Best Fighter

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

It could still roll faster, the adrenaline in a man is going to push him to physical limits to make his plane roll in extreme circumstances. If a Spitfire can roll well with a Fw-190 (although not as quick) then it's going to roll with a Lightning better.

The Lightning is also going to have to use his flaps to turn inside the Spitfire. If we're getting into a clean-cut turning-fight the Mk. IX might serve a little better...but you should know, no fight was clean cut...

The P-38 also had differential throttle which could be quite effective. The P-38 was capable of ACM with any other fighter at any speed. In some of these situations pilot experiance could make all the difference.

Above 300/350mph and above the P-38 could roll faster. The power controls added to continued effectivness made a substantial difference.

Yes they used everything they had!!

[plan_D]

50 mph is a big difference...

Unless bounced the Spitfire is going to be rolling off the Lightning because combat often dropped below 300, even at high altitude. This would depend on the pilot but the Spitfire is going to feel advantages at every level. And many people claim the Spit was the best dogfighter, that wouldn't appear for no reason.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by plan_D

50 mph is a big difference...

Unless bounced the Spitfire is going to be rolling off the Lightning because combat often dropped below 300, even at high altitude. This would depend on the pilot but the Spitfire is going to feel advantages at every level. And many people claim the Spit was the best dogfighter, that wouldn't appear for no reason.

As LG pointed out turning becomes more inportant below 300mph also acceleration which are both strong suites of the P-38. As shown before the Spitfire XIV couldn't shake the P-38 or even keep it off it's tail doesn't that define the difference?

Originally Posted by plan_D

It could still roll faster, the adrenaline in a man is going to push him to physical limits to make his plane roll in extreme circumstances. If a Spitfire can roll well with a Fw-190 (although not as quick) then it's going to roll with a Lightning better.

The Lightning is also going to have to use his flaps to turn inside the Spitfire. If we're getting into a clean-cut turning-fight the Mk. IX might serve a little better...but you should know, no fight was clean cut...

Generally speaking, the P-38L is considered the fastest rolling plane of WWII at high speeds. Both the Spitfire and the FW190 rolled very well lower speeds, but it dropped of very fast after it peaked (about 200 IAS for the Spit, 255 IAS for the FW).





To understand the charts you will have to keep in mind the first chart is in IAS, the second is in TAS. Given the FW info, it can be seen that the P-38L surpasses the FW in RoR at about 300 IAS, and the Spitfire well before that speed. Also, because of the very sharp change in rate of roll after the peak, the pilot's ability to utilize roll for precise combat manuvers in either the Spitfire or the FW is somewhat limited. In a dive, to do a precise roll and turn (like in rolling scissors), the pilot would have to calculate for the airspeed to know how long to stick over, but of course this is changing as he's doing the calculation...

Adrenaline is not going to prevent fatigue. Fatigue is always an issue when engaging in combat. The harder it is to do the things you need to do, the less well you will do them. And flying is a complicated thing, there are lots of things to do. Clearly if both your hands are on the stick to roll, you cannot also be cutting throttle back, let alone adjusting pitch or caging and uncaging gyros for your computing sights.

The P-38's flowler flaps are much better suited to combat manuvering than the hinge flaps on the Spitfire. But as I said, this is not how the P-38 would turn inside the Spitfire (though they might also be used). Instead, the P-38 would pull its nose up, slowing it down, and then roll slightly and stall over to get inside the track of the Spitfire, then use its huge acceleration advantage to make up the energy. At very low speeds the very good stall characteristics of the P-38 vs the rather poor stall characteristics of the Spitfire were an advantage.

Again I point out that mock dogfights generally degenerate into very slow turn fights. All WWII planes were "underpowered" by modern aerobatic standards. Once the hard deck is approached (or the ground), these kind of fights become rather meaningless and the stall characteristics are what determine who can stick on who's six. What is significant about the Spit 14 vs. P-38L mock dogfight is that the P-38 got into a firing position first (not counting the H2H at the start). The P-38L pilot was new to the L model (it had just been delivered), the Spitfire XIV pilot... we don't know anything about him... he flew away and never said a thing. If the event hadn't been witnessed by dozens of people on the ground, it would probably not have been believed.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

I can't even see the P-38 on the first chart.

Yes, flying is a difficult thing and it also takes a lot of thought. Where the P-38 turning inside the Spitfire takes a lot of thought, and a somewhat experienced pilot. Having to bank up, turn and reduce to stall on the inside of the Spitfire is not something a rookie would like doing. Where the Spitfire is turning on the inside of almost all aircraft of the war, with simple turning.

If we're looking at one on one combat it would rely on pilot skill but you look at the bigger picture, in combat stalling is a dangerous thing to do.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I can't even see the P-38 on the first chart.

Yes, flying is a difficult thing and it also takes a lot of thought. Where the P-38 turning inside the Spitfire takes a lot of thought, and a somewhat experienced pilot. Having to bank up, turn and reduce to stall on the inside of the Spitfire is not something a rookie would like doing. Where the Spitfire is turning on the inside of almost all aircraft of the war, with simple turning.

If we're looking at one on one combat it would rely on pilot skill but you look at the bigger picture, in combat stalling is a dangerous thing to do.

The P-38 is not on the top chart, the Spitfire is not on the bottom chart. The FW is on both charts. Thus I provided both charts so you could reasonably compare the P-38L to the Spitfire.

BTW: the Spitfire XIV was hardly the best turning Spitfire. It was much heavier than earlier versions and sacrificed manuverability for speed and climb rate.

The Spit V was probably the best turning spitfire, but it was of course badly outclassed by the FW190-A4 which outturned it at combat speeds and generally outperformed it. The Spitfire IX evened the playing field, and the German focus moved from dogfighters to bomber killers.

The high YoYo is a very standard combat manuver, even a rookie would have been trained in it, and any vetran worth his wings would know how to work such a manuver, especially USA pilots who were trained to utilize energy tactics. Flying near stall is of course dangerous, but the point I'm making is that it was very much easier to do in the P-38L than the Spitfire XIV. The Spitfire had a higher stall speed and its behaivor in a stall was much more violent and unpredictable. The P-38 was actually an easy plane to fly through a stall, it was extremely predictable and controllable.

=S=

Lunatic

[Maestro]

WHAT ?!

The Spitfire Mk. V a better turning Spitfire than the Mk. IX ? Hey, talk to any veteran who flew both Mk. V and Mk. IX, they'll all say that the Mk. IX was the BEST Merlin engined Spitfire. No wonder why the Mk. IX was used until the end of the British decolonistion wars, while the Mk. V was not.

[Erich]

hey I'll still take the Ta 152H-1 over your Allied a/c anyday of the week...............

[plan_D]

I did mention the Spit. Mk. IX earlier on, in a turning fight. The Spitfire is much more unpredictable in a stall, that's why you don't stall it.

The Spitfire would be turning sweetly inside most aircraft without having to stall, that's what I'm saying.

A lot of people still say the Mk. VIII was the best Merlin-engined Spitfire. The Mk. IX was a stop-gap, the Mk. VIII was the definitive model.

[Nonskimmer]

I've sometimes wondered why the Mk.VIII was never really used by the RAF during the war.

[plan_D]

It just kept getting delayed by the common practice of the British higher-ups to fail to take their fingers out of their arses and get it into full production. Instead they just kept ordering IXs and then getting on with the days meeting about what kind of coffee to drink.

The Mk. VIIIs that were built went to Burma and Italy in 1943, most were E-wings.

[Nonskimmer]

The Aussies wound up with most of them, didn't they?

[Maestro]

Most of the pilots who flew both the Mk. VIII and Mk. IX prefered the Mk. IX. And may be the RAF didn't put the Mk. VIII in full production because the Mk. IX was cheaper to produce and had approximately the same performances... or may be a little better.

But I'm sure Plan_D will argue that, he loves the Mk. VIII. And the Mk. IX is my favorite aircraft. So we could debate about that for ever...

[lesofprimus]

And while u two are argueing over it, Heinz Bar in his Fw-190D-9 comes down outta the sun and smokes both ur asses.....

[plan_D]

I'd much rather be in a Mk. VIII, would you really care about how much it costs to make if you're flying the thing?

Then a high-altitude Mk. VI comes zooming down and smokes the -190D-9. It's a terrible story of death...