unevenly distributed).

Bf 109F in turn still had problems with sharply decreased roll rate at very high speeds (e.g. in dives), making a diving turn a fairly easy escape maneuver for the Spitfire if they could get enough separation initially. Tropical filters were also a problem for the 109s.

Now both planes might not be able to turn quite as tight as the lower weight early versions but a 6750 lb Spitfire with a 1300hp engine is going to be able to a lot of things in turns that a 6000lb Spitfire with 1050hp cannot do.
The Stall boundary on the charts is going to move to right a bit but the curve of the straight climb is going to move up.

Interestingly in the turn times tests the Spitfire VIII and IX actually got a little better than the V, which I assumed was due to increasing power.

Going back to the action reports, If either plane (Spit I or 109E) was actually turning at 4 Gs for very long they would either stall or diving at 10 degree or higher angle.
Nobody had G meters. Nobody was watching their rate of climb/decent gauge/meter very closely.

Sustained 'dogfights' descended rather quickly toward the ground for this very reason pretty consistently across all fronts. At some point one or both pilots may disengage, usually by diving away, but pulling G was not at all unusual, it was the norm. Now how much G they could pull was one of those factors where training and experience came in. Several DAF pilots anecdotally said that British pilots coming out of flight school did not know how much G they could safely pull in Spitfires and Hurricanes (turns out, more than the pilot could withstand in most cases, but they didn't know that). So they often did not push turns as hard as they could have, which cost some their lives. Eventually the limits were better understood and exploited more effectively.

I am not saying that pilots didn't make 3 or more complete turns (or throught they did? passed the same church steeple 3 times? watched the compass do 3 complete revolutions and still gave the right heading after being tipped on it's side for nearly a minute) .

Maybe there were pilots who did 3 complete 360 degree turns at 4 Gs or more without losing altitude but it wasn't with an early airplane.
Lower altitude may help some. denser air may keep you in the air without stalling while pulling high Gs. Of course if you do stall pulling 4 Gs at under 1000 meters you are probably going hit the ground really quick.

As I said, with some exceptions most WW2 fighter combats seemed to descend, pretty much inevitably, if they lasted long enough. There were some exceptions of course - Bf 109F pilots sometimes did a hit and run by climbing away from Allied fighters in the Med, P-38s also famously disengaged with a high speed climb when they could in the Pacific and CBI, but to do that one needed separation first, or else it was a recipe for death. Diving was usually the safer choice, if your aircraft could dive at high speed (and at least as fast as your opponent).


* I'm not sure the precise differences between the flap settings on the E and F versions of the Bf 109, I gathered that the F was improved with a specific designated setting but I am not certain of the details, so putting a caveat on this one.

 

[swampyankee]

When discussing turn rates, there are at least two kinds to consider: instantaneous, which is determined by wing loading and lift coefficient, and sustained turn rate, which is determined by wing loading, span loading, lift coefficient, and power loading. This means that a highly loaded aircraft, like the P-47 can have a greater sustained turn rate than a more lightly loaded aircraft at some altitudes. Another aspect of horizontal maneuverability is turn radius, which is usually minimum at stall. Since it takes time for a stall to form, the minimum instantaneous turn radius is likely to be below the steady-state stall speed.

Maneuverability is also affected by power available. A glider can have a very high instantaneous turn rate, but it will not be able to recover energy lost in a turn (or climb particularly well ). Power available (power loading) and wing loading (and lift coefficient) are probably the easiest aircraft factors to incorporate into a game. Things like stick forces are harder to model (stick forces are why the A6M "Zero" lost a lot of its maneuverability advantage at high speeds), as are departure characteristics (if an aircraft has a no-warning accelerated stall leading into a flat spin, a pilot won't go there. One would certainly not go there twice.)

Comparing something like turn rate or turn radius alone is not enough.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

When discussing turn rates, there are at least two kinds to consider: instantaneous, which is determined by wing loading and lift coefficient, and sustained turn rate, which is determined by wing loading, span loading, lift coefficient, and power loading. This means that a highly loaded aircraft, like the P-47 can have a greater sustained turn rate than a more lightly loaded aircraft at some altitudes. Another aspect of horizontal maneuverability is turn radius, which is usually minimum at stall. Since it takes time for a stall to form, the minimum instantaneous turn radius is likely to be below the steady-state stall speed.

Maneuverability is also affected by power available. A glider can have a very high instantaneous turn rate, but it will not be able to recover energy lost in a turn (or climb particularly well ). Power available (power loading) and wing loading (and lift coefficient) are probably the easiest aircraft factors to incorporate into a game. Things like stick forces are harder to model (stick forces are why the A6M "Zero" lost a lot of its maneuverability advantage at high speeds), as are departure characteristics (if an aircraft has a no-warning accelerated stall leading into a flat spin, a pilot won't go there. One would certainly not go there twice.)

Comparing something like turn rate or turn radius alone is not enough.

No I agree and I did stipulate this. Turn rate and turn radius are just two data points. Significant but by no means the whole story. Easier to summarize in layman's terms than all the aspects of instantaneous turn rate or sustained turns.

And for 'maneuverability' in fact, as distinct from just turns, I think you also really need to keep in mind the roll rate, the rate of climb, dive acceleration, and for turns especially the G loading. Not all WW2 fighters could pull 6-7 Gs without damaging the wings or the airframe.

 

[Shortround6]

Not all WW2 fighters could pull 6-7 Gs without damaging the wings or the airframe.

For the most part true fighters could pull those Gs, the pilots could not.
Converted fighters (bombers with guns in the nose) could not. Mosquitoes were not true fighters.

This is for fighters flying at normal gross weights. Flying overloaded can break planes if the pilots try to fly them like they are at normal weight.
This is also for a plane in good condition/state of repair.

Some planes were heavily modified from original design/s and if the structure was not upgraded the safety margin on later planes was decreased.
I am also assuming good workmanship. Faulty construction can ruin good design.

 

[Holtzauge]

The problem some people have when reading pilot's anecdotes, is that they simply don't understand them:

They read something like "In order to out-turn him, I reduced throttle which made me turn tighter so I could get into a position to shoot him down"

So with this in hand, they will say something along the lines "In order to turn tight you should reduce throttle!" and use this as a blanked statement without understanding that as usual, it's complicated:

I have recently written a book on aircraft performance comparing the Spitfire Mk I and Bf 109 E, which covers all of this in detail, which you can read more about here.

And in order to try to get it known in a wider circle, I'm working on a video which will soon be available on YouTube.

Interestingly, one of the slides in it answers some of the questions being asked in this thread:

However, in order to find the answer to the question, you need to be able to read the diagrams and the text, and then draw conclusions (the right ones) from it.

True, it does say reducing throttle tightens your turn, doesn't it?

But is that the right conclusion to draw from it?

I mean does it say that reducing your throttle ALWAYS tightens your turn and is ALWAYS the right move?

 

[Greg Boeser]

The problem some people have when reading pilot's anecdotes, is that they simply don't understand them:

They read something like "In order to out-turn him, I reduced throttle which made me turn tighter so I could get into a position to shoot him down"

So with this in hand, they will say something along the lines "In order to turn tight you should reduce throttle!" and use this as a blanked statement without understanding that as usual, it's complicated:

I have recently written a book on aircraft performance comparing the Spitfire Mk I and Bf 109 E, which covers all of this in detail, which you can read more about here.

And in order to try to get it known in a wider circle, I'm working on a video which will soon be available on YouTube.

Interestingly, one of the slides in it answers some of the questions being asked in this thread:


View attachment 874038


However, in order to find the answer to the question, you need to be able to read the diagrams and the text, and then draw conclusions (the right ones) from it.

True, it does say reducing throttle tightens your turn, doesn't it?

But is that the right conclusion to draw from it?

I mean does it say that reducing your throttle ALWAYS tightens your turn and is ALWAYS the right move?

There you go, using science! How dare you?!!!
But seriously, you need a glossary to explain the meaning of those sciency terms like "g-load limited" and "CLmax limited. For those of us who are on this site just because we think airplanes are pretty.

 

[Holtzauge]

There you go, using science! How dare you?!!!
But seriously, you need a glossary to explain the meaning of those sciency terms like "g-load limited" and "CLmax limited. For those of us who are on this site just because we think airplanes are pretty.

Yes, well I think especially the figure on the lower right is interesting, because in it, you can see that initially the Spitfire Mk I at the +6.25 boost setting actually turns better than the one at full blast 100 octane +12 boost.

But what is no shown in the figure is what would happen if you reduce the throttle all the way to idle: In this case the red "mountain top" would be shifted even further to the left since the excessive induced drag would not be counteracted by any prop thrust and you would slow down even faster. So initially, and somewhat paradoxically, you would have both a tighter turn radius and higher turn rate at idle.

But this is only for a very short while and rather the exception to the rule: Because in the other 99% of the cases, more power gives you the ability overcome the high induced drag in tight turns and simply haul yourself around by brute force.

And this is why to turn with the highest possible turn rate, you would actually only reduce throttle until you slowed down to the point you are no longer g-load limited, and you would then again increase power to the maximum to turn as best as possible.

So if anything, more power as a rule means better turn performance.

However, this scientific fact will of course not stop you if insist on cherry picking anecdotes, and then interpret them with augury as some insist on doing......