>>While the clipped wing Spit certainly improved roll rate, I much doubt it got up to the level of a Thunderbolt on that. At least the practical accounts from pilots at the time contradict that.<< Larry, don’t argue with me, write to NACA and tell them their wrong because you think that their figures are incorrect. I was just as surprised as you were when I first saw the figures, but facts are facts so I have 2 choices, stick to my beliefs or accept I was wrong (If you had asked me before, I would have sworn to you that the Mustang was miles ahead of a clipped wing Spit at anything above 200mph). >>Twisting was a problem with single spar wings as long as there have been fighters. The Nieuport 11, 17 and 27, as well as the Albatros D3 of WW1 all had the same problem. The Spitfire was, of course, much stronger, but it would still be a much worse problem than for anything with a two spar wing structure. Note that the '109 didn't have much of a roll rate either.<< Single spar doesn’t necessarily mean poor roll until very high speeds. >>The flight reports on that Spitfire site you gave the ad. for were critical of the horizontal turn rate of the Mustang, considering it fairly poor for an a/c in its class. P51 pilots used the same, zoom and spiral down tactic that the P47 pilots developed to turn with '109s and '190s rather than tail chasing them.<< The Mustang was a very ‘hot’ plane, very fast in virtually all flight envelopes. But it could mix it as well, it had a high wing loading which meant that its radius of turn wasn’t the best, but a good pilot, who kept his speed up, could hold his own with the best. Above 250mph it was probably better than a Me 109 and could easily out turn a Fw-190. This meant a Mustang pilot had more tactical options than (say) a P-47 or P-38 driver. A P-47 pilot could only “boom and zoom” (or as I say shoot and scoot), a Mustang could do that at least as well (higher mach limit meant he could do it better at the limit) and mix it too, either as an energy fighter or a winding match. It had excellent control response at high speed , though the stick got pretty stiff (at 400mph it took both my hands to hold it in a dive) it was better than many others. The P-47 was the quintessential shoot and scoot plane, though it was important to get clear before you levelled out and started to climb again, given its mediocre climb performance, nothing, except maybe a Tempest, had its awesome dive acceleration. A P-38 pilot had the least options, at high speed and height it was close to its mach limit already, you needed to get lower and stay in the 300-400mph region to be competitive, poorer energy fighter (all that drag) and a so-so shoot and scoot plane (poorer dive limit than a p-47 but better climb, just hope no-one follows you because you have to slow down your dive, or die. If someone in a Me109 or worse a Fw 190 is determined to get you and follows you down they will have much more speed up their sleeves when you start to pull out, ouch, rather be in a P-47 and any day, better mach limit and the acceleration meant you were so far ahead already that you were almost certain to be clear). From http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html “The airplane is very manoeuvrable with good controllability at indicated speeds to 400 MPH. The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent, however, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter(sic)” >>Wing loading wasn't the only factor in climb rate. From that Spitfire site, and a few other places I've compiled a list of climb times to 20K (slightly different but close for the German types:<< SpitfireXIV- 5.1 min. P38J - 5.37 min. SpitfireIX - 5.6 min. Bf109G-6 - 6.0 min. (to 19K) SpitfireXII- 6.7 min. P51B - 7.0 min. FW190D-9 - 7.1 min. (to 19.685K) P51D - 7.3 min. Engine power and airframe 'slickness' are also major factors.<< In level flight and dive I agree, but in a climb wing loading (lbs/wing area) and power loading (bhp/lb) dominate. The Spit IX had the same power as a P51B/C/D (same engine), was slower in level flight, had lower dive acceleration but higher final speed, was more manoeuvrable and better climb. All indications of lower wing/power loading (and better mach limit).

From what I've read, Mustang pilots didn't try to match a '109 in a straight turning contest, but did the vertical zoom and spiral like the '47s did. It later was call the 'high yo-yo' when practiced by jets in Korea and Viet Nam. The thing was to extend the turn into the vertical so that even a less tight turn had greater effect. Following quote from Lt. Willard Millikan, 4th FG, 1944: "I pushed everything forward and dropped flaps to turn inside him. Through the early stages of the turn he out-turned me, but I pulled up and cork-screwed inside him and laid off a deflection shot ..."

The question doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 'figures'. When test results conflict with practical experience there is usually a reason. Example: A number of high ranking Luft aces always insisted that a '109 could out turn a Spitfire. That was not the experience of most '109 pilots or Spitfire pilots. Reason was the leading edge slats of the '109. These increased effective lift and reduced stall speed, hence turning circle. Nearly all pilots would 'flinch' and let up on the turn when the slats popped out causing the a/c to shudder, and changing the handling characteristics. The very small percentage who could train themselves not to, probably COULD out turn a Spitfire, at least under some circumstances. Remember, wing loading doesn't really mean anything. What really matters is the ratio of weight to available lift. Wing loading is usually a fairly accurate appoximation of that, but different parts of the wing produce different amounts of lift. In terms of lift for wing area, a long, narrow, tapered wing (sailplane, Ta152H, Westland Welkin) is far more efficient than a wide cord wing. So a tapered wing of the same area will producr more lift than a wide cord wing, and (for a/c of similar weight) a lower stall speed, and smaller turning circle. The trade offs come in wieght and drag.

There is absolutely no way a Bf-109 could out turn a spit. The slats, which often deployed unevenly sending the aircraft into a spin, didn't give the 109 the same turning circle or rate of the Spitfire. An ace pilot may well have been able to hold a turn with a novice, but put a half decent pilot in the spit and in 1 or 2 turns the spit will be on the 109s tail. Also remember that the Spitfires wing was elliptical, that gives it an optimum lift distribution and the least amount of induced drag, better than tapered wings. The reason why all WW2 fighters didn't have elliptical wings was because of more complex production, but even then the Tempest and Thunderbolt had semi-elliptical wings.

Fewer options?? Compared to the P51, the P38 was at least equal in horizontal turn, had much better climb, was at least equal in acceleration (better in zoom) and much superior in pitch rate. Also, it was able to take a lot more damage than a '51 and was a better gun platform, both important in hit and run tactics. It gave up some roll, but not much after the boost was available, and was about 15-20 mph less top end speed. Have you read GINGER LACEY - FIGHTER PILOT by R.T.Bickers?? Check the description of Lacey's last kill. Feb. '45 in a MkXIV against a Ki43 'Oscar'. It's quite clear that he was very cautious about the '43 due to its very quick turning rate. He had 140 mph speed advantage. Jumped a group of about 12 with his wingman. Shot down the one that went into turn last, but broke off without attacking again when the rest went into a defensive circle. Wasn't willing to risk hits on his Spit while he was 100 mi. from home over jungle. Compare to David McCampbell a few weeks earlier over the Phillipines. Attack about 50 JAAF fighter (many of them Oscars). Attacked repeatedly until his ammo was exhausted. Claimed eleven. Credited with 9. Last two disallowed as gun camera ran out of film. He was a long way from his base, over water, but was confident his HELLCAT could get him home even it damaged. Lacey (in '45) was about as experienced as a ftr pilot gets, and nobody ever questioned his willingness to take chances, but his confidence in the Spit's ability to take battle damage seems to have been limited.

To AussieEngineer: Ever see a chart of wing lift by zones. Farther you get from max thickness, the lower the lift per sq. foot. Less average lift per unit of area in a wide cord wing than in a tapered wing.

To MustangFlyer: Re-reading your post I think you're missing a few points on combat tactics. The hit and run was the most effective way of running up kills at least risk, but while the '47s and '38s were doing bomber escorts -- usually outnumbered in '43, they rarely had the luxury of it until the furball broke up. They had to prevent massed fighter attacks, which meant tying up the formation. In the furball, nobody was chasing anybody for more than 4 or 5 seconds without being shot at by someone else. If someone was on your tail, you dumped him. Spitfires did this with the tight turn as that was what they were best at. A 'bolt would probably use a reversal, and a Lightning would yo-yo on him. All they had to do was disengage even momentarily. The only time you got into a chase was if you were behind him just as the furball broke up. And that, by the way, was where most of the kills were made. As for the '47, they had the advantage of being far superior in performance once you got much above 27-28K ft. They could dive, attack and zoom away. If a '109 climbed after them, he was committing to a fight in which the '47 held all the high cards. The 'bolt might dive for some seperation, and would surely use it to escape if in serious trouble, but going up had many advantages for him in spite of his modest sustained climb rate. As the Lightning could out-climb the '190, and the '109 (except manybe the K) zooming away made sense for them also, as the you start with the zoom, and gain seperation upward. Due to their limited endurance, none of the single seat Germans could stay in a fight or a chase very long. AFter assembling a formation and climbing to 25K, they didn't have a lot of time at full throttle left before they had to break off.

You confusing the relationship aspect ratio has with induced drag and the relationship that wing planform, which determines lift distribution, has with induced drag. You can have a tapered/trapezoidal wide chord wing you know. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif">

To AussieEngineer: Yes, you can, but that's not what I'm talking about. Lift efficiency goes down as cord goes up, and you put more and more wing farther and farther from the zone of maximum lift. How rapid the change is, depends on the airfoil shape -- the thickness as well as the form. The worst offender is the delta wing form. This is basically a swept wing with the open rear end filled in, but the tailing edge near the fuselage doesn't accomplish much. That area produces very little lift, but does make design of the internal structure easier.

As I said your confusing aspect ratios with wing shape. All of the fighters had aspect ratios pretty close to each other usually between 5.5 and 6.5. That is about the optimum ratio for subsonic flight. Aircraft with larger aspect ratios like the lightning suffered the penalty in weight, roll rate and poor transonic performance. The aspect ratio of about 8 was only possibly because of the configuration of the lightning. The advantages of that aspect ratio were thus off set by the aerodynamic disadvantages inherent configuration (large frontal and surface area). For straight wings with a given aspect ratio the elliptical wing has the least drag, trapezoidal comes next and then rectangular is most draggy. So it incorrect to say that the spitfires wing is inefficient because it is "wide chord". Aspect Ratios P-40 - 5.90 P-39 - 5.42 P-51 - 5.87 Spit I - 5.61 Spit VIII - 6.5 (extended tips) Spit 21 - 5.64 Hurri - 6.21 Tempest - 5.57 Typhoon - 6.19 Bf-109 - 6.13 Fw-190 - 6.02 As you can see they are all within the same range. Thus the aircraft with the high wing loading will have inferior turning performance. To pull x number of g's they need to produce more lift, which consequently means flying at a greater AoA, which means they loose energy in a turn faster, stall faster and can't sustain as high a number of g's.