Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ive seen it stated that most pilots are simply padding and cannon fodder. Most of the lethal work is done by perhaps 20% of the pilots. the padding is there to protect these vital assets but they generally dont shoot many enemy down.
I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they? From what I have read here the ability of a plane to sustain a high G turn depends on the power available as much as the aerodynamics. If that is the case it depends completely on which spitfire and which Bf109. German BoB pilots were always shot down by spitfires (so the legend goes) and so they presumably always shot them down too?
I saw one veteran Typhoon pilot on TV recounting a chase of a Fw190 at sea level. The Fw190 went into a power on stall and hit the sea, that I would say is out turning.
If someone is getting a lead on you and you cant turn harder surely you must try something else?
Agreed that pilots make the difference, in fact many times the decisive factor in my opinion. The following is from a test by the British between a Spitfire I, Hurricane I and a captured Bf-109E:
"When the BF-109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that the British aircraft turned inside the Bf-109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Bf-109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning." – Augsburg Eagle, William Green page 48.
So though a Hurricane I or Spitfire I can turn inside a Bf-109E without difficulty, it took a determined or well trained pilot to accomplish it, assuming that the Bf-109E was flown by a pilot of similar skills.
<SNIP> all pilots seem to be convinced that their mount was the master Hurricane Spitfire or Bf109 they all had the best plane, Nothing against the veterans but I think they started with an advantage.
I suspect many a pilot were not comfortable operating near stall and tried their best to avoid it, while other "experts" developed an intimacy with their aircraft and could feel or sense the stall and how far they could push it (even embrace it) and used that to their advantage.
I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they?
To win a dogfight you don't have to be the best turning airplane, you only have to be in plane, in lead, and in range with the trigger on. An example would be two aircraft, 500' apart, with the trailing aircraft pointing at the lead aircraft. The trail A/C is heading North (360) and the lead aircraft is heading 320 (40 degrees of heading crossing angle between the two). If you then laid a circular template over each aircraft, the size of their respective turn radii (radius's?), with the edge of the circle on the aircraft, then drew it what would you have. Answer: Two misaligned circles, or in fighter speak misaligned turn circles. This is what you want as the offender as it allows you bring your nose to bear and employment of weapons. If the two aircraft kept going around those two circles you would see the offender fly outside the defenders turn circle (going into lag), and the offender appear to be getting away (momentarily). However, keep them going around the circles and you have the offenders nose come back inside the defenders circle and the ability to get into a firing solution should arrived at or could be arrived at with a little bit of maneuvering. You are doing one of two things, trying to stay behind a guy, or trying to shoot him. You don't do both simultaneously.
From what I have read here the ability of a plane to sustain a high G turn depends on the power available as much as the aerodynamics. If that is the case it depends completely on which spitfire and which Bf109. German BoB pilots were always shot down by spitfires (so the legend goes) and so they presumably always shot them down too?
The ability to sustain a high G turn does depend on power, CG, and design. If a fighter is sustaining a high G it's most likely at sea level or in a constant descent (using God's G (gravity) to help sustain airspeed while pulling heavy G.
I saw one veteran Typhoon pilot on TV recounting a chase of a Fw190 at sea level. The Fw190 went into a power on stall and hit the sea, that I would say is out turning.
The Fw-190 had stopped turning if he stalled and augered in. You can turn up to the point you stall. Not sure if that's true these days with vectored thrust motors.
If someone is getting a lead on you and you cant turn harder surely you must try something else?
That my friend is the essence of staying alive. Never give up, and as long as you have altitude below you, there are more problems you can give him to hopefully allow you to shake free.
Which illustrates the point nicely
I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!
Cheers
Steve
With the three aircraft mentioned, is it possible that one telegraphs the approach of stall better than the others?
That might allow a skilled pilot to operate at the edge of stall much easier than a plane that stalls more abruptly.
P-39, P-40 and F4F pilots too?
Cheers,
Biff
the Fw was pulling a hard turn about 20ft above the sea, suddenly a wing dipped and it cartwheeled into the sea.
Well that's from a fighter pilot and I have to say he knows what he's saying. Perhaps it IS possible, but when I was flying there was nobody in formation with me trying to pass, and it is likely I wasn't looking around at 5+ g's because I didn't HAVE to. In a race, I suppose it is a requirment, not a luxury.
Still, when I look at cockpit g-meter in an Unlimited Gold race, I don't SEE 5+gs.
Here is an in-cockpit video: The g-meter is bpttom left:
[video]http://www.dashware.net/videos/p-51-cockpit-forward-view-2013-reno-air-races/[/video]
Sure, he hits some g-peaks, but when he needs to look around, he has less than 3.5 g's MOST of the time.
Of course, at Reno, the guy passing MUST pass to the outside or be disqualified ... and if he TRIES to pass to the inside, everyone as advised on common frequency.
Cool video, but that's not a dogfight.
Hi Biff,
Not sure why Messerschmitt used acaptured radial, but I could guess that German radials were needed for the Fw 190. The Germans used a LOT of captured things. When they built a forward swept wing aircraft, they used nose wheels from shot down B-24's, of all thing, and were masters at reusing hardware.
My guess is that it was a "feasibility study," a war was on, and non-strategic resources were allotted.
In the 1930's, BMW had a license to build the Pratt Whitney Hornet (became the BMW 132) and this engine was used in several pre-war aircraft, like Junkers (including the Ju52/3m) and the first Fw200.