AussieEngineer: Actually both the F6F and F4F as well as the Zero are on the chart, you just have to look for them, and the aileron stiffening of the Zero over 300 mph shows up there as a gradual decline. The Hellcat and Wildcat numbers are shown as fairly low. Also, the chart indicates that the data for the Me109 was at 66 lbs rather then 50, so appearantly that much difference wasn't considered a problem. Perhaps it was the only data on the '109 they had available at the time. It isn't like holding up a weight, it's a matter of applying force against the resistance of a lever -- a different kind of thing, more like the 'pulling a trigger' analogy I made earlier.

No, the weight's probably a better analogy. Think of it as involving a pulley so that you can get the direction right.

I disagree. If I tried to hold up 17 lbs with my first finger, it would hurt. I can pull thru a 17 lb. trigger without any trouble. It's not dead weight, but force against resistance. As to how much force can be applied, I know of one case in which a P47 pilot BENT his steel tubing control stick trying to pull out of a compressibility dive.

flamingknives: I guess we agree that we disagree on this. How do you respond to my other point: as the data on the chart for the Me109 is listed as being for 66 lbs instead of 50 lbs (about a 30% increase) clearly force levels significantly above 50 are not only possible, but entirely practical.

The reason you can pull a 17lb force trigger is because you have a really short moment arm, your finger. It's more a question of torque than simply force. Compare holding a heavy weight in your hand with your elbow locked and compare it to how much easier it is to hold up the same weight if you balance it on your arm just above your elbow. It's hard to explain without a FBD but applying 17lbf from your shoulder is many times harder than applying it from your finger. If you want me to explain it more I'm happy to but it's just hard to do without diagrams. Back onto the topic. The roll rate of the zero in particular seems very much out of place. I've always heard that it had very light controls at low speed. I reckon we might need to get some more data. While I wouldn't call 50lbf a small force I think you could probably pull something like 100-150lbf but it would be bloody tiring. It doesn't suprise me that someone bent their stick pulling it back, that is much much easier to do.

Hi again oldbutnotwise! Thank you for some excellent posts. Taking Shooter’s laughable idea that the RAF pilots were particularly prone to over-claiming, you could level the same charge at American pilots with considerably more justice. The undisputed kings of over-claiming in WWII were the AVG, who sometimes over-claimed by a factor of 10:1 or more, and are rumoured to have ‘poached’ RAF kills. However, the USN gave them a run for their money in 1942-3. Talking about one of the carrier battles in 1942, some wag of a historian said: ‘The USN pilots claimed 70 of the 14 Japanese aircraft lost’. When looking at WWII kills, the crucial thing is to compare like with like. There is no point taking confirmed RAF kills and comparing them with woolly US claims. The RAF must have claimed at least 15,000 kills in the ETO/MTO during the war, and the figure could be as high as 20,000. It has been suggested that the Hurricane alone shot down more German and Italian aircraft than the P38, P47 and P51 combined. The three US fighters claimed about 8,600 kills between them, while estimates of the number of Hurricane kills run as high as 9,000. Admittedly these are all just claims, but the evidence suggests that RAF claims were definitely more accurate than USAAF claims, so the point still holds true. In many ways the Battle of Britain is a touchstone for the remainder of the air war. It is the only time throughout WWII that the British had the leisure and the ability to examine crashed German aircraft, and where shot-down German aircrew could not evade capture (naturally this doesn’t apply to aircraft and crews that came down in the sea, which is why there is such uncertainty about actual German losses). I believe that it is no coincidence that, in these circumstances, RAF claims proved remarkably accurate (less than 25% overclaims). For the rest of the war, the RAF was either fighting over enemy-held territory (France 1941-4), or over ‘debatable lands’ where it was either impossible (Malta) or difficult (Greece, Western Desert) to examine wrecks, and where shot-down Germans stood a good chance of being rescued. The result was that there was no chance to supplement the incomplete and inaccurate official Luftwaffe losses by investigation. Turning to the question of Thunderbolt versus Spitfire, I guess most people would accept that the Jug was a better ground-attack aircraft (though not as good as the Fw190 or Corsair IMHO). However, it was no match for the Spitfire in A2A combat. Johnson’s story of out-climbing a Spitfire is just that: a story, with no corroborating evidence. The fastest-climbing variant of the P47 was the P47D-22-RE series, which could reach 20,000 feet in 7.6 minutes, with both the paddle-bladed prop and water-methanol injection (without either of these, the TTH dropped to about 10 minutes). The early Spitfire IX’s could reach the same height in 6 minutes, and later MkIX’s reduced this to 5.4 minutes. Thus the Spit still climbed 50% faster than the Jug, even with the modified prop and WM. Hell, even the MkII Spitfire of 1940 could do it in 7 minutes! As for Larry’s scenario of how a P47 could get the better of a Spitfire by diving and then zoom-climbing, like all such scenarios it depends on the P47 pilot doing exactly the right thing, and the Spitfire pilot doing nothing at all. He assumes that the Thunderbolt will pull away in the dive and leave the Spitfire behind. However, what happens when the Jug begins to pull out? The Spitfire pilot is under no obligation to continue his dive: he could also pull out, and either zoom-climb to maintain his height advantage, or ‘cut the corner’ and shoot down the Thunderbolt as it climbed slowly upwards after having lost most of its KE. If a Thunderbolt fails to get a kill by surprise, then its dive characteristics are only good for getting away. In other words it’s a kind of ‘super P40’. The point is that many fighters of WWII are capable of shooting down an opposing fighter if they are granted an initial height advantage (and preferably surprise as well). The crucial question is: how well do they do without an initial advantage? In this situation, a superior rate of climb becomes very important because it allows you to gain the high ground. You also made a very good point that aircraft procurement depends on the perceived threat. Most Spitfire IX’s were of the LFIX version because this variant was optimised to deal with the FW190. If (for the sake of argument) the Luftwaffe had been equipped with P38’s and P47’s then a different variant would have been selected. For example, the Spit HFVIII/HFIX could do about 420 mph at 28,000 feet and completely outclassed both American fighters at high altitude.

To Cromwell. Sorry, wrong. The Tbolt gains more speed in the dive than the Spit, and with its greater weight, gains much more energy. While the Spit is superior in any extended climb, it's no match in a zoom climb. The Tbolt not only has much more energy, but it's better at converting it back into altitude. If the Spitfire entered the dive, then pulls up when it sees the 'bolt do so, it still ends up with the 'bolt above it in position for an overhead attack. And he can't 'cut the corner' because by the time he's back in effective range, the 'bolt has too much vertical seperation. Greater weight and higher wing loading are sometimes an advantage. This is why I said in when I brought up the scenario that the Spit's best move it to climb hard and retain altitude advantage rather than follow the dive. This avoids giving the 'bolt an attack, but results in mutual disengagement with the Spit climbing away and the 'bolt diving away. Since the starting position was with the Spit directly behind the 'bolt, it's at least half a victory for the 'bolt as its gotten out of a disadvantage position.

A dive gives it way to disengage but not much else, it hasn't really moved from a disadvantaged position just to a knew type of disadvantage. If the better climbing poorer diving fighter keeps pushing the jug into dives it will run out of altitude eventually.

No so. If the Spit climbs and the 'bolt dives, the fight is over. The Spit can't retain contact due to horizontal speed difference and the 'bolt can't reach the Spit vertically, so has no reason to stick around and accept the tactical disadvantage. If he wants to grab a lot of height and return at 30K+ where he has the advantage again, he could, but chance of regaining contact would be pretty slim. Point is, the 'bolt can escape from the disadvantage position. The Spit has to climb or he gives the 'bolt the edge. If he follows the dive, he ends up receiving an attack he can't avoid, if he stays at height, the 'bolt can turn back in and make it a head on engagement to his advantage. Remember, I'm opposing the contention that the Thunderbolt can't win a fight against a Spitfire.

While a spit probably wouldn't be able to get to jug if it dives. It can keep the separation the jug achieves to a minimum by following it in a less steep dive. That way it keeps the altitude advantage and puts pressure on the jug. I think a jug would be very hard pressed to fight a spit with an altitude advantage.