Originally posted by Angus
AFAIK, RAF pilots flying the Mustang (III) had full confidence turnfighting with both 109's and 190's.
Those would be late 190A's and 109G's of course, unlike the cross-year series of the AH MA.
One notch of flaps, deployed nice and easy and they'd turn nicely.
From first hand though, from a pilot that flew both the Spit and P51, he said that the P51 would lose a dogfight, no doubt.
I remember an account of a mockfight between a P51 (H?) and a F4U (4?) where the hog had the better (another ?). The pilot of one was John Glen.
Anyone?
While comparing the Mustang in a turn so much depends to the current fuel load and altitude.
The Mustang have more than 700kg internal fuel, so there is a wide range of liftload and powerload possibilitys.
That can be like to compare a 109 with 500kg bomb and without, its simply not the same plane.
If we assume that P51´s in general had at least 75% fuel when they did enter a combat over genramy( rear tank dry, droptanks just dropped), they should have had problems with outturning a 109 at slowspeed, at least there is no physical reason why the P51 should have so much lift. The Aitfoil is rather a high speed and than high lift airfoil and the wingload mainly is above that of the 109(without gunpods).
With 25% fuel, we get a absolut different piture, depending to the 109´s fuelload and type.
Anyway i guess when combatpilots talk about turning, they rather talk about the all over turnabilitys, where highspeed manouvers and stick forces count more than a slowspeed stallturns.
If the pilots would have rated the turnability by the slowspeed sustained turns, the FW190 never would have been rated that high as a fighter.
Greetings,
Knegel
