View Full Version : Which early US plane(s) are Turn & Burn type(s)?

06-24-2005, 01:31 AM
curious... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

06-24-2005, 01:45 AM
Depends on the opponents;

Going up against the Germans the P-40 is a very good turn and burner; solid controls, very tight turn, fast rate of roll, decent armament.

Its a similar story for the Aircobra, at least down low; it turns better than its opponents but is usually outsped and outclimbed above 12,000 feet.

The F4F is a very good turner, it outclasses pretty much any and all European opposition in this category. The problem is that the Wildcat is significantly outclassed by Zeros and Hayabusas in turn and burn. They turn faster at low-medium speeds (below 400kph) and can stall ride much better.

The F2A is also a very good turn and burner, but again it suffers from the absolutely outstanding turning characteristics of the Japanese planes.

US planes are always solid enough to be boomers and usually have the proper high speed elevator control to work well in this regieme.

Against Japanese birds you really want to energy fight and hit them hard on your initial one or two passes. With their high rate of climb and excellent AoA capabilities you have to make your first shots count. You DO NOT turn fight Japanese planes, not if you want to live.

Experiment with various US types against each other in the QMB. Personally I find the P-40 a very dangerous opponent below 12,000 feet. I usually fly the FM-2 in free for all servers, usually just to improve my aim. The early Naval birds accelerate slowly though so you still have to be very mindful of your E state unless you want to give up altitude.

06-24-2005, 08:23 AM
As I wonder, are there any true turn-burn aircraft in the US arsenal? They all seem so massive and heavy to me.

06-24-2005, 08:27 AM
Most American planes were not the turn and burn variety despite that being the doctrine of the time of most of their inception. They were infact, further along then I think they gave themselves credit for.

The P-40 and the Wildcat are the only two that, given a European opponent (of similar time), I would consider having a turn fight in.

The rest, including the Mustang are boomers and zoomers. And very good at it too.

American fighters were designed from the outset to be sturdy and fast. Things like roll rate, turn, and other things seemed to have been less of a consideration.

06-24-2005, 09:08 AM
the american design mantra seemed to be resiliance. Shrug off that cannon fire. Absorp that mg hit. Protect your pilot above all else.

carriers were designed to be battle hardened.

aircraft were designed to take pasting and still fly.

to do this, there needed to be much power to move the weight of sturdiness.

hence the massive engines.

and subsequent speed.

theres your answer.,,,

IMHO i dont consider ANY american aircraft were turn fighters due to simple design parameters that forbid them to not be able to soak up battle damage.

why else would the P47 have its reputation?


06-24-2005, 09:14 AM
I think that the emphasis for American aircraft design was for durability and firepower over maneuver. As the war progressed, speed became a factor as well. Events showed that this was a pretty good game plan.

06-24-2005, 09:27 AM
Take little Brewster (No1 U.S. tnber in game for me) and you will not be dissapointed.

If you like TnB this is the plane for you -- with some speed you can do miracles. In BnZ dept. F2A should do a good job also.

Second IMO is P-40(E/M) -- maybe B/C can do better (which I doubt), but the armament on E/M is considerably better.

Generally speaking all early planes have tendency to turn better than late war planes, at least on lower speeds they are.

06-24-2005, 10:07 AM
Turn and Burn?

You mean like, bank as hard as you can and yank the stick back as far as it will go, and turn tight and fast?

Don't try it a lot in US planes. Some can turn well, but there's a big difference between "fast" turns and "tight" turns

Manueverability is a lot more than turn radius, and it's a little hard to grasp at first that a fast turn might feel really tight (you're blacking out, it must be a tight turn, but that's Gs, not tightness), but a slow turn is almost in every instance tighter

So look at stall speeds for your answer, is my advice.

06-24-2005, 10:39 AM
US aircraft were designed with the ability to disengage from combat when the opponent gained the upper hand. Blazing guns on your first pass, dive away, live to fight again.

06-25-2005, 11:42 AM
Early war fighters were designed primarily to go fast and shoot a lot of bullets, in the assumption that their primary function would be to shoot down enemy bombers. Remember that in the early 1930s, bomber designs had outpaced figher performance, and this had a profound effect on fighter design in the mid-late thirties, when the Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf 109, P-39, P-40 and Wildcat were designed.

Since bombers had greater range, and were thought to be 'heavily armed', fighter escort, and therefore fighter vs fighter maneuvering combat was strictly a secondary consideration. Good turn and accelleration would have been added to aid making a second pass on the bomber sooner...



06-25-2005, 12:56 PM
Another US aircraft quality is the high altitude abilities. The P-47, P-51, and P-38 all have top notch high altitude abilities. Far beyond all but a few opponents and this superiority is maintained from fairly early on right to the end.

I forget which book I read it in, but a Spitfire squadron was, during this scenario, engaged with FW190s from JG2 over Europe somewhere (probably Belgium or France). It was a tight battle, both sides trying to gain advantage, a few aircraft down on both sides. The author wrote that suddenly in the distance were was a large gathering of contrails (he figured maybe 50 or 100 planes). These were USAAF P-47s arriving on the scene enmass. The FW190s promptly disengaged and the Spitfires also did as both sides were short on fuel.

Thats a definate power in real war situations when you have aircraft that are nearly guaranteed the high ground advantage. Not to say that Spitfires couldn't have done it either...but there was a certain respect there for the USAAF aircraft up at those alts.

06-25-2005, 01:33 PM
p51 has same engine as spitfire, p47 and p38 have turbo chargers.

p40, p39, p51A have alison engines, good for low alt and not much else.

F4F and other navy fighters have multistage superchargers, which where decent i think.

06-25-2005, 03:36 PM
US fighters were better turners than most give them credit for. But their primary opponents in the first year of the were were Japanese Ki-27s, Ki-47s, A5Ms, and A6Ms, undoubtedly the best set of pure turn fighters ever built. Even the Hurricaine and Spitfire, the Prime Minister and King, respectively, of ETO lateral dogfights, were forced to adopt energy emphasizine "boom and zoom" tactics against the Oscar and Zeke.

Most US fighters can hang with or outturn contemporary Luftwaffe fighters, especially at higher altitudes.

06-25-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
US fighters were better turners than most give them credit for. But their primary opponents in the first year of the were were Japanese Ki-27s, Ki-47s, A5Ms, and A6Ms, undoubtedly the best set of pure turn fighters ever built. Even the Hurricaine and Spitfire, the Prime Minister and King, respectively, of ETO lateral dogfights, were forced to adopt energy emphasizine "boom and zoom" tactics against the Oscar and Zeke.

Most US fighters can hang with or outturn contemporary Luftwaffe fighters, especially at higher altitudes.
Absolutely...I have no problems mixing it up with a 109G or K in a P-51. The P-51 isn't a spectacular turner but I can hold a 109 in a turn long enough to pelt them with a few 50s. The relative difference between ETO aircraft in most respects isn't nearly as significant as it is in the PTO.

You're right, even the Hurricane and Spitfire required the use of hit and run slash attacks against the Japanese aircraft.

06-25-2005, 05:49 PM
imo,end of the day(literally)'cr@p' american planes(read early&F4F...FM2)are the beast at this,Corsair CAN if needed turn well,but not for any sustained period.
If anything the American planes have more rudder authority,&are good for 'snapshots' & in head on passes they have the armour & rudder control(again)to survive & hit their opponent in h2h.
otherwise unless you are confident/competent enough....dont TnB wit hJapanese aircraft.
A6M & Ki43 will (with decent enough pilot)outurn any American aircraft...this stands for ki61/100 also.
never underestimate the 'weaker' plane.

I fly mainly A6M,Ki43/61/100...

but when flying American aircraft I'd choose F4F,or FM2 over any others...from a dogfighting viewpoint.

flying faaaaast is another matter.


06-27-2005, 08:09 AM
The P-36 although not flyable would be a good turn and burner. Although once again even against early war Japanese fighters it would be close.

06-27-2005, 09:09 AM
One of the biggest problems I have in the Pacific is getting my mindset changed to boom and zooming instead of turning.

I`ve just been `transferred` to the Pacific after Berlin capitulated and I`ve been flying the Brit Corsair. A Jap plane jumps on my six and the first thing I do is turn, and keep turning, then wondering why I`m being peppered to death and eventually having to bail.

And boy, is the Corsair one blind plane to the rear! Even the I16 allows the pilot to at least see over the rear of the cockpit! The Corsair seems to do everything it can to block your rear view. I just listen to my wingmen calls and shout `help` if I get in trouble.

But I really feel blind to the rear now.

Transfer from East to pacific = Culture shock! I`ll get over it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

She`s a tough girl though. Shot a zero down at VERY low alt and she blew up right next to me, the shockwave and debris hitting the girl - but she flew on. Other planes (except the P47) would`ve fallen apart!

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-27-2005, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p40, p39, p51A have alison engines, good for low alt and not much else.

True, but considering most players think 3k is high makes this point irrelevant ingame.

The suggestions already posted are sound. The best US T&B aircraft are the P-40, P-39, F4F. They can all also outdive their Japanese counterparts given enough altitude, but make sure you don't scrub too much speed as they don't accelerate as fast as the IJN/IJA rides.

These suggestions are all relative considering your application and SA (situational awareness) and all will work better with a good wingman (rhetorical, I know, but necessary to note)


06-27-2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
...They all seem so massive and heavy to me.

Much like many of our people! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Unless, of course, they live in California... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

06-28-2005, 08:13 AM
Reading these answers, I wonder if people have even tried all the US planes.
B-239 and Buffalo are exactly what you need, if you want to T&B.
It used to put a smile on my face online, when on an eastern front server somebody started to turn with me, when I was in a B239 and the other in some other than I153 or I16 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But beware some of the Japanese planes, they really can turn.

06-28-2005, 08:30 AM
Isn't the correct term "turn and bank". Not turn and burn?

All American planes are turn and burn. You try to turn with a Zero. You will burn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

06-28-2005, 09:37 AM
Turn and Burn is entirely appropriate, because after losing E in the turn, the ability to regain it is critical. To be fully effective in the Turn & Burn mode, you still have to be able to catch your opponent.

To quote a combat fighter pilot, "Turning is a defensive tactic." It is not enough to be able to turn tightly; you need to be able to get close enough to put large unsightly holes in your target, and you can't do that if you stay slower than he does.

Accelleration, or "Burning" is the other side of the equation.