Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

[drgondog]

Gaston - congratulaions! a masterpiece of obfuscation, speculation, and parsing of facts to fit your reality.

Come to the table with a knowledge of the physics, present the model founded on aerodynamics and flight mechanics - that were successfully used then, improved upon over 60 years but still the same physics, then apply the flight test data and ask the questions based on the agreed model.

Conversing while influenced by Tourette's Syndrome usually causes great confusion and hard to make a rational point.

 

[Njaco]

and the vacation is over.

 

[parsifal]

I dont know what to say, I have been disproven.....its a start I guess, or perhaps a continuation

 

[drgondog]

don't worry about a flame war - he simply isn't worth the time to debate.

 

[parsifal]

I dont claim to know, but the arguments presented seem thin and dodgy to say the least. I am underwhelmed

 

[Altea]

Hello Gaston,

No. I had the scans from the original documents: It showed the following:

No problem, share them with us.

Best Bf-109G turn time, to right: G-4: 21 seconds (This G-4 bested all the other Gustavs, including the G-2, by a small margin. 21 seconds was the very best a Gustav ever did in those tests.)

As you can see, from the original document i gave you the link, the G-2 performed at 20s to the right, 21.5s to the left, without flaps use.

The best time for the FW-190 A-4 was still 22.5s

If you don't want to believe, don't, but that was from an original scan, and it was clear to the right NO Me-109G bested the best the FW-190A-5 did...

It's not a beliefs problem, only demonstration that we are still waiting for...

So you have a significant difference in wingloading that is ignored in real-life, by a lower power-to-weight ratio aircraft, in a way you can't explain...

Explain what? There is no physical aberration in soviet tests...
I think it's up to you to explain, no.?

If the Spitfire did 17.5 seconds in these test (which did not occur on the same day, so are worthless for comparisons: They are not comparative data at all),

A genius of aviation matters as you even don't know untill now that all aviation tests are corrected in standart athmosphere conditions?

then I would think a downthrottled FW-190A-8 with broad ailerons and broad wood prop can do at least 17.5 seconds to the right...

What do you mean by broad? And why downthrottled?

I do find the methodology of these Russian tests suspicious: 17.5 seconds is better than most Russian types, yet the Russians in combat were never impressed by the Spitfire's maneuverability, and even tried to lighten the weight by removing the outer machine guns... They found the Spitfire unsuccessful in combat in horizontal maneuvers, but superior in vertical maneuvers, and changed their way of flying accordingly (source: Le FANA de L'Aviation)...

What Fana number?

Once again, tests and reality seem irretrievably divorced...

Not sure, all soviet fighter pilots found the Bf-109 harder to fight both in verticals and in turning circles.

Many or even most British pilots knew the Hurricane turned much better in sustained turns than the Spitfire... If so, does that mean 16.5 seconds for a Hurricane?

What better turn? Radius or Time of Turn?

The Me-109G had no hope whatsoever in sustained turns against a P-47D, even at 140 MPH,

Where is it taken from?

Regards

 

[Ratsel]

The Me-109G had no hope whatsoever in sustained turns against a P-47D, even at 140 MPH, yet the wingloading of the P-47D was much higher than the FW-190A!: 50% greater than the Me-109G!

Gaston

your math is a tad off. 58.3 lb/ft² wing loading for the P-47D and 40 lb/ft² wing loading for the Bf109G. thats 31% more wing loading for the P-47D. Also, I'd rethink the notion of the Bf109 not being able to turn with the P-47.

 

[dwad]

Gaston,

Once again you demonstrate your uncanny ability to post what amounts to nothing more than absolute drivel.
Perhaps a beginners course in the theory of flight would help you to see the light or perhaps in this instance you should avail yourself of the complete sets of comparative flight test data from the various wartime Spitfire 9 v Fw 190 trials rather than consulting Wikipedia or your flight sim gaming manual.

Dave W.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
Mention has been made of the stall, in the Spitfire, with the implication that it was quite violent; again, this is twaddle, since, due to Mitchell's genius in his design of the wing, the root would stall, first, but the ailerons remained fully functional, and, even from the first flights of K5054 (the prototype,) pilots remark on how gentle the stall was, and how easy it was to recover, since it did not spin.
Edgar

 

[Gaston]

I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...

It was Kurfust: Here is the link to the original russian language text, and it shows I didn't imagine things:
Kurfurst__
Posted Tue November 30 2010

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-5, indeed at 21-22 seconds, flaps down.:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/FW190A-5_Soviettrials.png


So you see my recollection was accurate from the original-language documents...

As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M

Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M

So 50% more for the Me-109G-6 would be 294 KG/ sq M.

So I exaggerated by 10 KG/ sq M... Is that what you call being informative?

Please improve the quality of your arguments against what I say if you don't mind...

As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...

I've issued the challenge many times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat in sustained turns, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...

As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...

It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...

Yes, wingloading does determine the hierarchy of turn performance to a large extent... And the math does agree with what I, and virtually every combat pilot of WWII, have been saying...

Gaston

P.S. As to the Airfix 1/48th Spitfire XII model, I am almost done correcting it right now, after about five whole tubes of putty went into it (it turned out OK, finally!), and let me just say it illustrates nicely why models should never be done from drawings alone... Still likely the best Spitfire in 1/48th, which is very depressing...

G.

 

[Gaston]

I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...

It was Kurfust: Here is the link to the original russian language text, and it shows I didn't imagine things:
Kurfurst__
Posted Tue November 30 2010

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Packet290023.jpg

The A-5, indeed at 21-22 seconds, flaps down.:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/FW190A-5_Soviettrials.png


So you see my recollection was accurate from the original-language documents...

As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M

Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M

So 50% more for the Me-109G-6 would be 294 KG/ sq M.

So I exaggerated by 10 KG/ sq M... Is that what you call being informative?


As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...

I've issued the challenge many times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat in sustained turns, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...

As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...

It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...

Yes, wingloading does determine the hierarchy of turn performance to a large extent... And the math does agree with what I, and virtually every combat pilot of WWII, have been saying...

Gaston

P.S. As to the Airfix 1/48th Spitfire XII model, Edgar, I am almost done correcting it right now, after about five whole tubes of putty went into it... Please tell Airfix not to rely on drawings alone...

Also, I will find the "Fana" issue to quote the Spitfire being seen as inferior on the horizontal, but superior on the vertical, but it will take a while as I have to post a query to find it: It was the issue within the last four months about Russian Spitfires, so it shouldn't be hard to find...

G.

 

[Gaston]

I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
Mention has been made of the stall, in the Spitfire, with the implication that it was quite violent; again, this is twaddle, since, due to Mitchell's genius in his design of the wing, the root would stall, first, but the ailerons remained fully functional, and, even from the first flights of K5054 (the prototype,) pilots remark on how gentle the stall was, and how easy it was to recover, since it did not spin.
Edgar

Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"

-First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is always AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some downforce to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you...

In conventional designs (which covers basically all of WWII) the tailplanes ALWAYS compensates (downward) for the untruth of what you just said... This is why tailplanes do not contribute to lowering the wingloading, and the Main wing area alone is all that is counted in estimating wingloading.

As for the ten tons, you will how and why they work the way they do soon...

Gaston

 

[Glider]

You still have this total fixation re sustained turns which were almost as rare as hens teeth in real combat

Can I remind you about my challenge back in 21st November last year

Finally as you are talking about still waiting for things. I remind you (again) that my offer is still open re analysing the ten combat reports either side of one of your choice to see how common a sustained turning combat was.
I have no preference of aircraft type, Spitfire, Tempest, P51 or P47. The choice is all yours.
I was going to let this lie but you keep repeating this type of comment recently saying:-
There is not ONE instance of that in 600 reports (where sustained or near-sustained turning combat is almost always used).

So all I am asking you to do is support this clearly incorrect statement.

I await your reply with interest.

I still await your reply with interest but it must be admitted, with little expectation.

 

[Gaston]

I would like to point out, at this juncture, that to those of us who also frequent modelling sites, Gaston/M. Marty/Sherwood is (in)famous for his ability to propound a theory, then throw all sorts of "facts" and figures at it, while producing formulae which can make your head spin, and eyes glaze over.
To (try to) make some sense of this requires that we return to the basics of aircraft dynamics and geometry. First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity, or the aircraft will be inherently (and dangerously) unstable. The CoG is the point of the aircraft around which the three main movements (yaw, roll pitch) revolve, which makes it a fulcrum (remember them from school?) This means that it is impossible to raise the centre of lift, so this talk of a shifting 10 tons of weight, at the nose, is a complete nonsense. Operate the elevators, the tail falls (or rises) about the CoG fulcrum, and the nose goes in the opposite direction; note that the hinge point of the elevators is NOT a fulcrum. Spitfires carried lead weights, in the tail (often in the fin) to ensure fore-and-aft balance around the CoG.
A dry Merlin weighs about 1650lbs, so needs 825lbs, at the tail, to shift it, not 10 tons, and the airflow will provide ample force; 1650 x 10feet = 825 x 20 feet (those schooltime levers, again.)
Now, we move on, to the second spurious argument, which is all this talk of turning circles, rate of turn, call it what-you-will. Talk to any wartime pilot (yes, I have,) and he'll tell you that height and speed are far more important; "He who controls the height, controls the fight" was heard over and over again. If turn had been of such paramount importance, production of the Hurricane would not have ceased in the middle of the war, since it could out-turn almost anything. Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, but was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon series (less manouevrable, but a heck of a lot faster.)
Mention has been made of the stall, in the Spitfire, with the implication that it was quite violent; again, this is twaddle, since, due to Mitchell's genius in his design of the wing, the root would stall, first, but the ailerons remained fully functional, and, even from the first flights of K5054 (the prototype,) pilots remark on how gentle the stall was, and how easy it was to recover, since it did not spin.
Edgar

Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"

-First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is always AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some downforce to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you...

In conventional designs (which covers basically all of WWII) the tailplanes ALWAYS compensates (downward) for the untruth of what just said... This is why tailplanes do not contribute to lowering the wingloading, and the Main wing area alone is all that is counted in estimating wingloading.

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

Here is the "Fana de l'Aviation" #496 issue in question: March 2011...: It mentions Russian pilots having to shift their tactics from their usual horizontal turns to the vertical plane after a noticeable lack of success using their usual tactics of horizontal turns. The Spitfire was considered comparatively excelled on the vertical...

Fana de l'Aviation : Le

This is also where it is mentionned the Russians tried removing the Spitfire's outer machineguns to improve performance, to no avail...

Gaston

 

[Altea]

I asked someone on Il-2 to post some of the original documents of the TsaGI tests, and it showed clearly the A-5 at 21 seconds flaps down to right, G-4 the same, and the G-2 was a little more...

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?

The A-4, ONE second slower than the A-5, at 22-23 sec, as quoted elsewhere:

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).

As for the notion that the Me-109G can out-turn the P-47D in sustained turns, except maybe very briefly in a very hard high speed and high G turn (possible with tail-heavy trim, and probably risking pulling the wings off), that notion is so pathetic it defies belief... Even on IL-2, at least a few people who read the combat accounts saw just how silly this notion is...

I've issued the challenge many times on this very thread: Find me one example of the Me-109 out-turning the P-47D in combat in sustained turns, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEFT: The one that was posted against me was very high speed and the Me-109G lost its wings, illustrating my point nicely... Please try to do better than that...

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.

As for the wingloading theory, it is quite complex to explain: I am writing it long hand right now, and completing it into computer graphics will take a bit more time than I expected: Two-three weeks at least...
It will be accompanied by the full complement of math to explains the results this time; It will be interesting to see "experts" argue why grad-school level math is not saying exactly what it is saying (which is agreeing exactly with combat accounts)...

Gaston, i don't want to be unkind but, before discussing about complex and unknown flight theories, just learn some basic ones and try to unserstand.

then I would think a downthrottled FW-190A-8 with broad ailerons and broad wood prop can do at least 17.5 seconds to the right...

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

 

[Altea]

QUOTE=Gaston;814930]Here is the "Fana de l'Aviation" #496 issue in question: February 2011...: It mentions Russian pilots having to shift their tactics from their usual horizontal turns to the vertical plane after a noticeable lack of success using their usual tactics of horizontal turns. The Spitfire was considered comparatively excelled on the vertical...

Fana de l'Aviation : Le

I wonder if something was not "lost in translation"
Пилоты, летавшие на F.Mk.VB, отмечали, что самолет прост и "летуч", доступен летчикам со средним уровнем подготовки, а зачастую и ниже. Двигатель "Мерлин-46" сохранял мощность 1165 л.с. и на высоте 5800 м, а наш М-105А, например, имел максимум 1050 л.с. уже на 4000 м. Самолет был цельнометаллический, что делало его прочным и живучим. Прекрасная аэродинамика и малая нагрузка на крыло делали F.Mk.VB маневренным на горизонталях и обеспечивали хорошие взлетно-посадочные характеристики. По мощи секундного залпа (3,54 кг/с) F.Mk.VB превосходил все советские истребители до конца 1943 года.

From 57th IAP report: Pilots flying on MkVn noticed that it was simple and affordable for crews with middle (in fact low by western standards) qualification and even low (very low by western standards). ...Due to good aerodynamics and low WL the spit was very manoeuvrable at horizontal and had good landing/ TO caracteristics. etc...

 

[Shortround6]

As for the P-47 not being 50% heavier in wingloading to the Me-109G, here are the figures in Kg: 7900 KG on 27.87 sq M= 284 KG/sq M

Me-109G-6: 6940 lbs on 16.05 sq M: OR 196 KG/ sq M

So 50% more for the Me-109G-6 would be 294 KG/ sq M.

So I exaggerated by 10 KG/ sq M... Is that what you call being informative?

Please improve the quality of your arguments against what I say if you don't mind...

7900KG for a P-47 (at least up until the D-25) means it was carrying TWO 300gal drop tanks and that they were full. A much more reasonable weight would be 6174KG which would be full internal fuel (370 US gallons) and 664lb worth of ammo.

Wing loading is now 221.5KG/sq M.

6940lbs for a 109G-6 is without the drop tank. Lets do try to compare apples to apples.

P-47 now has a wing loading 13% greater.

While wing loading is a very good base it does not tell us the co-efficient of lift, which varies with the airfoil, angle of attack, air speed and aspect ratio of the wing. Co-efficient of lift can also change drastically with the deployment of flaps depending on the area and shape, type of flap (plain, split, slotted, or Fowler/extending) and the amount of flap used (8^ or 30^?)

 

[Gaston]

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

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Quote: "First, this talk of raising the "centre of lift" is a total smokescreen, since said centre must coincide with the centre of gravity"

-First of all, if you actually knew how aircrafts were designed, you would know the Center of Gravity is always AHEAD of the Center of Lift, precisely for stability reasons, which is why the tailplanes are designed to always provide some downforce to compensate, even when the elevators are in a neutral position... This is how ALL conventional aircrafts are designed, except for some of the canard-types among other oditites, which can have up to three lifting surfaces instead of just one... Visit aircraft design sites, they will enlighten you...

In conventional designs (which covers basically all of WWII) the tailplanes ALWAYS compensates (downward) for the untruth of what you just said... This is why tailplanes do not contribute to lowering the wingloading, and the Main wing area alone is all that is counted in estimating wingloading.

Gaston

And if you knew how the Spitfire was designed, you'd know that the tailplane was set at zero incidence, and had a symmetrical aerofoil section, so imparted neither lift, nor downforce, to the tail. Visit the RAF Museum, who have around 45,000 drawings; they will enlighten you.
Edgar