Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaston
No he wasn't: He had ONE doubtfull P-51 encounter that was likely with similar-looking (and maybe performing in sustained turns) P-40s...
|
Similar-looking P-40s?! Have you seen those two aircraft? They couldn't be harder to misidentify if you tried. Let's look at the features which jump out at a pilot when he's identifying an aircraft type...P-40 - round wingtips, P-51 - square wingtips, P-40 - deep, rounded rudder and tailplane, P-51 - tall square rudder and square tailplane, P-40 - deep chin radiator, P-51 - belly radiator....the list just goes on. Really the only similarities between these aircraft are the armament and the cockpit (possibly). Unless you count the fact that they are both American-built single-engined fighter aircraft as a similarity. In any case, where would he encounter US P-40s? Unless you're suggesting he was colourblind as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaston
Nearly ALL his encounters were with Soviet-built fighters, and that was certainly the intended context... Soviet types are NOT poor low-speed fighters...
|
Most of them
are poor low speed turnfighters. The Yak series aircraft weren't bad but they were definitely very much more comfortable at slightly higher speeds, the MiG-3 was poor, and the Lavochkins were a touch better or worse, entirely depending on who you ask! All subject to differences in pilot skill, of course. The main difference is that none of these aircraft had high-lift devices as the 109 did, so they were nowhere near as docile and controllable near the stall and the training of Soviet pilots was unequivocally poor, so there's not a great deal of point in considering combat reports as some kind of bible in this case particularly.
As for your favourite quote:
"I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."
Does it say that he could turn better? No. It says "equally well". No doubt he could, if the enemy aircraft took the bait and decided to follow him into a really low-speed turn rather than using any kind of vertical aspect. Not many rookie pilots would have considered air-fighting in a very 3-dimensional manner, I'd imagine. All that you seem to have achieved via Karhila's quote is to highlight the utility of the high-lift devices the 109 was fitted with, which was not in question to begin with. If that was what maximised his turn-rate advantage, he'd use it. At the end of the day, why do you think he says "they
usually applied full power and then began to turn"?
Essentially it comes down to a question:
Do you think that every other pilot apart from Karhila is a moron?
The only way you can draw a universal trend from your one explicit anecdote about throttle settings during turns (that turning at super-low throttle settings is GRRRRRREAT!) is if you answer this question with 'Yes'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaston
You guys are too much fun...
|
You're really boring. You've got a couple of anecdotes that say what you want to say if interpreted REALLY narrowly and with prior intent to find the meaning you want in REALLY specific situations that cannot be used to derive any kind of universal trend, and that kind of cherry-picking reaaallly doesn't account for the differences in pilot skill and aircraft condition that affect an aircraft's turning performance, does it? There are big gaps in your information, for example, in the Hanseman report, he doesn't say how much he decreases the throttle setting, does he? It could be as little as 0.5-1" Hg, so that he could maintain a comfortable position pulling the stick and still get down to the best sustained turn speed for the aircraft's condition (which would be rather lower once he'd dropped flaps). If the 109 pilot failed to follow suit with the flaps it's very possible that the P-51 could out-turn it at low speed, especially given that Hanseman was a relatively well-trained and experienced pilot - notice that the 109s didn't even notice him until he'd opened fire on the landing aircraft, clearly the creme-de-la-creme. You really do never consider the human factors involved, do you? That's why you can't use combat reports as a guide to an aircraft's performance, because the pilot makes such a difference that there are reports of such-and-such an aircraft out-turning one type on one occasion and not on another all over the place in combat reports.
I notice you didn't reply to the section of my post about pulling Gs and pulling against control forces for extended periods of time, like you never do on any occasion when you can't answer a point. The annoying thing is, you'll bring up the same load of tripe in a later post as if no one has ever answered it before.