PDA

View Full Version : 109 vs P-51/Spit: The truth about turning performance (among other truths)



JG27_Arklight
10-27-2004, 01:44 AM
http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/movies/EAA_Interviews.wmv


Doesn't get much better then that.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

reload2000
10-27-2004, 01:58 AM
Aint that the dam truth! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Doesn't get much better then that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-27-2004, 02:01 AM
Ray Hanna says the same thing over the LA-9 vrs the Bearcat (both of which he has flowen multiple times)

but that video holds no surprises really , except for the plane fans , really makes me L-O-L over some people , they should watch it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kaesebrot.
10-27-2004, 02:42 AM
Ohhh i see where this is going, it´s goin to end up nasty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LeOs.K-Ande
10-27-2004, 03:11 AM
You is wrong. Be sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

123-Wulf-JG123
10-27-2004, 03:27 AM
Here's my thread from SimHQ inspired by this thread:
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=013198;p=



IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG27_Arklight
10-27-2004, 03:39 AM
As long as this thread doesn't turn into some lame *** arguement then it shouldn't be locked.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2004, 05:03 AM
Well, I think Skip's assertions should be taken with a grain of salt... He seems too comfortable treating speculations like they are hard and fast knowledge (for example, the whole exchange about the game project manager who deliberately wants to skew the game against the Germans).

Furthermore, Skip claims that the SpitIX and SpitV are essentially the "same" but I'm pretty darn sure that the V was a much better turn fighter than the IX, being a lot lighter.

Moreover, Skip says he's "flown" the Spit, but what does that mean? He took it up for some touch-n-go's once? Unless he went at it hard side-by-side with the 109, it's very hard to trust whether his judgement is colored by faulty recollection, preconceptions, or aesthetic bias.

I would be more inclined to believe their words regarding the comparison of the P51 with the 109G because they apparently have flown them numerous times together so that the comparison was clearly demonstrated by straight evidence rather than speculative judgement.

Cajun76
10-27-2004, 06:33 AM
I think "truth" in this case is highly subjective. What speed? What alt? Flaps or not? There's little question that the 109 is a better low speed turner than a P-51. High speed is where the P-51 shines. Additionally, I highly doubt those pilots are taking their rides to the limit, high speed (and G) manuevers, reversals and the like. It's entirely possible, based on how thier likely flying these old, valuable warbirds, that the 109 is more manueverable at these speeds than the P-51. However, in a combat situation, things may be quite different if the P-51 is using his superior speed against the 109s better low speed turn and acceleration.

I could use Bud Anderson's oft quoted first chapter of his book to show him describe his engagment with a 109, but it's really not nessasary. Thses guys are talking about their experiances flying old warbirds around airshows. That's fine. A combat engagement with young fighter pilots pushing their machines to the limit because there's no tomorrow is another matter. Both a/c have thier strong pionts, and I'm not slamming the 109, but using these guys observations as "truth" is stretching it quite a bit, imho. Good vid, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Frequent_Flyer
10-27-2004, 07:25 AM
Most interviews with veteran (German and American) fighter pilots themselves, the ones that fought each other in combat, where the winner goes home and the loser at best takes to his chute will quip" at high altitude the P-51 was unquestionably king" Never having flown in combat, I will guess that any aircraft that is comming out of the sun at a higher altitude and on your six, with ammunition in its guns is the one I want to be in!!!!!

JG7_SITH
10-27-2004, 08:07 AM
FYI, Skip Holm (the 2nd guy) has been flying warbirds and especially P51's at the Reno Air Races for YEARS.

JG14_Josf
10-27-2004, 08:36 AM
JG7_SITH,

Thanks for that note. I thought the interview might have been a hoax.

Personally I'll tend to put more value in the word of a pilot with flight time over a game player with charts.

To me its like asking an HMO insurance agent how best to treat a life threatening injury. It's better to go to a doctor, someone with hands on experience.

The interview, if genuine, is a pilots opinion.

Where did the information found on most of the charts originate; flight recorders?

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 09:12 AM
Please use this link:

EAA Interviews (http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/movies/EAA_Interviews_Low.wmv)

Its smaller and easier on my host

-wound

muHamad-ALi
10-27-2004, 10:57 AM
This guy is obviously some sort of psuedo-historian. Everyone knows that the allies, and namely the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the most powerful and dominate country in the world) won the war through superior planes and piloting.

Snoop_Baron
10-27-2004, 12:09 PM
"The spitfire retains energy like 100 times more than the 109" ... Sounds like some of the 109 whiners on this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So what have we learned from this video that the 109 turns better at slow speeds (open slats) than a P51 and that it climbs better than a P51, that is true in this sim and I don't think it is controversial.

And that these guys think that some model 109s should be able to match or almost match some model Spits. This is also true in the sim, just don't fly the heavy 109s.

s!

skabbe
10-27-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
This guy is obviously some sort of psuedo-historian. Everyone knows that the allies, and namely the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the most powerful and dominate country in the world) won the war through superior planes and piloting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm, wonder where you live? azerbajdzjan? no?

x6BL_Brando
10-27-2004, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(the most powerful and dominate country in the world <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, Cr@p spelling or Freudian slip I wonder?

CAP401
10-27-2004, 03:12 PM
I'll step in for muHamad-ALI here:

Let's not make thsi a bashing America thread please. You don't like the politics, start a thread on another forum to express your opinion. Although there are plently of European players here(many of which I respect and I have nothing against Europe) I am an American and so are a lot of other people here. Many of which could kick you a$$ in the virtual air. That's all. Just please be a little bit more considerite to other people's nationalities. American or other.

P.S. muHAMAD, I'm not flaming you for "waving the flag" but you'll find that will attract flames so be careful. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BuzzU
10-27-2004, 03:54 PM
To bad more 109's didn't survive. It would be interesting to see how they'd do at Reno against the P-51.

El Turo
10-27-2004, 04:01 PM
Deja Vu! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cross-post:

Anecdotal recollections are neat-o, but more or less useless in determining and making a universally final statement on which machine "turns" better than the other.

In the end, it is the pilot, and not the machine, that would have determined which plane "turned better" or was "more manueverable" in WWII combat. You can find plenty of anecdotes that describe how easy it was for Spitfire pilots to turn inside of 109s and you can find plenty of anecdotes about German pilots remarking at how superiorly manueverable their rides were compared to their Allied counterparts... when these planes were reasonably similar in performance in most regards that it nearly ALWAYS came down to pilot skill and ability than anything else.

Beyond this, all we can do is go by NACA charts and use our limited computer-simulated environments to try and weakly recreate what it was like to be a WWII-era pilot and share in the love of aviation and experience it with each other.

The rest of the bias-brigade horse-poo is just that.. a big pile of meaningless hot air.

WUAF_Badsight
10-27-2004, 04:16 PM
& when exactly was the P-51's laminar flow wings supposed to have dominant low speed , high AoA turning ability

excuse me while i L-O-L at the joke Pony that we have in FB

Karaya1VFA-25
10-27-2004, 05:09 PM
the video was done by a player(wound) from wwiionline.
here is the original thread:
http://discussions.playnet.com/viewtopic.php?t=124790&sid=7428e7bdc7c0cb1768049abcb760daea
The spit is pretty nutty in that game lol.

El Turo
10-27-2004, 06:02 PM
Actually, the opposite is true. The 109 is completely porked, as is the P39 because of a severe flight model issue with lateral stability. You have to actually limit the travel/throw of your rudder in the keymapper/joystick-settings or you will flip-flop all over the sky when using rudder.

But, the ignorant and uninformed insist on witch-hunting the completely incorrect monster.. which not only lets CRS off the hook but does absolutely nothing towards fixing the real problem in the FM/Physics loop.

Regards,

~T.

FI_Willie
10-27-2004, 07:54 PM
While those guys are telling their side of what they now fly, I wonder how things stacked up in WWII with a fully loaded bird. Perhaps a bird that wasn't completley trimmed and had gap seal problems from the constant battering of use. Planes that were used to the max most of their lives.

I suppose comparing two prima donna examples against each other could be pretty representative of what the types are capable of.

I'm also reasonably certain that very few of the WWII planes were ever in "perfect" shape after 2 or 3 missions.

I do envy those guys. The closest thing to a WWII fighter I've ever flown was a Stearman ( about 25 hours total). It was a hoot but, with that old Lycoming and that wooden prop ( Navy version), it weren't no fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mortoma
10-28-2004, 09:02 AM
The guys in that movie are a couple of old farts that may or may not be able to fly the P-51 correctly, so I don't give what they say much credence at all. A couple of old farts who have flown GA aircraft most of their lives can hardly be good judges of the utmost capability of a Mustang. For one thing, there's a huge difference between being someone who can just fly a Mustang and someone who was an ace pilot in Mustangs in the actual war. There was a case after the war of some dude that was transitioning to fighters ( P-51 ) after a career flying big transport types. He was on a ferry flight and he was "jumped" by a guy in the same flight who was an ace fighter jock during the war. They then continued in mock combat and of course the wartime fighter ace as able to fly circles around the newbie. After the flight the newbie fighter pilot told the ace that he just didn't understand it, he couldn't get his Mustang to turn at all hardly while the ace was able to totally outmaneuver him. The ace told him "Son, you know how to fly a P-51, to get it in he air and fly it around, but I'm a real fighter pilot, there's a difference." I'd venture to say that a couple of old farts that have flown Cessnas more than anything are not even close to fighter pilots. They only know how to fly a P-51 around and get it in the air, they don't know how to fight in it or get it to turn very well. Put Chuck Yeager, even as old as he is, in that same P-51 and I bet he could stay right with the 109G, maybe even teach him a lesson. Why? Because he was an real fighter pilot that was an ace in P-51s, not just someone who can "fly a Mustang around". I just doubt the capabilites of those old guys at EAA. The facts are facts, the P-51D could turn a 20 to 22 second turn. Good pilots proved it, both test pilots and fighter jocks. That makes it a medium turner which is better than what the guys in the film say and 20, 21 seconds puts it in nearly the same league as any Bf-106G. They just don't know how to get it to turn at it's maximum due to lack of skill. Maybe it don't turn well for them but the ace fighter jocks in the war could get them to turn and turn pretty good. But it's probably not easy to get a Mustang to turn well, that's the point!!! Maybe the old farts think it should be easy? Never tried hard enough because they were scared to push it?? These guys in the film are the equivalent of the newbie guy who was used to flying big transport planes. That's all it is........lol!!!! You gotta laugh at old guys like that!!! Everyone thinks they're a fighter jock!!

mortoma
10-28-2004, 09:10 AM
Two old American business men can't get a Mustang to turn very well and that constitutes proof to all you anti-american, anti-mustang people!! It doesn't take much "proof", does it?? People who had their minds made up already are easy to convince..ha ha!! I'd say it's likely that the 109 is only easier to turn and that the P-51 requires more effort and is "scarier" to turn, which is why they have not been able to get it to turn. I'm a Cessna pilot and I must confess that I'd be scared to get in a real Mustang and try to turn it as hard as it can possibly be turned!! I'd be nervous as hell!!!

mnemeth1
10-28-2004, 10:07 AM
Skip Holm races P-51's professionally and has won at numerous air races.

He is also a test pilot.

To call them old farts who can't fly is LOL funny.

Go look up "Skip Holm" on google and watch what comes back at you.

Boandlgramer
10-28-2004, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mortoma:
Put Chuck Yeager, even as old as he is, in that same P-51 and I bet he could stay right with the 109G, maybe even teach him a lesson. QUOTE]


remember me on my old signatur . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

" The first Time i ever saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down.
Petrosillius Zwackelmann ( Held ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

skabbe
10-28-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CAP401:
I'll step in for muHamad-ALI here:

Let's not make thsi a bashing America thread please. You don't like the politics, start a thread on another forum to express your opinion. Although there are plently of European players here(many of which I respect and I have nothing against Europe) I am an American and so are a lot of other people here. Many of which could kick you a$$ in the virtual air. That's all. Just please be a little bit more considerite to other people's nationalities. American or other.

P.S. muHAMAD, I'm not flaming you for "waving the flag" but you'll find that will attract flames so be careful. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe i really tried to not sound disrespectful, but it sounded a bit weird... like US and their p51 cleard up europe... the thing i like with the IL-2 games is russia got some credit for the first time. remeber 1.5 millon americans died, 1.5 millon english people died, and more then 25 millon russians, no dots between 2 and 5 there... ok the END of that silly subject.
and
bf109 outturnd spit in low speed, and low speed those guys flyed