Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[Ratsel]

Gaston, did you take into account prop wash? relative humidity? ambient temperature? liters of fuel consumed? fuel slosh? ammo depletion? exhaust thrust? how many cups of coffee the pilot had? trim settings? wind speeds? head wind? tail wind? port wind? starboard wind? updrafts? downdrafts? crosswind? into your equations? why not just ask somebody who was there whether or not a 109 can sustain a turn with a 47? math is math yes. but sometimes the math is wrong.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the P-47"s weigth is concerned, I went by "normal loaded" data.

No, you did not. "normal loaded" data is never going to include 600 gallons of external fuel and tanks.

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?

Try again, I did say up until the D-25 which are razor backs. A bubble top weighed about 320lbs more than an "EARLY D" without ammo or fluids. Of that 320lbs about 90lbs is taken up by the change from the 305 gal internal tankage to the 370gal internal tanks. The propeller on the later models weighed about 118lbs more than the prop on the earlier "D"s, trapped fuel and oil in the chart for the later version that are not counted in the earlier version account for another 80lbs or so of that 320lb difference.

You want to compare actual wing loading of planes in "combat" condition rather than in max loaded condition ( the 7900kg weight you listed is higher than the gross weight of the plane full internal fuel and a pair of 1000lb bombs.)

A bubble top P-47 with 143lbs on oil still on board. (having used 72 gallons>edit 'lbs'< to get there) and with 248lbs of water/alcohol still on board plus 664lb of ammo (267 rounds or so per gun) and just over 2/3 fuel (out of 370 gal internal) comes in at 13,620lbs including the 200lb pilot and chute. 6191KG.
Taking 1/3 to 1/2 the fuel out of the 109G-6 isn't going to change things much. The difference in wing loading has the bubble top about 16.6% higher.

Of course the 6940lb weight for the 109G-6 doesn't include an MW50 installation does it?

 

[drgondog]

If you guys feed this idiot he will never go away.. please put him on ignore.

Chris/Joe can you shut this thread down?

 

[Glider]

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)...

There you go quoting the combat reports again. My offer is still open. Pick one and I will analyse the ten reports either side of the one identified for accuracy and numbers of sustained turn combats that took place.

For someone who is putting such faith in these reports to support your case you are very reluctant to use them to actually support your case.

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...

You have of course examples to support your statement that P51 pilots had the concerns you state, don't you?

Read all these, and you will find the above pattern holds true...

I have, it doesn't.

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...

Priceless

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Closed...