Jacko, It was I who was being confrontational. Not you. Apologies and salutations accepted, nuff said.
Now some useful stuff,
1. Yes, you are absolutely right. Eric Brown does say the Mustang III easily out turned the 109G-6. I had that wrong in my notes. I can't find any reference to the P-51's rate of roll though. Please forward me this reference. I have been trying to find the original AFDU tests at the PRO for some time. If you know the file name, please e-mail me.
2. Using an algorithm sent to me by a US aerodynamicist, the calculations seems to indicate, (and my maths is pants) the 109 G at a weight of some 6,500lbs out turning the P-51D at 9,000lbs or there abouts. I set pressure alt to 10,000ft. Bear in mind the G-6 had slats.
3. Personally, I agree the P-51D was a better fighter. No contest, but I would still want to explore the issue of the sustained turn.
Everyone else (and yes Jacko as well, J ) thanks for insightful and useful observations.
So here are my main points re-stated for discussion purposes.
a. I haven't defined manoeuvrability very well. I am mainly referring to sustained turn, rate of roll and climb. The relevance of any or all of these are debateable, and of differing relevance when looking at Jet or piston engine combat. There are also a few other vital ones I haven't mentioned. I would welcome some thoughts.
b. The F-3 and Mig 29 were near enough concurrent, and represent two differing views, and /or missions, but basically the aim was the same. - TO WIT, the question has to be asked, WHAT OPERATONAL analysis gave birth to the F-3 and what to Mig-29?
c. The point about designing in features that "WE MUST HAVE" but "WE USE RARELY" is absolutely the basis for my subject. EG. Lets have good sustained turn, but NO GUN??
d. History is full of fighters that have been designed for the wrong conflict or mission, and have had to be adapted, or modified, some times with great success, some times not. All most every successful fighter was a compromise or adaptation. Why do we think we are any better at it today then we were historically, when History shows us to have got wrong fairly consistently, and the saving grace is nearly always, non airframe factors.
edited cos I mizzpleedd MiGG-29
[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]