WWII fighters dicking around at low altitude. Turn up the volume.

Actually the spit could out turn the 109. Larger wing generally means better turning due to lower wing loading.

There’s a lot to turn performance, there are continuous turns that you are talking about, energy retention (ie how much speed are you still carrying after executing a turn at a certain rate/G), instantaneous turn rate and angle of attack.

The ME109 could sustain higher angles of attack and higher instantaneous turn rates, it’s just that a lot of rookie pilots panicked and let off the stick when the leading edge slats opened.

Hans Joachim Marseille exploited those characteristics with his preference for high angle deflection shooting and went on to become the highest scoring western front ace.

A key point to keep in mind is that the Mustang was designed four years after the Spitfire, and that was a big technological difference back then.
A similar gap is the one to the Sea Fury as the final generation of piston engined fighters to see service. It is noteworthy that when converting aircraft for air racing, where pure performance is the goal, the Mustangs received a lot of aerodynamic work on the wing, whereas the Sea Fury wing is about as good as it can get, with most changes focussing on the power plant.

Actually the spit could out turn the 109

On paper yeah, it’s one of those “facts” that often gets drummed out. In actuality not so much for all the good reasons oakleymuppet points out. When talking about dog-fighting the 109 allied pilots would talk about how much ammo it carried, and how it could pack a punch and how fast it was, no-one ever said, “yeah, bit we could out turn it”…As in reality, they couldn’t.

On paper yeah, it’s one of those “facts” that often gets drummed out.

Not on paper. Was a key tactic. Get a 109 on your tail, go into a tight turn. 1.5 turns later you were on its tail. words straight out of the mouth of Spitfire Ace Jonny Johnson when I met him 28 years ago (ish). Utilising the superior turn performance of the spitfire was THE key tactic if you got a 109 on your tail. Once in the turn the spit had the advantage. The 109 couldn’t peel off or they hand the advantage to the spit. In the early part of the war the 109 could only hope to get away from a spit by a negative g dive, which due to merlin carbs (vs 109 fuel injection) meant it had to do a half roll before pulling back to keep positive G on giving the 109 a chance to get away. But they introduced pressurised carbs pretty quickly to counter that. Worked for Jonny Johnson. He was alive and kicking because of it.

On the speed thing the altitude is the key factor. No aircraft was fast at low altitude and high altitude. The requirements on the design of the aircraft to achieve those two things are different. The spit was faster at higher altitudes. Still surprised the later spits would have been slower at lower altidudes due to the superiority of the later merlins and Griffon engines but I guess the big wing of the spit was draggy so hampered performance at low altitude. In reality there is only 5 or 10 mph in it anyway…they were all pushing the limits.

Some serious plane love and insights on here. 🙂

Not on paper. Was a key tactic. Get a 109 on your tail, go into a tight turn. 1.5 turns later you were on its tail. words straight out of the mouth of Spitfire Ace Jonny Johnson when I met him 28 years ago (ish). Utilising the superior turn performance of the spitfire was THE key tactic if you got a 109 on your tail. Once in the turn the spit had the advantage. The 109 couldn’t peel off or they hand the advantage to the spit. In the early part of the war the 109 could only hope to get away from a spit by a negative g dive, which due to merlin carbs (vs 109 fuel injection) meant it had to do a half roll before pulling back to keep positive G on giving the 109 a chance to get away. But they introduced pressurised carbs pretty quickly to counter that. Worked for Jonny Johnson. He was alive and kicking because of it.

The tactic to defeat a fighter going into a continuous turn, is just to carry on in a straight line – then high yo yo back down on them and fire off a high deflection shot. Lots of pilots were not so lucky as Johnson when going into a basic defensive manoeuvre like that.

Sticking to someones tail and following them into a turn for a close rear shot is how a lot of pilots got themselves killed by their opponents wingmen as well.

Pappy Boyington had the right idea in the pacific – the Zeros had an awesome turn rate. Doesn’t matter if you hold your speed better and fight aggressively with high deflection attacks.

A key point to keep in mind is that the Mustang was designed four years after the Spitfire, and that was a big technological difference back then.

I love the fact that the B52 flew 12 years after the Mustang and the USAF are planning to keep it in service until 2045.

Not on paper. Was a key tactic

Might be if you’re Johnny Johnson, but wasn’t by any means a “key tactic” for everyone, in fact because the Spit had to “climb to turn” otherwise in a flat turn it would loose altitude and speed, Pilots were warned specifically against getting into a turning fight, as 1. the 109 will likely get inside you, and 2. the 109 will straight line out if there’s no advantage. The key tactic was gain height, dive, quick blast, dive away and climb for another go. Turning fights are for Hollywood. As Oakleymuppet points out nearly all HJ Marseilles kills were lead deflection shots on turning aircraft, and he shot down 158…doesn’t seem like the best place to be to me.

@eddiebaby

TWAU vid is fantastic, planes AND prog rock.