Discussion
Geneve said:
I was always fascinated by the Junkers 87 - the Stuka dive bomber. Apparently pilots could withstand 8.5g for 3 seconds before passing out.
IIRC the Stuka had an automatic dive recovery system so the aeroplane would pull out whether the pilot was conscious or not. Well it had an automatic bomb release system anyway.Fully understand that G-Suits wern't around at this time. Just interested to know which aircraft could load up more and still handle.
The Spit is supposed to be a better turning fighter, where as the 109 had a faster climb. The early Spits couldn't push -ve due to the Merlin having carbs, the 109 of course was FI.
The P51 had to use the rear tank first due to flicking out when pulling G's and so on and so forth.
The whole subject interest me somewhat hence the original question!
PS I was also under the impression that the Stuka had an auto recover system.
The Spit is supposed to be a better turning fighter, where as the 109 had a faster climb. The early Spits couldn't push -ve due to the Merlin having carbs, the 109 of course was FI.
The P51 had to use the rear tank first due to flicking out when pulling G's and so on and so forth.
The whole subject interest me somewhat hence the original question!
PS I was also under the impression that the Stuka had an auto recover system.
A quick Google threw this up www.spitfireperformance.com. I've had a quick dip into some of the resources, but didn't spot a turn plot. Plenty of other performance and handling analyses though, including comparisons with Me109 - by both British and German pilots.
It rather depends what you are actually asking; instantaneous G or sustained G?
For an a/c to carry out a maximum performance turn you need to be puling the maximum G dictated by the strength of the airframe, at a speed at which the wing is producing the maximum amount of lift; ie at the light buffet just pre-stall. Any slower and the a/c will enter an accelerated stall (and probably enter auto-rotation), any faster and you will be limited by the airframe strength (ie you will hit the G limit before you get to max lift so the turn will be wider).
Note: Wing Loading is a determining factor here because it dictates the basic stall speed of a Clean wing.
The difference between Instantaneous G and Sustained G is dictated by the amount of thrust available.
For example, a JP5A had a G limit of 6G which you could easily exceed by 'snatching', however the lack of available thrust would mean that the a/c would rapidly slow down meaning that the G pulled would reduce. If you allowed the a/c to descend then you could easily sustain a 5.5G turn. In level flight, however, the most you'd get was around 4.5G.
Given that the JP5A's performance was similar to a late model Merlin Spitfire, I would imagine that WW2 fighters would be similar in respect of Sustained G capability.
Having said that, WW2 fighters were not limited to the use of Fatigue Index like modern a/c, so in terms of instantaneous G pulled I would imagine it was way above 6G, especially given the fact that it didn't really matter if you bent the a/c (as long as you got home). As an example Richard Turner states in his book 'Mustang Pilot' that, having dived after a Me109 and having seen the 109 shed its wings, he put 4 inch ripples in the skin of his P51's wings upon pulling out!
For an a/c to carry out a maximum performance turn you need to be puling the maximum G dictated by the strength of the airframe, at a speed at which the wing is producing the maximum amount of lift; ie at the light buffet just pre-stall. Any slower and the a/c will enter an accelerated stall (and probably enter auto-rotation), any faster and you will be limited by the airframe strength (ie you will hit the G limit before you get to max lift so the turn will be wider).
Note: Wing Loading is a determining factor here because it dictates the basic stall speed of a Clean wing.
The difference between Instantaneous G and Sustained G is dictated by the amount of thrust available.
For example, a JP5A had a G limit of 6G which you could easily exceed by 'snatching', however the lack of available thrust would mean that the a/c would rapidly slow down meaning that the G pulled would reduce. If you allowed the a/c to descend then you could easily sustain a 5.5G turn. In level flight, however, the most you'd get was around 4.5G.
Given that the JP5A's performance was similar to a late model Merlin Spitfire, I would imagine that WW2 fighters would be similar in respect of Sustained G capability.
Having said that, WW2 fighters were not limited to the use of Fatigue Index like modern a/c, so in terms of instantaneous G pulled I would imagine it was way above 6G, especially given the fact that it didn't really matter if you bent the a/c (as long as you got home). As an example Richard Turner states in his book 'Mustang Pilot' that, having dived after a Me109 and having seen the 109 shed its wings, he put 4 inch ripples in the skin of his P51's wings upon pulling out!
Ok, lets go about this a slightly different way then.
My understanding is that a Spit could out turn a 109, (Probably a bit of a generalization due to upgrades and mods as both marques were improved, but go with it!). So did the 109 out perform the Spit in any area? Did the P51 out perform either?
For the sake of this discussion, weapons are to be ignored as I'm under the impression for example that the 8 Browning's fitted to the A wing of the Spit were no match for the cannon fitted to the 109. Like wise the P51 was fitted with 6 .5 cal guns which could throw a pretty hefty amount of lead. Therefore flight characteristics only please!
As for instant or sustained loadings, lets go for both!
My understanding is that a Spit could out turn a 109, (Probably a bit of a generalization due to upgrades and mods as both marques were improved, but go with it!). So did the 109 out perform the Spit in any area? Did the P51 out perform either?
For the sake of this discussion, weapons are to be ignored as I'm under the impression for example that the 8 Browning's fitted to the A wing of the Spit were no match for the cannon fitted to the 109. Like wise the P51 was fitted with 6 .5 cal guns which could throw a pretty hefty amount of lead. Therefore flight characteristics only please!
As for instant or sustained loadings, lets go for both!
iiyama said:
My understanding is that a Spit could out turn a 109, (Probably a bit of a generalization due to upgrades and mods as both marques were improved, but go with it!). So did the 109 out perform the Spit in any area? Did the P51 out perform either?
Without getting books out, Me109 had better armament (at least to start with) and had fuel injection so it could dive straight down under -ve G (whereas the carburettor in a Merlin required you to roll first). P51's big claim to fame was immense range.But in combat there are many variables, one of which sometimes forgotten in our 21st century love of 'tech' is the pilot. Generally you play to your own strengths and try to know what the other guy is capable of - for example don't try to out-dive a P47 etc.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
As an example Richard Turner states in his book 'Mustang Pilot' that, having dived after a Me109 and having seen the 109 shed its wings, he put 4 inch ripples in the skin of his P51's wings upon pulling out!
I think it's in Pierre Closterman's book The Big Show where it's mentioned a Spit pilot doing similar to catch a Me262 unawares. The book states the Spit was scrapped upon landing back at base. He got the Me262 as well IIRC.Max_Torque said:
Ok, parallel if slight OT question: How large were the control forces to pull those kinds of airframe bending maneuvers? i.e. other than just G rejection, how physical did the pilot have to be to pull big G in those kinds of fighters?
Most if not all WWII fighters controls were heavy enough to be almost immobile at high speed.
PeteS2k,
That website - www.spitfireperformance.com. - has some fascinating information for anyone interested in WW2 aircraft performance and air-to-air combat reports. I've spent several hours totally immersed, slightly to the annoyance of Mrs Max!
Sorry for thread drift :-)
That website - www.spitfireperformance.com. - has some fascinating information for anyone interested in WW2 aircraft performance and air-to-air combat reports. I've spent several hours totally immersed, slightly to the annoyance of Mrs Max!
Sorry for thread drift :-)
AER said:
I think Galloping Ghost tells you all you need to know. I seem to recall reports that suggested it was pulling 10-11g. Certainly enough to extend the tailwheel and make the pilot disappear. It didn't break up until it hit the ground, with tragic consequences.
Although having read up on it, the high G was not induced by the pilot but by sudden loss of a control surface.The missing factor is speed. At low speed the pilot can pull enough G himself to black out but the airframe will be OK. At high speed he can't do that due to the fast airflow over the control surfaces, but the airframe can break up due to that speed. Option 3, suddenly removing a control surface at high speed can give both. So sometimes the pilot is the limiting factor, sometimes the airframe.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff