However, back to the original point. If you can only attack when you have an altitude advantage you'd better hope that you don't run across anyone higher than you. I'd like to hear how a P-47 deals with a 109 or 190 with an altitude advantage. The P-47 will fly straight ahead while going to 100% power...the 109 or 190 will empty its guns and cannons at the P-47 to no effect. The P-47 will pull ahead, reverse, and blow the 109 or 190 away. Thats why all the top scoring P-47 pilots survived the war...they flew a plane that could take a hit and still outperform just about any Luftwaffe plane

To Ispose: Not usually. When they were used as escort, the P47s were flying at 30K ft. (about 5K above the bombers). At that height, they were at their best, the performance of the '109 was degraded, and the '190 was gasping. Up there, they could outperform the opposition. If the Germans came after the bombers below the '47s, they got fallen on. They didn't usually have Germans attacking them from above. If it happened, they tried to turn into the attack and meet the attack head on, or, at least, force them to overshoot. Of course the Thunderbolt's ability to absorb damage was a major plus when someone got caught looking the wrong way.

The Kittyhawk and the Spitfire V entered production at about the same time, so Fighter Command no doubt got the Vs before the units in Egypt got the 'hawks, so they'd have been familiar with the metal units. The metal covered ailerons were introduced in the MkV, and did improve roll rate over the MkII, at least enought that there were some 'under the table' arrangements to refit the MkIIs of at least one wing with MkV ailerons. But it was the MkV, metal ailerons and all, that ran into the FW190 and had so much trouble due to the FWs superior roll rate. The Bf109 did not boast a very good roll rate, and the metal ailerons of the MkV gave the Spitfire at least equality with them. I have heard about that report, but Brown, who's career ran from the late '30s to 1970, and was in command of Aerodynamics Flight for a part of that time, would have had access to all of that, and obviously didn't find it as convincing as comparative trials between the two types of a/c in which he took part.

To AE. Your comments on the FW's habit of stalling out of a high speed turn are quite correct. Brown commented on exactly that as the a/c's primary handling flaw. The limiter on the 'g' pulled at speed is the pilot, not the aerodynamics of the a/c. Any of the WW2 a/c could handle 'g' forces more than adequate to 'gray out' or even 'black out' a pilot, except down close to stall speed. This was the Spit's big advantage in horizontal turning (even more so the Zero's). Due to low wing loading, they could fly slower without loss of control. Of course, that meant giving up energy deliberately. The Spitfire's terminal velocity was almost never an issure in combat, due to its fairly poor diving acceleration. AS noted in at least a couple of the combat accounts MF put up, Spitfire pilots knew that the '109G could dive away from a Spit IX, and when he pushed the nose over, you needed to get in a quick shot before he was out of reach. As to the speed, zoom tests by the USAAF were started from 220 mph, which is much slower than anybody was going to be flying in a combat zone. You don't need an altitude advantage, although it was certainly nice if you did, and as I mentioned below, the P47s usually did. But even without it, the Thunderbolt was a fast a/c and especially accelerated quickly anytime you dropped the nose at all. It was a matter of using the energy most effectively. I'd recommend the book FIGHTER COMBAT TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert L. Shaw -- Naval Institute Press. A really decent explaination of the advantages and disadvantages of both 'angles' and 'energy' combat tactics.

"Any of the WW2 a/c could handle 'g' forces more than adequate to 'gray out' or even 'black out' a pilot, except down close to stall speed" That is simply not the case. "stall speed" as defined in any aircraft manual is actually the one g stall speed. Stall speeds increase dramatically as more g's are pulled. Furthermore, higher wingloading aircraft need a higher AoA to generate the same g as a lower wingloaded aircraft and consequently have greater induced. If a 190 and a Spit both started a 3 g turn at 400 mph the 190 would slow down faster, consequently a 190 wouldn't be able to stay in the turn with the Spitfire. This also has significances in energy combat, as I've said before, that loses less energy as it tracks the target, consequently it can lead it for longer and with less deflection. This results in an increased chance of scoring hits. "You don't need an altitude advantage, although it was certainly nice if you did, and as I mentioned below, the P47s usually did. But even without it, the Thunderbolt was a fast a/c and especially accelerated quickly anytime you dropped the nose at all. It was a matter of using the energy most effectively." How does it counter attack? If it climbs it gets shot down because it can't climb fast enough and it can't turn well enough to spiral climb tight enough that the attacker can't get a shot. If it dives the attacker just follows it down and uses it's altitude advantage to close the gap once the P-47 is forced to level out and slow down. I suppose they could dive and turn and try to climb into the attacker while their speed was still sufficient to hold a high nose up attitude, but that would require very precise timing to be successful. Basically, it is completely defensive, it has no avenue with which to counter attack until the attacker makes a mistake or uses up all his energy advantage.

To AE THe higher the speed, the less change in AoA is needed to generate any given 'g' force. AT anything except fairly low speeds (by combat standards) the pilot will black out long before stall speed. That's why the US and UK went to the expense of developing and issuing g-suits to fighter pilots, and the pilots put up with wearing the d**n uncomfortable things. The ability to pull one and a half more 'g's than the other guy meant that you could out turn him at higher speeds, where most combat over Europe took place unless someone deliberately stayed in a tight turn long enough to bleed off most of his energy. In the example you gave, yes, the Spitfire could stay in a tight turn longer, but the FW's turn would tighten more quickly as long as he avoided the stall. Unless the Spit could stay behind him long enough to bleed off its own speed, the FW could pull inside his arc and have a chance to disengage, although he would be better advised to do the reversal into an opposite diving turn to escape. As long as the pilot at lower altitude is aware of his opponant, he has a good chance to evading a high speed diving attack. As I've mentioned before, the vast majority of 'kills' occure when someone doesn't see it coming. As the lower a/c has less engergy, it is, of course, in a defensive situation, but if he times his move right, he has a chance to reduce the energy imbalance by forcing the attacker to overshoot and turning away. The attacker has to regain both altitude and position, giving the defender an opportunity to either disenged or improve either his altitude or his speed. Spitfires, with a serious altitude disadvantage are also in a defensive situation. If the diving attacker mistimes an attack he gets shot at, and maybe hit, and if he uses up enough of his energy advantage, the lower a/c may be able to reverse positions. Otherwise, the lower a/c are looking to stay alive and disengage. Altitude is energy, same as speed. The guy with the energy, or can convert it more effectively, has the edge. But the big advantage of a diving attack is that it limits the target's ability to counter-attack.

To use the P-51 as an example, as it's the only aircraft I have the chart for, when at 200 mph IAS it can go into an acclerated stall at 4 g's with a weight of 9000 lb. At 30,000' 200mph IAS is over 320 mph. It will stall at 6 g's at 250 mph IAS, 400 mph true. Those aren't slow speeds, nor are they g forces that are beyond a pilot to pull. The pilot doesn't have to sustain them to enter an accelerated stall either, momentary amounts of those g's will result in the wing exceeding it's critical AoA and stall. 400 mph is not exactly low speed combat. "In the example you gave, yes, the Spitfire could stay in a tight turn longer, but the FW's turn would tighten more quickly as long as he avoided the stall." But then the Spit just does a high yo-yo to control closure speed and retain energy as it follows in the turn. As you said a rolling reversal into a diving turn would probably be the wiser move. However, that gives control of the airspace to the Spitfire. Consequently, whatever the RAF wants to do in that airspace it can now do, it's gained air superiority, at least temporarily. "As I've mentioned before, the vast majority of 'kills' occure when someone doesn't see it coming." Just because he doesn't see it coming doesn't mean he isn't evading. At a guess I'd say a pilot would be less likely to spot an attacker while trying to avoid shake another bandit off their six rather than flying straight and level in formation. "Spitfires, with a serious altitude disadvantage are also in a defensive situation." But the difference with the Spitfire is that it's defensive maneuvers increases it's own energy instead of waiting until the attacker depletes his own. That's why I said the Spitfire can "counter attack". "Otherwise, the lower a/c are looking to stay alive and disengage." That is the case with a P-47, that's why I said it was purely defensive. Spitfires most often climbed into the attackers forcing a head on engagement and at the same time rapidly increasing their energy. "The guy with the energy, or can convert it more effectively, has the edge." I would also add the ability to generate energy. Being able generate energy means staying in the fight longer and if you can out last your adversary you win. That's again why the Spit and Mustang were such good fighters.

Yes AE. In different ways the Mustang and Spit were incredably dangerous (in the right hands of course). Both had the ability to build energy quickly, through speed or climb and manoeuver. The Mustang could disengage, extend and quickly re-engage. Same with the Spit in a different way. In both cases (using different manoeuvers that suited the plane's characteristics of course) an energy advantage could be quickly built up. If the enemy stayed with them they would steadily start to fall behind in overall energy state, leading to a tactical advantage that could be utilised for a kill. Now this is important in single plane vs single plane, but that happened rarely. What is more important is that when groups of planes engaged the Mustangs or Spits would , as a group, steadily start to get the advantage Some of them would have moved themselves into a significant tactical and energy advantage, enabling them to cover their friends and/or easily attack enemies in poor tactical/energy states. Think of it statistically, 2 goups of planes engage, on average the skill levels are the same and with the same distribution of skills. After a short period of time the Spit/Mustang group will have a higher proportion of planes in a clear tactical/energy advantage, which they can utilise. Any plane that cannot maintain and/or regain energy quickly through a series of manoeuvers will be a disadvantage for the pilot. Take a Fw-190 against a time comparible Spit or Mustang. If the tactical situation starts out even, no matter what the 190 pilot does they will steadily start to lose the tactical/energy advantage. Each turn in 3 dimensions of course), each dive and zoom, each break and re-engage, they will steadily loses their energy relative to the Spit/Mustang. After a short period of time they will have to disengage, while they can or face a severe tactical disadvantage (translated the other planes on their a*se, or higher, which simply means they can't fire at at while the other plane can, or will very soon). Outcome: tactical loss for the enemy, through greater losses and/or giving away the contested airspace. Now the Spit was a terrific intercept/area protection fighter (I hate to say the word defensive because of the emotional connotations). Even if it had to engage while climbing up to the enemy (which happened often, see previous posts of pilot accounts) it had the manoeuverablility to have a good chance to avoid the first attack by the 109/190s diving down. The 109/190 then zoom climbs back up, while the Spit keeps climbing. After a couple of those the Spit now has a commanding situation, it now has the height advantage, which can then be converted into speed for attack, while still at all times being able to defend itself from attack. This is exactly what happened in the BOB, Malta, Sicily, etc. The flip side was the Mustang, not so good for the interceptor job, but as an attacker, arriving with similar energy through speed, again after a few manoeuvers it has the commanding position .. plus the range to chase them down as they try to disengage. There is a reason why these 2 are regarded as the premier planes of WW2, also why Boyd built his theories around the Mustang, also why North American made the last Mustangs more Spit like and the late model Spits got more range, making them more Mustang like. If the Jet era hadn't come in, the the next generation of Spits & Mustangs would have been almost identical in overall performance .... and everyone would have been copying them (including Rupublic).

I should add. Gaining energy over the enemy is all about giving you the ability to get a tactical advantage. Boyd was a master of this. He used to give a demonstration to other pilots. He would go through a series of manoeuvers and stadily get an energy advantage. Then he would turn it quickly into a tactical advantage. An example of his was dumping speed quickly at the right time to get on the six. He got an energy advantage, then, at the right time, quickly traded it for a killing tactical advantage. But, critically, because of his energy advantage he had the initiative and could choose his time to strike when it suited him. Energy by itself is meaningless unless it is turned into a tactical win... thats the skill

To AE: Then back to my question: Why did the 'g' suit represent such an advantage (and it did) if the ability to handle more 'g's was so unimportant? WW2 pilots commonly flew turns to the point that they 'greyed out', and beyond, which would be well past 4 'g's. By the way, I wouldn't want to take the Mustang too close to a high speed stall. It's stall characteristics were much like those of the '190 (commonly the first warning of stall was an attempt by the a/c to snap roll), rather than like those of the Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Lightning and the Curtiss 'hawks, all of which gave adequate warning, and stalled much less violently. As to the 'he doesn't see it coming, except for being surprised by the un-noticed appearnace of enemy a/c, the most dangerous situation came just after a pilot had shaken off one enemy. Too often, he would be attacked from another direction by a second opponant before he had time to (in modern parlance) regain situational awareness. Even if he was maneuvering beyond the reach of an initial opponant, he might well be a predictable, and reachable target for someone else. That Spitfire in the tight turn might be beyond reach of the 190 trying to chase him around, but he would not be beyond the reach of a second 190 spiraling down on him from above.