F4U and stall fights

[-ik-]

regarding turn of P-51D and 109G:

Late in the war most LW pilots were inexperienced, and were not able to get max performance out of their aircraft. It doesn't surprise me that Yeager found he could out turn his rivals, he was a good stick. Yet often in allied combat reports, there is the theme of incompetent axis pilots, with the occasional super-pilot who made them say "what the f•ck!?"

The 109G had lower wingloading than the P-51D, so with comparable pilots it would turn better. Another 109G advantage in a turn is that the P-51D had that laminar flow wing which was the worst possible wing you could have in a high aoa situation.

Also, in combat reports by certain P-51 pilots who encountered the 190D-9, they found it could match or outperform the P-51 in maneuverability. The 190D-9 didn't earn the nickname "stang-killer" for nothing   Luckily not very many of them were around and pilot quality was low...

------------------

[Jekyll]

Hristo.. I wish I could say the opinion re the 190D-v-P51 matchup was original, but it isn't  

In all the time I flew brand W in 190's, I kept thinking about the comment made by John T Godfrey, in his fight against a 190D.  Godfrey was flying a P51B at the time.

It seemed that both aircraft were pretty even in turn performance... the 51 had the radius advantage when Godfrey dropped flaps, but the D9 had the thrust/weight ratio advantage which enabled it to use alternating low/high yoyo's to drop back onto Godfrey's tail.

Godfrey actually had his guns jam in the engagement, so he had to run for home, and was probably lucky to escape with his life.

In all those years of flying brand W I always thought the 190's T/W ratio was a little screwy.  Try turnfighting a 51B with a Dora in brand W and the dora pilot is just asking for a nylon letdown.

Also, regarding ol Chuck's opinion of the 51.  You're probably right that he was talking about relative performance at high altitude, but after all, high altitude was where these planes lived!  It would seem only natural to compare the aircraft's performance in the altitude range where they commonly fought.

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'


[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-08-1999).]

[funked]

"You're probably right that he was talking about relative performance at high altitude, but after all, high altitude was where these planes lived! It would seem only natural to compare the aircraft's performance in the altitude range where they commonly fought."

Ol' Chuck made no such qualification.  
I like how you guys keep putting words in his mouth to prevent your idol from being wrong.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-08-1999).]

[Hristo]

Right, Jekyll.

Also, when comparing 109 vs P 51 turn, 109 has lower wingloading + slats (not modeled), while P 51 has higher wingloading - laminar wing (not modeled, it seems). And power loading is clearly in favor of the 109.

As if our 109 is modeled with Nachwuchs factor, or our P 51 has Chuck Yeager factor modeled.

Many times I tried to compare that Godfrey's duel with the relative plane performance in WB. No way Dora could win yoyo/flat turn contest there. It would have to extend extend extend...you know it better than me      

However, I look forward to correct Dora modeling in AH. They did a good job with A-8.



[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-09-1999).]

[Minotaur]

Had I known some of your feelings were so strong, I would have not posted any other persons opinions regarding anything.  

Now we have gone from argueing over which plane is the best and all the reasons why or why not it is the best.  To insulting people that might have no interest whatever in what we have written here.  Insulting them for no clear reason that I can distingiush.  

I feel badly that another person is now slandered for something I considered "General Interest Only".  I must also apologize to Hangtime for the stir it has created in this thread.

I said it was "Chuck's biased opinion"  I did not say "Chuck said it was a fact". Sheesh...  

I said it was Chuck's opinion about "almost" all the planes the 51 "encountered".  I did not say it was Chuck's opinion about the fighter plane set (or the wished for plane set) represented in AH.  Double Sheesh....

I also can say that "No one posting for or against whatever they are posting for or  against, ever flew any real airplane during WW2".  But IMO, I suspect -Zoll- has the best idea as to what it is like to really fly them.  However; it seems some people who have only flown them during "Simulated Flight", seem to know better.  That cracks me up.    

The Victors of War dictate how history is shaded.  You can argue about that as well.

BTW I just enjoy AH, give me a plane and I'll fly.  Until the parts for my RV-8 arrive.  (LOL - Yeh Right     )

Merry Chistmas Everyone!

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-09-1999).]

[Jekyll]

Further re the D9 Hristo, everything I've read suggests that the turn ability of the Dora was about the same as the A4, since it did not bleed speed as quickly in a turn.

Wouldn't you love to see the Dora modelled in brand W with the turning ability of the A4 (such as it is) but with the vertical performance it's outstanding power/weight ratio SHOULD have given it

P/W ratio for Dora:  4.2lb/hp (loaded weight)
P/W ratio for P51D:  6.3lb/hp (loaded weight)

Use the Vertical Luke!!!

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[funked]

Minotaur - Sorry.

My point isn't "Yeager is a handsomehunk", it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims.  They tend to get emotional about their planes, and they have better things to do than digging up flight test data on foreign A/C.  

[Hristo]

Jekyll, make an AH clone, please !!!  

Somehow I feel we will wait very long for AH Dora, and it might not live to our expectations, no matter how accurate these numbers are.

I am afraid of repeating the WB Dora  

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-09-1999).]

[Westy]

 Minotaur you hit the nail on the head with " it seems some people who have only flown them during "Simulated Flight", seem to know better. That cracks me up."
 Or flew Cessnas and remark how 'off' the flight model of a "North Suzuki ME-908-G-66 with two 23.99 CM HO cannon" is.

 I read the anecdotal evidence of the pilots who told thier stories (aces and non aces) and from all sides to judge what I think where an airplane stands in comparison to it's pears.  
 I'm sure any lover of any plane will find a publication sooner or later that has the right specs written down that puts thier favorite aricraft in the best light and shows without a doubt how "thier" aircraft WAS the best after all.
 Point is if you read all these specs from folks with "thier papers" that they refer from you would wonder how some planes that did not so well didn't absolutley rule the skies and the planes that did rule why they were not relegated to training services as unfit for combat.
 It's like anything. Some stuff looks good on paper and put it to use and it did not measure up. And some look like the Uber plane handed down from the Cods themselves and it is a royal flop in combat.

 It does make for interesting reading.  Sometimes.

 --Westy

[Minotaur]

Funked;

Apology accepted.  Thanks.  

I find this entire thread to be entirely described in the below quote.

Funked Quote ---
<edited> it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims. They tend to get emotional about their planes, <edited>
--- End Quote

I find no fault for anyone to "Rant and Rave" or get "Emotional or Silly" about "Their Favorite Plane".  However; I do tend to find fault with uneccessary insults.

I read the "R&R's" for the chance that I might pick some new information, so that I can improve my knowledge or my skills.  This is "Good".  This is "Bad", when I become "Emotional or Silly" about what I read.  For that I must also apologize.

I most often just find these posts very   interesting.  The information is there, just wading through the rest can be a pain.  

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[Jekyll]

No doubt that RL pilots would tend to prefer the plane that brought them home time and again

I think the most useful info from books written by WW2 pilots is contained in the descriptions of matchups between aircraft, e.g.

Godfrey's description of his P51B-v-190D turnfight,

Robert S Johnson's description of his P47C-v-Spitfire IX dogfight

Stories like these give readers a pretty good idea of the relative strengths/weaknesses of particular aircraft.  More importantly, I think it gives us the opportunity to recreate these fights in order to test flight models, and to see where particular aircraft might be 'uber' or 'unter' modelled  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[Toad]

Hey Funk!

>it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims. <

At least WE haven't crashed and burned on Mars yet!

The brainiacs are up two to nothing right now in that department!

Maybe they better try and put in a "stick and rudder monkey", eh?

<G,D,R>