when it comes to warbirds and flying characteristcs the experts always talk about an aircraft being manuverable. 2 questions for the masses, is it better to be manuverable vs acrobatic and how do determine who is more manuverble? have fun with this one and dont be haten on each other. I ask this question because I saw a documentary that more or less that a P51 Mustang was not designed to fly inverted so is that not acrobatic but manuverable? and or is manuverability measured by your contemporaies? Is the F15 manuverable compared to a mig 2 or su 27 etc......

It seems that wing loading is the key. Look at the zero. The thing is, they had no armour so it was not a very safe plane to be in when hit.
Also, the carburetor vs. fuel injection comes into play as well. The ability for the ME 109 to push negative G's was used effectively by the likes of Erich Hartman.

Manueverability is trumped by speed and team tactics, in my opinion. Boom & Zoom baby! Show them the left, hit 'em with the right. That's where the Mustang shines: in a combat wing.

If a dogfighter gets into a "turn & burn" situation, then chances are he made a mistake somewhere. Either that, or the Rules of Engagement are FUBAR (quite possible!)

Manueverable: adjective: to be easily manuevered while in motion.


So an aircraft that has a high wing loading and high control surface forces can be very aerobatic, but not very manueverable due to it being more difficult to move due to the higher wing loading and control surfaces forces compared to an extra 300 that has a light wing loading and light control surface forces.

So whil an aircraft can be aerobatic, it may not be manueverable due to its weight and design

so a bomber as seen on this show is described as manuverable....is that a comparison or an observation?

It depends on what they are comparing it to, im sure it could be more manueverable compared to another bomber, but less manueverable compared against a fighter

Hum that's what I like about war bits as they don't all fly the same or have the same<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">manueverable

i feel like my 72im CMP BF 109 would walk all over my 72in CMP P40

as the 109 came along way after the P40 they learned thing that made 109 much better


Even more power dose not always make a huge dif. I got a Hanger 9 B25 converted to electric. Yes I can do a big nice loop but it really takes a lot of space to do it in

I love how my 74in ESM corsair with scale 3 blade prop with full flaps can do 5 foot carrier landing but my Top Flite Gaint P51 cant
<br type="_moz" /></span>

There were and are a lot of pilots that can take what is considered an inferior aircraft and score victories against "superior" aircraft. Even when it comes down to equal pilot skill and unequal capabilities, say a guy in a Mig 21 vs a guy in an F-16, tactics, the mechanics of the engagement, weather, and luck figure into who comes out victorious......

And is there really a difference between manuverable and aerobatic? A TBM Avenger, while fairly manuverable as required to land on a carrier, was prohibited from performing aerobatic manuvers.

The Bf-109 was designed in the early to mid 30's, saw action in the Spanish civil war. The P 40 was designed in 1938 although the P 36 first flew May 1935. I don't think Willy learned anything from Curtis. I don't think Curtis learned anything from Willy either.

You right, I im wrong on those planes but I was just trying to point out there is an evoution that thes planes with throw to get were they are now.

I love flying the BF109 but I hate Landing it, the narrow gear, no fowar rake, and the fact it seems ever 3rd or 4rth flight I have a nose over that kills my Xora 18X10 props $18 a pop its getting old.

I suspect each designer did not know much if anything about what others where doing in different countries. I like Xoar props but breaking them often I go to APC or Mejzlik. I can break carbon props also, and much to often!

At over 45,000 feet a B-52 will easily stay on the tail of an F-15. The differences are also a function of where in the atmosphere the manuevering is happening

To me maneuverability is rate and aerobatic is vector. Rate is acceleration in the 3 axis. Vector is speed and direction.

A plane is highly maneuverable if it can accelerate quickly in any axis. This does not mean it has to be a fast plane. Aerobatics means grace and speed that can be changed in any direction precisely.

Eatra 330, aerobatic, mustang, and ANY other fighter, manoverable, could you see a mustang doing the red bull circuit? flick and crash, me thinks

Manuverable is how EASY it is to change direction.. Some planes have better control responses than others.. Acrobatic is the RATE of change of a given plane.

It snowed here on Sunday.

Anyone here ever seen a pattern plane do a Cobra Role? That’s aerobatic, tongue in cheek, its all straight lines, axial roles, and 20 degree pulls. Maneuvering is part what the planes capabilities are and part the pilots ability to string these capabilities into the correct sequence to arrive at the correct location for a firing solution.

What does that mean? That means that early German planes were flown to their absolute max. because their pilots were trained very well. Adversely our pilots did not have any real world combat experience at the beginning of the war so a lot of our planes were under flown. Of course this reversed by war’s end.

Also the type of fight an aircraft is involved in.

Which plane do you want to take on bombers with one on one?
P-51 or Jug

which plane do you want in a one on one dog fight?
P-51 or Jug

Joe

ps great question ram-bro

I still have not yet piloted an rcscale warbird. I understand there is alot of knowledge here about the aerobatic vs manuverable capabilities of warbirds. But I actually would like to know how to compare the rc versions of the warbirds as I will never pilot a full scale aircraft. I have always heard that flying rc scale warbirds can be extremly challenging. I typically overpower my rc models. If Iwere to build a 1/4 scale mustang, and put oh...lets say 50cc of gasser on it, would it be aerobatic?
Now that Itype this out and tyhink about it, Idont think Iwant a warbird that would be consideredany more aerobatic than the full scale versions. But Iwould always like to have the power to pull through anythinh Imight get myself into.

You bring up a interesting thought when you bring up the power question and warbirds. A good example of this was during the Battle of Britan (and please correct me if I am wrong) The Me-109 e and Spitfire 5 were more or less equals until the FW-190 came along and the way the Brits took care of this problem was to put a uprated RR under the cowl. Now apparently being equal was OK with the Brits with the Spit being somewhat more manuverable, so did the Spit loose its manuverability or was the standard changed. Also, what does roll rate have to do with any of this? Roll rate doesn't equate to turn rate. I like the idea that manuverability is the ability to change directions faster, interesting way of seeing it. As to the question of what would you rather go into a dogfight with, a Mustang or a Thunderbolt, it seem sthat alot of pilots preferred the thunderbolt over the Mustang. Good discussion

When the Thunderbolt arrived in the UK the spit pilots would go into a climb and out climb the Jug. That was until the props were changed.. after that. the Jug would leave the spits behind.. going verticle. Speed is life. in pilots terms. With it he can engage or not.. he gets to chose.
Every fighter had its weakness. The job was to determine that weakness and exploit it to your advantage.
As to roll rates.. most WWII fighters had roll rates in the 3.5 seconds per roll. Not all that fast but similar for most planes of the times. The importance of the roll rate can determine when a Split S or other evasive manuver can be executed.. leaving the foe on your six looking for you.

Pre-WWII it was all about maneuverability. By early WWII it was all about speed and firepower. Today it is all about electronics and the missiles you are carrying.

So when you hear the history channel talk about a powerful fighter, what do they mean and relate this to WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and current fighters...

They could mean horsepower. They could mean firepower. They could mean ordinance carrying ability. They could mean appearance. With the History Channel you never know. There is a lot of fluff in their programs.

MajorTomski; Am I missing something here? A B-52@ 45,000" staying on a F-15's tail?? What, is the F-15 pilot saving fuel? Does he have 1 engine at idle? All the '15 has to do is light the burners, roll to 70-80 degrees of bank, and pull. Soyonara, BUFF....

Old Dawg (1,200 hrs in B-52s)

When fighters are doing the dance every movement causes drag that slows the plane. The Germans measured power by what AOA the craft could sustain. But in combat it most often translated into how much dancing you can do before you have to use altitude to bolster your Kinetic energy. When your opponent’s kinetic energy is low you have the option to break off or press the advantage.

Hope this helps

Joe