A P-51 couldn't out turn a 109 or a 190 at the low speeds and altitude that the dogfights happen at in BoP. Problem in BoP with the Mustang is its too slow and loses energy far to easily in a turn. A mustang needs to stay fast to dogfight and BoP makes that very difficult. Even the speed gained from a dive bleeds off stupidly quickly by just flying straight and level. This is where the problem lies not in low speed turn radiuses.

Notice how they say the mustang uses it's tighter turning radius to it's advantage

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_u...?v=FXOCKEotmoU

Link isn't right or something. History channel programmes are not 100% acurate anyway (if that is what the video is)

Take a look at this forum thread about Il2 on PC http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/index.php?topic=7768.0
see the graphs to get an idea on how the Mustang could outperform a 109 and yet get stuck with its pants down when low and slow.

The later 109's were all about power, using brute force for performace. P-51s on the other hand were all about aerodynamics and low drag. Retaining as energy as much as posible. Birds of Prey dogfights award high power to weight ratio planes with draggy wings (thus high lift at low speed) far far more than an energy retention plane like the Mustang.

i get a kick out of these kinds of mathematical evaluations. its like quoting the statistics... you can make them work for you in just about any instance and prove what ever point you wish to contend. most of the times the planes they evaluate were not armored, fully armed for combat as designed, and carrying combat loads ( ammo, fuel, etc ) or were prototypes. when it comes down to matching things up on paper vs reality...shortly after that came the birth of the cliche "looked good on paper". many ac impressed engineers, designers, and buyers in blueprint from. but when the wheels came up and air went over the wings for the first time, the other famous cliche was spawned, " back to the drawing board". no one ever in their right mind tried to design an aircraft that was a dismal failure. but if you do a little research you will see where a vast amount never met the specs their designs boasted they would . some were salvaged by mods and upgrades others were scraped completely. i read one gentlemen's argument about turn radius and blah blah blah....all based on the 109s slats....of course if never dawned on him that pony jocks would dump 10 or 20 degrees of flaps at that speed...and all things were equal again ( and this data is missing in most of those graphs). i pretty much go with the "they who were there" evidence that many dismiss as biased. but these guys learned how to get the most out of their ac and found a few tricks ( designers and engineers never thought of ) to get a tad more and give them the edge when they needed it. here's a link to a ton of 51 pilot reports. scroll down thru the different headings...first is General Interest...then comments pertaining to: engine boost, dives, turns, use of combat flaps and finally the k-14 gunsite. i am sure somewhere someone will find ( and wish i could...i have looked) 109 pilots saying the same thing in reverse...but i have yet to see as many as this.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

Wow, cool link there bobby.

if you go the bottom of that page....there's a link to 47 jock reports as well. would love to find the same thing for RAF and LW pilots...god knows i have been looking.

:grin:Good airplanes are more important than superiority in numbers.

Is it possible to unlock the P-51 with red tip?