Im confused

[jdbecks]

maybe there is alot of propaganda around also, for example.." our new P51-D is faster and can out maneuver the Luftwaffe 109 and 190s! now they cant run or turn from us"

just a thought?

[Chalenge]

Its anecdotal at best. P-51 pilots were instructed not to turn with the enemy and the reason is simple. Until you build combat experience (and the same is true in AH) you shouldnt try to fight someone that will obviously have more experience.

AH pilots make fun of the guys in P-51s because a lot of noobs try it as one of the first few airplanes but I can tell you that most noobs that try the 109 for the first time and run into a P-51 of any experience at all will not land.

[Steve]

Its anecdotal at best. P-51 pilots were instructed not to turn with the enemy and the reason is simple. Until you build combat experience (and the same is true in AH) you shouldnt try to fight someone that will obviously have more experience.

AH pilots make fun of the guys in P-51s because a lot of noobs try it as one of the first few airplanes but I can tell you that most noobs that try the 109 for the first time and run into a P-51 of any experience at all will not land.

They land just scattered across the countryside in pieces.         

[fbEagle]

I agree that in AH pilots are more concerned about killing the enemy rather than getting out alive... they get concerned about getting out alive after they rack up a few kills. 109 and the P-51 are fairly equally matched and when it comes down to it Pilot skill determines the outcome not how many guns your plane has or how well it turns.

[5PointOh]

I'm sure many of you have been to the following website, but this encounter reports are pretty interesting IMO,

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

Eample:

[Gaston]

   If we ignore turns at very high speeds that are less sustainable for most WWII fighters, say above 320 MPH, where the P-51 would shine, it is actually fairly easy to make a sustained turn rate hierarchy at medium-low speeds, and one that agrees with most tests and seemingly contradictory anecdotes.

   If you take the A6M5 Zero comparative tests as a benchmark (from Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site), all the U.S. fighters are set in a clear hierarchy.

    The A6M5 beats the following U.S. fighters by 360° in the following amounts of sustained turning (roughly the same spiralling up or down);
                      F6F= in 1260 °

                      F4U= in 1260°

                      P-47D-30= in 540° approximately.

                      P-51D= in 570° approximately.

                      P-38J-25(same as L)= in 720°.

     A U.S. Navy tests FW-190G, fully disassembled and re-built wrong for tests with inferior results= 583°. The FW-190A-4 was tested by the British as being equal in sustained turning to the P-38G, which I think pegs the FW-190A-5 as at least in the class of the P-38J-25, or around the same 700-800° range. There is massive evidence to support this excellent FW-190A low-speed turning performance, and also its poor high speed handling performance. See this Russian evaluation:
    
    

     http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html

     Or this Spitfire ace account:

     http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

     In 1200 combat reports I have read on Mike William's site, there is massive evidence to support that the earlier P-47D Razorback is superior in turning radius to the Me-109G in almost all circumstances, if less so to right... German tests of a captured Razorback are unequivocal: "The P-47D out-turns the Me-109G". From: "On Special Missions: KG 200".

     Against early to mid FW-190As, such as this test of an untampered-with FW-190A-5, the lowly NON-paddle-blade prop Razorback, as in real combat accounts, is inferior to the FW-190A at low speeds, but would be much closer in my view with a paddle-blade prop, as early '44 combat accounts indicate. Even with the inferior needle-blade prop it is an interesting give-and-take close match:

      

     http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

     This in my view would peg the needle-prop Razorback P-47D at 500-600° in low-speed turns, but much higher with a paddle-blade prop, perhaps as high as 700°-800°, which would explain parity with early to mid FW-190As, and the evident superiority to Me-109Gs devoid of MW-50 as the Russian tests say: "The FW-190A is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109".

     In the P-51 combat reports section, the same level of turn superiority over the Me-109G is not really there, resulting in long turning matches were the P-51 has difficulty finishing off, probably because it has a wider tuning circle that is maintained faster but requires an extra, and risky, angle when firing from the "cold lag" side (outside the turn). Superior speed retention in turns for the P-51 is very evident against the 109G, or even against the FW-190A IF at high speeds, except against later-'44 period MW-50 boosted 109Gs, which give even more trouble to the Mustang...

     I would peg non-MW-50 Me-109Gs in the same 550° class as the Merlin P-51 versus the Zero 52, but the 109 was indeed much better with MW-50: 600 to 800° is possible, which would then surpass slightly early to mid FW-190As. Note that MW-50 required C-3 fuel, and this became a priority later for the FW-190As which could not use anything else: I think MW-50 in 109G/Ks was troublesome, and not as common as is often assumed...

    Note also that the FW-190A-8 was widely known among German pilots as a massive improvement in low speed turn performance over earlier 190As, especially with the broad wood prop, and vastly out-turned the less agile bubble-top P-47D (very evident in late '44 combat reports!) that was itself roughly equal to the P-51D. One reliable account from an actual FW-190A-8 ace has the 190A-8 beating the P-51D, shuddering once or twice at the edge, in two right 360° turns to reverse a tail position. This puts the later FW-190A-8 at 1140° versus the Zero A6M5, or slightly below both Navy aircrafts: Quite acceptable.

   So the top pack discussed here would be the F6F, F4U and FW-190A-8, all at around or just above 1100° versus the Zero A6M5.

       The mid-pack would be the P-38L, P-47D Razorback (paddle-blade), FW-190A-4/5/6 and maybe MW-50 Me-109Gs, all around 700-800° versus the A6M5.

       In between that and the bottom maybe the non-MW-50 Me-109G-6?

       Then the bottom of the pack would be the Merlin P-51s, Bubbletop P-47Ds and perhaps the gondola-equipped Me-109G-6, all at around 500-570° versus the A6M5... Note these U.S. aircrafts are still the better overall relative turners above 300 MPH...

       The air show pilots comments are based on less than full War Emergency power, so at lesser power levels it could be that this would greatly favor the Me-109G. In wartime accounts, turning contests between P-51s and 109Gs can go on for fifteen minutes in the SAME turn to the SAME side... This is unheard of with Razorback P-47Ds, even with pre-Jan '44 needle blades: except to the right, the Razorback always quickly gains the upper hand over the 109G in less than 3X 360s°... The FW-190A, as should be now obvious, is a whole other matter, and was widely accepted by everyone at the time as the better turner, but inferior to the 109G in high speed handling, especially dive pull-outs (see Russian descriptions of the 190A's dive pull-out...).

       I think it was Gunther Rall who compared them as such: "The 190 was a broadsword, the 109 a rapier". A Broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curve, while the rapier is used in a forward straight motion... A very apt comparison...

      Once prejudices are ignored, the overall picture becomes quite clear.

      Gaston







    


    
  

[Ghosth]

Early war 109's had very close to equal performance with the spits, but it took more skill and risk from the pilot to do it. Spit can hang it right on the edge with not much chance of losing it. And quick recovery if they did stall a wing.

If a 109 pilot pushed it that hard, and stalled it chances were he was not going to be able to recover in time. And even if he did recover, the spit he was just turning with would be all over him.

Even in AH the same is true in my opinion.
Spitfire you can dance all day long with CT on, and never get into a situation you can't get out of.

109 can do the same, but it takes a much higher level of pilot skill, more throttle, trim and flaps work.
And if you make a tiny mistake down low, your dead.

The right pilot can make the 109's stand up and dance and do amazing things.
But the skill required is much higher, and the risk level is considerably higher.

[Gaston]

   I also read that the Me-109E was very close to the Spitfire Mk I in turns. It is possible the Me-109F was very close to the Spitfire Mk V, but in the above linked combat with ace Johnny Johnson it is clear the FW-190A-3/4 GAINS in a sustained turn with the Spitfire V, something I have never really heard about the Me-109F...:

    http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

   It is true Gunther Rall said: "They told us the new FW-190A would out-turn the Me-109F... However (wry smile), I could out-turn it..."

   Rall does not say if to accomplish this he kept a higher speed, say above 250 MPH, where the clean Me-109 maintained a better relative turn compared to the FW-190A, which suddenly got much worse at these speeds. What I gather from his statement is that the early 190As and the Me-109F were quite close, which is still consistent with a later FW-190A superiority over the later 109Gs, because in later models the Me-109G's turn got steadily worser until the sporadic introduction of MW-50, while the FW-190A got steadily better until a further and bigger improvement came with the A-8...

   I think much of the current confusion about turn performance comes from the attribution of pilot skill to outcomes that don't fit our pre-conceived notions. I think turn performance is fairly exploitable by most pilots, that they can feel the limit when it comes most of the time. It is the pilot's tactics and choices that make the difference in combat, not the fairly simple use of the maximum turn rate. We don't throw in pilot skill to cloud things up about the roll rate, do we? Though it is different and more complicated than roll rate, I think the same assumption can be made for the turn rate in anecdotes most of the time, if we are ever to get a reasonably accurate notion of comparative performance...

   We should be more wary of citing pilot skill all the time to muddy up massive, but contrarian and unexpected, evidence that doesn't fit what we previously assumed.

   To be fair, experienced wartime German pilots such as the great ace Walther Oseau also seemed to have trouble believing the heavier FW-190A could out-turn the Me-109G, somehting which made it generally better suited against Western Front aircrafts, while the 109 was probaly a better choice on the Eastern Front because of its vertical performance... (The 109G's altitude performance was also still needed on the Western Front for higher altitude "high cover" missions.)

   Leo Shuhmacher of II./JG.1 (relating to Oseau's fatal dogfight, where his non-MW-50 G-6AS out-turned P-51s in a downward spiral until the ground no longer allowed the 109 to dive to compensate for its greater speed bleed) puts it thus: "Several times I had said to Oseau that the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109, but being an old 109 pilot, he preferred it." Jadwaffe vol 5 section 3, p.202.

   Pilot skill, no matter how great, cannot turn an apple into an orange...

   Gaston