# Regarding the Mustang



## IL2 (Oct 2, 2009)

Was the P-51 all that? Or was it simply the right plane, at the right time, for the right mission?

WW-ll had a host of great fighter planes but was the Mustangs big, big gas tanks the real reason for its success? And how would it have faired under more equal terms with the late war non-jet Luftwaffe? In other words, with all else being equal, would the P-51 still have ruled the skies over Europe?

We had so much in our favor. From pilot training to quality fuel to numbers. But how good was the P-51 really?

Thank you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2009)

As discussed many many many times, the P-51 was like all the other top fighters of the war. It had advantages in some areas, and disadvantages in others. This all depended on flight conditions and each individual situation. It excelled the best at the areas where it was most required and that was at the higher altitudes the bombers flew at. It was the aircraft that took the war to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 2, 2009)

IL2 said:


> Was the P-51 all that? Or was it simply the right plane, at the right time, for the right mission?
> 
> WW-ll had a host of great fighter planes but was the Mustangs big, big gas tanks the real reason for its success? And how would it have faired under more equal terms with the late war non-jet Luftwaffe? In other words, with all else being equal, would the P-51 still have ruled the skies over Europe?
> 
> We had so much in our favor. From pilot training to quality fuel to numbers. But how good was the P-51 really?


If it was the right plane, at the right time for the right mission - then it was all that, surely?

WWII did have a host of great fighter planes but the P-51 was one of them. I think the premise for your argument is pretty flakey, arguing that the P-51 was only great because of it's range is a bit like saying the F-35 is only great because you can't see it; you can't complain that the only reason an aircraft is great is because of the very asset that makes it great.

The P-51's range was its ace-in-the-hole, it enabled the Allies to put a top-of-the-line single-engined, single-seater fighter over the Reich to engage their interceptors and provide effective defence for the strategic bombing campaign all the way to the target and all the way back.

The plane aside, you mention pilot training; in the same way that the F4F achieved acceptable results against the A6M series through tactics, the P-51 would have achieved the same against the Luftwaffe. One on one, it probably lacked the sharpness of a true interceptor but tactics and gunnery skills would make it at least comparable to the late-war, non-jet Luftwaffe.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 2, 2009)

IL2 said:


> Was the P-51 all that? Or was it simply the right plane, at the right time, for the right mission?
> 
> WW-ll had a host of great fighter planes but was the Mustangs big, big gas tanks the real reason for its success? And how would it have faired under more equal terms with the late war non-jet Luftwaffe? In other words, with all else being equal, would the P-51 still have ruled the skies over Europe?
> 
> ...


Both Colin and Chris made good points.

Simply the Mustang had a better record against the LW than either the P-47 or P-38 and probably the Spit because the LW was forced to fight at the Mustang's best performance altitude and it was more or less equal at lower altitudes to the 109 and 190.

Had the P-38L been available in large numbers in summer 1943 we might be talking about it in the same way relative to the Battle over Germany.

It was more than range - it was equal or better performance to Fw 190 and Me 109 at bomber altitudes over Berlin - not France and Holland.


----------



## vanir (Oct 2, 2009)

On things like aircraft comparisons...well there's so many potholes to fall into.
I'll add some pilot reports including some television interviews I've watched with the surviving aces from various nations. According to the men who flew, the Mustang was a long range fighter which could do everything well. That was intensely amazing, most often when you made a specialised a/c it could only do one job well and sort of got by on everything else, maybe even did some things badly.
The Lightning was an excellent long range fighter, but again listening to the pilot reports it was slightly the victim of its own abilities, it was too stable for its own good in the dogfight and flew too high for its own good in the boom and zoom. But it was very fast with heavy armament, fantastic endurance and great reliability. And good piloting could work around its problems.
Now don't take me wrong about "problems" most a/c had them. The Messer had its sore points, the FW, everything.
But most pilots seem to agree the Mustang didn't really have any vices. It was great at everything and had as much or better endurance than a Lightning or late (modified) Thunderbolt.

Okay of course on closer examination there were tactics to use against the Mustang. Firstly, the late war situation in Germany and associated production difficulties aside, let's talk fantasy land here, the Me-109G-10, K-4 and Fw-190A-9, D-9 are all powerful fighters en par with any late war Allied jobs over Germany, given a good production example of each.
So comparing performance to the Mustang they've all got around the same speed capabilities at 6km, Fw's are better below this height for insta-power output, Messers are roughly equivalent from sea level to critical altitude but only for 5mins at a time where the Mustang will do its WEP for a good 20mins or so. But Messers have low speed acceleration and sustained climb over it for those 5mins (only).
The Mustang can get caught between supercharger stages at about 12,000ft iirc and the Merlin has a real flat spot when that happens, losing a good ~200hp or in other words never get caught at that height. All a/c except the Messer has this problem and this factor is really what makes the Messer pretty dangerous. It has great medium range output and no supercharger lag at the cost of higher running temperatures (the hydraulic drive coupling makes oil temps in Messers a nightmare, it plagued their service life and was always a prob at the max power settings). Meanwhile the Dora has the same prob as the Mustang with flat spots, it has one at about ~3000m and the BMW motor about 2000m. Jumo engine also had reliability issues and a very wide array of setups were tried with it, so specs vary (Wright Field postwar testing rated it as a bit of a hack, barely airworthy, but great performance like a hotrod someone put together in the backyard).

So in terms of a technical comparison against good examples of enemy contemporaries, the Mustang does really well at 7000m and at 3500m unless you're dealing with an A-series FW in which case, well try to draw him to medium altitude combat. At 5000m the D-9 and Messers are pretty tough to beat (Messers are pretty good at 6-7km too), and all German a/c are pretty tough under 3000m. The Messer you just need to extend from and wait 'till he overheats, like the way German pilots dealt with La5's, then he loses his WEP and you've still got yours. The Dora lost performance over 5km alt and had that flat spot at around 3500m.

But Günther Rall for one flew a captured Mustang in comparative testing and he's a very experienced Messer ace. When asked in an interview about the Mustang's performance compared to a good late war Messerschmitt he said, well it had a nice cockpit. He was asked if it was a superior fighter plane, he said no, the German fighters were competitive, but what amazed him the most was how roomy the cockpit was, which made flying it easier. But then again Mustang pilots were in the cockpit for some 3hrs before engaging combat over Germany, so then fatigue was an issue for them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 3, 2009)

Great post, Vanir.

The late war prop jobs made in Germany (D-9, A-9, K-4) were really great, but P-51B was available almost a full year before them, it was available in numbers, and it had no vices. When we count in the enormous range, there is really nothing more to ask from a plane.

As for Rall's comment on Mustang, well, I bet he'd give a 1st borne son to command a Jagdgruppe of Mustangs. No offense.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2009)

vanir said:


> But Günther Rall for one flew a captured Mustang in comparative testing and he's a very experienced Messer ace. When asked in an interview about the Mustang's performance compared to a good late war Messerschmitt he said, well it had a nice cockpit. He was asked if it was a superior fighter plane, he said no, the German fighters were competitive, but what amazed him the most was how roomy the cockpit was, which made flying it easier. But then again Mustang pilots were in the cockpit for some 3hrs before engaging combat over Germany, so then fatigue was an issue for them.



You kind of garbled what Rall really said - at least in his biography "Gunther Rall"

pg 174 - "But the P-51 was truly the star fighter in Europe because of its long range and manueverability"

pg 243 - "How different these American planes were to our 109's. They could fly for seven hours; the Bf 109 just one hour and 20 minutes. But what really broke us during the war were the long range fighter escorts, P-51 Mustangs, P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings. Once they were fitted with auxiliary fuel tanks they could fly for about eight hours. I could really detect the tactical differences between the German, british and American planes. 

This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51Mustang and its extremely comfortable cockpit, great rear visibility, long-range, excellent manueverability and an electrical starting system".


----------



## Njaco (Oct 3, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Great post, Vanir.
> 
> The late war prop jobs made in Germany (D-9, A-9, K-4) were really great, but P-51B was available almost a full year before them, it was available in numbers, *and it had no vices*. When we count in the enormous range, there is really nothing more to ask from a plane....



I think the only vice the "B" Mk had was its reduction in power at higher altitudes making it equal or less to the LW fighters. It wasn't a very good platform at those alt with the engine it had - hence the use of the model for ground-attack.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 3, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I think the only vice the "B" Mk had was its reduction in power at higher altitudes making it equal or less to the LW fighters. It wasn't a very good platform at those alt with the engine it had - hence the use of the model for ground-attack.


Chris
you don't mean the A variant here, do you?
B/C-1s with the -3 had a service ceiling slightly over 40,000ft 
B/Cs and Ds with the -7 could only top that by about 1,000ft if I recall but both engine versions were more than capable of taking on the Luftwaffe at bomber altitudes.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

Everyone knows I'm a Luftwaffe nut. But I have never agreed with the negative criticism on the Mustang. Of course it was no superfighter. There's no such thing: like Adler said, it had, like any other, its strengths and weaknesses. 

But let me just add that not all strengths or vices are as important as others. At medium-high altitude and over Germany, the P-51 was superior to its adversaries because it beat the Germans on its own game: power fights at higher altitude. German pilots knew they could engage and disengage at will, which suited their Freie Jagd tactics to the fullest. Now came along a fighter which was a whopping 50+ kmh faster than its adversaries. Couple that with pilots with excellent training and tactics and you got a succes story. Even before the high numbers became excruciating.

It's striking to see how it took the Germans over a year (!) to come up with a fighter (109K and 190D) which could match the speed of the P-51. By then new and faster versions of the Mustang were ready for production but the need didn't arise.

We can talk about turn rate, roll rate, firepower and whatever. But the real strength of any fighter is the ability to dictate the fight. That the Mustang was able to do 500 miles from home and over German airfields is all the more impressive. 

Kris


----------



## vanir (Oct 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> You kind of garbled what Rall really said - at least in his biography "Gunther Rall"
> 
> pg 174 - "But the P-51 was truly the star fighter in Europe because of its long range and manueverability"
> 
> ...



I was referring to his television recorded seminar included on the special features of the "WWII Fighter Aces" dvd from the ABC, where he says the comments I wrote in the character I suggested. He did also mention the electric starter. I remember clearly how he answered about the P-47, when asked by one audience member what he would do in a 109 if bounced by a Thunderbolt he looked confused for a moment and answered simply, "Shoot it down." He did then note you shouldn't follow one in a zoom climb because it has a good dive and picks up too much speed.
He was asked repeatedly about Allied a/c versus the late war 109 and about the Mustang, he was quite clearly most impressed by its cockpit. I don't remember him saying anything about its manoeuvrability, if he mentioned it was remarkable at all I definitely would remember that. He liked the cockpit of the Mustang and thought the Thunderbolt had an good dive. He did mention his biggest vice with the 109 was its automatic leading edge slats, which he said would extend in tight manoeuvres on one wing and not the other, which would throw the a/c balance right out. You would have to straighten the wings and then turn in again when this happened. He also clearly mentioned the late war 109 was still competitive, which some of the audience members did not at first seem to appreciate (they were mostly functioning on the belief of Allied technical superiority causing Allied combat superiority). In private interview on the same dvd Galland took quite some pains to explicitly outline the numerical superiority of the Allies as the overwhelming factor from mid-44 onwards, and that even so according to him the Luftwaffe was "still capable of holding its own" right to the very last day of hostiliites, which he obviously considers quite an achievement. Indeed considering the state of Germany at that time, its occupation, the almost complete degeneration of its defence forces and military infrastructure, it is notable German aerial victories continued to the last day of hostilities, Hartmann himself scored a Yak-9 on May 8, Spitfires and Thunderbolts were being shot down on the 1st and 4th May.

Was the biography you mention a compilated of edited/published statements given in seminars, or written by Rall himself? The rest of the dvd is personal interviews with surviving aces from most nations, Japanese, RAF BoB vets and German (including Hartmann which was very special, obviously filmed shortly before his death).


----------



## fibus (Oct 4, 2009)

the comparisons of aircraft on this site are always enlightening and very interesting. I can add little.
But I will suggest some food for thought. Any model P 40 below 15 thousand feet and speed less than 300 mph could turn inside any model P 51. The test evaluators at Wright-Pat considered the Yak 9 superior to the P 51.
The French pilots that flew the Spitfire, P 51 and the Yak 9 preferred the Yak. I don't know which models of Spit and Mustang.


----------



## VG-33 (Oct 4, 2009)

fibus said:


> the comparisons of aircraft on this site are always enlightening and very interesting. I can add little.
> The test evaluators at Wright-Pat considered the Yak 9 superior to the P 51.
> The French pilots that flew the Spitfire, P 51 and the Yak 9 preferred the Yak. I don't know which models of Spit and Mustang.



I would say the Yak-9U with the Klimov 107 engine. The usual Yak-9 withe a Klimov 105 was to short, in performance matters.

No Spit or Mustang were proposed to french pilots at Ivanovo in 1942-43. Only Hurricanes or P-39's and Yak-1.
For sure the best aerobatic warbird in 45-46 years was the _Normandie's_ Yak-3, beating even _Ile de France's _Spitfires IX and XVI on that point. Since very impressive in airshows, it was less appreciated than the sturdy and well protected La-7 in realfights by soviet pilots. French pilots asked for Lavotchkins for many and many times, with no result. 

I would add that Marcel Albert, the secund french ace * is* (not *was*, because he's still alive) not impressed neither from the Messerschmitt 109, neither from the FW-190A-8 flying qualities that he had tested in the STAé once the war ended. After - _the "violent" Yak-3 reactions to commands, they feel heavy ans sluggish", viewed from the cockpit_- he said, to a french virtual pilot's club.

The" French" Mustang reached about 680 km/h from MAE datas. It's less than usual admitted numbers, but it was a serial aircraft with probably some wearing. Anyway *all* the american planes were much better manufactured than european one's. It's why they are much appreciated by collectors. And BTW very much closer to their theoretical performance numbers than the others. At the end of the war it was noticed a great fall of production quality of german planes both from french (allied?) and soviet accounts, and from german vet's that spoke to Jean Salis at la Ferte Alais center. It should be not ignored either. 


But regardless the Yak, La and Spit ability to outfight the Mustang on a dogfight, they were not able to protect strategic bombers or catch Me-262's deep inside the Reich territory.

So *yes*, it was the right plane on the right place for allies!

Regards


----------



## Juha (Oct 4, 2009)

Hello Vanir
OT but anyway
Quote:"I remember clearly how he answered about the P-47, when asked by one audience member what he would do in a 109 if bounced by a Thunderbolt he looked confused for a moment and answered simply, "Shoot it down." "

Interesting when we remember that when he met P-47s he was shot down and wounded. He seemed to still have some of the fighter jockey's cockyness left even if when I saw him he was more like a modest but lively old gentleman.

Juha

ADDITION: The book, Meinen Flugbuch - Erinnerungen 1938 - 2004 is a memoirs writen by him and edited by Kurt Braatz. There is other Rall book arond, based on interviews made by an American woman, IIRC, and what I have heard, that one isn't particularly good. But IMHO Rall/Braatz book is a good one.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vanir
> OT but anyway
> Quote:"I remember clearly how he answered about the P-47, when asked by one audience member what he would do in a 109 if bounced by a Thunderbolt he looked confused for a moment and answered simply, "Shoot it down." "
> 
> ...




The autographed copy I have was written by British author and Journalist Jill Amadio in close collaboration with Rall - 2002.

In Rall's Introduction, he said "Working with the author, Jill Amadio, who has respected my wishes to have my recollections written from my own personal viewpoint, may go against the premise of a scholarly biography but I am grateful for her understanding that I have a lot to say as she researched the book and I wanted it said my way. I believe she has captured the essence of the man who is Gunther Rall, enabling readers to catch a rare glimpse into who I really am."

It is an excellent book - completely blunt and honest. 

Whether or not the 109 had a tendency to snatch slats and pull him off the track in a turning fight or his statement that a Mustang can not stay with a 109 in a fast, steep climbing turn - those are his stated comments and opinions whether others agree or not.

For what it is worth my father had the same impressions in his post war days of flying the two seat 109 aginst his fellow Mustang aces. I have zero notion how well maintained it was.

For those who have not read this book - I highly recommend it

Published by Tangmere Productions - a Virginia Bader Company


----------



## davebender (Oct 4, 2009)

8th Air Force perceived the P-38 to be a failure as a bomber escort. That allowed the P-51 to get the star role within the U.S. Army Air Corps. If the P-38 problems had been fixed by 1943 there is a reasonable chance the U.S. Army Air Corps would never have purchased a P-51 version powered by the Merlin engine.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2009)

davebender said:


> 8th Air Force perceived the P-38 to be a failure as a bomber escort. That allowed the P-51 to get the star role within the U.S. Army Air Corps. If the P-38 problems had been fixed by 1943 there is a reasonable chance the U.S. Army Air Corps would never have purchased a P-51 version powered by the Merlin engine.



Dave - the Usaaf placed the first large order of P-51Bs in August, 1942 and converted an A contract to P-51Bs at the same time. This order started production even before the first NAA flight test of the merlin powered Mustang.

Had they discontinued all P-51B contract's just before the P-38 equipped the 20th and 55th - there would have been enough B's (~ 1500 by September1943) to equip approximatly 20-25 Fighter Groups - at one half the cost of the P-38.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 4, 2009)

I don't know. It sounds awfully speculative to assign a "reasonable chance" to such an outcome. (perhaps there is some documentation supporting this?) The P-38 was much more expensive to produce, to maintain and much more difficult to fly on the edge.

The Mustang just makes sense. I think the Mustang was a winner for the allies because its range brought the fight to enemy and with US production capability and low production time, material costs and maintenance requirements, it was available in numbers that absolutely overwhelmed a Luftwaffe that was already relegated to defense, also known as the "just a matter of time" doctrine.


----------



## Juha (Oct 4, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
Yes, Amadio’s book was the one I was talking on. I never even leafed it over, so I have no personal opinion on it but heard opinions of some others, which were rather negative. I bought the Rall/Braatz book, or to be exact the Finnish edition of it when it was published in 2005, the German edition was published in 2004. Have you see the latter one?

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> Yes, Amadio’s book was the one I was talking on. I never even leafed it over, so I have no personal opinion on it but heard opinions of some others, which were rather negative. I bought the Rall/Braatz book, or to be exact the Finnish edition of it when it was published in 2005, the German edition was published in 2004. Have you see the latter one?
> 
> Juha



No Juha. I'll see if I can find an English version.

I found the Amadio book very informative, including post war Luftwaffe rebuilding as part of NATO.

Rall is one of my favorite people. I feel very fortunate to have met him through my father and found him to be self depricating in his humor and, while confident (as all fighter pilots are), he was also humble. He reminded me very much of my father.


----------



## merlin (Oct 4, 2009)

According to Freeman's biography p.236
By February 1944 more than 100 9th Air Force Merlin mustangs were escorting 8th air Force bombers, destroying three to five times as many German fighters per sortie as the more numerous P-47s between January and March, Before the end of March Doolittle asked for all his p-47s and P-38s to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible.
P.239
the performance ofthe German twin-engined fighters was never adequate against day fighters, but the speed and manoeurability of the modified FW 190s an Me 109s had been impaired by the weight of their new guns and armour. Until the D-9 version of the former was available, belatedly re-engined with the Jumo 213, they could not compete with the Mustang.
And p.241
Monthly losses, which included most of the experienced German fighter pilots, averaged 450 in the first five months of 1944, only 246 of Germans's single-engined day fighters remained operational.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2009)

merlin said:


> According to Freeman's biography p.236
> By February 1944 more than 100 9th Air Force Merlin mustangs were escorting 8th air Force bombers, destroying three to five times as many German fighters per sortie as the more numerous P-47s between January and March, Before the end of March Doolittle asked for all his p-47s and P-38s to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible.
> P.239
> the performance ofthe German twin-engined fighters was never adequate against day fighters, but the speed and manoeurability of the modified FW 190s an Me 109s had been impaired by the weight of their new guns and armour. Until the D-9 version of the former was available, belatedly re-engined with the Jumo 213, they could not compete with the Mustang.
> ...



The last comment is overstated (no. of S/e fighters remaining during May 1944 as an example) pretty significantlty.

LuftFlotte Reich alone stated ~450 s/e 'effectives' and the LW showed 1,063 serviceable s/e Day Fighters.

Having said this, the situation regarding experienced pilots was pretty severe relative to number of a/c available.

Jan-May, 1944 was the death knell for German air superiority over Germany.


----------



## davebender (Oct 4, 2009)

> The P-38 was much more expensive to produce, to maintain and much more difficult to fly on the edge.


Those things were true during 1941 also and yet the U.S. Army Air Corps persisted with the P-38 program. For that matter the P-47 was also expensive to produce. Aircraft cost was apparently not a major consideration for the WWII U.S. Army Air Corps.


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2009)

The Messerschmitt 109 Emil's slats snatched and sometimes even jammed, and this almost killed Rall once, hence he was quite vary of them from that point on. But a new slat design introduced with the Friedrich series and onwards solved the problem and these a/c experienced no snatching or disturbance to the flight path in any way during hard maneuvering turns. This is made clear by both verteran LW pilots as-well as modern pilots.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 5, 2009)

The Mustang solved many problems in one nice package. It had range, it performed equal to or better than most, it was quicker to build, cheaper to build, and easier to learn to fly and fight. And on top of all of those its timing was almost perfect, maybe a bit late.

The USAAC needed a plane that could do all of those things, and the Mustang provided it in spades!

If you have 3 planes in the inventory (P-38, P-47, P-51) that can all perform the same mission. (only speaking of the needs in the European theatre) It only makes sense to go with the Mustang. And in reality, the P-47, at that time, did not have the range to match the Mustang or Lightning. So it was either Mustang or Lightning. I love the big Lockheed, but the choice to go with the P-51 was obvious.


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2009)

The Mustang was indeed what the Allies needed, and at the time of its introduction into service it was actually the fastest fighter in the skies at most altitudes. The Mustang was fast, rolled turned well, had good control forces at most speeds and most importantly it had a very long operating range. 

Now the Mustang wasn't without disadvantages to enemy fighters ofcourse, the Bf-109 could mostly outturn and outclimb the P-51 Mustang pretty effortlessly, and the FW190 generally turned climbed a little bit better as-well at low to medium alts while it was the other way around at high altitudes (And thats where the bombers flew). But overall I'd have to say that by the time of its introduction the P-51 was one of the hottest birds in the sky, and it remained so until the end of the war. The Dora-9 was the P-51's equal in many ways, featuring slightly better performance at low to medium altitudes while the Mustang was superior from 20kft and upwards, and this while having almost double the range. 

In short the P-51 is one of the greats within the history of fighters, and it certainly helped save the Allied airforces from utter defeat. The P-51 levelled the playing fields for the Allies in many respects while it gave them the advantage in others. The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up; The P-51 changed this and took the fight to the Germans, and you gotta give some credit for that.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> ....But a new slat design introduced with the Friedrich series and onwards solved the problem.... .



How did the design differ from earlier 109s?


----------



## davebender (Oct 5, 2009)

> The Mustang solved many problems in one nice package. It had range, it performed equal to or better than most, it was quicker to build, cheaper to build, and easier to learn to fly and fight.


I agree with all of this. But the fact remains that the U.S. Army Air Corps took their time adopting the P51. They were betting the P-38 and P-47 would be war winners. Only when the P-38 and P-47 fell short of the mark was the P-51 pushed to the front of the pack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2009)

I think you are forgetting the amount of time needed to tool-up and start producing aircraft in large numbers. And the amount of time it took to design and develop certain aspects of engine performance. 

WHile it is ceratinly true that the P-51 was designed in the Spring of 1940, it took until the end of Oct 1941 to get the first one to fly in England. Just about ONE month after the TWO-stage Merlin first flew in a Spitfire and that was the converted MK III protoype. ANd this was around 15 months After Stanley Hooker started working on the TWO-stage project. THE PRODUCTION TWO-stage Merlins didn't enter service until June of 1942. At this time around 612 Allison powered Mustangs had been built with more to come.

But Allison powered Mustangs won't do the USAAF any good. Or at least they can't replace P-38s and P-47s. THE USAAF wants fighters than can Fly at high altitude. While they may still believe that unescorted bombers can operate over Europe in 1942 at least the P-38 and P-47 can operate at the same altitude as the bombers. 

British built two-stage Merlins are in short supply, initial production is around one per day until ALL development problems are sorted out. THE US starts manufacture of the two-stage engine at the Packard plant. 5 are produced in 1942. 

Contract for the First Merlin powered Mustang protoypes is given at the end of July 1942. By the end of August 1942 a contract is placed for 400 P-51Bs, please note that this about 3 months before the first protoype P-51B actually flies. By Jan of 43 somewhere around 4700 Merlin Mustangs are on order according to the account I am reading. Packard is only able to Deliever 2792 Two stage engines in 1943 and a fair number of them were to British contracts. 

Without re-writting history the Merlin powered Mustang wasn't going to show up in combat much before it did.


----------



## davebender (Oct 5, 2009)

Packard V-1650 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In June 1940, Henry Ford had offered to manufacture 1,000 aircraft a day if the Government would let him do it his way, and during a discussion with Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. regarding what the Ford company might produce, Ford's son Edsel tentatively agreed to make 6,000 Rolls-Royce liquid-cooled engines for Great Britain and 3,000 for the U.S.[2] However, at the beginning of July Henry Ford stated that he would manufacture only for Defense, not for Britain, and the entire deal was declared off.



I am under the impression the Packard Merlin engine was a British program. The American government turned down a July 1940 offer by Ford Motor Company to produce the Merlin engine for American use.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Mustang was indeed what the Allies needed, and at the time of its introduction into service it was actually the fastest fighter in the skies at most altitudes. The Mustang was fast, rolled turned well, had good control forces at most speeds and most importantly it had a very long operating range.
> 
> Now the Mustang wasn't without disadvantages to enemy fighters ofcourse, the Bf-109 could mostly outturn and outclimb the P-51 Mustang pretty effortlessly, and the FW190 generally turned climbed a little bit better as-well at low to medium alts while it was the other way around at high altitudes (And thats where the bombers flew). But overall I'd have to say that by the time of its introduction the P-51 was one of the hottest birds in the sky, and it remained so until the end of the war. The Dora-9 was the P-51's equal in many ways, featuring slightly better performance at low to medium altitudes while the Mustang was superior from 20kft and upwards, and this while having almost double the range.
> 
> In short the P-51 is one of the greats within the history of fighters, and it certainly helped save the Allied airforces from utter defeat. The P-51 levelled the playing fields for the Allies in many respects while it gave them the advantage in others. The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up; The P-51 changed this and took the fight to the Germans, and you gotta give some credit for that.



Pretty darn good summary Soren..


----------



## Juha (Oct 5, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote:” The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up..”

Now on what you based your claim. Fighter Command had taken beating from LW fighters in 41-42 but in 43 situation was much more even, sometimes LW roughed RAF sometimes it was other way around, and IIRC P-51Bs began their operations in ETO near the end of 43, so situation was already rather even in fighter combat when Stangs appeared. The range was the virtue which made P-51 so important and of course the bomb loads of US heavy bombers, which meant that LW fighters didn’t have anymore the privilege to decide, engage or not depending on tactical situation, but their had to try to disturb the bombers.

And on Rall, I doubt that a man who claimed 174 aerial victories while flying Bf 109F or later was “was quite vary of” the slats of his 109, at least according to his memoirs many of his fights were classical turning fights.

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> Quote:” The Spitfire was being mauled pretty badly by LW fighters, esp. by the FW190, at the time the P-51 showed up..”
> 
> Now on what you based your claim. Fighter Command had taken beating from LW fighters in 41-42 but in 43 situation was much more even, sometimes LW roughed RAF sometimes it was other way around, and IIRC P-51Bs began their operations in ETO near the end of 43, so situation was already rather even in fighter combat when Stangs appeared


Tend to agree
once the RAF got over the initial shock of the Fw190A, they and the Luftwaffe more or less traded blows


----------



## Juha (Oct 5, 2009)

Hello Colin
In fact, after checking July and Nov 43 from Caldwell’s The JG 26 War Diary it seems that during July 43 it was rather even, LW had a slight advance but in Nov 43 Spitfires seemed to have won all the bigger combats. I was a little bit surprised myself on that. Of course only 2 months but I have not more time now.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 5, 2009)

I am under the impression the Spitfire Mk IX was more or less equal to contemporary German Me-109 and Fw-190 fighter aircraft. The new Spitfire version plus adoption of air combat tactics similiar to those Germany used evened the odds.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> Packard V-1650 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> I am under the impression the Packard Merlin engine was a British program. The American government turned down a July 1940 offer by Ford Motor Company to produce the Merlin engine for American use.



Not, quite. Ford bailed. Packard got the drawings and a sample engine that was in the country and started work in June of 1940 even though formal contracts weren't signed until September.

Ford offered/boasted about 1000 aircraft a day but spring/summer of 1940 was cash and carry time, not lend lease so it was a British program but the US would only allow programs that would expand the US ability to make US designs or things the US could use in it's own programs. Notice that no british tanks were made in the US In order to OK the order for 6000 engines for England the Americans got to tack on an initial order for 3000 engines NONE of these were two stage engines. 
THe Ford company did a fantastic Job Making P&W R-2800s after signing a contract in Sept of 1940 but it took them until some time in 1944 to peak at 186 engines in one day.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2009)

One has to examine both doctrine and tactics to get a perspective of the differences between 1941/42 and late 1942/1943 for RAF Fighter Command.

My perspective is the the Fw190 set the RAF back on its heels and RAF did not achieve true parity with the 190 until the introduction of the Mk IX.

Additionally, the RAF became more aggrssive in their fighter sweeps over France and Holland - therby regainging some of the lost initiative.

Second factor - the Mk IX in my opinion was a better dog fighter than the Fw 190A5 (and subsequent), particularly at high altitude, but the battles were largely at low to middle altitudes making it very even contests between the two fighters.

Taking it further, the Spit IX was also a better dogfighter than the P-51 at low to medium altitudes. At high altitudes the Mustang regained some capability due to outright speed, dive and roll at high speeds.

The essential difference in rate of scores and air to air superiority between the 51 and the 190 is simply the 190 had to engage the bombers, could not simply pick and choose whether to fight, at high altitude - and placed itself in the exact strike zone where the Mustang was clearly superior (except for roll) until the 190D.

When I publish my new book I will be including tactical discussions by Zemke, Stewart and other 8th FC leaders in which they discuss the do''s and don'ts for battle against the 190 and 190. In every case they will concede that the US fighters should always strive to manuever in ways to not lose the speed advantage.

The Spit XIV was nearly superior (as a dogfighter) in every key tactical category to either the 51D or 51B - it just couldn't fly to the fight.


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> And on Rall, I doubt that a man who claimed 174 aerial victories while flying Bf 109F or later was “was quite vary of” the slats of his 109, at least according to his memoirs many of his fights were classical turning fights.



Well in that case he just didn't push his aircraft to the limit whilst out-turning and shooting down his foes, which I have no problem believing either. But I can tell you that all other 109 pilots disagree with him regarding the snatching, they all make it quite clear that this just doesn't happen. Rall almost got killed when one slat jammed whilst flying an Emil, explaining is relationship with the slats.


----------



## davebender (Oct 5, 2009)

> The Spit XIV was nearly superior (as a dogfighter) in every key tactical category to either the 51D or 51B


Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> I am under the impression the Spitfire Mk IX was more or less equal to contemporary German Me-109 and Fw-190 fighter aircraft. The new Spitfire version plus adoption of air combat tactics similiar to those Germany used evened the odds.


They were remarkably equal

_The supremacy of the Fw190 lasted from September 1941 until July 1942 when 64 Sqn started receiving their Spitfire Mk IXs. The Mk IX was fitted with the Merlin 61, employing a two-stage supercharger with two centrifugal impellors in series. The new engine gave substantial improvement in high altitude performance over the Merlin 46 as fitted to the Spitfire Mk V; at 30,000ft the M46 developed 720hp whereas the M61 developed 1,020hp - an increase of 40%.
This extra power was sufficient to close the gap with the Fw190. As this AFDU report shows, the performance of the Fw190 vs Spitfire Mk IX was about as close as it could be, considering they were two quite different aircraft.
The Fw190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000ft. The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior to the Fw190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights were as follows:

*Speed*
2,000ft - the Fw190 is 7-8mph faster than the Spitfire

5,000ft - the Fw190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

8,000ft - the Spitfire is 8mph faster than the Fw190

15,000ft - the Spitfire is 5mph faster than the Fw190

18,000ft - the Fw190 is 3mph faster than the Spitfire

21,000ft - the Fw190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same

25,000ft - the Spitfire is 5-7mph faster than the Fw190

*Climb*
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000ft with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two fighters although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.
Above 22,000ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly whereas the Spitfire's is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

*Dive*
The Fw190 is faster than the Spitfire in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as it was with the Spitfire Mk V.

*Manoeuvrability*
The Fw190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire except in the turn, where it is out-turned without difficulty.
The superior rate of roll of the Fw190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire if attacked when in a turn by flicking over into a diving turn in the opposite direction and, as with the Mk V, the Mk IX had great difficulty in following this manoeuvre. It would have been easier for the Spitfire to follow the Fw190 in the diving turn if its engine had been fitted with the negative g carburettor as this type of engine with the ordinary carburettor cuts out very easily.

The Spitfire's worst heights for engaging the Fw190 were between 18,000 and 22,000ft and below 3,000ft. At these heights the Fw190 is a little faster.

Both aircraft bounced one another to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire could not be caught when bounced if it was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw190 while still well out of range. When the Spitfire was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw190 was bounced by the Spitfire, except that the overtaking took a little longer.

The initial acceleration of the Fw190 is better than the Spitfire under all conditions of flight except that in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, provided the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the acceleration of the two fighters.

The general impression gained by the AFDU pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw190 and that provided the Spitfire had the initiative, it undoubtedly has a good chance of shooting down the Fw190._

Spitfire at War
Alfred Price
Ian Allan Press
ISBN 0 7110 0560 5


----------



## Njaco (Oct 5, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Chris
> you don't mean the A variant here, do you?
> B/C-1s with the -3 had a service ceiling slightly over 40,000ft
> B/Cs and Ds with the -7 could only top that by about 1,000ft if I recall but both engine versions were more than capable of taking on the Luftwaffe at bomber altitudes.



Hence, I should stick to LW aircraft!  I believe you're right Colin.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.



Dave - while deliveries of the Mk XIV really started in 1st three months of 1944, none really made it into aerial duels with LW until the Tactical groups moved to the continent... I believe there were some during Operation Market Garden in September but the XIV was used extensively against V-1s in the summer/fall of 1944.

The 51H production deliveries are more in line with Ta 152H's, lagging slightly behind.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2009)

I recall reading that the Luftwaffe kill-loss ratio over France was 3-1 at the beginning of 1943 while 3-1 at the end of 1943. 
This seems logical given the difference in pilot recruit training of 1942 and 1943. 

Kris


----------



## vanir (Oct 5, 2009)

Yeah I was going to bring up a point I've heard bandied about by some historians, that during 41-42 most of the Battle of Britain vets were reassigned to overseas squadrons, leaving relatively inexperienced recruits in the new MkV's to fight the experten of JG2 and 26 on the Channel Front. This was probably a factor.

There are a couple of other points too, this one is a pet theory of mine after some technical research and cross referencing with pilot reports (on both sides). I'm open to correction but see what you think.

In 1942 the FW had a lot of teething troubles, the A-2 overheated the second cylinder bank which often shut down during flight, the A-3 still had tremendous overheating problems and those still fitted with 801C-2 motors (most were, few received the D motor) had severe altitude performance issues (there was a mismatch between supercharger sizing and critical altitude in the B4 configuration meaning it didn't do so fantastic anywhere above 3000 metres even though it was a monster under this height). Both types had severe vibration problems under high output conditions (it appears throttle restrictions were made which were not reflective of output potential on the bench for the BMW motor, which using C2/3 fuel should always have been 1800hp from the start, until the engine mounting was redesigned in the A-5 output was restricted to ~1600hp even using C3, this was actually mostly an engine speed restriction due to vibration).

Even with these teething problems the early series Antons were still very powerful a/c at low altitude and for short periods could really whoop some ass. But tactics had a lot to do with this. According to a report of typical Channel Front interception of British MkV Spits in 1942 by I./JG26 two flights of Fw190A took off to shepherd the RAF Spits into each other.
One flight of Fw190A pursued them directly from behind in the high speed condition at around 3000 metres altitude. The Spits could not get away and were chased to the coast, where the Focke's finally caught up with them. But the Spits were still good for combat whilst the Fw's were all overheating and required a cooldown period for their motors. The British never found out about this however.
The second group of Fw had flown directly toward the coast instead of chasing the Spits and had time to settle into a cruise condition at 5000 metres by the time the Spits and their pursuers arrived.
Then the first group (the pursuers) broke off contact, climbed and cooled their engines.
The second group (the actual interception) dove with already cooled engines and attacked in a tag team.
According to the report the FW-drivers had only a few minutes of very good performance before they overheated, but then the first group would change over again, and the second group would now climb and cool. It was a tag team.
The British report for the same combat was merely the sky being filled with Focke Wulfs and the fact they frequently changed positions, and that their a/c performance was clearly superior.

But you see in a one-on-one the Spit V would start performing better in sustained combat, if the FW could not breakaway and cool his engine. At least for these early series FW.

So my tender is the situation on the Channel Front was partly comparative performance, partly pilot experience and partly the tactics being used. There were still circumstances which could've been exploited, and the air superiority of the Luftwaffe here was I think as much situational as inherent.

(note) I should add for prosperity when I mention "pilot reports" I am talking about excerpts being referenced in other publications, not trying to sound like I have a bunch of primary source pilot reports sitting in front of me


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 6, 2009)

vanir said:


> One flight of Fw190A pursued them directly from behind in the high speed condition at around 3000 metres altitude. The Spits could not get away and were chased to the coast, where the Focke's finally caught up with them. But the Spits were still good for combat whilst the Fw's were all overheating and required a cooldown period for their motors. The British never found out about this however.
> 
> But you see in a one-on-one the Spit V would start performing better in sustained combat, if the FW could not breakaway and cool his engine. At least for these early series FW.
> 
> So my tender is the situation on the Channel Front was partly comparative performance, partly pilot experience and partly the tactics being used. There were still circumstances which could've been exploited, and the air superiority of the Luftwaffe here was I think as much situational as inherent.


The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.
I was under the impression that most of the overheating issues with the early Fw190 series aircraft were during ground running.


----------



## Hop (Oct 6, 2009)

> The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
> Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
> No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.



The AFDU test had to be abandoned because of the rough running of the 190. Mind you, the British were overboosting it. The cockpit data card gave the limits as 

1.35 ata, 2,450 rpm - 3 minutes limit
1.28 ata, 2350 rpm - 30 minutes limit

Which makes it one of the derated aircraft.

The AFDU ran it at:

1.42 ata, 2,700 rom - 3 minutes limit
1.35 ata, 2,450 rpm - 30 minutes limit


----------



## Juha (Oct 6, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
Quote:”My perspective is the the Fw190 set the RAF back on its heels and RAF did not achieve true parity with the 190 until the introduction of the Mk IX.

Additionally, the RAF became more aggrssive in their fighter sweeps over France and Holland - therby regainging some of the lost initiative.”

Agree, 1941-42 combats had had impact to British eagerness but in 1943 they were gaining back their confidence to their planes and had probably learned lot from their painfully experiences.

And again I like to stress the effect of US bombers, they had carrying capacity and in .5 mgs firepower and firing distance which made them more difficult targets than European bombers and so they were excellent tools to force LW fighters to fight regardless of tactical situation.

Hello Vanir
Yes, also on Channel front as always, situation depended on pilot skills, planes , tactics and tactical situation.

Hello Soren
IIRC correctly, in his memoirs Rall writes very positively on Bf 109F-4. I don’t know what the all other tens of thousands Bf 109 pilots thought but FAF test reports say nothing on aileron snatching, only that pilot noticed "notching" on the stick when the slats deployed. But I wonder was Rall really very worried on slats, it would be a bit strange by judging from his very positive opinion on 109F.


Juha


----------



## vanir (Oct 6, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The AFDU report makes no mention of this.
> Though not mentioned by name, I can't see how the Fw190 involved in the trial could be any other than the Fw190A-3 Wkr Nr 313 which landed by chance at Pembrey on 23Jun42, this would place it in the range of aircraft experiencing 'overheating' problems.
> No mention is made of this issue whilst trying to bounce the Spitfire in the trial at high cruising speed and bear in mind, this is the Spitfire Mk IX it's trying to catch, not the Spitfire Mk V.
> I was under the impression that most of the overheating issues with the early Fw190 series aircraft were during ground running.



No both overheating and vibration at high running speeds (above 2500rpm) plagued the Fw190 until the front fuselage was lengthened and the engine mounts relocated in the A-5.
Overheating was most severe for the C-1 engine which would frequently shut down the second bank of cylinders due to this problem in the initial Fw190 deliveries (A-0 and A-1). The motor was quickly improved with redesigned cooling fins on the cylinder banks, along with cooling holes on the cowling of the A-2 variant, but overheating was still a major problem at maximum power settings for any length of time, even at the cruising condition the 801 ran very hot in those early airframes. Two short term fixes proposed for this were MW30/50 injection and C3 fuel. At this stage engines run on the bench performed very differently than those mounted in the tight Fw190 airframe. On the A-4 variant pilot controlled cooling flaps were installed, although as usual some features of later models were trialled on the previous variant so I've seen references of A-3 fitted with both engine types (C-2 and D-2) and with or without controlled cooling flaps. There isn't a whole lot of difference between those early variants, the A-1 was retrofitted with cooling slots and C-2 motors, the A-2 had the MG151 and new Revi, the A-3 had both C-2 and D-2 motors and the A-4 had a radio set change and standardised cooling flaps for cold starts.

The A-5 series finally attempted to deal with the vibration issues with the lengthening of the front fuselage, but this also had a byproduct of allowing more room at the rear of the engine and as it turned out was the single best fix for the cooling problems of the 801 on the rear bank. It still ran hot in but solved premature overheating issues.
Thus in the A-5 by solving the vibration issues the full bench rating of 1780hp for the 801 could finally be used in regular service, and by solving the overheating issues further output development (erhönte notleistung) was facilitated.

Prior to this boost was limited by the potential for engine damage due to hot running of the engine and engine speed was limited by vibration. In fact the 1780hp rating for the 801D-2 engine is given off the bench, in service fitted to early series airframes there is no reason the D-2 could achieve higher outputs than the 1600hp rating for the C-2, both at 2500rpm except that the C3 fuel version would achieve maximum output at slightly lower critical altitudes (for low and high gear) and thus have improved low altitude performance. The full potential of the 801 however could not have been realised in the Fw190A until the A-5 series however, it would not even return its bench rated performance until then.

In fact if you think a little outside the box you might really consider the A-6 to be the finally finished and refined A-1 design and in a perfect world or during peacetime probably would've been the first series to enter major production. But it's a little like the Soviet Yak story of being thrust into service when the type was still technically speaking under development and its problems were still being discovered. I'd consider everything up to the A-5 to be development prototypes unfortunately placed into production and service, and the A-6 to be the first refined version fit for long term service without trouble.

Michael Holm gives a pretty good overview on one of his excellent webpages, with references, more detail about Fw-190A overheating issues are gleaned from various publication.


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> IIRC correctly, in his memoirs Rall writes very positively on Bf 109F-4. I don’t know what the all other tens of thousands Bf 109 pilots thought but FAF test reports say nothing on aileron snatching, only that pilot noticed "notching" on the stick when the slats deployed. But I wonder was Rall really very worried on slats, it would be a bit strange by judging from his very positive opinion on 109F



I don't see why he couldn't still have had a positive opinion on the F4, the performance of the a/c was great. But then again maybe his comment about the snatching was exclusively regarding the Emil, that could also be. One thing is for sure though, the 109F and onwards when pulled into max performance turns didn't experience any snatching or disturbance to the flight path what'so'ever, the only noticable thing being a slight notching feeling on the stick. The Emil was another deal altogether.


----------



## Altea (Oct 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I don't see why he couldn't still have had a positive opinion on the F4, the performance of the a/c was great. But then again maybe his comment about the snatching was exclusively regarding the Emil, that could also be. ....



You didn't ask to the Tszaw question what was the difference between F and E slats, except on size.


----------



## Soren (Oct 8, 2009)

Altea said:


> You didn't ask to the Tszaw question what was the difference between F and E slats, except on size.



The operating mechanism was different and a lot less susceptible to dirt. One relied on a swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats (Emil) while the other relied on a roller-track mechanism (F,G K). Another big difference between the Emil and later series was the elimination of the inboard to outboard connecting linkage.

So there you have it.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> The operating mechanism was different and a lot less susceptible to dirt. One relied on a swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats (Emil) while the other relied on a roller-track mechanism (F,G K). Another big difference between the Emil and later series was the elimination of the inboard to outboard connecting linkage.
> 
> So there you have it.



"_I contacted Claus Colling, one of the men behind Flug Werk (the company producing new-build Fw190s and also responsible for much 109 restoration work), and specifically asked him about the swing-arm versus roller-track slat travel design. His answer appears below:

The Me (Bf ) 109 "E" through "F" used the swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats. *From the "G" onwards the Me 109's used the roller-track mechanism to guide the slats in and out*. It all follows a patent bought by Messerschmitt from DeHavilland just prior to the war. The slats are driven out by means of low air-pressure if the AOA gets higher ( slow flight ) and retract by means of air-pressure when accelerating..._"

Google Image Result for http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/control/slats/slat4.jpg


----------



## Soren (Oct 12, 2009)

That is a mistake from the author I believe Milosh, but more important is that the inboard to outboard connecting linkage was eliminated with the F series onwards. Furthermore the slats were changed as-well, both in shape, chord length. All together this solved the problem with the slats jamming by making them less susceptible to dirt and improving the smoothness of their operation. As a result the F series and onwards never experienced any jamming of its slats, something the Emil experienced all too often, killing more than a few unlucky LW pilots in the process.

Incidentally from the same site you linked:
_""Recent discussion on the Forum has indicated *that a different, less complex arrangement utilizing a roller track was introduced at some point in production; however, as seen at right on the "Schmierplan" (lubrication point chart) for the Friedrich*, the swing arm assemblies are still shown. _


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 13, 2009)

In 1943 the Luftwaffe and RAF were basically trading blows as said. 

I don't view the P51 as the best fighter of WW2, but the one with the most impact. It did its damage when the war was there to be won and while it wasn't dominant over its rival, it was competitive in all areas and could fight the Luftwaffe on relatively even terms over Germany. 

COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE, RANGE, EASE of PROUDCTION...these three factors basically tell the story. It had the range and ability to compete against the Luftwaffe and could be produced in superior numbers!


----------



## bada (Oct 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> They were remarkably equal
> 
> _The supremacy of the Fw190 lasted from September 1941 until July 1942 when 64 Sqn started receiving their Spitfire Mk IXs. _


_

actually, the 64S was the first to receive the spit9 M61, but not really in great numbers, this "64S overrulled the butcherbird" is just like a kind of legend, passed as true through ages.

64S:
on 10thJuly : 3 airframes assigned
on 20thJuly : 7 airframes assigned
on 31st July : 9 airframes assigned

i really do not hink that such a small number (not even a full operational squadron) coudl have a great influance on the FW190 supremacy in the channel and certainly not in such a short time.

If you compare to 2 other Squadrons:

401S:
31st July: 17 airframes assigned

402S:
31st july : 9 airframes assigned

611S:
31st July : 18 airframes assigned

so, on the 31st July, we have 53 airframes , if we apply the 7 on10 RFC(ready for combat)-rule, we have 37Operationnal ariframes in 4 different squadrons, 3 of them hevaing received the planes max 10 days before.

We have to wait till the 2nd period of november(10-30), the largest number of spit9 M61 beeing present at that period, declining from there.(introduction of M63 Mk9 /M66L F9 from febr 43)

Just as a info-note_


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 16, 2009)

bada said:


> actually, 64 Sqn was the first to receive the Spitfire MkIX M61...


useful info
but no-one (including myself) is denying that the impact of the Spitfire MkIX would not have been immediate. I believe the few airframes that were filtered down to operational squadrons were held back until the squadron in question had enough of them to deploy them in sufficient numbers to maximise their impact.

My comparison was merely aircraft vs aircraft on a performance level, regardless of how quickly the Spitfire MkIX made its way to the front.


----------



## Mike Williams (Oct 16, 2009)

Hi Colin:

I realize this is tangential to the thread’s principle theme, however, I thought you might appreciate the following: 64 Squadron’s ORB noted that as of 11 July 1942 the Squadron had 13 Spitfires IXs. First operational mission with a full complement of Spitfire IXs was 28 July 1942. 30 July 1942 the Squadron destroyed 5 FW 190’s whist flying Spitfire IXs:
































I can confirm your impression that the rule for UK based Spitfire IX units was that they went operational once capable of putting 12 Spitfire IXs in the air for a mission.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 16, 2009)

Gratefully received Mike
thank you for your time and effort

We do tend to wander off-theme from time to time but it's always an interesting thrash, we'll get back to the Mustang eventually


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 16, 2009)

davebender said:


> Shouldn't the Spit XIV be compared to the P-51H? Hardly any of either type aircraft made it into operational service by May 1945.



The Spitfire Mk XIV entered service in early 1944 - by April three squadrons were using them: 610, 91 and 322(Dutch) Sqns; these units were used against the V-1s starting in June '44 and were the most successful anti-diver Spitfire units (along with 41 Sqn still using Mk XIIs). 

By September 1944 there were four more squadrons equipping with the Mk XIV; 41, 130, 350(Belgium) and 402(Canadian) Sqns while 322 Sqn "reverted" to Mk IXs. Two other units 2 and 430(Canadian) Sqns started using FR Mk XVIs in November '44. The FR units, BTW, were often involved in air-to-air combat and at least one 262 was shot down by 430 Sqn.

By the end of the war 957 Spitfire XIVs had been built - how many P-51Hs had been built, let alone entered operational service, let alone shot down V-1s or German fighters?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2009)

By VE Day ~ 500 P-51H's were built, all deployed stateside, none entered combat although first delivered in squadron level strength in March 1945.. no need to deply. The USAAF had already picked the 51H for future long range strategic escort, the P-82 for all weather interception and Very Long Range escort - and were all about conserving them for post WWII.

The Mk XIV as you say was deployed by summer 1944 against V-1's - long before the first P-51H rolled off production in Feb 1945


----------



## bada (Oct 19, 2009)

Mike Williams said:


> Hi Colin:
> 
> I realize this is tangential to the thread’s principle theme, however, I thought you might appreciate the following: 64 Squadron’s ORB noted that as of 11 July 1942 the Squadron had 13 Spitfires IXs. First operational mission with a full complement of Spitfire IXs was 28 July 1942. 30 July 1942 the Squadron destroyed 5 FW 190’s whist flying Spitfire IXs:
> 
> ...



Hey mike, 

my statistical-work is based ont he list from "spitfire.co.uk", 
But i also didn't see any indication of numbers of airframes used in those repports, maybe a missed a line

so i can give you all the airframes, for 10 days period (my way of working) and even after a check, i really can't find so much airframes assigned to squadrons:

on the 10th july for 64S

BR601+BR603+BR604

on the 20st july

BR594+BR601+ BR602+BR603+BR604+BR624+BR977

on the 31st july

BR594+BR596+BR601+ BR602+BR603+BR604+BR624+BR624+BR977

So, if you could provide the serial numbers for all the Mk9 used by the 64S in july and their receive date, i'd really appreciate, beeing able to update the data-base.

anyway, the 64S was still flying spit5b in july42.


----------



## Hop (Oct 19, 2009)

Bada, have you taken conversions in to account?

For example BR140. It's listed as a Spitfire Vc, but the notes list it as having received a Merlin 61 in May 1942, going to 64 squadron in June. Same is true for BR141, BR142, BR370 . BR143 was converted in to a IX at the same time, but went to 306 squadron.

According to Peter Moss, there were just over 300 Spitfire IX conversions. Some are noted, but I believe many are not.

Regardless, you need to go through the Spitfire Vs as well.


----------



## bada (Oct 19, 2009)

Hop, no i didn't take the modifs in account, because i haven't done the stats for those Marks yet (it take a very long time to build a time line for each airframe build ..22000 pieces!)i just finished the Mk5a.

Made a fast search in the Mk5 series for Engine Swap to M61, and have only 15 listed.(Mk5c only, none for Mk5b)
from those 15 listed, i DO have 4 delivered to 64S

BR140-24/06/42
BR141-24/06/42
BR142-22/06/42
BR370-09/07/42

the rest of those 15 was delivered later in the year (or even in43).

all the 4 were "operational" till 08/42, so, it looks correct that on the 31st july, 13planes "could" be used by the 64S.

the Stats will be updated once the list of the Mk5c will be finished... but first the 3600 mk5b's....

By the way, if someone knows what the "14GCF" is, it could help me a little bit


----------



## Hop (Oct 19, 2009)

According to Spitfire The History GCF = Gunnery Cooperation Flight.

Try a search with "cv ix" and you'll find some more conversions, eg AB507 which also went to 64 squadron.

But the biggest problem is the data cards are not complete. Many do not list the engine, so a V could be converted to a IX and not listed.


----------

