drgondog
Major
Bada - The first operational P-51B-1 arrived in the UK in November, 1943 so the Mustangs in this narrative (August, 1943) would have been the earlier Allison powered Mk II.
Great find on the article.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
if gaston likes anecdotes, let's go back for a while to the stang,...the 43 stang, it's not the D of course, but still the brand new model of this time, vs an old model that has since it's introduction already 2 new versions (A4+A5)
Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.
I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).
Even I gave up. Someone who dismisses US Navy tyests which were undertaken at one of the most up to date establishments in the world at the time, in real aircraft, by highly trained pilots, who misquotes his own evidence, ignores evidence from pilots who were not only experienced combat pilots but include some of the few trained test pilots of the period and finaly thinks that all the above are not quite as accurate or realistic as his experience on IL2. Isn't worth the effort
As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all.
Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.
I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).
Just an observation about Gastons Gunther Rall quote:
I do not believe Rall was comparing turning ability with that statement.
He was actually comparing the 109 to a light, swift, precision thrusting weapon and the 190 to a heavy and slower slashing weapon. The thrust is approx 1/3 faster than the cut (slash). Also, a thrust does not necessarily follow a straight line, it is often curved, particularly for the tip of the sword. Besides, in sport fencing, to be safe, a floret "foil" cannot be straight, it must have a slight curve in it so it will bend when it contacts an opponent.
I also noticed a reference to Spitfires using full WEP in turns. The only Spits that had WEP as far as I know are the ones in the IL2 flight sim.
When a post contains an ovious error such as WW2 prop planes doing 450 mph at low altitude, I tend to classify the whole post as fantasy.
-The US Navy tests described it as an "interceptor" -type an aircraft that in reality had a very average to poor climb rate and could not pull out of dives efficiently... They also failed to notice its excellent low-speed sustained horizontal turn rate (due to inadequate aileron adjustment ("snatching"?!?!) and excessive power rating which was way too high and quoted as above in-service rating, thus hurting sustained turn radius and performance: Why do you think the Germans chose to fight with them de-rated?) and focussed instead on its high speed handling...
Have you read what I said?!?!?! I have said it has great LOW speed handling. It was the one of the supreme low-speed turnfighters of its day, probably ahead of the Spitfire, which on the other hand handled a lot better at high speed than it did...
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and I am not basing this on Shaw or any post war theorist. But on pilots and tactical instruction given to pilots by the British and American instructors. All aircraft have advantages and disadvantages compared to other aircraft and simply put if you had a better turn rate then try it if you don't don't. Tempest pilots for example were always warned not to get into a slow turning dogfight, use your advantages.Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...
Quote: "Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning."
-If you are a pilot I have no doubt that's what you know and have been taught, but believe me, you don't want to pit a modern F-15 pilot inside a P-51 against a WWII-vintage pilot who actually knows that full power from the nose pulls you out of your turn and makes you "heavier" on your wings, especially at low speeds...
And you have to recognise that Test Pilots in the war, with combat experience, at a flight fully equipped test centre, staffed with experts in their fields have a lot better chance of being right than me or you.What you have to accept is that specialized front-line experience knowledge on outdated weapons gets lost over time, and only irrelevant theories remain on paper... You simply have to accept that modern pilots flying P-51s today don't know as much about what they are sitting in than SOME pilots who actually had to fight and die in them...
P-51D placard red line at low altitude was 505 MPH if I am not mistaken... Do you think as soon as they get horizontal they lose all their dive speed?!?
You are mistaken - again - about the 505mph placard referencing low altitude. That was the 'do not exceed' speed - PERIOD. Highly modified, stripped, specialty racers with 3500+ Hp engines can attain that speed today in level flight on the deck and they are pushing structural integrity to the limit -
Did you even know their true maximum dive speed was quite a bit higher at low altitudes because of the higher Mach limit there?
Gaston - do you know that what you don't know about this subject would fill volumes?
First - the limits for dive speeds are a.) critical Mach number of the airfoil and b.) dynamic pressure loads on the airframe, and c.) altitude (AGL) of dive initiation. At 'low' altitude - b.) and c.) will stop you before a.) is a factor
Structural buffeting was usually the dive speed limit at low altitude, NOT the Mach number, except for a few types like the P-38... Some had good buffeting behaviour, so they could safely reach significantly higher speeds in dives at low altitudes than they could up high...
For the amusement of all those reading your comments with great anticipation, could you elucidate on your arcane definitions?
Start with 'structural buffeting' and explain whether you really meant 'buffeting' as in the excitation of control surfaces in extremely turbulent flow?
Start with 'good buffeting behavior' and explain why this is similar to desirable rabies effects or great herpes?
Explain why significantly high diving speeds at low altitudes is better at low altitudes than at high altitudes? Perhaps because one could reach the scene of the crash 'quicker'? For example if you were assured your mustang would dive faster starting at 10,000 feet and could reach the highest speed posssible by diving from that altitude instead of 25,000 feet - would you do it?
A Spitfire had a very good mach number of 0.92 or 0.85 depending on sources, making for an excellent dive speed limit at high altitudes, but buffeting at low altitudes meant its maximum dive speed there was far inferior to a P-51, and maybe even below that of a Me-109G at the lower altitudes... (The Me-109G could safely manage up to 820-850 km/h (around 520 MPH) before aileron flutter set in, the FW-190A could dive much faster but could not pull out worth a damn, so had to start slowing down as high as 8-10 000 ft(!)... If it didn't, it would then "mush" downward nose level or slightly down until it did what is commonly referred to as "pancaking" in 8th Air Force pilot accounts: Hitting the ground nose up going down...)
Ah, sources please?
Credentials to discuss (intelligently) any topic related to Aerodynamics, flight mechanics, aeroelasticity, airframe structuress, combat or just simply pilot skills and experience in the types (or any type) of aircraft you are lecturing about ??
Oh, and you do realize near the ground there is little difference between IAS and TAS, do you?
Gaston
Russians agree... You want FURTHER proof that the Me-109 was considered a Boom and Zoomer and the FW-190A was comparatively a slow-speed horizontal turn fighter? Consider this Russian tactical evaluation of hundreds of combats as to how they inter-acted in real life... REAL LIFE with REAL German pilots trying their best to kill them...:
Quote:"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."
So the Me-109s Boom and Zooms while the FW-190A engages "in turning fights lasting quite a long time"
Does the "Floret" and "Saber" methaphor sound more clear now, or did those Soviets front-line pilots all imagine that they concur with Rall, Johnny Johnson, ect?
Gaston
a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly
The following link has a number of Spitfire combat reports and its interesting how few of them involve the low speed turn fighting that you say was the bread and butter of air combat. Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
Here is another link this time for Tempests and again few had the turning fight you love, interesting on at least one of them the Tempest stayed behind the Fw190 at Tree top level and the Tempest isn't any great shakes as a turning dogfighter.
Tempest V Performance
I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong.
And you have to recognise that Test Pilots in the war, with combat experience, at a flight fully equipped test centre, staffed with experts in their fields have a lot better chance of being right than me or you.
Gaston
Yup, but you need to read the entire report, take it in context, consider qualifying and contradicting parts of the report, and make an interpretation that has not been skewed by an agenda to prove the FW190 was a superior low speed sustained turn fighter. I admit to being intrigued by the notion, but the evidence does not support it.
That being said, regarding the Soviet book on air combat tactics, note that the FW190 had not been on the Eastern front for very long and the Soviets thought that the FW pilots would soon be changing their tactics. ie, the turn fight was not working for them.
The German tactic of having the FW190 at lower altitude while the Bf109s provide top cover is not because the 190 is a turn fighter and the 109 a 'boom and zoomer', it is because the 109 has better high alt performance than the 190 and the 190 has greater firepower so would engage the bomber and ground attack aircraft in the Soviet formation while the 109s covered them. Incorrect assumption to attribute this practice supports the theory about 190 turn superiority and incorrect to assume the 109/190 stacked formation was a counter to Soviet fighter sweeps.
De-rating engines on the FW190 was because of overheating and engine life issues, (read comment at beginning of FW190 appraisal in Soviet report about 1 minute at full military power) again an incorrect assumption that this was done to help with sustained turn rates. 109s wee flown derated at various stages of the war as well, until approved for higher boost ratings. It had nothing to do with turn ability, everything to do with engine reliability and service life.
The Soviet report summarizes that speed and altitude advantage are of paramount importance, that turn fighting is to be done only when forced to do so. This is direct contraditction to the 'bread and butter' statement about turn fighting in WWII.
Here's a thought, if turn rate is the war winning performance attribute, why even bother designing a 109 or 190, stick with the old biplanes and you win the war?
Gaston;734320 You have to admit that if they don't even know the true 6 G "Corner Speed" said:This sums up your problem. You have no experience, no training but you firmly believe that you know better than real combat pilots, real trained test pilots and real engineers. As for the 6G factor you have fixed on, why I don't know and frankly don't care.
Quote: "I must admit that I got sick to death of your quoting pro disk loads as an explanation for turning and derating engines. I certainly could be wrong as its been 30+ years since my training but it had notihg to do with turning. Either support it or withdraw the quote and explain why you kpept using something that was wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Let me put this way: The nose pulls ahead AND above the wing, the elevator, to tilt the nose up, pushes down on the opposite side at the other end of a fairly long tail... Can you explain to me how does this NOT push down harder on the wing if the nose pulls harder against the overall drag? Yes I know the wing keeps up by lifting more as the angle increases, but that doesn't change the fact that more power means more-to-lift (Please don't start that the lift axis is 500 ft. above the aircraft: It is the wings that does the lifting, and one half of the prop disc has to go slower in a turn no matter how you cut it... To make one half of the prop disc go slower than the other half you have to beat ALL the thrust in that "inside turn" half: 00000.5% slower STILL requires beating ALL the thrust there. To lift 100 lbs by one micrometer you have to lift with 100 lbs+ of force, or the weight will not move by one micrometer)
This is long way of saying that the Prop Disk Loads have nothing to do with turning ability. Find me one example from ANY engineering / Aerodynamic manual or book that says it does. Unless of course you know better than all the most learned scholars in this specialised subject.
You have a theory and it might well be an interesting theory, I am not qualified to question it, but you have as far as I can see Nothing to prove that Prop Disk Loads have anything to do with the solution.
My Questions
Quote:
"a) That the power rating was too high
b) That German pilots chose to fight with derated engines
c) That the aileron was not adjusted correctly
Your reply
a) In the report.
b)Whoever said that? At best a possible choice from above them in view of poor high speed handling and better durability. Who cares? Derating does indicate they did not hugely care about high speed performance however...
c) Pronounced aileron snatching described as characteristic: Sorry but the US Navy is all alone on this point at least...
A) Which Report. The one I have says that the engine was derated but also the RAF test establishment didn't know why and uprated it for some of the tests. The report I have didn't say the rating was too high, they said it was lower than expected, big difference
B) YOU DID posting 46 extract is The engines were de-rated because the FW-190A did not handle at all well at speeds above 250 MPH, or at full power (tail sinking in dives and either tail sinking or violently wing snapping in turns:
C) I was asking where did you make the assumption that the aileron was not adjusted correctly. Your reply that the aileron snatching was a characteristic wasn't supported by anything. The report you quoted did say Aileron control is very good at all airspeeds which doesn't indicate any problem with them being adjusted incorrectly.
Still waiting for those multiple 360° contest down on the deck, or at least level, slow speed and not too high, where the Spitfire wins versus the FW-190A... Something that looks like this for instance:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
My question was asking you to support the contention that you made and I quote
Low-speed turn-fighting BTW was the bread and butter of air combat in WWII between equal performance opponents (no matter what post-war jet theorist like Shaw desperately try to placate on it)...
I gave you two links which give you access to over 160 combat reports (and I have others if you wish) and ask you how many of those were Low Speed Turning fights. Then you expect me to be convinced that the One repeat One cherry picked combat report that you can find, proves that they are the bread and butter type of combat.
If you want to improve your case you may want to look at those combat reports, find the ones that are sustained low speed turning combats and add them to your list. However the small matter of the 150 + combats that you leave off the list, might be a little inconvenient.
Dare I suggest that Shaw was a little closer to reality than your ideas.
11,000ft would be considered as the lower echelons of medium altitude3,500 metres (11,000ft) is HIGH altitude...
Gaston
I've just picked up on this thread
Can you elucidate further on your theory 'Derating as a Low-speed Handling Enabler'
Thankyou in anticipation