As far as the P-47"s weigth is concerned, I went by "normal loaded" data.
And the "Bubbletop" was at least 1000 lbs heavier than the Razorback, if not more... What is the comparable weight of a D-25 "Bubbletop"? 6700 kg?
But Gaston
, if you want to compare planes, it takes the same condition; both of them flaps up or both of them flaps down. Have you got flaps down values for the Bf-109G?
Yes 23-24s for the A-4 flaps up from soviet guenine docs, if you want to compare it with the 109.
Note that the later TsAGI report give the benefit of 0.5s to the FW-190 A-4, for some fair reasons (supposal that plane was not in brand new condition, not perfectly regulated and flown).
No problem
Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
I would say there's others P-47 tests, with 27.4 even more than 28 the turn. So the 26s it's for the best (R or L?) one.
Gaston, i don't want to be unkind but, before discussing about complex and unknown flight theories, just learn them, and try to unserstand.
If you downthrottle the engine, you loose power, and so total lift....That mean you're just decreasing your AoA, speed and so ToT! Or i dont understand what did you mean...
Regards
There's no "flaps down" for the Me-109G because they were hard if not impossible to use that way (at flying speeds the load and deployment times were laughable)... On the FW-190A you push a button...
It's interesting about the P-47D doing 27 seconds, but I said
combat accounts... The performance exhibited in your link here by the P-47D is so ridiculously low it all but puts an end to any notion of thrust we should have in tests of the era...
Let's face it about the reliability of tests in those days: The "Society of Experimental Test Pilots" found in 1989 that the 6 G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D (and 3 other types) was at a
minimum of 320 MPH on the P-51. Tests of the times have that very simple value at 240 MPH...
Real combat over 600 reports:
P-47 Encounter Reports
In these: The P-47D
always out-turns the Me-109G in sustained turns, always in less than 3 X 360 typically. It almost never out-turns the FW-190A but is close to even until mid 1944, then it is badly out-turned by later A-8s.
In here, 700 P-51 combat reports;
Mustang Encounter Reports
The P-51 often has trouble out-turning the Me-109 (up to 45 X 360(!!!): Two instances of 15 minutes of continuous one-side turning, plus one of 30 minutes on "Dogfights"!),
unless the P-51 downthrottles. Not the same with the FW-190A, because the P-51 often out-turns it very quickly at high altitude or at high speeds (no contest there) in less than one turn. At low speeds and in low altitude turns, there is very often a note from the P-51 pilot that the FW-190A pilot is not using his airplane to the full, and is timid in pulling the stick because of a nasty stall (never any such statements for the Me-109G)... Yet despite this, at low altitude and at low speeds the FW-190A is always much more of a challenge in turns than at higher altitudes or higher speeds (often 4 turns or more, versus no ability to contest turns
at all when higher or faster, constantly shifting sides on the ailerons instead)...
The P-51 very often "loses" the FW-190A, almost
never the Me-109G, but the term "out-turned" is studiously avoided by P-51 drivers, even when that is obviously what happened, because I think the pilots did not want to be admonished by someone they did not pull lead hard enough...
No such complexes from P-47D drivers who will readily admit such, and yet do
infinitely better than the P-51 against the Me-109G in sustained turns...
Read all these, and you will find the above pattern holds true...
Downthrottling is mentionned numerous times in those reports as a huge advantage for the P-51 at low speeds after multiple 360s... This is because at full throttle, and when turning level, the P-51"s prop adds tens of thousands of pounds to the wingload... That is why Karhila, in his Me-109G-6, says the "optimal" sustained turn rate for his 109G is downthrottled to 160 MPH: Turning about 55 MPH above stall is best...
Of course nose-down unloads the prop, which is why the altitude advantage is so crucial (among other reasons)...
Don"t worry, even with tens of thousands of
extra downward pounds of load on it, the winglift is quite capable of dealing with a pilot ignorantly running his engine at full power, just not so well that the thing will turn tighter or faster...
That is the beauty of how this remained hidden: The aircraft naturally compensates for being more heavily loaded by the prop... It is quite amazing when you know how...
And yes, that does mean aero-engineers have no clue how these particular airplanes flew... I am sorry if that is hard to take, but it is all there in the math, coming soon your way...
Gaston
