P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions

Good luck even getting German players to agree to play under allied numerical superiority.

 

Right now we can't even get the fight to happen at typical combat altitudes >.<

These are some of the main problems.

There ... you made me say *plethora*... dangnabbit.

Jefe...would you say I had a...plethora...of pinatas?

So you keep mentioning that in several threads now. What exactly are you referring to?

That these two aircraft will be objectively compared with each other within not too long a timeframe.

That these two aircraft will be objectively compared with each other within not too long a timeframe.

More details, please.

More details, please.

The details will come when they are compiled ;)

Yeah, let's take 2 planes that will definitely be unarmed, most likely not flown at full power and compare them as the definite proof of war time performance.

Yeah, let's take 2 planes that will definitely be unarmed, most likely not flown at full power and compare them as the definite proof of war time performance.

Why I asked for details. TF-51D's that fly around nowadays are much lighter and faster, feature slower stalling and landing speeds due to no ammo, center fuel tank and armament (and no ammunition that weighs significantly).

If one was to do a proper test, then these bad boys need to be armed and set up in war time condition.

Yeah, let's take 2 planes that will definitely be unarmed, most likely not flown at full power and compare them as the definite proof of war time performance.

Not in terms of top speed or climb rates perhaps, but we'll get to see how they stack up in terms of maneuverability at different speeds..

Also they will likely have their guns (albeit inoperable), and maybe ballast in place of ammunition.

Thus conditions will obviously be the same for both aircraft (as in earlier comparisons), so they will experience the same drop or increase in performance in the various areas as compared to their wartime representatives.

Not in terms of top speed or climb rates perhaps, but we'll get to see how they stack up in terms of maneuverability at different speeds..

 

Also they will likely have their guns (albeit inoperable), and maybe ballast in place of ammunition.

 

Thus conditions will obviously be the same for both aircraft (as in earlier comparisons), so they will experience the same drop or increase in performance in the various areas as compared to their wartime representatives.

Yeah, and who will do this test?

Why I asked for details. TF-51D's that fly around nowadays are much lighter and faster, feature slower stalling and landing speeds due to no ammo, center fuel tank and armament (and no ammunition that weighs significantly).

 

If one was to do a proper test, then these bad boys need to be armed and set up in war time condition.

Thing is that in earlier comparisons these birds were stacked up against Buchons which were armed (the weapons obviously being inoperable) and differed very little in weight from the wartime 109's..

Not only does not using full power useless for comparison-------you cannot even get 130 grade, much less 150 grade fuel for these tests. Even if you wanted to.

Useless? Hardly.

It will tell us a lot about the relative manueverability of the aircraft and what the airframe alone is capable of. For example what aircraft has the highest ITR and/or roll rate at specific speeds, etc., from this data the sustained performance will be rather easily calculated. The opportunity to accurately measure stalling speeds with gps equipment will also be there.

And who will do all these?

And who will do all these?

Some of the people who have access to and fly these aircraft obviously, the question is more about what aircraft it will be.

Useless? Hardly.

 

It will tell us a lot about the relative manueverability of the aircraft and what the airframe alone is capable of. For example what aircraft has the highest ITR and/or roll rate at specific speeds, etc., from this data the sustained performance will be rather easily calculated. The opportunity to accurately measure stalling speeds with gps equipment will also be there.

No it is completely useless.

You sit on here and whine to us about how every allied test is rubbish because of this and that conidtion----190 Jabo, Allies supposedly not using slats correctly, planes not being in optimal condtion etc etc. Yet you suddenly modern tests being done with incorrect fuel, power settings etc is supposed to mean something? What is more, test pilots during the war would have alot more motiviation to actually push these planes to the limits than civilian pilots would. The turn testing we have, regardless of what nation it comes from. already has many questions attached to it regarding the methods used and state of test machines. You really think that some civilian pilots are going to unnecessarily risk their necks to provide us all with perfect data even if they had the fuel and planes to do it? Much of the reason that pilots on both sides claimed turn superiority over enemy planes was due to the fact that in a low altitude dogfight most of the planes during the war were close enough to each other in performance that it didnt matter. The reason it didnt matter was because to actually get the mathematically limited performance of the plane you have to be dancing a very fine line between a sustained turn and crashing into the ground-----this all while changing maneuvers and doing other things in combat. In real combat you DIE if you screw up a turn 300 ft off the ground. There are VERY GOOD REASONS that Air-force tests pilots are considered to have a very dangerous job. No civilian pilot is going to do the repeated and precise testing needed for this because it could very well get him killed. Just look at mach number testing! The sort of things pilots did in those dive tests were very dangerous and many people got killed in flight testing in general, not just compression dives. People did those things then because they were fighting a WAR. Nonone is going to do them now with 3 million dollar machines with fuel they cannot obtain and lives they cannot get back...just so we can have a more accurate understanding of air combat 75 years ago.

Sorry but you're the only one who seems to be whining atm ArkRoyal, otherwise you wouldn't get so emotional on the subject.

A pilot doesn't have to risk his life to test certain flight envelope limits of an aircraft, esp. not limits which are easily and safely tested when the proper precautions are taken. Flight envelopes that can be safely tested with sufficient altitude include minimum radius turns and max ITR, as well as stalls both level and accelerated.

Let's stick with facts and not emotions.

Will anything useful come out of this discussion? The last few pages suggest otherwise. If you guys insist on this pointless back and forth, this thread will get closed shortly.

Sorry but you're the only one who seems to be whining atm ArkRoyal, otherwise you wouldn't get so emotional on the subject.

 

A pilot doesn't have to risk his life to test certain flight envelope limits of an aircraft, esp. not limits which are easily and safely tested when the proper precautions are taken. Flight envelopes that can be safely tested with sufficient altitude include minimum radius turns and max ITR, as well as stalls both level and accelerated.

 

Let's stick with facts and not emotions.

What on earth are you talking about.......no one is being emotional.

The pilots I know who fly these planes say otherwise about the dangers of min radius turn tests.

@Hummingbird. Nobody would do that, those planes are under protection. They are not going to make any tests. Please stop derailing this thread.

@Hummingbird. Nobody would do that, those planes are under protection. They are not going to make any tests. Please stop derailing this thread.

False, mock dogfights (and flight characteristic tests, such as stalling behavior in various flight envelopes) have already been carried multiple times before by modern pilots, albeit not at war emergency power, and for good reasons.

You see the no.1 concern when operating these old birds to preserve the engine, because that is the one part which atm can't be readily replaced or reproduced. The airframes on the other hand are as strong as ever, and need to be in order for the aircraft to even get clearance to fly. Hence pulling 5+ G's can be done without worry in these old aircraft, and it's been done many times before and is still done today.

In short don't kid yourselves with all sorts excuses for why such a test (or previous ones) by modern pilots would be inconclusive.

Keep in mind that pilots today are in general A LOT better trained, both in aircraft operation as well as in the laws of physics & aerodynamics than they were back in the day, and this even more true for the select few who are granted the permission to fly these old birds. (Look up Skip Holm or Mark Hanna's resumé if in doubt)