Ki-100 peformance

[Glider]

Gaston
For some reason your links don't work whichis a problem but the ones I have tracked down don't seem to support your statement. The P47 at high speed can turn inside an me109 but at lower speeds it cannot. That is supported by the test flown.

However your claims were very clear, let me repeat them

a) Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague
There is nothing to support this. So what if a Hurricane turns better than a spit presumably a Spit I or II. No quote you an show says that a Spit avoided a turning contest with any german fighter at any height.
b) You claim that the Russians changed their tactics because of the inability of the Spit in a turning contest.
I notice that you hve put nothing together to support this statement either.

Re a low level combat in a Spit IX
S/Lt. R. Gouby of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 20 January 1943:
This combat atarted at 1,000ft
The dogfight lasted two or three minutes and two of the FW's broke away and rejoined the formation, but I found myself head-on to the third one who seemed to be the leader. He came straight at me from about 800 yds. and I opened up with cannon and m/g at 600 yds. He began firing too, and I felt a slight shock and guessed I had been hit. I continued to fire but he stopped when about 200 yds. away. I saw pieces fly off his port wing and perhaps the engine cowling and his engine caught fire.

2/Ltn. H. Grundt-Spang of 331 (N) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 22 January 1943 height not mentioned but he saw it go into the sea 2,000 yards away, unlikely if he was at 20,000+ ft
The other Hun broke to the left in a steep turn which I had no difficulty at all to follow and gave him all the ammunition with 75 M.P.H. deflection. Then Hun had an explosion in the cockpit and he rolled over on his back and straight into the sea. I looked around for the other a/c and saw it spin into the sea about 2,000 yds. away.

F/Lt. P. F. Kennard of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 9 March 1943:
A dogfight at full throttle then ensued with the two FW 190's, lasting about 10 minutes. I had to hold the stick with both hands to keep control. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea, thinking I might have to get out quickly. I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick.
I kept looking round every few seconds to keep a careful watch on the two E/A who were never far away, but suddenly I noticed that one had disappeared. We were flying at less than 100 ft. at the time and I saw a big oily patch on the water, so it seems certain that the E/A went in, and I claim this also destroyed.
I then tried to climb a bit. The last FW 190 came so close at one moment that I saw the pilot's features very clearly. I cannot remember what I did exactly, but at about 2000 ft. I saw the FW 190 right below me and slightly in front. I pushed the stick and fired a short burst. I saw a piece fly off his left wing and smoke come from his engine, then he disappeared below me. Turning again, I saw him diving gently away, still pouring out brown smoke. I then flew westwards for home, climbing as much as I could.
As a result of the above action, which took place a few miles off Calais, I claim two FW 190's destroyed and another damaged.

F/Sgt. A. Haynes of 611 Squadron was pleased with the Spitfire LF IX's (Merlin 66) that the Squadron had received in March noting in his Combat Report for 9 April, 1943:

They turned left and I was unable to get deflection because I was turning too fast. There was black smoke coming from both E/A but the No. 2 was belching quite a lot more than the No. 1. The No. 2 then broke downwards and I thought he was going to hit the deck as we were only flying at about 1000-1500 feet - I fired 2 long bursts using all my ammunition. I then turned to come out over Ambleteuse, the flak was very heavy and I collected one small hole in the starboard wing. Just as I got out of the flak I was chased by 3 FW 190's. I dropped the jettison tank but they still seemed to close so I turned towards them and in one turn was on their tail but I continued turning and made for home at full throttle and although they still chased me they could not close - these are good aircraft. I claim 1 FW 190 damaged

I would be interested in the full wording of your favourite quote. Any Hurricane was inferior to an Me109, against a FW it really was in serious trouble. The idea that a hurricane was better against a FW than a Spit I frankly find difficult to believe

 

[Gaston]

Gaston
For some reason your links don't work which is a problem but the ones I have tracked down don't seem to support your statement. The P47 at high speed can turn inside an me109 but at lower speeds it cannot. That is supported by the test flown.

Well then quote one combat account that supports this statement... I have, as there are exceptions for Me-109G vs P-47D (two from the same pilot that I found, see previous post), but none for Spitfire vs FW-190A in low-speed/med-low altitudes sustained turns so far...

The combat report links of the previous post have been all fixed now.

Note that, by implication, I do think the P-47D will out-turn the Merlin P-51 in low speed sustained turns despite tests to the contrary (especially the needle-prop Razorback): I think these tests vs the Razorback were worthless and are completely contradicted both by German tests (KG 200) and even more so by the actual combat record...

This does not exclude a downthrottled Me-109G or P-51 out-turning a full-power FW-190A or P-47D, even at low speeds, as I explained numerous times, but as a rule pilots did not often use downthrottling in low speed turns, so this is a rare occurence.

For some reason, downthrottling in low speed turns was never used by Spitfire pilots that I know of (so far), so even though it will out-turn the Me-109G, no exceptions of sustained low-speed turns superiority to the FW-190A have surfaced so far... I have little doubt a heavily armored Ramjager 190 might provide the occasional exception, but so far no luck...

However your claims were very clear, let me repeat them

a) Every Spitfire Mk IX and later combat report shows the Spitfire to avoid sustained low-speed turning like the plague
There is nothing to support this. So what if a Hurricane turns better than a spit presumably a Spit I or II. No quote you an show says that a Spit avoided a turning contest with any german fighter at any height.
b) You claim that the Russians changed their tactics because of the inability of the Spit in a turning contest.
I notice that you hve put nothing together to support this statement either.

Re a low level combat in a Spit IX
S/Lt. R. Gouby of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 20 January 1943:
This combat atarted at 1,000ft
The dogfight lasted two or three minutes and two of the FW's broke away and rejoined the formation, but I found myself head-on to the third one who seemed to be the leader. He came straight at me from about 800 yds. and I opened up with cannon and m/g at 600 yds. He began firing too, and I felt a slight shock and guessed I had been hit. I continued to fire but he stopped when about 200 yds. away. I saw pieces fly off his port wing and perhaps the engine cowling and his engine caught fire.

No mention of sustaining turns with the FW-190s... No mention that the Spitfire did not use the vertical in the "dogfight". The fact that one of them ended up head to head with him indicates in no way any ability to sustain turns with him...

There is clearly nothing here to support your argument...

2/Ltn. H. Grundt-Spang of 331 (N) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 22 January 1943 height not mentioned but he saw it go into the sea 2,000 yards away, unlikely if he was at 20,000+ ft
The other Hun broke to the left in a steep turn which I had no difficulty at all to follow and gave him all the ammunition with 75 M.P.H. deflection. Then Hun had an explosion in the cockpit and he rolled over on his back and straight into the sea. I looked around for the other a/c and saw it spin into the sea about 2,000 yds. away.

"75 mph deflection"? I think he meant 75 degrees deflection...

Again, I always maintained the Spitfire had a large superiority in high speed unsustained turns, and there is no indication this is anything else...

Zero support of your argument.

F/Sgt. A. Haynes of 611 Squadron was pleased with the Spitfire LF IX's (Merlin 66) that the Squadron had received in March noting in his Combat Report for 9 April, 1943:

They turned left and I was unable to get deflection because I was turning too fast. There was black smoke coming from both E/A but the No. 2 was belching quite a lot more than the No. 1. The No. 2 then broke downwards and I thought he was going to hit the deck as we were only flying at about 1000-1500 feet - I fired 2 long bursts using all my ammunition. I then turned to come out over Ambleteuse, the flak was very heavy and I collected one small hole in the starboard wing. Just as I got out of the flak I was chased by 3 FW 190's. I dropped the jettison tank but they still seemed to close so I turned towards them and in one turn was on their tail but I continued turning and made for home at full throttle and although they still chased me they could not close - these are good aircraft. I claim 1 FW 190 damaged

I would be interested in the full wording of your favourite quote. Any Hurricane was inferior to an Me109, against a FW it really was in serious trouble. The idea that a hurricane was better against a FW than a Spit I frankly find difficult to believe

I don't see how you can claim anything more than one complete circle from full level speed: "I was chased by 3 FW 190's. I dropped the jettison tank but they still seemed to close -(in a straight line)- so I turned towards them"

Yes, above 250 mph the Spitfire will easily gain on the FW-190A at high Gs, even on an horizontal turn...

F/Lt. P. F. Kennard of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 9 March 1943:
A dogfight at full throttle then ensued with the two FW 190's, lasting about 10 minutes. I had to hold the stick with both hands to keep control. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea, thinking I might have to get out quickly. I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick.
I kept looking round every few seconds to keep a careful watch on the two E/A who were never far away, but suddenly I noticed that one had disappeared. We were flying at less than 100 ft. at the time and I saw a big oily patch on the water, so it seems certain that the E/A went in, and I claim this also destroyed.
I then tried to climb a bit. The last FW 190 came so close at one moment that I saw the pilot's features very clearly. I cannot remember what I did exactly, but at about 2000 ft. I saw the FW 190 right below me and slightly in front. I pushed the stick and fired a short burst. I saw a piece fly off his left wing and smoke come from his engine, then he disappeared below me. Turning again, I saw him diving gently away, still pouring out brown smoke. I then flew westwards for home, climbing as much as I could.
As a result of the above action, which took place a few miles off Calais, I claim two FW 190's destroyed and another damaged.

Quote: "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

This means that, his Spitfire was buffetting near stall severely enough to make him relax the stick back pressure, which in turn allowed the FW-190As to out-turn him badly enough to force him to split-S ("forced me over on my back") out of the turn... This means the Spitfire was out-turned five times by the FW-190A, hence his emphasis by saying "at least"... Need I say more?

During one of those Split-S, the first FW-190A likely tried to follow and of course behaved far worse in the vertical, and found it had not enough altitude clearance to follow-through, a well-known FW-190A tactical limitation even Eric Brown refers to (while still trying to sell the 190 as a vertical fighter!!)... The Russians mention 660 ft of nose-up altitude drop from nose-level on a 40° dive pull-out...

Quote, after the above: "I then tried to climb a bit" which is obviously because of the nearness to the water, but you can't help but notice that close to the water he no longer feels like turning, since he could no longer Split-S to escape...

(Just where the heck is this 50% Spitfire wingloading advantage, you have to wonder...)

So you could read then between the lines: "Knowing I could not out-turn them, and running out sky to Split-S, I then tried to climb a bit"

He then gets above the second one and dives on him ("pushed the stick and fired a short burst") to shoot him down...

How this is supposed to support your point I find quite incomprehensible...

But thanks for supplying a strongly reinforcing quote for my point...

Gaston

 

[Ivan1GFP]

F/Lt. P. F. Kennard of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 9 March 1943:
A dogfight at full throttle then ensued with the two FW 190's, lasting about 10 minutes. I had to hold the stick with both hands to keep control. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea, thinking I might have to get out quickly. I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick.
I kept looking round every few seconds to keep a careful watch on the two E/A who were never far away, but suddenly I noticed that one had disappeared. We were flying at less than 100 ft. at the time and I saw a big oily patch on the water, so it seems certain that the E/A went in, and I claim this also destroyed.

This means that, his Spitfire was buffetting near stall severely enough to make him relax the stick back pressure, which in turn allowed the FW-190As to out-turn him badly enough to force him to split-S ("forced me over on my back") out of the turn... This means the Spitfire was out-turned five times by the FW-190A, hence his emphasis by saying "at least"... Need I say more?

During one of those Split-S, the first FW-190A likely tried to follow and of course behaved far worse in the vertical, and found it had not enough altitude clearance to follow-through, a well-known FW-190A tactical limitation even Eric Brown refers to (while still trying to sell the 190 as a vertical fighter!!)... The Russians mention 660 ft of nose-up altitude drop from nose-level on a 40° dive pull-out...

Quote, after the above: "I then tried to climb a bit" which is obviously because of the nearness to the water, but you can't help but notice that close to the water he no longer feels like turning, since he could no longer Split-S to escape...

Perhaps the need is not to say more, but just read more....
HOW do you suppose the Spitfire is going to do 5 split-S's from 100 feet above the sea?

Consider that this is also a 1 versus 2 fight and if the Spitfire WASN'T more maneuverable, it would not have survived. A Spitfire IX at low altitude is quite a bit slower than a 190A, doesn't climb any better and certainly does not roll as well. Even in British tests of Faber's 190A versus a Spitfire IX, the conclusion was that except for turning circles, the 190 was more maneuverable.

I would also like to ask what exactly you mean by "sustained turns".
I believe all of the fighters we are discussing here cannot sustain a turn of a reasonably tight radius because they all bleed off much more energy during a turn than they can replace. The Russians in their tests even note the entry and exit speeds for their tests. Even the most lightly loaded of them all, the Japanese Type 0 Fighter would lose a fair amount of airspeed when pulling its 12 second 360 degree turn.
So.... Are we discussing minimum radius, greatest angular change, or something else entirely? How many circles counts as "sustained" and in combat, how is this useful?

Regarding comparisons between the P-47 and P-51, there is a pretty extensive test quoted in the "Warbird Buyers Guide" by Motor Books International. In it, the claim is that the P-51 turns better but isn't quite as good as the P-47 in being able to hold a constant G in a turn. In other words, although the P-47 doesn't turn as tightly, it can track a target better under G load.

Now going back a bit to the test of a Me 109G-6/R-6 by the British. That cannon boat 109, which I believe was the source of the often quoted 386 mph maximum speed, was easily able to out turn a Mustang. The way we know it was a cannon boat was because the armament is also described. My copy of those tests does not specifiy WHICH model of Mustang was the competition, but until the P-51H, Mustangs grew gradually worse in maneuverability after the P-51A. Now if an underpowered cannon boat "heavy fighter" (German term) can out turn a P-51, you must wonder what a "light fighter" with a couple hundred kilos less weight and possibly more engine power can do. The 109G / 109K flew with lots of different engines. The one tested here by the British was probably the worst for engine power and weight and yet could still out turn a Mustang.

Regards.
- Ivan.

 

[Glider]

Quote: "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

This means that, his Spitfire was buffetting near stall severely enough to make him relax the stick back pressure, which in turn allowed the FW-190As to out-turn him badly enough to force him to split-S ("forced me over on my back") out of the turn... This means the Spitfire was out-turned five times by the FW-190A, hence his emphasis by saying "at least"... Need I say more?

During one of those Split-S, the first FW-190A likely tried to follow and of course behaved far worse in the vertical, and found it had not enough altitude clearance to follow-through, a well-known FW-190A tactical limitation even Eric Brown refers to (while still trying to sell the 190 as a vertical fighter!!)... The Russians mention 660 ft of nose-up altitude drop from nose-level on a 40° dive pull-out...

Quote, after the above: "I then tried to climb a bit" which is obviously because of the nearness to the water, but you can't help but notice that close to the water he no longer feels like turning, since he could no longer Split-S to escape...

(Just where the heck is this 50% Spitfire wingloading advantage, you have to wonder...)

So you could read then between the lines: "Knowing I could not out-turn them, and running out sky to Split-S, I then tried to climb a bit"

He then gets above the second one and dives on him ("pushed the stick and fired a short burst") to shoot him down...

How this is supposed to support your point I find quite incomprehensible...

But thanks for supplying a strongly reinforcing quote for my point...

Gaston

A number of questions
A) First of all a split S? If he had done a split S he would ahve said that he did a split S. Where did you get the idea that he did a split S?
B) If he did a split S how did he do five from a height of 100 ft?
C) This a well-known FW-190A tactical limitation even Eric Brown refers to (while still trying to sell the 190 as a vertical fighter!!) Do you have this often mentioned but never supported statement from E Brown? Remember that all aircraft 'mush' to a greater or lesser degree even Gliders if you really overcook it.
D) Your next supposed quote Quote, after the above: "I then tried to climb a bit" which is obviously because of the nearness to the water, but you can't help but notice that close to the water he no longer feels like turning, since he could no longer Split-S to escape Can you point out where he says that he no longer felt like turning or indeed, where he mentions a Split S?
E) Any example of a Spitfire avoiding any turning combat like the plague

 

[Gaston]

Perhaps the need is not to say more, but just read more....
HOW do you suppose the Spitfire is going to do 5 split-S's from 100 feet above the sea?

Sorry, but you are hanging on to the smallest detail, and miss the gaping holes in your reasoning: This is the passage:

"A dogfight at full throttle then ensued with the two FW 190's, lasting about 10 minutes. I had to hold the stick with both hands to keep control. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea, thinking I might have to get out quickly. I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

To put in shorter terms: "We fought for ten minutes. It was hard two-handed fight. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea when I thought the end was near. I was forced on my back (Split-S) five times during the fight."

Ask yourself these questions:

-How could the fight have lasted 10 minutes if he was at 100 ft. from the start?

-Why are you assuming a perfect chronology for what is a series of statements about a 10 minute fight?

-Most importantly, what else could he possibly mean but being forced into a Split-S by the statement "forced on my back"? Surely, to think that this is wrong, you must have an alternative explanation...

I would also like to ask what exactly you mean by "sustained turns".
I believe all of the fighters we are discussing here cannot sustain a turn of a reasonably tight radius because they all bleed off much more energy during a turn than they can replace. The Russians in their tests even note the entry and exit speeds for their tests. Even the most lightly loaded of them all, the Japanese Type 0 Fighter would lose a fair amount of airspeed when pulling its 12 second 360 degree turn.
So.... Are we discussing minimum radius, greatest angular change, or something else entirely? How many circles counts as "sustained" and in combat, how is this useful?

FYI they could all sustain over 3 Gs on a level turn until the fuel ran out... I don't know the typical maximum figure, but it could have been as high as 3.4 Gs in some...

In combat, I consider "sustained" anything that is much over one circle and a half: Preferably two full circles. Any mention of "Lufberry" implies at least two full circles with little, if any, spiralling down... Some spiralling down usually took place, but the pilots had an interest in keeping this to a minimum if they wanted to survive... You can't shoot above yourself in a turn...

How is this useful?! How about the fact that sustained turns (often slightly spiralling down when height allowed) was probably the main method of combat throughout WWII?

How about the fact that turning contests are more common and unavoidable when the two opposing top speeds are closer to equal? (As in Europe as opposed to the Pacific, in the words of US pilots that had seen both theaters)

Sustained turning performance is primordial because gun power was weak in WWII, with a typical 2% hit rate. This is what most seem to fail to understand: Wing mounted armament with a convergence point would never have been acceptable if a fairly constant distance to the target for long periods of shooting was not common... The most happy dive and zoom fighters either had centralized armament or very fragile targets (IE: Japanese targets)...

The Spitfire did OK dive and zooming because it had a tremendous climb rate and its 20 mm wing guns were very flat-shooting and unusually effective, but I'll bet its kill/loss record is inferior to either the P-47 or P-51, which both used a lot of turn-fighting...

P-47s were not at all "happy" dive and zoom fighters, since they climbed poorly at first, and were exactly at the point of rapidly shifting to ground attack (replaced to minority status as escorts by P-51s in May '44) just when the Luftwaffe issued its suicidal "bombers only" directive, probably the biggest turning point of the Air War in Europe... (Probably bigger than Doolittle's "free hunt ahead of bombers" tactical change at the same time)

P-51s became happy dive and zoomers just when the Luftwaffe was issued orders to ignore enemy fighters... As Galland said "If I understand well, the safest place in the sky is now in the seat of an American fighter..."

It should also be noted that the P-51 largely missed the most severe fighting, and was only really becoming ubiquitous long after "Big Week". This is why 8th AF pilots of the time said "it was the P-47 that broke the Luftwaffe's back", and I think this is probably an understatement... (The P-47 is said to have scored 160+ of the 220 fighter kills of "Big Week")

Despite this -and its inferior Me-109G-like turn performance- the P-51 was still massively used as a turn fighter, most often with just dropped flaps to try to make up its inferior turning performance (especially vs FW-190A at low altitudes), but also quite commonly with the throttle reduction "trick" (with coarse prop pitch at low speed), which was very effective if the opponent did not use it...

The P-51 will often turn with Me-109Gs (close to equal in many ways) but seem happier to hit and run against FW-190As: To counter hit and run tactics, the FW-190A could often counter by going head-to head: Thus you hear of an unusually large amount of head-to-head fighting at low altitudes between these two: The P-51 usually coming out worse...

Interestingly, while at high altitudes the Luftwaffe had a poor record, at low altitude over Normandy the trade was closer to 1:1...

From what I have seen of all P-47Ds battles (in the 1000s range), about 30% involve sustained turn-fighting, maybe 10% dive and zoom, the rest being a jumble of actions. It does relativize the importance of either of these tactics at high altitudes, but both of these tactics seem more important at low altitudes, probably with turning becoming more prominent...

Sustained turns are not really an academic performance in WWII: For your gun power to be effective you had to have a stable target at a moderately changing range.

Yes, sustained speed turns tended to spiral down, sometimes until the ground was reached, but you have to keep in mind that surrendering too much altitude in a spiral means you won't be able to raise you guns at a higher target while turning at the limit: That is why you tried to keep your turns as close to level and horizontal as possible, and the other guy did the same...

This was widely understood in WWII, so much so that when you hear of one aircraft out-turning another, it is never intended to mean a smaller unsustained speed/high G radius: The word "smaller radius" is then used as opposed to "out-turning", which implies unsustained (5-6 Gs) vs sustained (3.2 Gs+-) turns.

The Americans did not always follow the out-turn/radius distinction that precisely, and there might have been others as well...

Regarding comparisons between the P-47 and P-51, there is a pretty extensive test quoted in the "Warbird Buyers Guide" by Motor Books International. In it, the claim is that the P-51 turns better but isn't quite as good as the P-47 in being able to hold a constant G in a turn. In other words, although the P-47 doesn't turn as tightly, it can track a target better under G load.

This must be the SETP test of 1989: It does confirm what the Germans and real combat clearly demonstrated: The P-47 out-turns the P-51.

When real-life bullets are flying, "tracking the target under G load" is really the be all and end all...

You have to wonder why WWII-vintage US tests clearly state the P-51 will get behind the P-47 in a mere 3 or 4 360°s...

That is a 90° gain per 360°... I think this simply means the US test pilots of the time were not immune to "judging a book by its cover"...

Look to KG 200 for a more reasonable P-47D vs P-51 assessment: No mention of the P-51 out-turning their Me-109G, but the underpowered needle-tip Razorback?... Yes.

Now going back a bit to the test of a Me 109G-6/R-6 by the British. That cannon boat 109, which I believe was the source of the often quoted 386 mph maximum speed, was easily able to out turn a Mustang. The way we know it was a cannon boat was because the armament is also described. My copy of those tests does not specifiy WHICH model of Mustang was the competition. Now if an underpowered cannon boat "heavy fighter" (German term) can out turn a P-51, you must wonder what a "light fighter" with a couple hundred kilos less weight and possibly more engine power can do.

Regards.
- Ivan.

I don't remember reading that the British ever actually said that: As far as I know, the RAE said the P-51B with full underwing drop tanks out-turned easily the Me-109G...

This is of course full of crap. The P-51B was very close to the Me-109G even clean, barring the downthrottling/flaps "trick". It might have been worse but only very slightly. I know of three separate turning combats between these two (with P-51Ds) lasting 15 minutes to one side (45 consecutive 360s!), and one claimed to be near 30 minutes (90 consecutive 360s!)...

The RAE then said that the clean P-51B was about equal to the FW-190A. This is less full of crap, but still slightly wrong as well...

I think they went all timid with the Me-109G slats they didn't understand...

The RAE also claimed that the Spitfire Mk XIV out-rolled the P-51, and that is about as full of crap as you can get...

One thing clear is it doesn't militate for the Me-109G as a turn fighter (not that it couldn't, but certainly not in any way great without the "trick" of downthrottling to turn at 160 mph, as Karhila describes).

Very little does actually, until computer games appeared...

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

A number of questions
A) First of all a split S? If he had done a split S he would ahve said that he did a split S. Where did you get the idea that he did a split S?
B) If he did a split S how did he do five from a height of 100 ft?
C) This a well-known FW-190A tactical limitation even Eric Brown refers to (while still trying to sell the 190 as a vertical fighter!!) Do you have this often mentioned but never supported statement from E Brown? Remember that all aircraft 'mush' to a greater or lesser degree even Gliders if you really overcook it.
D) Your next supposed quote Quote, after the above: "I then tried to climb a bit" which is obviously because of the nearness to the water, but you can't help but notice that close to the water he no longer feels like turning, since he could no longer Split-S to escape Can you point out where he says that he no longer felt like turning or indeed, where he mentions a Split S?
E) Any example of a Spitfire avoiding any turning combat like the plague

I have these two questions for you (the other points are adressed in my previous post):

1-What else could he possibly mean by "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

2-Why would he relax the pressure on the stick (and thus loosen his turn), if he was in the middle of a dogfight?

I'm sure you are familiar with the unique handling characteristic of the Spitfire that perfectly explains #2...

Gaston

 

[Aozora]

I have these two questions for you (the other points are adressed in my previous post):

1-What else could he possibly mean by "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

2-Why would he relax the pressure on the stick (and thus loosen his turn), if he was in the middle of a dogfight?

I'm sure you are familiar with the unique handling characteristic of the Spitfire that perfectly explains #2...

Gaston

What the heck has your theorising about the turning circle of the Spitfire got to do with the Ki-100?? Get back to topic please

 

[Glider]

I have these two questions for you (the other points are adressed in my previous post):

1-What else could he possibly mean by "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

2-Why would he relax the pressure on the stick (and thus loosen his turn), if he was in the middle of a dogfight?

I'm sure you are familiar with the unique handling characteristic of the Spitfire that perfectly explains #2...

Gaston

Re 1 If you overcooked the turn on a Spit it would flip onto its back (you can check this with the pilots notes)
Re 2 There is nothing unique in this. The buffet is a warning that the air is breaking up over the wing and to get the best turn performance you ease up on the stick, the buffeting goes and you get maximum performance. Its normally referred to as flying on the edge of the buffet and glider pilots fly on the edge of the buffet for long periods of time when thermalling.

I note with interest that when asked to give examples of pit pilots avoiding a turning combat you have failed to do so.
When asked to supply the quote you often make about Eric Browns comments on the Fw190 you have failed to do so
When asked to point out where he said he did a Split S you have failed to do so
When asked how you can do a split S at 100 ft, you have failed to do so.
And when I asked for the Russian quote you mentioned earlier about them changing their tactics because of the problems they had with the spitfires turn, again you have failed to do so.
There is a pattern here

If it helps here is a quote from Wiki on a Split S. If you could tell me how you do this at 100 ft let alone five times at 100 ft I would be impressed.
The opposite of an Immelmann is the Split-S. This maneuver consists of rolling inverted and pulling back on the stick, diving the aircraft into a half loop, which changes the aircraft's direction 180 degrees. The split-s is rarely a viable option in combat as it depletes kinetic energy in a turn and potential energy in a dive. It is most often used to set up a high-side guns pass against a lower but fast moving opponent that is traveling in the opposite direction. Also, the split-s is sometimes used as a disengagement tactic

 

[Jabberwocky]

The RAE also claimed that the Spitfire Mk XIV out-rolled the P-51, and that is about as full of crap as you can get...

1. That wasn't the RAE, it was the AFDU, the Air Fighting Development Unit. You know, the unit specifically established to test and assess the operational performance of fighter aircraft and their best employment.

2. Prove that the P-51 (actually, in this case the Mustang III) rolled better than the Spitfire Mk XIV. Any sources. Any, flight test data?



Some highlights from the ADFU Mustang III tactical trials:

vs Spitfire Mk IX

Rate of Roll
21. Although the ailerons feel light, the Mustang III cannot roll as quickly as the Spitfire IX at normal speeds. The ailerons stiffen up only slightly at high speeds and the rates of roll become the same at about 400mph.


vs Spitfire Mk XIV

Rate of Roll
30. Advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.


RAF flight tests of Mustang I and the XP-51 indicate that time to roll 90 degress at 200 and 300 mph was around 1.8 to 2 seconds, and about 2.3 seconds at 400 mph. The report states at 200 mph: "the time to roll though 90 degress did not appear unduly fast, due to the aircraft lagging considerably behind after applying full aileron as rapidly as possible".

RAF tests of a regular wing Mk XII found times to roll 60 degrees at 300 mph of 1.2 sec anti-clockwise and 1.6 sec to 2.4 sec clockwise. At 400 mph, times to roll 60 degrees were between 1.7 and 3 seconds for anti-clockwise roll and 2.2 and above.

Personally, I'd conclude that the Spitfire was a superior aircraft in the rolling plane below around 350 mph, but inferior above 375 mph.

 

[Greyman]

I'll just get my favourite quote out of the way: John Weir, RCAF

One thing to keep in mind with this quote is that Weir was shot down and captured 8 November 1941 and his Wing didn't encounter the Fw 190 (in a real fight, anyway) until 22 November.

 

[Gaston]

One thing to keep in mind with this quote is that Weir was shot down and captured 8 November 1941 and his Wing didn't encounter the Fw 190 (in a real fight, anyway) until 22 November.

So basically you are saying he was lying?

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

1. That wasn't the RAE, it was the AFDU, the Air Fighting Development Unit. You know, the unit specifically established to test and assess the operational performance of fighter aircraft and their best employment.

2. Prove that the P-51 (actually, in this case the Mustang III) rolled better than the Spitfire Mk XIV. Any sources. Any, flight test data?



Some highlights from the ADFU Mustang III tactical trials:

vs Spitfire Mk IX

Rate of Roll
21. Although the ailerons feel light, the Mustang III cannot roll as quickly as the Spitfire IX at normal speeds. The ailerons stiffen up only slightly at high speeds and the rates of roll become the same at about 400mph.


vs Spitfire Mk XIV

Rate of Roll
30. Advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.


RAF flight tests of Mustang I and the XP-51 indicate that time to roll 90 degress at 200 and 300 mph was around 1.8 to 2 seconds, and about 2.3 seconds at 400 mph. The report states at 200 mph: "the time to roll though 90 degress did not appear unduly fast, due to the aircraft lagging considerably behind after applying full aileron as rapidly as possible".

RAF tests of a regular wing Mk XII found times to roll 60 degrees at 300 mph of 1.2 sec anti-clockwise and 1.6 sec to 2.4 sec clockwise. At 400 mph, times to roll 60 degrees were between 1.7 and 3 seconds for anti-clockwise roll and 2.2 and above.

Personally, I'd conclude that the Spitfire was a superior aircraft in the rolling plane below around 350 mph, but inferior above 375 mph.

What you don't know about that test is the following pilot quote: "The Spitfire's ailerons were defective in the test, but will be fixed in production". So on what is based the AFDU conclusion is anyone's guess...

Also the roll rate of the Spit was well-known to be hopelessly behind that of the FW-190A, to the point it was asked in comparative tests if clipping the wings made any difference, and one of the test pilots replies was : "hardly", with all others agreeing...

Also the Supermarine factory's own chief test pilot noted, in substance : "Handling deteriorated with subsequent models: In the time the Mk V would do 2.5 rolls, the Mk IX barely did one and a half. Later models were even worse."

The highest measured roll rate I am aware of for an in-service unmodified Mk V (the NACA 868 Spitfire obviously was modified) is on an Australian roll rate chart, and it shows a peak of 78° per second at a very low speed of below 200 mph. Clipped wings might have gone to 90°.

One Me-109G pilot said the 109 had a similar roll rate to a full wing Spitfire: Also around 80°/sec.

Two thirds of that is about 50°, and what do you know, it is exactly what the similar (to the MK IX in weight) Mk XII shows as available in this chart:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mk12roll.gif

The Merlin P-51 Mustang is well known to be at around 95° per second well up to 320 ias, while the Spitfire always peaks well below 200 ias:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

There's your flight test data.

I remember evidence the Mk XIV was around a 40°/sec peak, and it makes sense if the Mk IX is around 50° "and later models were even worse"...

Note current airshow Mk XIVs do dispaly around 100°/sec, but without guns and many other aileron changes, including the hinges. Not in WWII service: They didn't clip the wings for nothing...

If you want to believe the in-service Spitfire rolled like a FW-190A (as in the 868 chart), or that this is all a matter of "steady state" vs "cold start" values, be my guest but I have other things to do.

Gaston

 

[Gaston]

Re 1 If you overcooked the turn on a Spit it would flip onto its back (you can check this with the pilots notes)
Re 2 There is nothing unique in this. The buffet is a warning that the air is breaking up over the wing and to get the best turn performance you ease up on the stick, the buffeting goes and you get maximum performance. Its normally referred to as flying on the edge of the buffet and glider pilots fly on the edge of the buffet for long periods of time when thermalling.

I note with interest that when asked to give examples of pit pilots avoiding a turning combat you have failed to do so.
When asked to supply the quote you often make about Eric Browns comments on the Fw190 you have failed to do so
When asked to point out where he said he did a Split S you have failed to do so
When asked how you can do a split S at 100 ft, you have failed to do so.
And when I asked for the Russian quote you mentioned earlier about them changing their tactics because of the problems they had with the spitfires turn, again you have failed to do so.
There is a pattern here

If it helps here is a quote from Wiki on a Split S. If you could tell me how you do this at 100 ft let alone five times at 100 ft I would be impressed.
The opposite of an Immelmann is the Split-S. This maneuver consists of rolling inverted and pulling back on the stick, diving the aircraft into a half loop, which changes the aircraft's direction 180 degrees. The split-s is rarely a viable option in combat as it depletes kinetic energy in a turn and potential energy in a dive. It is most often used to set up a high-side guns pass against a lower but fast moving opponent that is traveling in the opposite direction. Also, the split-s is sometimes used as a disengagement tactic

He never says the whole 10 minute fight was at 100 ft, does he? He said he unlatched the hood there...

That shows a lot nerves for someone who has failed to come up with a single low-speed example of a sustained turn encounter where the Spitfire turns better than the FW-190A, while I have half a dozen to the contrary posted all along this and other threads... And this, mind you, where even the mere mention of the word "Lufberry" would have counted as one on your side...

Eric Brown citation (from his book "Duel of Eagles"): "If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn, he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' "

"Quite progressive" That British understatement you know...If that's not selling the FW-190A as a vertical fighter, while outlining its pathetically crummy dive-pull-out performance, I don't know what is...

Here's another viewpoint, sourced as well: "A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943. Quote:"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

Hey, doesn't that sound like a reference to a similar behaviour? What a coincidence! A great dive a zoom fighter, this FW-190A, no doubt about it...

Remember the P-47's "far sharper angle of pull-out?" Another coincidence!!! http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg


Citation source of Russians removing the guns and changing their tactics to accomodate the Spitfire Mk V's lack of turning performance?:

Russians changing their turn-fighting tactics from horizontal to vertical to accomodate the Spitfire's inferior horizontal performance in favour of its superior vertical performance: Fana de l'aviation #496:

Première citation : " Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal (l'I-16 était remarquablement agile en virage N.D.L.R), alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical. Selon A.L. Ivanov qui fit la guerre au sein du 57° Régiment, il était supérieur aux Yak-1 ou La-5."

Citation of Russians removing the outer wing guns to improve inadequate handling: Fana de l'aviation #496:

Deuxième citation : " A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l'allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

Now I am going to ask you for your source:

Show me where, given all the buffetting warning the Spitfire is famous for, is it said that the aircraft has a tendency to flip on its back, in combat or elsewhere?

Show me other combat accounts that display this interesting handling trait for instance...

Not that I don't believe you, but... Source please...

Also note his wording: ""I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure on the stick."

So it is relaxing the hold on the stick that precedes the flip on his back... Hardly sounds like stalling... So without stalling the Spitfire will perform an unvolontary 180° roll in battle? And do it five time at 100 ft. without touching water?! Definitely source that!

BTW, how's my sourcing pattern going?

Gaston

 

[Glider]

He never says the whole 10 minute fight was at 100 ft, does he? He said he unlatched the hood there...

Your right, he unlatched the hood at 100 ft and then went of to say that he turned and at least five times went onto his back.

That shows a lot nerves for someone who has failed to come up with a single low-speed example of a sustained turn encounter where the Spitfire turns better than the FW-190A, while I have half a dozen to the contrary posted all along this and other threads... And this, mind you, where even the mere mention of the word "Lufberry" would have counted as one on your side...

This is a low speed combat, after 10 minutes of turning, down to a 100ft they would have lost a lot of speed

From the Pilots notes Mk IX with 66 engine section 42 'Warning of the approach of the stall in a steep turn is given by a pronounced buffeting of the tail (and on Mk XVI aircraft by the hood rattling) if the acceleration is then increased the aircraft, in general, flick out of the turn'.

The rest I will have to come back to but it does prove your habit of reading into a quote sometihng that isn't there.

For you to believe your version we are still left with tow big unawnsered questions

a) Have you got any examples of Spitfire pilots avoiding a turning combat, the honest reply is no you don't
b) How do you do doa split S from 100 ft, and here the honest reply is no you cannot.

As for this statement of yours while I have half a dozen to the contrary posted all along this and other threads we both know that this is as Winston Churchill said in a different context, is being very economical with the truth. It is also unsupported by any test between the Spitfire and the Fw190.
You have one example of a pilot who was in a MkV spit an aircraft everyone agrees was inferior to the Fw 190 on his first ever combat against a Fw190.

I have this suggestion. Support your statement with six examples of the Fw190 turning inside the Spitfire and I will make a public apology, withdraw from this thread and withdraw from this forum completely for a period of six months.
The ball as they say is in your court. Its time to put up or shut up, if you cannot support what you have said and fail to take up this challange, it says everything we need to know about the accuracy and honesty of your statements.

 

[Aozora]

Gotta ask again: Why has this thread on the Ki-100 become a thread on the Spitfire's rolling performance v the Fw 190???

 

[Greyman]

So basically you are saying he was lying?

Nope.

Gotta ask again: Why has this thread on the Ki-100 become a thread on the Spitfire's rolling performance v the Fw 190???

Internet.

 

[Glider]

A couple of photos of this in my mind, remarkable aircraft from Hendon. Notice how similar the blending of the engine to the fuselage is to the design used in the Fw 190

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The similarity might be because the Germans delivered a FW190A to the Japanese for examination for this purpose.

BTW, I am certain not all of us here live on the same planet, but I am sure that discussion will continue in a bit.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello All,

Gaston posted links to two graphs which are quite interesting.

The first is a transition from 30 degrees bank to 30 degrees opposite bank.
This graph starts at 300 mph IAS, and also includes the initial acceleration so it doesn't indicate an actual rate.
Perhaps the rate is much higher at lower airspeeds.
Perhaps like the description of the Mustang from AFDU, there is a considerable lag.

I believe the Metal skinned ailerons started with the Spitfire Mk.V. The Spitfire Mk.XII is a converted Mk.V and even has the single coolant radiator of the Mk.V for a visual reference. Does anyone know if these two aircraft serial numbers had metal or fabric covered ailerons? The Metal covered rolled quite a bit faster at high airspeeds.

The later Marks of Spitfire didn't roll slower, they actually rolled quite a bit faster.

The second graph from NACA 868 is even more interesting.
I have been doing a fair amount of "research" on the Japanese A6M Type Zero fighter.
If you will observe the graph begins at 160 mph IAS.
At this point, the roll rate of the Zero and the F6F-3 Hellcat is nearly the same.
Below this, the roll rate of the Zero looks to be increasing while the Hellcat's is decreasing.

This is the strange thing about this graph:
The description from Eric Brown is that the roll rate of the Zero was inferior.
The description from Steve Hinton who flies the modern survivors is that the roll rate is very good, "About half again as fast as the Hellcat" is the quote.
The Zero has some seriously long span ailerons, so although high speed roll rate is poor because of aerodynamic loads, low speed roll rate should be excellent.
I wonder what is the truth here?

Now back to the Spitfire discussion:
Note that in this graph, the roll rates of the Spitfire of unknown Mark are 90 degrees peak and 150 degrees peak.
From these numbers, I am guessing that it was a Spitfire Mk.V or Mk.IX that was being described.

- Ivan.

 

[Glider]

The Spit XII would have had the metal ailerons and almost certainly the MkV, early mk V may not have had them. As for the Zero I suspect both are correct depending on the spedd you are going. At anything over 250mph te Zero turned like a brick as the ailerons almost seized up. However if you go for a slow speed combat the Zero will eat you alive. I wouldn't mind betting this would be the same reaction on the roll rate.