comparing

[BnZs]

Been working with Mosq's turn data, the weights of the planes as tested as given by the game in hangar, and the wing areas of planes.
The P-51B as tested had a wing loading of 36.7 pounds/foot. The P-47D-11 had a wing loading of 39.7 pounds/foot. The F4U-1 as tested had a wing loading of of 35.5 pounds foot. The Fw-190A5 as tested had a wing loading of 41.4 pounds/foot.

Their wing loading ranked from least to greatest
F4U-1   35.5
P-51B   36.7
P-47D   39.7
190      41.4

Their turn radii listed ranked from least to greatest:

F4U-1   710 feet.
P47D11 726 feet
P51B    769  feet
Fw190  789  feet

[GScholz]

And their power loading?

At high AoA the P-51's laminar flow wing is less effective than the more conventional wing profiles of these other fighters. Must be it.

[GScholz]

Among AH planes, the D-11 is not the odd man out when it comes to turn performance in relation to these physical parameters, the P-51 is.

I've already posted a video of two gentlemen who fly both the P-51D and the 109G, and who say that the 109 turns better. The 109's and P-51's in-game performance seems to agree with this.

[GScholz]

Wing loading is a meaningless parameter unless you also know how much lift each wing produces for any given area. As you can see in the chart above, a laminar flow wing like the NACA-64(1)-212 performs poorly at high AoA (alpha) compared to other wing profiles. The NACA 23012 is very similar to the S-3 airfoil used on the P-47, and the NACA 2412 looks similar to NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil of the 109.

You can see how the lift coefficient drops of sharply at 11 degrees AOA while the other profiles continue generating more lift beyond 15 degrees. Also the laminar flow wing produces more drag than the other wing profiles beyond 11 degrees.

With the automatic slats the 109's wing could achieve AoA of 19 degrees (20 with flaps) and a Cl of more than 2 which would bring its curve beyond the top on that chart. This is why the 109 was such a good turner despite the high wing loading. Every sq.ft. of wing area on the 109 could produce one-third more lift than a sq.ft. of the P-51's wing. The trade-off is more drag at high speed, which is why the 109 isn't as fast as a P-51 at the same power despite being smaller and lighter.

While the laminar flow wing of the P-51 gave it great speed and range, it didn't help it in the slow turn fight.

[BnZs]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,257158.msg3187610.html#msg3187610

"NACA Report 829 states and clearly demonstrates that the P-51B, due to the extremely smooth and clean design of the wing, has a slightly higher Coefficient of Lift than the F4U-1A. This is when both wings are in "service condition". Moreover, the P-51B hits its max CL at a greater angle of attack than the Corsair. Why did the Corsair out-turn the P-51B in Navy comparison testing? Lower wing loading and the fact that the F4U had its wings taped (sealed), without which, its CLmax drops substantially due to intra-surface leakage.

The P-51B has a CLmax virtually identical to the P-47D, and a lower wing loading.... In the real world, the P-51B could handily out-turn a P-47D. This makes sense as turn radius is basically determined by the weight load carried by the wing divided by the wing's efficiency at lifting the load. In the game (clean condition), the P-47D-11 turns smaller circles than the P-51B, with the P-47D-40 nipping at the Mustang's heels. If you take the lesser ammo load in the Jug (which was what was usually loaded for combat in the 8th AF), it matches the P-51B."
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf

(Image removed from quote.)

Wing loading is a meaningless parameter unless you also know how much lift each wing produces for any given area. As you can see in the chart above, a laminar flow wing like the NACA-64(1)-212 performs poorly at high AoA (alpha) compared to other wing profiles. The NACA 23012 is very similar to the S-3 airfoil used on the P-47, and the NACA 2412 looks similar to NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil of the 109.

You can see how the lift coefficient drops of sharply at 11 degrees AOA while the other profiles continue generating more lift beyond 15 degrees. Also the laminar flow wing produces more drag than the other wing profiles beyond 11 degrees.

With the automatic slats the 109's wing could achieve AoA of 19 degrees (20 with flaps) and a Cl of more than 2 which would bring its curve beyond the top on that chart. This is why the 109 was such a good turner despite the high wing loading. Every sq.ft. of wing area on the 109 could produce one-third more lift than a sq.ft. of the P-51's wing. The trade-off is more drag at high speed, which is why the 109 isn't as fast as a P-51 at the same power despite being smaller and lighter.

While the laminar flow wing of the P-51 gave it great speed and range, it didn't help it in the slow turn fight.

[BnZs]

I've already posted a video of two gentlemen who fly both the P-51D and the 109G, and who say that the 109 turns better. The 109's and P-51's in-game performance seems to agree with this.

Which is relevant to two gents flying a 109 and a P-51 not in WWII, and also *possibly* 109 vs. P-51 in WWII. However, it is NOT relevant to the relative turn performance of the P-51 and P-47, a matter in which Allied pilots universally agree the 51 had the edge. I assume you trust that their observations are equally valid?

 And at least one Axis pilot:
"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."

Basically to make you're argument, you have to say that Allied pilots who flew P-51s and Jugs and noted that Mustangs turn better were in fact incorrect, as were German pilots who fought both and noted that the Mustang was more formidable in a maneuvering fight. Somehow they got it all wrong...

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, a 190A pilot knew to avoid going in slow circles with SpitVs...but somehow when it came down to P-51s and Jugs, pilots on both sides had a blind spot.

[BnZs]

And their power loading?

At high AoA the P-51's laminar flow wing is less effective than the more conventional wing profiles of these other fighters. Must be it.

The P-47D-11 has a worse power loading than the P-51B, moreover it is modeled with the toothpick as opposed to paddle prop, which costs low end thrust.

[Changeup]

Jeebus!  Are we there yet?

[BnZs]

Jeebus!  Are we there yet?

You'll have to forgive me and the other guy for throwing math and charts at each other instead of "DWEEB! PWNED! SPYZ DA!"-Some folks are weird like that

[GScholz]

Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter. I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.

[Wiley]

Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter. I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.

On the one hand, I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable question to ask.  On the other hand, when it comes to FM stuff the fine, miniscule details seem to make all the difference.  Without ironclad math, anything people say is pretty much meaningless.  I have no idea what the math looks like though.  Just wanted to point that out.

Wiley.

[LCADolby]

In 1996 Ferrari used maths and a wind tunnel to determine how to build their car. The figures where phenomenal, based solely on that the car they thought was going to be an epic car and a winner straight out of the box with a double floor sidepod. Even with Schumacher at the wheel the car was a complete dog.

This was a lesson where practical application out does charts and maths.

[BnZs]

Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter.

A NACA report refuting the contention that the P-51 performance in AHII can be explained by low ClMax is hardly a "straw".

 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.

I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.

Quite true. Has he flown both a P-51B and a P-47D-11 at War Emergency Power settings to compare best sustained turn radius?

I have flown a Cessna 175 (yes, the 175, not 172), does this give me implicit knowledge about its tightest possible turning radius in square feet or its relative turning radius versus all other aircraft?

However, I am not at all sure that the P-51 in the game should be changed. It is already the most popular aircraft, and a little more performance could make things truly ridiculous.

[BnZs]

In 1996 Ferrari used maths and a wind tunnel to determine how to build their car. The figures where phenomenal, based solely on that the car they thought was going to be an epic car and a winner straight out of the box with a double floor sidepod. Even with Schumacher at the wheel the car was a complete dog.

This was a lesson where practical application out does charts and maths.

This is a good point, but of course it cuts both ways-The possibility that calculated performance can be wrong also exists when the calculations are being done by a desktop computer program. 

[Vinkman]

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.