comparing

[BnZs]

BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity. Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds? Also, sustained turn rate and turn radius are no tthe same thing. I would think rate is more important. Max turn rate may not occur at min turn radius.
As for anechdotal descriptions. wasn't the 190  anechdotaly discribes as "Highly maneuverable"? Wasn't it also discribed as a newer fighter than the 109 and an answer to, and superior to, the Spitfire?  I'm shocked everytime I read about's high turn rate.  Did pilots included Roll rate with turn rate because you had to roll before you could turn? Is that what they mean by "turned better"?  Anechdotal vs test data is usually an Apples and Oranges problem.  

A famous anechdotal "Huh?"... is Bud Anderson's encounter with a 109, where after a sustained turn circle stalemate he pulls his plane vertical and ropes a 109. He attributes this to the superiority of the P-51B's performance over a 109. Maybe ponyB's really do outclimb 109s. Or maybe the explanation was that the german pilot was terrible and executed the maneuvers very badly. Maybe he had a batch of bad gasoline, or ran his plane on Truck gas because Av-gas was in short supply that day. Maybe he had previously been shot in the left arm by a different P-51 and couldn't move the throttle. but the story will come back, "pony ropes a 109, therefore the pony obviously climbs better than the 109 does, the game isn't modelled right!"  

Just food for thought.  

The explanation here is that the P-51Bs performance at 30,000 feet or so is quite competitive relative to most variants of the 109. Also this was more a zoom than a sustained climb. Also the pilot probably killed quite a bit of energy forcing Anderson to overshoot. And from what I've read, Anderson studied dogfighting especially diligently, and was quite aware of this. Similar things are done all the time in AHII in various plane combinations. No minds need be blown when this report is looked at in depth.

The comparison is in-apt because P-51 vs. 109 reports reflect the P-51 pilots turning with an aircraft the Allies had relatively little access too, which the pilot himself had probably never flown, under combat conditions. Way too many variables there to derive anything definite, truly anecdotal data. Allied pilot opinions of Jug vs. P-51 are another kettle of fish, since they are derived from Allied test pilots actually TESTING the airplanes on different parameters. Especially when the physics of the matter supports their take on it...

[BnZs]

BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity.

I have been emphasizing relative radii here, simply because it is quite unlikely that an airplane that stalls at 105 mph will be able to sustain a turn radius decidedly smaller than one that stalls at 100 mph.

[BnZs]

Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds?

Sustained turn tests are not done at stall speeds, at stall speed an airplane is making only just enough lift to keep itself in the air and has no G to spare for turning. But stall speeds do reflect the maximum possible lift that one airplane has in relation to its own weight. The airplane that stalls at 100mph has more lift in relation to its own weight than the one that stalls at 105.

[muzik]

This in spite of the fact that pilots lived and died by having some grasp of relative aircraft performance. Allied pilots in the Pacific knew to avoid slow speed turning contests with the Japanese planes if at all possible

If you mean that they knew what the enemy aircraft could do, that would be incorrect. At first they didn't know anything.  And when they were lucky enough to capture an enemy aircraft there was no guarantee that upgrades wouldn't completely change the capabilities of the aircraft, like it happened with the 109 and the FW.

Even when they did have good information they didn't always listen.   Joe Foss was asked to speak to an entire spit 5 squadron about combat tactics. They scoffed when he told them to run if they lost their advantage on the Zero.  Foss later found out that almost the entire squadron had been wiped out in their first couple of weeks of combat.

"Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else."

I don't believe that Germans or Americans knew the difference between different models of enemy aircraft or they could see them well enough to identify them in the heat of combat even if they did know the difference. so a combat report by a German pilot is not proof of anything, you don't know If he was flying against somebody less talented or in an inferior aircraft.

Just because your information comes from a fighter pilot with experience doesn't guarantee its factual. Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory. 

 

It was acknowledged in WWII that the Pony was better in the turn than the Jug by those who flew or encountered it. The contrary position, to argue that they somehow got it wrong, this is what requires a massive burden of proof.

you are taking a blanket statement about all models of The jug and  pony and using it to validate the performance of one particular model and you're ignoring huge variables.

It doesn't matter how many thousands of guys said it. there's only one fact here, only a handful of those actually did any tests and even less of them under the same circumstances you are arguing. The rest is either arrogance, blind faith or naivety

[BnZs]

Just because your information comes from a fighter pilot with experience doesn't guarantee its factual. Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory. 

LOL, so you are under the impression that at no point during the testing of these aircraft before they were sent to the front lines were they put into a turn to see what they would do?

In point of fact mock dogfighting or "hassling" was part of being a fighter pilot, especially in WWII.

[BnZs]

Even when they did have good information they didn't always listen.   Joe Foss was asked to speak to an entire spit 5 squadron about combat tactics. They scoffed when he told them to run if they lost their advantage on the Zero.  Foss later found out that almost the entire squadron had been wiped out in their first couple of weeks of combat.

So they believed they could turn with Zeros, they were proven wrong, QUICKLY, and different tactics took over. The Germans believed they could out-turn P-47s, the Americans believed they were right and adjusted tactics accordingly. Neither side was proven wrong. The Americans also believed P-51s could turn with 109s. We can safely say that this tactic did not fail to the extent they were forced to drop it, as even Spits trying to turn with Zeros failed in the Pacific.

I don't believe that Germans or Americans knew the difference between different models of enemy aircraft or they could see them well enough to identify them in the heat of combat even if they did know the difference.

Well now this is just flat hilarious. Fortunately for WWII pilots, they weren't legally blind and it wasn't like AHII with no icon-otherwise friendly fire would have been the number one killer of planes 

so a combat report by a German pilot is not proof of anything, you don't know If he was flying against somebody less talented or in an inferior aircraft.

He was flying against multiple aircraft throughout his career, and flying with other men who did the same. If the P-51 was slightly worse than the P-47, not noticeably better, how the deuce did even *enemy* pilots get exactly the opposite impression?

Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory. 

Yes, because there is no other way to ascertain turn radius besides mock combat. That is why Mosq had to fly every single possible combination of planes against other planes in mock dogfights to arrive at his turn data for AHII....

 

[muzik]

LOL, so you are under the impression that at no point during the testing of these aircraft before they were sent to the front lines were they put into a turn to see what they would do?

In point of fact mock dogfighting or "hassling" was part of being a fighter pilot, especially in WWII.

Where did I say that?  Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.

I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on  but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.

It didn't happen that way. Lots of guys went into combat with less than 10 hours in the aircraft that they fought in. 10 hours isn't enough time to become expert at flying a new aircraft, let alone how it compares to other aircraft.

So they believed they could turn with Zeros, they were proven wrong, QUICKLY, and different tactics took over.

So what you're saying is, pilot stories, opinions and judgement is infallible when it supports your point, but you continue to admit...

they were proven wrong

 you have repeatedly agreed with and pointed out that pilots on both sides had false beliefs about the performance of aircraft. Even more astounding, you still think pilot stories proves your argument in the face of undeniable proof that many pilots were so arrogant that they refused to accept FACTS from recent combat vets who knew better.

Well now this is just flat hilarious. Fortunately for WWII pilots, they weren't legally blind and it wasn't like AHII with no icon-otherwise friendly fire would have been the number one killer of planes

And you misunderstand again. I wasn't talking about the difference between a FW and a 109, I was talking about the difference between 109 Es, Fs, and Gs. Or D11s and D25s.

I have never seen any references that suggest the average pilot even knew or cared there were 30 different models of 109. They couldn't have kept up with it all.  So the point you missed was, your 109 G14 ace never identified the variant of jugs he was fighting making his conclusions nothing more than generalizations.

Likewise, look through some of those combat reports posted earlier and show us how many times allied pilots identified a particular  variant of 109 or FW they had shot down. They never knew exactly who they were fighting.

If the P-51 was slightly worse than the P-47, not noticeably better, how the deuce did even *enemy* pilots get exactly the opposite impression?

 Finally, and yet again the fact you don't seem to want to accept is reputations are distorted by pride and arrogance. Reputations aren't facts.

[Vinkman]

Sustained turn tests are not done at stall speeds, at stall speed an airplane is making only just enough lift to keep itself in the air and has no G to spare for turning. But stall speeds do reflect the maximum possible lift that one airplane has in relation to its own weight. The airplane that stalls at 100mph has more lift in relation to its own weight than the one that stalls at 105.

Isn't that 100 mph in level flight? If stall speed varies by AoA, then this number may not directly correlate to a stall turn.  I think that's Scholz' point. 

[wpeters]

BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity. Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds? Also, sustained turn rate and turn radius are no tthe same thing. I would think rate is more important. Max turn rate may not occur at min turn radius.
As for anechdotal descriptions. wasn't the 190  anechdotaly discribes as "Highly maneuverable"? Wasn't it also discribed as a newer fighter than the 109 and an answer to, and superior to, the Spitfire?  I'm shocked everytime I read about's high turn rate.  Did pilots included Roll rate with turn rate because you had to roll before you could turn? Is that what they mean by "turned better"?  Anechdotal vs test data is usually an Apples and Oranges problem.  

A famous anechdotal "Huh?"... is Bud Anderson's encounter with a 109, where after a sustained turn circle stalemate he pulls his plane vertical and ropes a 109. He attributes this to the superiority of the P-51B's performance over a 109. Maybe ponyB's really do outclimb 109s. Or maybe the explanation was that the german pilot was terrible and executed the maneuvers very badly. Maybe he had a batch of bad gasoline, or ran his plane on Truck gas because Av-gas was in short supply that day. Maybe he had previously been shot in the left arm by a different P-51 and couldn't move the throttle. but the story will come back, "pony ropes a 109, therefore the pony obviously climbs better than the 109 does, the game isn't modelled right!"  

Just food for thought.  

One other thing most people tend to over look is the fact that German Pilots were flying more than 1 combat sortie a day..  Start taking in that factor to the equation, there was a extreme wear on their pilots.

I agree with Vinkman that it was probably bad luck for the german. Not because the plane sucked put because of some fatal mistake.    Remember the only fighter back then that was easy to dogfight with for long periods of time was the P-38. Reason being that the later models had Hydrolic Boosted controls.  

In other words that means that the 109 pilot could have been completely wore out. ( Think how fit you would have to be pulling a plane around the sky in a  dogfight at 200+ knots.  It wasnt a uncommon pratice back then that some time you had to put your feet on the dash to get leverage.

Whether this was the cause or knot I do not know.  IT is said that you could tell how tired your opponet was by how he pulled his aircraft around the sky

[BnZs]

Isn't that 100 mph in level flight? If stall speed varies by AoA, then this number may not directly correlate to a stall turn.  I think that's Scholz' point. 

Stall speed doesn't "vary by AoA." Stall always occurs at the critical AoA for the airfoil, and reflects the minimum airspeed needed to generate enough lift to counter the weight of the aircraft. If G forces are being applied to the aircraft, then the stall speed increases by a factor which can be deduced by multiplying the 1G stall speed by the square root of the Gs being pulled. The aircraft which has the higher stall speed at 1G will also have the higher accelerated stall speed under G load.

[BnZs]

Where did I say that?  Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.

I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on  but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.

You should read some of the bordering-on-insane stuff Yeager and his fellows got up to when it came to maneuvering their aircraft in every possible way. Bob Johnson and his fellows got up to the same sort of thing, per "Thunderbolt". Hoover. Etc. These men knew anything they flew cold. And it doesn't a Yeager or a Hoover at the stick to notice that say, a P-47D couldn't generate quite as much G in a 200 mph turn as a P-51B.

Even more astounding, you still think pilot stories proves your argument in the face of undeniable proof that many pilots were so arrogant that they refused to accept FACTS from recent combat vets who knew better.

You are making a fatally flawed apples to oranges comparison with your example of Spits fighting Zeros. In that case, they were acting from a position of zero experience, or rather, a position lacking in Zero experience. They had neither flown nor even fought against Zeros, they had no idea what they were up against. And in combat, they were proven fatally wrong.

Compare this to the relative strengths of the P-47 versus the P-51 as ascertained in WWII. In this case, we are talking about two airplanes on the Allied side that were extensively tested by the Allies. Many men on the Allied side flew both, (as well as Spitfires) in testing, training, as well as combat. They did not have to guess about relative performance. Under these circumstances, they noted a lack of maneuverability on the Jug's part which made turn fights with the 109 a bad idea, unlike with the Spitfire, and devised tactics to compensate. Now when forces were given P-51s, they ascertained they could turn on a more even basis with the German aircraft, and they did. If somehow their impression, derived from flying BOTH, that the P-51 could turn better than the Jug was a hallucination, if in fact in turned *worse* than P-47, then this idea would have proved as fatally wrong as the Spitfire pilots' idea they could turn with the Zero on an even basis. But this is not what happened.

Finally, and yet again the fact you don't seem to want to accept is reputations are distorted by pride and arrogance. Reputations aren't facts.

What you don't seem to understand is that you are essentially arguing that the Allied side which produced Jugs and Mustangs by the thousands, extensively tested them, and had thousands of men fly both, that after all their direct experience with both airplanes, they somehow got an important aspect of their relative performance EXACTLY WRONG. But a simulator is getting it right. At least until the next FM update changes relative performance yet again, then the new in-game reality will be infallible and unquestionable    That is where the arrogance, if any, lies IMO.
If things like the following were wrong, then it means that many men who evaluated planes for the Allies in WWII were criminally incompetent at their jobs and potentially caused the deaths of any number of airmen through flawed tactical advice:

[Vinkman]

Stall speed doesn't "vary by AoA." Stall always occurs at the critical AoA for the airfoil, and reflects the minimum airspeed needed to generate enough lift to counter the weight of the aircraft. If G forces are being applied to the aircraft, then the stall speed increases by a factor which can be deduced by multiplying the 1G stall speed by the square root of the Gs being pulled. The aircraft which has the higher stall speed at 1G will also have the higher accelerated stall speed under G load.

But the critical AoA varies by Speed. As do Gs in a turn.  So perhaps stall speed relates to minimum turn radius because they both occur at the same speed, but higher Gs can only be generated at higher speeds and then the AoA will vary. So which plane turns better can vary by speed and radius of the turn up to the black out limit. it seems

[Ack-Ack]

Where did I say that?  Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.

I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on  but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.

There was a lot of testing of the capabilities of Allied fighters against Axis fighters and Allied against Allied.  This information was then distributed to the various fighter squadrons and then to the pilots.  The pilot's training didn't end when his stateside training did, it continued throughout their combat tour.  The training took place in the form of continued flight training (could involve such things as navigation, formation flying, mock combat, etc.) and classes/briefings.  Both Allied and Axis pilots were well aware of the capabilities of the aircraft they fought against, they had to otherwise they'd never have developed the necessary tactics.  The information from these reports were also shared with the plane designers and manufacturers.

Here is an example of a report that would have been distributed to the squadrons and then the pilots briefed on comparing the capabilities of the Thunderbolt vs. the FW 190.
The P-47 versus FW-190 at Low Altidude


The example you used previously about the Spitfires meeting the Zeke and Oscar is more of a case study of dangers of hubris, that's what really caused the early losses.  The RAF Spitfire and Hurricane pilots largely ignored the advice of the US, Aussie and Kiwi pilots on how to counter the Zeke. The capabilities of the Zeke were already known, that knowledge was gained by the blood of Allied fighters that fought the Zeke in the SWPA. Through painful learning through trial and error (the error usually resulted in the Allied pilot's death), tactics to fight the Zeke were learned.  That's how the Allied pilots in inferior planes were able to hold the line in the beginning.  It was further helped that in 1942, we captured an intact Zeke (A6M2) that was extensively test flown to find out the capabilities of the Zeke.  This information was then filtered to the fighter squadrons and also to Grumman, which used this information in the design of the Hellcat, that's why the Hellcat was such a good Zeke killer.

The reports were Informational Intelligence Summary 59, Technical Aviation Intelligence Brief #3, Tactical and Technical Trends #5 and Informational Intelligence Summary 85

ack-ack

[BnZs]

But the critical AoA varies by Speed. As do Gs in a turn.  So perhaps stall speed relates to minimum turn radius because they both occur at the same speed, but higher Gs can only be generated at higher speeds and then the AoA will vary. So which plane turns better can vary by speed and radius of the turn up to the black out limit. it seems

Ah, I begin to see where the confusion lies. Crtitical angle of attack does not in fact change at higher airspeeds. For a given airfoil, it always occurs at the same angle to the relative wind. Higher airspeeds simply mean the airfoil can generate more lift at any given AoA. Hence the airplane which can only hold up its own weight at critical AoA and 100mph IAS can generate lift equivalent to 4 times its own weight at 200mph IAS, etc.

[GScholz]

That turning circle diagram BnZs posted is from a post-war article written by T.S. Wade, an RAF officer. Not from any allied test report. In any case, allied tests of German aircraft were never done under optimal conditions; the aircraft were in most cases repaired after ditching and battle damage and run on Allied non-synthetic fuels that often meant the engines ran rough. The pilots were also careful not to push the aircraft too hard, especially with the 109 which had an unfounded reputation with the RAF for losing its wings in hard turns. Allied test pilots would normally not pull harder than to the point where the slats deploy.

A German test pilot's perspective:

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.


Fly around in AH and don't pull harder than up to the point where the slats deploy, then yeah... The Pony will out turn you.