Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[Glider]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that the Hurricane Pilot was inexperienced, just that he was a Hurricane Pilot who probably moved on to either an overseas posting or onto Typhoons. Also if he did fight Fw190's in a Hurricane it was probably as a Hurrie Bomber pilot.

You have been shall we say, liberal in your interpretations of the evidence, which is your choice, I leave others to make their own deductions.
One example being the fact that sustained turns were the bread and butter of combat. This is patently wrong based on the evidence that you supplied. If this upsets you then take up my offer of reviewing the ten combats either side of one of your choice and I will apologise.
Another example is the one you have just made about the hit rate of 2%. I am sure that figure is correct, but to then assume that applies to all combats no matter what the range is a huge leap. Generally speaking the closer the range the better the chance of a hit. I have no doubt that at long range it was a lot less than 2% and at close range a lot higher. However quite what that had to do with the turn ability of the two aircraft is beyond me.

However don't try to say that I have said things, that I didn't.

 

[claidemore]

Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by Gaston:
The problem is that the gun hit rate in actual combat is around 2% (Luftwaffe study), and this is what changes a large part of the picture...

A very long burst of 50 rounds per gun: around 5 seconds of continuous firing throughout a full quater circle continuously(!), will yield from a tailing Spitfire a likely TWO 20 mm impacts and about FOUR 7.7mm bullet holes...

If the pilot is lucky... Now he will be firing about one eight of a circle every full circle if he is not wasteful, so ONE 20 mm hit and TWO 7.7 mm bullet holes for every full 360° circle while in tailing position...

This follows the number of circle it took to get in position... (Hopefully against the FW-190A not more than one and half turns, or it's likely a lost cause...)

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that every time each pilot fired his weapons at an enemy plane only 2% of his rounds hit? The 2% figure is an estimated average for ALL pilots, and has no applicaiton to any individual encounter. One pilot (or several) will miss completely (0% hits), and another pilot may have every round hit it's target (100% hits). Your example is completely misleading and useless.

By the way, in 5 seconds of firing, the four Browning .303s in a Spit V will spit out 96 rounds each, not 50. The Hispano cannon will fire 50 rounds in 5 seconds.

I don't think anyone has agreed that a Hurricane has a better sustained turn than a Spitfire, and one pilots opinion certainly doesn't prove it. The TsAAGI test show an extremely slim difference between the Spit and the Hurricane, certainly not enough to see a difference in combat.
Against an FW 190 any Hurricane is so completely outclassed in every performance area that turn ability is completely moot. Climb, speed, accelleration, dive, roll rate, firepower, all favor the 190. The Hurricane cannot catch an FW (except by surprise) and it certainly cannot outrun one.

As for downthrottling to improve a turn, if the Spit Mk IX has a 15% greater thrust to weight ratio, why doesn't the Mk V turn better? It's definately putting out less power, but turn rate is identical?

 

[Gaston]

Are you kidding me?





Do you actually expect anyone to believe that every time each pilot fired his weapons at an enemy plane only 2% of his rounds hit? The 2% figure is an estimated average for ALL pilots, and has no applicaiton to any individual encounter. One pilot (or several) will miss completely (0% hits), and another pilot may have every round hit it's target (100% hits). Your example is completely misleading and useless.

By the way, in 5 seconds of firing, the four Browning .303s in a Spit V will spit out 96 rounds each, not 50. The Hispano cannon will fire 50 rounds in 5 seconds.

I don't think anyone has agreed that a Hurricane has a better sustained turn than a Spitfire, and one pilots opinion certainly doesn't prove it. The TsAAGI test show an extremely slim difference between the Spit and the Hurricane, certainly not enough to see a difference in combat.
Against an FW 190 any Hurricane is so completely outclassed in every performance area that turn ability is completely moot. Climb, speed, accelleration, dive, roll rate, firepower, all favor the 190. The Hurricane cannot catch an FW (except by surprise) and it certainly cannot outrun one.

As for downthrottling to improve a turn, if the Spit Mk IX has a 15% greater thrust to weight ratio, why doesn't the Mk V turn better? It's definately putting out less power, but turn rate is identical?

-The "balance point" at which more power helps the airframe, or doesn't, in sustained turns, is not something I claim is predictable for all airframes...

In any case, I would expect the Spitfire Mk IX to out-turn itself in sustained turns IF it downthrottled, but this might indeed not be the case if it generates an unusual amount of drag in sustained turns, and happens to be one of those airframes that needs more power to maintain speed through level turns at low speeds...

If both the Mk V and the Mk IX downthrottled, I could not tell you which one would beat the other then, but I would suspect they would both improve on their own turn times, unless, again, they happen to have a greater low-speed high angle of attack drag that gets in the way of this improvement...

The actual drag generated while turning is dependent on complex overall shape and leverage issues, and this makes this drag unpredictable...

I have never heard of the Spifire downthrottling in sustained turns in 14 years of research: The examples that I do know of, that I know for sure were used with success in multiple 360°s, are for the Me-109G, Merlin P-51, and the FW-190A...

I also know the heavier, much more powerful but shorter nosed La-5 and Ki-100 were not inferior in sustained turn rates over their lower-power, slightly LIGHTER (yes, Lagg-3 and Ki-61 were noticeably lighter, 100-200 lbs, I've checked) but longer-nosed predecessors... It would seem the shorter nose more than offsets the extra power the radials had... But which ones would benefit the most from downthrottling? Impossible to say without tests...

There are complex shape and leverage peculiarities at play here, and they would have to be thouroughly tested to see what exactly happens on various airframe shapes with more or less power...

Note the longer-nosed and similar power FW-190D-9 was vastly inferior in handling and sustained turn rate to the FW-190A-8, as my nose-lenght leverage theory would predict...:

FW-190A-8 turn superiority over FW-190D-9 confirmed - Topic Powered by Social Strata

Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

Army Air Force Command, Memorandum on FW-190, D-9, AAF number FE-121. 20 May 1946.

The Spitfire and the P-47D are two types in which I would have expected to hear of a use of downthrottling in sustained turns, but never did... I have no idea why...

Yet in a German captured test, an underpowered P-47D Razorback with needle-tip prop exhibited such a pronounced superiority over the Me-109G that the German evaluators felt confortable with a blanket statement that said "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" (On Special Missions, KG 200), ... NO speeds, NO altitudes, NO qualifiers: Just a blanket statement that certainly was not intended to mislead...

The fact that early 1944 P-47D Razorbacks, maybe with paddle blades most of the time, but surely with less power, seem to do a lot better than later Bubbletops in sustained turns, does seem to suggests that it too benefits from less power...

The Spitfire seems not to be the same... Is it the greater efficiency of the four-blade propeller? Again, without tests, there is no way of knowing how it would behave downthrottled in sustained turns...

Whatever the reason may be, the lack of difference in sustained turn rates between the Mk V and the Mk IX gives no more ammunition to the sceptics than it does to my theory. Maybe the opposite, in fact...

The fact that the sustained turn rate is the same at 30 000 ft., when the discrepancy in power to weight ratio is well over the 15% existing at lower altitudes (maybe as much as 20-30% at 30 000 ft.!), is pretty telling in itself... And the climb rate of the Mk IX is immensely superior there too, yet barely any difference can be detected in the sustained level turn rate...

This shows the perils of simplistic math predictions: According to those, a huge difference in climb rate and power to weight ratio SHOULD have yielded significant improvements in the sustained turn rate...

Little or none at all show... From the point of view of what I say, it is clear at least that this confirms that maths are not linearly predictive of nose-traction aircraft performance: There is no linear connection between power ratio, climb rate, acceleration vs the sustained turn rate...

So I would say the unpredictability of what gives the best sustained turn rate, at what power level, and with what airframe, is certainly very clear as long as we are talking about nose traction...

I would say the lack of difference in sustained turn rates between the four-bladed Mk IX and the three-bladed Mk V leans heavier in my direction, because at the very least the 15% (and more) difference in the power to weight ratio should have tipped the balance against me, and it didn't...

You see, I don't claim to predict relative performance outcomes based on my theory: I am merely trying to explain those performance outcomes as they are observed from real combat accounts, and why they do not remotely match what would be expected...

The math formulas on the other hand, DO claim to predict relative performance outcomes on nose-traction fighters... And they DO demonstrably fail at doing that...

It is not always what we know that matters the most: We have to know what we don't know.

Gaston

 

[riacrato]

"1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

That is all it says and you are reading an aweful lot into it. Handling can mean a lot of things, turn rate or radius certainly being among them. But it can also mean trim or roll, two aspects I much more often hear about to have worsened due to the re-design.

 

[drgondog]

-The "balance point" at which more power helps the airframe, or doesn't, in sustained turns, is not something I claim is predictable for all airframes...

If you have the drag polars or enough flight test data to develop one, it is reasonably easy to calculate the drag at various bank angles and the thrust required to 'balance the drag' for a sustained altitude, continuous turn. Having said this, it was not easy for preliminary design engineers - WWII era- to perform the same calculations absent flight test data validation for Parasite drag.

In any case, I would expect the Spitfire Mk IX to out-turn itself in sustained turns IF it downthrottled,

If it was in a sustained, max G/min radius turn, 'downthrottling' would cause either an instant stall if the pilot maintained the same stick force/position, or a descending spiral..


but this might indeed not be the case if it generates an unusual amount of drag in sustained turns, and happens to be one of those airframes that needs more power to maintain speed through level turns at low speeds...

In a banked turn the Lift required is Lcos (theta) where 'L" is the total lift normal to the wing plane and theta is the bank angle. As that component increases with bank angle and the associated decrease in speed due to the induced drag (increase in CL) to maintain level flight, the CL will reach CLmax - at that point the aircraft is in minimum turn radius/max rate of turn -

In short, power being equal, the wing loading and aerodynamic efficiency (L/D) are the critical components to sustained turn perfromance.

If both the Mk V and the Mk IX downthrottled, I could not tell you which one would beat the other then, but I would suspect they would both improve on their own turn times, unless, again, they happen to have a greater low-speed high angle of attack drag that gets in the way of this improvement...

If they were at max power, max turn rate/minimum turn radius (Stallturn), they would fall out of the sky - they would have no reserve energy and cutting power reduces the trhust required to provide equilibrium

The actual drag generated while turning is dependent on complex overall shape and leverage issues, and this makes this drag unpredictable...

See above - 'leverage' as you define it is silly

I have never heard of the Spifire downthrottling in sustained turns in 14 years of research: The examples that I do know of, that I know for sure were used with success in multiple 360°s, are for the Me-109G, Merlin P-51, and the FW-190A...

If you could interview the dead guys you would find corresponding examples where they died while 'downthrottling' and gave their opponents the gift of superior energy in the fight.

' Down throttling' is only useful if you start with excess velocity and energy and you are willing to trade energy available for a tighter turn. When you do this, you will have to continuously 'upthrottle' as you approach CLmax

I also know the heavier, much more powerful but shorter nosed La-5 and Ki-100 were not inferior in sustained turn rates over their lower-power, slightly LIGHTER (yes, Lagg-3 and Ki-61 were noticeably lighter, 100-200 lbs, I've checked) but longer-nosed predecessors... It would seem the shorter nose more than offsets the extra power the radials had... But which ones would benefit the most from downthrottling? Impossible to say without tests...

Impossible to claim without stimulating laughter and intense giggling..

There are complex shape and leverage peculiarities at play here, and they would have to be thouroughly tested to see what exactly happens on various airframe shapes with more or less power...

What would give everyone a great deal of insight to your theories is for you to put your version of the physics up on the board and walk us through your thesis.

Note the longer-nosed and similar power FW-190D-9 was vastly inferior in handling and sustained turn rate to the FW-190A-8, as my nose-lenght leverage theory would predict...:

If you would take a hard look at the relative wing loadings and L/D comparisons between aircraft of similar power you would find more validation regarding results of comparative manuever performance.


Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

I haven't found any 8th AF fighter pilots that would rather meet any FW 190D over any FW 190A in a zero advantage tactical situation.

My father flew both after WWII over when the 355th moved to Gablingen. Several other 355th command ace pilots swapped P-51D-25's and P-51B-15s in rat races (informal) with Fw 190d-9, Fw 190A-8 two seat, Me 109G-14 two seat (I think), maintained by former LW crews and plenty of spare parts.

They were ALL very impressed with the 190D.

The Spitfire and the P-47D are two types in which I would have expected to hear of a use of downthrottling in sustained turns, but never did... I have no idea why...

See they above - energy, WL, L/D, Power available, are the keys to a manuever flight

Yet in a German captured test, an underpowered P-47D Razorback with needle-tip prop exhibited such a pronounced superiority over the Me-109G that the German evaluators felt confortable with a blanket statement that said "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G" (On Special Missions, KG 200), ... NO speeds, NO altitudes, NO qualifiers: Just a blanket statement that certainly was not intended to mislead...

I submitted a direct quote from Hans-Werner Leche, Luftwaffe test pilot who was first LW pilot to fly the the first captured P-47D (YF-U) after Novemner 7, 1943. He said exactly the opposite and you have yet to comment on his evaluation

The fact that early 1944 P-47D Razorbacks, maybe with paddle blades most of the time, but surely with less power, seem to do a lot better than later Bubbletops in sustained turns, does seem to suggests that it too benefits from less power...

Not possible..

The Spitfire seems not to be the same... Is it the greater efficiency of the four-blade propeller? Again, without tests, there is no way of knowing how it would behave downthrottled in sustained turns...

see above

The fact that the sustained turn rate is the same at 30 000 ft., when the discrepancy in power to weight ratio is well over the 15% existing at lower altitudes (maybe as much as 20-30% at 30 000 ft.!), is pretty telling in itself... And the climb rate of the Mk IX is immensely superior there too, yet barely any difference can be detected in the sustained level turn rate...

Can you be more specific - too many generalities in that statement - first of all, no Merlin operated at peak efficiency at 30,000 feet and in fact a 1650-7 was at 6000 feet above Critical altitude which means it is at far less power at 30K due to the inability of the engine to compensate for the lower density of the air... I don't know what MK IX Merlin Critical Atitude was but sure it was below 30,000. For the same reasons, top speed and turn performance would be less at 30k, climb rate suffers terribly past the Critical Altitude of the engine. The Jug on the other hand had a turbo supercharged engine and power did not degrade at 30K - although turn and climb relative to an equal power/lower altitude/higher density would suffer in comparison.

This shows the perils of simplistic math predictions: According to those, a huge difference in climb rate and power to weight ratio SHOULD have yielded significant improvements in the sustained turn rate...

See above

Little or none at all show... From the point of view of what I say, it is clear at least that this confirms that maths are not linearly predictive of nose-traction aircraft performance: There is no linear connection between power ratio, climb rate, acceleration vs the sustained turn rate...

There is absolutely correlation between Power Ratio, density, W/S, CLmax, e, L/D, etc - some linear, some non linear but in ratios that are solvable.

So I would say the unpredictability of what gives the best sustained turn rate, at what power level, and with what airframe, is certainly very clear as long as we are talking about nose traction...

That statement is simply silly

I would say the lack of difference in sustained turn rates between the four-bladed Mk IX and the three-bladed Mk V leans heavier in my direction, because at the very least the 15% (and more) difference in the power to weight ratio should have tipped the balance against me, and it didn't...

You see, I don't claim to predict relative performance outcomes based on my theory: I am merely trying to explain those performance outcomes as they are observed from real combat accounts, and why they do not remotely match what would be expected...

The math formulas on the other hand, DO claim to predict relative performance outcomes on nose-traction fighters... And they DO demonstrably fail at doing that...

It is not always what we know that matters the most: We have to know what we don't know.

Gaston

Gaston - wouldn't you say that your credibility regarding a claim that the math formulas 'fail' for 'nose traction fighters' is suspect when you a.) don't know the math, b.) don't understand the physics, c.) don't understand boundary conditions and last - don't demonstrate that you know and can prove what you believe?

 

[Gaston]

I think on the contrary I have convincingly demonstrated that post-war math assumptions, where powerful nose traction on low-wing monoplanes is concerned, are utterly incapable of predicting sustained turn rate outcomes...

How many of you realized that a 15%-(30%?)+ improvement in power to weight ratio yielded ZERO improvements in turn rate in actual Spitfire tests?

How many of you were even aware that the FW-190D-9 had drastically inferior handling to the FW-190A?

I was first aware of that when in sustained multiple 360° turns, vs a non-downthrottling P-51B, the D-9 fell behind quite noticeably in combat. A shocking outcome for a FW-190 series aircraft if there ever was one...

A FW-190A-8 Western ace, versus a presumably non-downthrottling P-51D, described reversing a tail position by the P-51D, on the deck, in around TWO 360° turns: A gain of 180° for EACH 360...

Of course if they had both downthrottled it would have been much closer (the P-51 can occasionally gain on the FW-190A in low speeds level turns if it downthrottles, but likely only because the FW-190A did not), but it does illustrate the point...

The total lack of resemblance between math calculations and real-life combat is almost humorous... Sadly much more humorous than the widespread attempts to ignore it and erase historical accuracy by saying "you read a lot into this or that". There IS a lot to read into things that are clearly worded in an unambiguous way... For instance:

"The P-47D Razorback out-turns our Bf-109G". Educate yourself on the hundreds of combat accounts available out there, and you will see that for early 1944 Razorbacks, the sentence is quite an extreme understatement, especially in left turns...

It is amusing that you presume of my knowledge, when you obviously have not read one tenth of the combat accounts I have read... Do you really think "The P-47D Razorback crushes the Me-109G like a ridiculous peanut in prolonged sustained left turns at all speeds and all altitudes" is a conclusion I arrived at easily and found intuitively pleasing?

Gaston

 

[Milosh]

Your source Gaston.

How many of you were even aware that the FW-190D-9 had drastically inferior handling to the FW-190A?

I wasn't aware that you were a P-51B pilot who flew combat in WW2.

I was first aware of that when in sustained multiple 360° turns, vs a non-downthrottling P-51B, the D-9 fell behind quite noticeably in combat. A shocking outcome for a FW-190 series aircraft if there ever was one...

Here is another board for you to try your theories on Gaston. Make sure you post a link to your thread there.

Aerodynamic engineering Forum - Eng-Tips

As for a P-47 out turning a Bf109: (note this is a tooth-pick prop P-47)

 

[drgondog]

Milosh - surely you won't rely on a personal account in a Combat Encounter Report which highlights failure to out turn a 109?

 

[Glider]

"The P-47D Razorback out-turns our Bf-109G". Educate yourself on the hundreds of combat accounts available out there, and you will see that for early 1944 Razorbacks, the sentence is quite an extreme understatement, especially in left turns...

Gaston

Are these the same hundreds of combat encounters that you clearly didn't read or are there other combat reports that you are relying on?

Remember my offer is still open!!

 

[Milosh]

Oh dear, another P-47 vs 109 where the P-47 couldn't out turn a 109 even after down throttling.

 

[drgondog]

I think on the contrary I have convincingly demonstrated that post-war math assumptions, where powerful nose traction on low-wing monoplanes is concerned, are utterly incapable of predicting sustained turn rate outcomes...

Couple of questions on that perception of yours. Whom did you convince? What "ost war math assumptions"have you presented, then methodically prove to be incorrect. What sustained turn rates (in either degrees per sec or radians per second) have you shown in your approach which have systematically been at variance with math predictions but in close agreement with a body of controlled tests?

How many of you realized that a 15%-(30%?)+ improvement in power to weight ratio yielded ZERO improvements in turn rate in actual Spitfire tests?

Hmm - the maximum turn rate (for you the minimum time to complete a 360 degree sustained turn) is Omega

=sqrt(3)*g*rho@sl*rho@alt/rho@sl*k*ETAp*(P/W)/(8K(W/S)) where
g=centripetal acceleration
rho@sl= density of the air at sea level
rho@alt= density of the air at the altitude of this manuever
k=constant for power conversion (i.e 550 for conversion to pounds and ft/sec)
K= aerodynamic efficiency (Lift related Drag coefficient) and inversely proportional to pi*AR*e
where pi=3.1416, AR= aspect ration and e=Oswald efficiency of the wing
W=weight
S=Wing Area

NOTE: this is an approximation derived from
Omega = g*sqrt(rho@sl*rho@alt/rho@sl*CLmax*nmax/(2[W/S]) where certain assumptions are made to simplify a non linear velocity derivation as well as disregarding trim drag and the delta induced drag from prop wash.

So the rate is proportional to the 'g' load factor, and Power to Weight ratio and engine efficiency for a given altitude and inversely proportional to Wing loading.

If you hold everything constant except altitude, the rate will be lower than seal level.

If you hold everything equal except increase power (with same propeller efficiency) then the rate increases.

If all is equal but you hog up the airframe, the rate will be slower.

If you manipulate increased weight with increased power yo pretty much keep the same turn rate.

So where do your theories fit into the physics?


How many of you were even aware that the FW-190D-9 had drastically inferior handling to the FW-190A?

Wellthere were some scattered comments published in Caldwell's JG26 from various JG26 pilots who first received the D-9 without water injection and were disappointed that it didn't wave a magic wand and banish all Mustangs to hell. There have been some test results (anecdotal by Brown and anecdotal by USAAF test pilots). My father had the chance to fly a D-9 maintained at Gablingen by former LW crew with plenty of spare parts. He flew the airplane in mock dogfights with three other 355th FG aces. All liked the airframe and deemed it one they could fight with. So take your pick from the many anecdotes from LW pilots that very much liked the 190D-9, flew it w/MW-50 and were quite pleased..

Where does you experience and knowledge of the flight characteristics fit into the discussion to make such a statement...???

I was first aware of that when in sustained multiple 360° turns, vs a non-downthrottling P-51B, the D-9 fell behind quite noticeably in combat. A shocking outcome for a FW-190 series aircraft if there ever was one...

Oh, were you able to cut inside and shoot it down? How well did you do when you downthrottled? Did he kill you? No, Welcome Back!

A FW-190A-8 Western ace, versus a presumably non-downthrottling P-51D, described reversing a tail position by the P-51D, on the deck, in around TWO 360° turns: A gain of 180° for EACH 360...

Do you suppose he met a P-51 driver of equal skill and that the 51 was a.) in perfect condition, and b.) had a full internal load of fuel or maybe wasn't able to pop his tanks? How do you know?

Of course if they had both downthrottled it would have been much closer (the P-51 can occasionally gain on the FW-190A in low speeds level turns if it downthrottles, but likely only because the FW-190A did not), but it does illustrate the point...

How does an anecdotal report of a flight condition with unknown variables, unsubstantiated physical parameters, unknown pilot skills - which may or may not have occurred, may or may not have an observer who can validate the circumstances illustrate anything other than connected readable words in a personal narrative which is yet unknown fact, fiction or combination?

The total lack of resemblance between math calculations and real-life combat is almost humorous... Sadly much more humorous than the widespread attempts to ignore it and erase historical accuracy by saying "you read a lot into this or that". There IS a lot to read into things that are clearly worded in an unambiguous way...

That is one interpretation. Consider this one. A.) were you there to extract relevant facts such as the weight of the respective fighters, the tactical position prior to engagement, the first pilot to sight the other, the condition of the airframe and powerplant, the alertness and skill of the pilot, B.) are you capable of weaving the narrative and the facts into a cohesive analysis that will convince others of greater knowledge that you have represented all the pertinent facts and drwan a logical conclusion?

It is amusing that you presume of my knowledge, when you obviously have not read one tenth of the combat accounts I have read... Do you really think "The P-47D Razorback crushes the Me-109G like a ridiculous peanut in prolonged sustained left turns at all speeds and all altitudes" is a conclusion I arrived at easily and found intuitively pleasing?

Gaston

You wish to place a small wager on that Gaston? How many seconds have you expended at USAFHRC poring over Encounter and MACR reports? or the British War Museum?

I have NOT looked at all the 8th AF Encounter Reports at HRC but I did cover all that were the source of USAF Study 85 for the 8th which is a major part of the official USAF Victory Credits for all 'awarded credits for enemy aircraft destroyed.

I repeat, I did not look at 9th, 5th, 15th, etc but I supect that you have not scratched the surface - nor read the Causalty Reports filed by Evadees and POWs (the guys that didn'tout turn their opponents or see them)

Tell me that I am wrong about your credentials and I will listen.

 

[Gaston]

You wish to place a small wager on that Gaston? How many seconds have you expended at USAFHRC poring over Encounter and MACR reports? or the British War Museum?

I have NOT looked at all the 8th AF Encounter Reports at HRC but I did cover all that were the source of USAF Study 85 for the 8th which is a major part of the official USAF Victory Credits for all 'awarded credits for enemy aircraft destroyed.

I repeat, I did not look at 9th, 5th, 15th, etc but I supect that you have not scratched the surface - nor read the Causalty Reports filed by Evadees and POWs (the guys that didn'tout turn their opponents or see them)

Tell me that I am wrong about your credentials and I will listen.

-Why don"t you start by reading ALL the 600 P-47D combat reports at the site by Mike Williams called "WWII Aircraft performance"?:

WWII Aircraft Performance

Find me ONE example of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D in sustained (two or more) 360 degrees horizontal LEFT turns, before April of 1944, in ALL the 600 P-47 reports, and I will concede YOU WIN the the argument... How about that?

Even a vague suggestion of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D to the left after a little time has passed will win you high praise from me for your effort and persistence... I do not think there is even the slightest suggestion of that anywhere...

There are, on the other hand, several examples of the P-47D being hopelessly outmatched in multiple horizontal 360s at low altitude against the FW-190A, especially later in 1944...

There are 600 P-47D reports there, and about 700 P-51 reports.

P-51 combat reports usually show that they will gradually out-turn the Me-109G, particularly low to the ground or if the P-51 reduces the throttle for long periods while coarsening the prop pitch and dropping the flaps, but it often does so only with difficulty and sometimes the stalemate lasts 15 minutes or more to one side of continuous turning with periodical stalling of the P-51 everytime a firing lead is attempted...

No such example of turning combat inadequacy for the P-47D...

In turn fights to the left in all circumstances, the P-47D will gain lead on the 109 in less than 3 360s. Usually one and a half...

If you don"t even know the P-47D ALWAYS crushes the Me-109G in prolonged sustained left turns, at ALL altitudes and in ALL circumstances, all the way down to the fourth consecutive climbing spiral to the left under 5000 ft. (but then likely against a Gondola Gustav), ending in a speed of 140 MPH, then I suspect you haven"t read as many P-47D combat accounts as you think...

You have the list of P-47D combat reports here:

P-47 Encounter Reports


Again, find me ANY turning battle in there where the P-47D is even remotely in trouble in left turns against the Me-109G... (There is one in 1943 during a prolonged downward left spiral, but at lower altitudes the P-47D suddenly improved and gained the upper hand on what might have been a cleaner and better performing Me-109G-2, not G-6. This prolonged diving turning combat is extremely atypical of P-47D vs Me-109G combat, and it is all in a steep downward spiral, not level turns at all... The P-47D was in trouble in the initial part of the dive spiral which was to the right. When it shifted to the left he was not in trouble again but took some time to gain: Very unusual, and not during horizontal turns anyway...)

With the P-51 here:

Mustang Encounter Reports

You will find at least TWO where the Mustang fails to gain lead in 15 minutes of continuous turning with the Me-109G: That is at least 40 consecutive 360s folks, and there is at least a half dozen more of 4 minutes or more (about 12-15 360s)...

Many P-51D turning battles vs the Me-109G in here last for many consecutive 360s, usually five or much more, vs almost always less than three for the P-47D... One and a half typically...

Note the only one clear P-51D gain over the FW-190A in sustained low-altitude level turns involves the use of downthrottling, dropped flaps and coarse prop pitch... Surely you"ll write that down as a coincidence that this procedure matches word for word the superiority of "downthrottling" in sustained turns on the deck displayed here (for those with an unbiaised reading):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

I think it is clear you did not know about at least the first two of the three following items:


1- I do not think you knew that, in the own words of the Luftwaffe, that "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", something pathetically obvious (in horizontal left turns) to anyone who even glances at the above combat reports: Find me ONE exception...

2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

3- I will wager that you did not know either that epidemic gun jamming under high Gs was reduced but absolutely never solved by the P-51D even far into 1945, and a virtually constant feature of fighting with the P-51B model regardless of date... (Almost non-existent on the P-47D, I kid you not...)

Ok, maybe this means the P-51 had a sharper turn initiation, but it still means nothing for sustained turns, if the relatively unimpressive showing of the P-51 vs the Me-109G is any guide...

If you did not know any of those three things, just how many combat reports have you studied ?

I find it stunning you claim to have read many, yet do not understand the use of downthrottling in the P-51... Do you know by the way why the prop pitch is set on "coarse" at low speed to complement the downthrottled engine over several 360s?

Gaston

 

[drgondog]

-Why don"t you start by reading ALL the 600 P-47D combat reports at the site by Mike Williams called "WWII Aircraft performance"?:

WWII Aircraft Performance

Find me ONE example of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D in sustained (two or more) 360 degrees horizontal LEFT turns, before April of 1944, in ALL the 600 P-47 reports, and I will concede YOU WIN the the argument... How about that?

Have you noticed that Mike doesn't carry Me 109 or Fw 190 Encounter reports by LW pilots? Ya think that might give you pause for thought?

And yes - I HAVE read them, as well as the Mustang Encounter reports.

As to you conceding that any of us have won the 'argument' I don't speak for all but I suspect we are all consumed by indifference.

Even a vague suggestion of the Me-109G out-turning the P-47D to the left after a little time has passed will win you high praise from me for your effort and persistence... I do not think there is even the slightest suggestion of that anywhere...

I haven't heard any rebuttal from you regarding the direct quotes from Hans-Werner Leche regarding his results in testing the P-47D-2RE. In brief - he commented positively on its ability to dive, and go fast - not much else to praise versus LW front line fighters.

There are, on the other hand, several examples of the P-47D being hopelessly outmatched in multiple horizontal 360s at low altitude against the FW-190A, especially later in 1944...

There are 600 P-47D reports there, and about 700 P-51 reports.

Those are all 8th AF reports

The P-47 shot down ~1562 and lost ~214 in air to air, the Mustang shot down ~ 3325 and lost ~322 in air to air. So Mike has what we may reference as ~ 25% of the 'winners' on his website, and zero of the Luftwaffe 'winners' in 430+ victories. How many have you read of the latter.

BTW- when no damage was believed to have been caused on a German Fighter, despite engaging with same, there was no Encounter Report. How many of those do you suspect was a case where the 190 or 109 out turned the pursuing 8th AF fighter?


If you don"t even know the P-47D ALWAYS crushes the Me-109G in prolonged sustained left turns, at ALL altitudes and in ALL circumstances, all the way down to the fourth consecutive climbing spiral to the left under 5000 ft. (but then likely against a Gondola Gustav), ending in a speed of 140 MPH, then I suspect you haven"t read as many P-47D combat accounts as you think...

Laughing On Line..


Again, find me ANY turning battle in there where the P-47D is even remotely in trouble in left turns against the Me-109G... (There is one in 1943 during a prolonged downward left spiral, but at lower altitudes the P-47D suddenly improved and gained the upper hand on what might have been a cleaner and better performing Me-109G-2, not G-6. This prolonged diving turning combat is extremely atypical of P-47D vs Me-109G combat, and it is all in a steep downward spiral, not level turns at all... The P-47D was in trouble in the initial part of the dive spiral which was to the right. When it shifted to the left he was not in trouble again but took some time to gain: Very unusual, and not during horizontal turns anyway...)

Rolling On Floor

With the P-51 here:

Mustang Encounter Reports

You will find at least TWO where the Mustang fails to gain lead in 15 minutes of continuous turning with the Me-109G: That is at least 40 consecutive 360s folks, and there is at least a half dozen more of 4 minutes or more (about 12-15 360s)...

Gasping for breath

Many P-51D turning battles vs the Me-109G in here last for many consecutive 360s, usually five or much more, vs almost always less than three for the P-47D... One and a half typically...

Note the only one clear P-51D gain over the FW-190A in sustained low-altitude level turns involves the use of downthrottling, dropped flaps and coarse prop pitch... Surely you"ll write that down as a coincidence that this procedure matches word for word the superiority of "downthrottling" in sustained turns on the deck displayed here (for those with an unbiaised reading):

Have you even remotely considered talking to a surviving Mustang pilot who flew most of his combat missions in early to mid 1944 who had several engagements with a 109 or a 190 and a pilot he considered a 'pro'?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

I think it is clear you did not know about at least the first two of the three following items:


1- I do not think you knew that, in the own words of the Luftwaffe, that "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", something pathetically obvious (in horizontal left turns) to anyone who even glances at the above combat reports: Find me ONE exception...

Take the time to check out any of Prien's books about any of the LW units he has researched, or any of Caldwell's or Goyat's, etc, etc for first hand narratives for a complete rebuttal of your statement - as well as the LW test pilots reports of captured ships at Rechlin.

2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

As a matter of fact I do know this, and hence the instructions from veteran Mustang drivers to 'new guys' - keep your airspeed up and do not attempt a turning fight with either ships at low altitude. In the approximate 50 pages of drivel and clueless comments you have consumed on this forum, this may be the closest comment - except for the 'coarsening pitch and reducing throttle part' - You keep the throttle in fine pitch, max power...

3- I will wager that you did not know either that epidemic gun jamming under high Gs was reduced but absolutely never solved by the P-51D even far into 1945, and a virtually constant feature of fighting with the P-51B model regardless of date... (Almost non-existent on the P-47D, I kid you not...)

There was no epidemic of gun jams in the 51D when a.) the Brownings were moved to vertical set up and b.) gun heaters were improved. Some jams occurred but most were defective ammo... you might find reading vrious Fighter Group monthly engineering reports to be enlightening - or you may not.

The 51B issues were real, occurred most often during high speed turns and were traced to the angled gun/rotary feed mechanism as well as frozen guns due to pilot forgetting to swith gun heaters 'on'.

There was zero significant difference between the gun mount/feed/heater systems between any version for the P-47 and the P-51D/K/H (I kid you not)

Ok, maybe this means the P-51 had a sharper turn initiation, but it still means nothing for sustained turns, if the relatively unimpressive showing of the P-51 vs the Me-109G is any guide...

If you did not know any of those three things, just how many combat reports have you studied ?

I find it stunning you claim to have read many, yet do not understand the use of downthrottling in the P-51... Do you know by the way why the prop pitch is set on "coarse" at low speed to complement the downthrottled engine over several 360s?

Do you have the remotest clue what reducing power will do to an airframe hanging on the edge of a stall in a very tight high G, sustained 360 degree turn? At the flight profile in which your wing has reached CLmax?

Don't think so.

Gaston

Have you ever in your life flown an airplane, either with manual pitch control or automatic? Do you understand where 'fine pitch' is best, versus 'coarse pitch? Have you even so much as flown a glider so that you can talk intelligently about stick and rudder feed for a controlled no-yaw turn with no power?

Have you ever taken the time to research any WWII Fighter Group history - usually compiled by the Squadron or Group Intelligence officer? Have you read any of the German histories compiled by Prien, Goyat, etc? Have you even taken the time to see what is available at USAF HRC in Montgomery, AL?

Please answer these simple questions.

I don't put you on 'ignore' because, candidly, you are a souce of amusement.

If you are in high school, consider taking more math and then look into Introduction to Aero books. If you are an adult, take flying lessons and much of this discussion can be had with the instructor - who does this for a living - and living proof that he didn't do something dumb.

 

[Gaston]

Quote: "drgondog:

(Me)2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

drgondog answers- As a matter of fact I do know this, and hence the instructions from veteran Mustang drivers to 'new guys' - keep your airspeed up and do not attempt a turning fight with either ships at low altitude. In the approximate 50 pages of drivel and clueless comments you have consumed on this forum, this may be the closest comment - except for the 'coarsening pitch and reducing throttle part' - coarsening pitch was a direct result of increasing power - not decreasing power."

-I'll post yet again the Hanseman report, as you have just proved beyond question you have chosen the absolutely ridiculous path of not reading it... (Either that, or your reading skills are near zero, which I doubt.)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg


There are here two consecutive descriptions of downthrottling, after many multiple 360°s on the deck.

First: "A dogfight developped at 500 ft." (This after gradually closing on an aircraft that was LANDING, firing at 50 yards (no great closure rate then)observing the crash AND the burning, and then climbing: Speed must have been terrific...)

The other Me-109 appeared just after the short 350 ft. climb from 150 ft.:

"At first, he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. EVERY TIME I got close to the edge of the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns."

EVERY TIME means the turning was tight and sustained enough he had to go towards the airfield even though he knew they were going to fire... EVERY TIME means EVERY 360°...

SECOND CONSECUTIVE MENTION OF DOWNTHROTTLING IN ONE PARAGRAPH: "Gradually I worked the Me-109 away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I decreased throttle settings."

Number of mentions of going POWER UP in THIS report?: Zero... Again, you have just proven you did not read this link I repeatedly made, and you'll have to admit this should not encourage me to argue with you...

Obviously increasing the prop pitch, which is to say coarsening it away from "fine" pitch to displace more air per revolution, is USUALLY intended for use at higher speeds... That is certainly the intent of the design as stated in any number of places... This is of course the dogma you were hanging on for your explanation that this was UPTHROTTLING...

Your failure of understanding here comes from the fact that "high"-"coarse" pitch is used here (and in at least a half dozen other similar combats on the deck, with great success) opposite to the normal design-intended way...

Apparently, your interpretation of what limited clues you allowed yourself to have has not been able to allow for the fact that engineering features, such as adjustable prop pitch, CAN be used, in this case, opposite to the design-intended use, and to gain an unanticipated better effect that the engineers never intended or foresaw...

The reason why high prop pitch works better at low speeds, HERE, I don't claim to know (I do have a few theories, but what is the point of discussing them with you given the seriousness your demonstrated above?). All we can do is observe the cross-purpose use of prop pitch described here in unmistakable terms, and accept that sometimes things used in the opposite way they were intended to be used actually works better...

Gosh, if that is too much for you to take, you are hereby excused...

As for your claims that US combat pilots say the opposite thing to what 1200 combat reports actually describe, I'm not impressed: No quotes, no combat reports, not even any accounts of the Me-109G out-turning anything in sustained turns (I"ll get to Milosh further down): Come up with something concrete if you want to be treated seriously...

Even the TsAGI turn times, which I discount as not comparitive tests flown the same day at all, and flown at full power anyway, show the FW-190A-5 out-turns, in right turns, ALL the Me-109Gs present except for one G-4 which barely equals it: 21 seconds to 21 seconds... Show me your math and what it says about that... Lol...

The "Russian Experience" I linked previously indicates the FW-190A preferred sustained left turns in combat, which I think is true flaps up. TsAGI indicates better to right, flaps up or down, which indicates to me a flaw in methodology since this contradicts combat observations... I'll go with combat observations as flaps up for 1943...:

Chapter from a book published in 1943

As for the two P-47D vs Me-109G examples provided by Milosh, I find them particularly unimpressive: No sustained turns (6 seconds of firing), no mention of "several turns" or the number of turns, no mention of the speed, which must have been high in one case for the Me-109's wing to break two feet from the root (Gosh!)... Also no mention of the SIDE of the turn, which I insisted on as significant...

Basically nothing... Compare to this example here...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg

That is the one Glider described as "interesting"...


The comment about the P-51D jamming guns under G load being "fixed" on the D model also demonstrates to me no significant portion of the 700 combat reports on the Mike Williams site have been read, or there would be no way you could make such a patently absurd statement...

Mind you, a tighter initial turn radius could be the culprit at high speeds, but I never argued the P-47D or the FW-190A were superior in that...

I now saw on another site that a tighter initial 180 degree radius is assumed to be fully equivalent to a higher sustained turn rate over several consecutive 360 degree turns... This is so pathetic I will not bother argueing with that either...

So it now established that you guys, posting here as a whole from the same side of the issue, do not know about:

-The P-47D routinely out-turning the Me-109G as a matter of course, by a wide margin, in sustained multiple 360 (usually left) turns... Confirmed by Luftwaffe captured tests for the Razorback at least, BTW...

-The P-51D guns jamming under g-load mentionned in about 10-20% of all combats including turns, often ending with just the one outside-turn gun working... The P-51B? Oh, gun troubles in about 50-70% of all combats including turns, maybe more, all the way into very late 1944 or even 1945...

-The P-51 using downthrottling, flaps and coarse prop pitch in multiple low-speed consecutive 360s to far increase its otherwise unimpressive sustained turn rate at low speeds and low altitudes...

It makes me wonder, just what the heck do you know?

But that would be OK, if some of you did not just prove they do not even read the links I provide, but are still willing to argue about them in utter ignorance...

Sorry, but that is a bit much to take...

Gaston

 

[Glider]

I can see into the future and a short stay for one member.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Gaston keep it civil, or find another place to post. I will not tolerate you insulting other forum members. If you can't keep it civil, I will remove you from the forum.

You also might want to check up on Bill (drgondog) before you insult his knowledge like that. He probably knows more about the P-51 than anyone on this forum.

1. His father actually flew it in combat in WW2.

2. Bill actually has stick time flying an actual P-51 that belonged to his father.

What is your experience with the P-51?

So do us all a favor, act like an adult and quit the bullshit insults. No more warnings!

 

[parsifal]

so whats the diagreement about....anyone care to explain in language we can all understand....it looks like "the FW 190 could out turn any other fighter in existence!. is that about it?

 

[drgondog]

Quote: "drgondog:

(Me)2- I do not think you knew either that on the Merlin P-51, during sustained mulitiple 360 flat turns at low altitude and low speed, dropping flaps, coarsening the prop pitch and reducing the throttle was a frequent but not common remedy (all 3 steps in combination as such) to the mediocre or non-existent superiority of the P-51 in prolonged sustained turns with the Me-109G...

drgondog answers- As a matter of fact I do know this, and hence the instructions from veteran Mustang drivers to 'new guys' - keep your airspeed up and do not attempt a turning fight with either ships at low altitude. In the approximate 50 pages of drivel and clueless comments you have consumed on this forum, this may be the closest comment - except for the 'coarsening pitch and reducing throttle part' - coarsening pitch was a direct result of increasing power - not decreasing power.

EDIT- I miswrote that last comment to this extent. The 51 had a Hamilton Standard automatic (Hydromatic) constant speed/controllable pitch prop but a manual pitch control was placed next to the throttle on left side - forward. In a high g turn, the pitch was set to fine and throttle at max - just like take off. "Coarsening' the pitch" occurred absent manual over-ride when the velocity decreased and the load on the engine increased. Manual movement to coarse pitch beyond the automatic setting would increase the drag on the prop disk, further slowing the airplane down.

The guys that knew what they were doing in a white knuckle turning fight would NOT throttle down - they would try to squeeze more out of the turn with 10-20 degrees of flaps. Having said that The pilots I talked to said that the flap setting enabled a short term advantage of reducing the radius of turn but put the energy at a low state - with no reserve - a bad thing against a good 109 pilot.

-I'll post yet again the Hanseman report, as you have just proved beyond question you have chosen the absolutely ridiculous path of not reading it... (Either that, or your reading skills are near zero, which I doubt.)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg


There are here two consecutive descriptions of downthrottling, after many multiple 360°s on the deck.

First: "A dogfight developped at 500 ft." (This after gradually closing on an aircraft that was LANDING, firing at 50 yards (no great closure rate then)observing the crash AND the burning, and then climbing: Speed must have been terrific...)

This would have been a great time to 'Throttle down' to keep from over running it - and yes the closure rate would have been high

The other Me-109 appeared just after the short 350 ft. climb from 150 ft.:

"At first, he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. EVERY TIME I got close to the edge of the airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns."

This action (the flaps) and cutting throttle and increasing prop pitch would have the effect of increasing CL, increasing drag, decreasing speed in the attempt to reduce the turning circle.. It also placed him pretty close to a stall condition that he had to manage very carefully.

EVERY TIME means the turning was tight and sustained enough he had to go towards the airfield even though he knew they were going to fire... EVERY TIME means EVERY 360°...

SECOND CONSECUTIVE MENTION OF DOWNTHROTTLING IN ONE PARAGRAPH: "Gradually I worked the Me-109 away from the field and commenced to turn inside of him as I decreased throttle settings."

Number of mentions of going POWER UP in THIS report?: Zero... Again, you have just proven you did not read this link I repeatedly made, and you'll have to admit this should not encourage me to argue with you...


Obviously increasing the prop pitch, which is to say coarsening it away from "fine" pitch to displace more air per revolution, is USUALLY intended for use at higher speeds... That is certainly the intent of the design as stated in any number of places... This is of course the dogma you were hanging on for your explanation that this was UPTHROTTLING...

Your failure of understanding here comes from the fact that "high"-"coarse" pitch is used here (and in at least a half dozen other similar combats on the deck, with great success) opposite to the normal design-intended way...

Apparently, your interpretation of what limited clues you allowed yourself to have has not been able to allow for the fact that engineering features, such as adjustable prop pitch, CAN be used, in this case, opposite to the design-intended use, and to gain an unanticipated better effect that the engineers never intended or foresaw...

The reason why high prop pitch works better at low speeds, HERE, I don't claim to know (I do have a few theories, but what is the point of discussing them with you given the seriousness your demonstrated above?). All we can do is observe the cross-purpose use of prop pitch described here in unmistakable terms, and accept that sometimes things used in the opposite way they were intended to be used actually works better...

Low pitch (fine) maximizes engine power and rpm, Coarse pitch (high blade angle) takes bigger bites of air and enables the engine rpm and fuel consumption to go down. Given equal velocities - coarse pitch also creates more drag at the same rpm..

Gosh, if that is too much for you to take, you are hereby excused...

As for your claims that US combat pilots say the opposite thing to what 1200 combat reports actually describe, I'm not impressed: No quotes, no combat reports, not even any accounts of the Me-109G out-turning anything in sustained turns (I"ll get to Milosh further down): Come up with something concrete if you want to be treated seriously...

Even the TsAGI turn times, which I discount as not comparitive tests flown the same day at all, and flown at full power anyway, show the FW-190A-5 out-turns, in right turns, ALL the Me-109Gs present except for one G-4 which barely equals it: 21 seconds to 21 seconds... Show me your math and what it says about that... Lol...



The "Russian Experience" I linked previously indicates the FW-190A preferred sustained left turns in combat, which I think is true flaps up. TsAGI indicates better to right, flaps up or down, which indicates to me a flaw in methodology since this contradicts combat observations... I'll go with combat observations as flaps up for 1943...:

Chapter from a book published in 1943

As for the two P-47D vs Me-109G examples provided by Milosh, I find them particularly unimpressive: No sustained turns (6 seconds of firing), no mention of "several turns" or the number of turns, no mention of the speed, which must have been high in one case for the Me-109's wing to break two feet from the root (Gosh!)... Also no mention of the SIDE of the turn, which I insisted on as significant...

Basically nothing... Compare to this example here...:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-mcdermott-25may44.jpg

That is the one Glider described as "interesting"...


The comment about the P-51D jamming guns under G load being "fixed" on the D model also demonstrates to me no significant portion of the 700 combat reports on the Mike Williams site have been read, or there would be no way you could make such a patently absurd statement...

Mind you, a tighter initial turn radius could be the culprit at high speeds, but I never argued the P-47D or the FW-190A were superior in that...

I now saw on another site that a tighter initial 180 degree radius is assumed to be fully equivalent to a higher sustained turn rate over several consecutive 360 degree turns... This is so pathetic I will not bother argueing with that either...

So it now established that you guys, posting here as a whole from the same side of the issue, do not know about:

-The P-47D routinely out-turning the Me-109G as a matter of course, by a wide margin, in sustained multiple 360 (usually left) turns... Confirmed by Luftwaffe captured tests for the Razorback at least, BTW...

-The P-51D guns jamming under g-load mentionned in about 10-20% of all combats including turns, often ending with just the one outside-turn gun working... The P-51B? Oh, gun troubles in about 50-70% of all combats including turns, maybe more, all the way into very late 1944 or even 1945...

-The P-51 using downthrottling, flaps and coarse prop pitch in multiple low-speed consecutive 360s to far increase its otherwise unimpressive sustained turn rate at low speeds and low altitudes...

It makes me wonder, just what the heck do you know?

But that would be OK, if some of you did not just prove they do not even read the links I provide, but are still willing to argue about them in utter ignorance...

Sorry, but that is a bit much to take...

Gaston

Sigh - with such frustration maybe you will retire in a huff and never speak to us again? How many forums have you been trashed in so far?

BTW - Chris Hanseman was the youngest ace in the USAAF and maybe in US. He was KiA a month later.

 

[drgondog]

Gaston the major problem with these discussions are three fold.

First, you don't display the requisite math and physics to question your assumptions ('ie throttle down in successive 360 degree constant altitude turns - pursuing or being pursued.) Based on that you have no reason to question why the physics and aerodynamics prove that the tightest possible turn with fastest rate of turn is at the stall speed of that airplane at say, 3g, for the high performing fighters of WWII... and the stalling speed for a high G banked turn is considerably higher than for level, low rpm flight. It is also operating at CLmax and pushing the bank angle or reducing the thrust is a recipe for disaster. Dropping flaps increases CLmax, but also increases induced drag and 'moving pitch to coarse' further increases drag - and therefore the stall speed moves to a higher point...

Second, you select a portfolio of USAAF Encounter Reports that present you with the perspective of the 'winning pilot' but have no ancillary facts like a.) the skill of the opposing pilot, b.) the attitude of the aircraft in the manuever (climbing, level, spiral down, turn roll, turn, reverse, turn, enemy fighter conditions (engine not 100%, using lower boost than achievable, thereby losing power from optimal), etc, etc. In other words you don't have any validation or verification of the combat parameters other than the singular perspective of the winning pilot.

A very good example of questions that could be asked is in the May 24 Encounter report from Hanseman. It "Seems Like" Hanseman enters the combat going after the Me 109 approaching the runway (gear down, on final, and low Rpm, flaps deployed, etc) causing Hanseman to 'throttle down' just to slow down for a good shot at the sitting duck without over running him.

Coming out of that engagement, he spotted the second one. It was high when he made his pass on the one on final. Where was it now? above and in front? off to one side at same altitude? Did he throttle up to get airspeed and turn to engage or what?

If he entered the turn with the 109, was it trying to turn on him, or escape and try to out turn Hanseman? What was the relative airspeed and altitude when the engagement began and each pilot had the other in sight.

Was the 109 pilot a low timer, or a pro, did he panic instead of throttling up and making for the airfield to get hanseman in range of the AA?

When Hanseman 'down throttled' how much airspeed did he have and was it significantly higher than his opponent. If so, the 109 would initially out turn him w/o much effort and if he wished to turn with the guy he needed to slow down. If he was in a high g, near max turn, he was skirting disaster with reducing power (which also reduces thrust, which in the case of near stall - takes you into stall unless you quickly push forward on the stick to stabilize.

As the turn continued, was the 109 pilot taking advantage of good acceleration and better angle of climb to try to corkscrew out of the manuever and get himself some energy or even room to bail out?

Did the 109 pilot see the other 51s and alter his turn accordingly knowing he had very little time left for survival. How did he adjust, accordingly?

Can you plot with high confidence what each flight path and energy state was for each aircraft? Do you know that both ships and pilots were operating at max capability for their respective fighters?

Ditto for every Encounter Report you have read.

Last, there is little enough fact based information regarding competitive performance among the various aircraft - and the engineering precision to record the data (dash number of engine, boost, WI/No WI, engine rpm and Hp, engine spec'd or as recovered when captured for enemy aircraft, pilot skill (i.e willing to push an airplane to stall speed at low altitude where there is no hope of recovering from a violent stall departure)..

 

[rousseau]

The Spitfire got more power per unite than Fw-190 and its Wing Load much lower than Fw190 how do you guys possibly convinced that Fw.190 are capable to overwhelming the Spitfire?

Above is the wing load ranking list you can see.