Moore:
The 109 was not a better climber than the P-38. That's another one of your myths that come from incorrect flight simulators.
Very interesting state of mind. You actually believe in this crap, don't you?
I'll tell you what. Let's try compare the numbers stated for climbrates of the various P-38s vs Bf109s through 1943 to VE day. Ofcourse, naming the first-hand published source would be needed as well.
Because, if you actually have any
hard data that any of the P-38s would outclimb a contemporary 109 then you would probably revolutionize the flight sim game industry by digging out an obscure piece of data which none of the researchs done for game modelling have been able to do so for more than 10 years, not to mention contradict every piece of existing evidence in plain sight. *snicker*
I've done literally thousands of hours of serious research on the 38, more than any of you will ever do on any airplane in your life.
Ah yes. Like the DM discussions where you claimed you have
expert authority on damage induced by gunfire by just
watching guncam films. Sounds only too familiar.
You are believing a myth propagated by fools who think that they can "calculate" the result of a very complex operation by using simple equations.'
The only reason it becomes complex is because you refuse to accept a simple given truth. We are not talking about any of the various skills and tricks in turning the planes. We are talking about the
mere physical properties of the plane in relation with aerodynamical forces, pure and simple. A plane is a physical mass, it turns into the air. Unless it is something out of the supernatural it follows the given law.
Indeed, a mere calculation can never fully reflect the real life. However, every design process begins with a calculation because there are certain
hard-coded laws in the physical world. It's why they call it
"the LAW of physics" - not the
"tendency of physics", or "
I want my plane to be this way so I can imagine something up and pretend the calculations don't matter phyics".
Wingloading and powerloading does not account for everything during the turning process, true, but how can anyone claim this as a 'small part' is totally beyond me. It's like saying "ballistics don't matter when you fire a cannon. Chuck up lots more gunpowder and the cannonball will always propel to a good range"
These people will actually tell you, "There's no way a 15,000 pound aircraft will turn with a 7,000 pound aircraft." It's madness; by that logic, the F-15 should not be able to out-turn a B-17, since the F-15 is heavier.
Not if the F-15 was equipped with an engine from 1941, eh?
Actually that very comparison is surprisingly appropriate for you, in that you (most probably) couldn't come up with a comparison involving two planes of the same WW2 era with that kind of weight difference, so you had to drag in a modern-day fighter with vastly superior thrust-to-weight ratio coming from a pinnacle of jet engine tech.
Come on now, surely you see the foolishness of comparing a two different planes with more than a generation gap apart - couldn't you at least have the decency to try and compare other cases where a certain WW2 era plane weighs more than twice the weight of its opponent, and still maneuvers better?
But there are dozens of factors which must be taken into consideration, not just weight.
Okay. So tell me abut those dozens of factors so we can compare them.
So far all you've come up with was a vague superiority in 'lift-loading', which basically falls apart against wing loading and power loading, because the supremacy in these two factors is already a marker on how a certain plane has better lift efficiency than the other. No plane can have a worse wing loading and power loading, and yet still be better in overall lift loading - unless ofcourse, like I've mentioned, they've got some kind of anti-G device mounted on the fuselage or something.
Guppy
The problem is, that whenever you go overboard researching any aircraft, you lose perpective on it.
We've had a 190 fanatic like that and a 109 fanatic.
Actually, I'm quite surprised to see the real P-38 experts withholding their comments in this post. (Or at least, taking an uncomfortably neutral attitdue)
Despite differing views and favorites they were never the ones to warp factual data nor go over the boundary in claiming absurdities. I've certainly debated on many issues against Widewing or his peers, but mostly the given view on how planes react in a certain way was often mutual. We argued on the specifics - such as the auto-flap retraction debates - but never on the generals.
Especially, this issues dwells on the defense of AH and its modelling. No modelling will ever reenact the real life for 100% for sure, but there is a reason we tend to think AH is believable, and the relative performance differences between the various planes are quite accurately portrayed.
This guy, is challenging that on the grounds of faulty modelling, not situational or circumstantial properties. He is genuinely arguing the physical entity of the P-38 holds the numerical favor against the 109 in turning performance, and the way the self-styled P-38 experts in these forums are just keeping their lips sealed in this matter is quite shocking.
Despite our differences I actually expected them to back me up in this matter, because their love of the P-38 wouldn't go further than where their conscience dictates in regards to simple truth.
Remeber the turn comparison tests? When AH turn performance testings showed that the 109 had a clear advantage in both turning circle and efficiency, it was proven that AH P-38 pilots made it possible to utilize the situational and their skill to defeat many planes that potentially had much superior turning capablites -
as per real life. If they thought that portrayal was a fallacy, and the P-38 should have just plain physically outturned those plane from the start, they'd have objected to it since they weren't the ones to hold back on opinion. However, they all admitted that it was
as expected.
So where are they now?