Still not convinced with 4.10 Seafire FM.

[Former_Older]

I'd be curious to read the definition of "maneuverable" as defined by people in this thread.

Not a condemnation, just wondering if we are all talking about the same thing.

[SEE]

I don't think anyone has defined it as such but an interesting question that I would have to really think hard about before attempting to answer. At the most basic defintion I suppose 'how easy (or the reluctance) to move into various or different positions'. Pretty sure there may be very different interpretations from flying enthusiasts, particularly from an 'acrobatic' perspective which combines pilot skill with 'maneouverabilty'.

I have recorded a few track files so will find a webspace and get them uploaded asap.

[ElAurens]

SEE, don't take the descriptions in the aircraft viewer as the gospel truth.

The F4F was the tightest turning aircraft fielded in numbers by the United States in WW2, closely followed by the P40, which was far and away the most maneuverable aircraft fielded by the USAAF in WW2.

Yet both aircraft get a bad rap as being poor in maneuverability by "historians" that only compare them to the A6M or the Ki-43. Remember that a real life P40 will out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft, and out roll it at any altitude or speed, but neither of these planes can out turn a Zeke or Oscar at low dogfight speeds. It would take a biplane to do that, or an earlier Japanese monoplane fighter. (Ki-27 or A5M)

Fighting Japanese aircraft is all about keeping your speed up, which is how the Flying Tigers were so successful against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 over China, and how the Spits beat the Zekes in the Pacific, and why the F4F was replaced with the F6F and Corsair.

Speed is life.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

... Remember that a real life P40 will out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft, and out roll it at any altitude or speed ...

Both statements are contradicting real life data. Please link references to support them.

[SEE]

Here are two Tracks from last nights session in my Seafire Pacific Dgen camapaign. Rather than being offered on a 'test' basis I prefer to think of them as - ' has the poster listened to any of the advice given to him?'...............I hope so but feel free to say otherwise and I appreciate that AI are not anywhere near the same as MP !

The first track is pretty mundane as the enemy seem to be focussed on the Ground Attack F4's. Towards the end, I found difficulty matching the climb/speed of a fighter attacking the F4's and was pretty much flat out.

The second track I found my self simply trying to survive.

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/xH4TzZDN/...Gen1.ntrk.html

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/y08fLwp9/...Gen2.ntrk.html

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by JtD

Both statements are contradicting real life data. Please link references to support them.

Please do so for your statement.

Also the Hawk 75 could do the same.

The Hawk 75, 81 and 87 could out roll any British fighter. Only the FW 190 was faster in the roll. Of course the P47 was better at high altitude, but the Hawks could not get there anyway.

[David603]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Please do so for your statement.

Also the Hawk 75 could do the same.

The Hawk 75, 81 and 87 could out roll any British fighter. Only the FW 190 was faster in the roll. Of course the P47 was better at high altitude, but the Hawks could not get there anyway.

I'm not aware of the RAF carrying out comparative trial between the P40 and Spitfire, but I have little doubt the P40 has a higher roll rate. The P40's roll rate is well regarded, while the Spitfire was somewhat poor in this regard, particularly when compared with late war fighters.

On the other hand, the P40 (both Hawk 81 and 87) should not even come close to the Spitfire's turn rate and radius. Wing loading is significantly higher, no Spitfire until the MkXIV exceeds it, and the power to weight ratio is lower than any Spitfire (some of the higher power late model P40s have a slightly higher power to weight ratio than the Spitfire MkI and MkII).

[JtD]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Please do so for your statement.

I consider it a pretty poor response to respond to a question with another question instead of with an answer. But I did not expect anything else from you.

Soviet VVS turning tests show the Spitfire and P-40 turning to be on par, Spitfire models at 17.5 to 18.8 seconds, P-40 models at 18 to 19.2 seconds. Can't provide a link to an actual test report.

NACA 868 roll rate chart has the Spitfire with a higher rate of roll at low speeds.
NACA wartime reports have the Spitfire achieve higher roll rate at low speeds.
Both refer to full span wing, and likely metal ailerons for the Spitfire.
You can download all NACA wartime reports from here.
You can also order this study from the UK National Archives, it has a direct comparison. It's also available here as a pdf. It again shows the Spitfire to achieve a superior rate of roll at low speeds.

And now? You want to back up your claims for once? Or will you be defaulting back to your usual insult and denial routines? I'm expecting no less, please disappoint me.

[IceFire]

El... was it not the Hawk/P-36 that had the fantastic sustained turn rate and the P-40 had some degradation of this capability?

[ElAurens]

Clearly someting is amiss here.

Hawk 81s had a roll rate of 135 degrees per second at 360mph IAS.

The Hawk 87s (test done on P40F) were down to 95.

Data from Amercia's Hundred Thousand by Francis H. Dean.