Here's lie number one. The amounts of horsepower for the engines on the two ships were roughly equal; that is, roughly 1850 (with two engines for the P-38, doubling it). Just because the "official" rating was much lower for the P-38 does not make it the standard rating, or even the correct one. I suppose you'd also claim that since the F-117 didn't "officially" exist for many years, there was no such aircraft until the time it was made official? Allison representitives travelling to various airbases in Europe discovered that crews were using Allison ratings, not U.S.A.A.F. ratings. Official German ratings were often higher than the ones used; U.S.A.A.F. ratings were usually lower.
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating of 1,600hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.18hp/lbs
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating
generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.23hp/lbs
27% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the P-38L* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating of 1,800hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight = 0.25hp/lbs
* Single Daimler-Benz engine at war emergency rating
generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 7,000lbs combat weight = 0.28hp/lbs
12% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the Bf109G-14 While I sincerely doubt you've actually calcualted this far, by dragging in field modification and unauthorized numbers for engine ratings at the 2,000hp figure for both planes you've neutered a 40% advantage in hp/lbs in favor of the 109, to a mere 20%. Basically, the larger the volume of exaggeration in available engine power, the smaller the gape between the P-38 and the 109 becomes.
You've clearly led the people to believe that the two planes had no real differences in the weight and thrust ratio, which in truth, is not.
"Lie"? I'm not one using unofficial, 'field mod' numbers.
Here's lie number two. The P-38's normal combat weight was nowhere near 17,500 pounds as you claim. By the time most P-38s would have reached combat, they would have weighed less than 16,000 pounds. 15,000 is not a great stretch (that's a P-38L with 25% internal fuel).
Riiiiiight.... So how's a P-38 over German skies gonna RTB with 25% fuel left?
The P-38 has 25% internal fuel left, it sees a 109, and will slam throttle forward and accelerate to combat/emergency power - subesquently maximizing its fuel consumption. It uses up about 10% additional fuel during the combat, and now it has to turn back and head gome with 15% internal left?
Or are you gonna start suggesting a very late-war scenario where the USAAF starts launching planes from inside of Germany, the P-38 remaining very close to the home base, burning 75% of its fuel doing nothing, and then meets a 109 somehow and shoots it down and returns home immediately in a 10 minute flight?
Besides, if the P-38s burn fuel en-route the target, the 109 also burns fuel waiting in position to intercept enemy fighters. This thing works both ways.
This is misleading. The Spitfire out-turned the Me-109 in spite of lower aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is one factor that improves turn, but it obviously is not the whole story.
But of course.
Yes, slats tighten the turn by raising the allowable angle of attack. However, the amount of lift generated is negligable, so they do not affect turn rate.
Oh, so now you suddenly use the term
"turn rate", as opposed to the generic term "turn", which we were both using, that implied a comparison in general turn performance which more or less involved the two planes' rivalry in the radius of the turn.
Before you start calling me a "liar" again, let's refresh our memory with some of your own wordswhen you first claimed that the P-38 "outturns" 109s in this thread;
So while the Me-109, due to its lower weight and higher drag, was better in the instantaneous turn, the P-38 would soon catch up and then surpass the 109 in sustained turning. Me-109 aces advocated scissors when fighting 38s, noting that the P-38 was capable of "appreciably tighter turns" and "out-turned [the 109] with ease."[/u].
With this established, I don't think you can escape from the fact that the situation you referred to as 'outturning' clearly indicates a superiority in turn
radius; two planes either at, or under, the corner speed, in a contest of turn maneuvering striving to achieve tightest turn possible.
A "turn" is a function of climb that a plane 'climbs into' the direction of the turn set by the bank angle. High AoA increases drag, which requires the plane to use additional thrust to overcome and successfully 'climb into' the specified direction. The slats do not provide lift, and therefore does not increase turn performance
per se.
However, it raises the CLmax of the given planform by a signifcant amount and therefore, enlarges its stall angle and allows a plane to maintain a higher AoA. Therefore, when a 109 starts turning, and the leading edge slats pop out, the plane can pull a higher AoA during the turn. The turn radius is tightened.
Add to that the use of 109's own flaps, relatively high advantage in weight/thrust ratio (which provides the plane with excess thrust can be used to overcome the high drag initiated by the higher AoA, which is made possible by the leading edge slats), and we have a plane that is everybit as capable as the P-38 when it comes to turns.
Question: So why would a 109, with its own set of advantages when it comes to tightening the turn radius, be inferior to the P-38?
Answer: It isn't inferior at all.
That's why you've crept back into the ambiguous realm of the
'turn rate', where so many dynamic factors work into the factor that it is almost impossible to directly compare a 'turn rate' of the plane during combat. In effect, you've backed out from the original (implied) claim that associated the turn radius of the two planes.
If it is any solace, many AH P-38 experts already utilizes various methods to gain superior turn rate according to various situations to outmaneuver the more tighter turning 109s with ease and grace.
I note that you don't accuse me of being un-objective, or wrong; you accuse me of being dishonest. I find this quite normal given your own complete lack of scruples when it comes to your own favorite ship. You compare me with Kurfurst? Bah! Whether or not I am right, or objective, I am not a liar.
According to my definition, withholding evidence, warping the context, or any other such attempts that manipulate people to believe something that is not right counts as "lying".
