Except you are not correct. Johnston described exactly what he was doing and it was NOT slang. A vertical turn and vertical bank are not the same thing. You said it was. WRONG.Stravinsky444 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2023 16:04ShindenKai wrote: ↑25 Dec 2022 23:52A major problem here is you don't understand what's being described.Stravinsky444 wrote: ↑02 Nov 2022 23:11Johnny Johnson article (top Spitfire ace at 36 kills, and top FW-190A killer at 20): "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."
"I held the Spit V in the tightest of vertical turns..." That is absolutely NOT a "Vertical bank" (as stated by you). Do you realize that banking DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT!? A true "Vertical bank" would be more accurately described as 'rolling into knife edge flight' OR "rolling into a 90* bank", which again is NOT changing your direction of flight .
Educate yourself on the period slang at the frontlines: You will see I am correct. A vertical turn means a turn initially performed in a 90 degree bank, or close to it (but of course gradually mellowed out to 60-70 degrees as speed drops). The quote's "another couple of turns", and the location near the water, should have been enough to clarify this...
You are also wrong about the rudder: It was crucial to sustain 3G turns at 60 to 70 degrees of bank, which is why the Me-109 performed asymmetrically (better to right) at high speeds, when turning at a moderate bank (3Gs at 60-70 degrees) to try to maintain altitude. It mattered even more at low speeds, around 200 mph, where a 90 degree 5-6G bank turn could not be maintained, or barely for a few seconds, if that. (In the case of sustained turns at low speeds -250 mph or less-, the most important turn speed range for combat, the Me-109G, Merlin P-51, Ki-84 and P-47D Razorback preferred left turns by a significant margin of around 2 seconds (10%+), while the FW-190A, Ki-43-II and all Spitfires were fairly symmetrical at 3Gs, although the FW-190A was much LESS symmetrical at 5-6Gs, with a very asymmetrical wing drop stall that made hard right turns far worse than left hard turns (both being poor). The Yak-9 preferred sustained right low G turns (but was not great at 3Gs below 200 mph, and so preferred to keep speed above 200 mph for more Gs), because its propeller turned the opposite way. It is not known why some types were more symmetrical than others, but often radials are more symmetrical in 3G turns than in-lines, while in-lines are more symmetrical in hard 5-6 G turns. Just a very rough observable trend, nothing more. The Spitfire was pretty symmetrical in both kinds of turns, but was not great at sustained 3G turns at all, which forced it to make faster wider circles to keep a similar rate of turn to German types, and from there its forgiving stall allowed brief snaphots, wings rumbling, at smaller German circles from the outside, which meant poor shooting (P-51 was similar, but much, much touchier on the stall, although with partial flaps it was passable in left low speed turns, partial flaps being denied to the Spitfire!). The Spitfire was much happier on the vertical.
Simple logic should have been enough on your part to understand why your point is wrong: The entire quote was available to you, and it is obvious a vertical "loop" does not yield a context of "on opposite sides to an ever diminishing circle"... There is also his term "held", and the fact looping contests tend to be ovals, with differentiated areas (top or bottom) where an abrupt turning point occurs after a gradual approach. Looping contest tended to be unusual, and so have very different descriptions compared to turns. This is clearly a turning contest, not a looping contest, where any Spitfire would have instantly defeated the FW-190A. This mismatch between vertical and horizontal wing loading is proof wing loading is affected either by propeller load (which is completely unloaded on the downside of a loop), or other factors that are not properly recognised. A good turning aircraft at low speed does not necessarily mean a good looping aircraft (FW-190A is a primary example), although some are (A6M, Ki-43 etc) but a good turning aircraft at high speed (less propeller load at high speeds) does predict a good looping aircraft (Yak-9, Spitfire, P-51D). Me-109G and P-47D were kind of in a gray zone, and were surprisingly similar in loops, while the Razorback was also similar to the Me-109G in sustained turns, including its left preference at low speed. In high speed hard right turns the Me-109G would gain, particularly in climbs, and this is described by Steinhoff as a very important tactic.
Vertical Turn execution:
1) Push stick to the left (left turn) or right (right turn), rolling until wings are perpendicular to horizon, 90*.
2) Pull stick towards stomach and hold, gradually increasing radius of turn (gradually pushing stick forward) to keep speed up as descending.
3)He who can hold it tighter, longer, wins.