# Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

Which plane would you want to use if you were in a dogfight?


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

Sorry for some reason the spitfire part of the vote was cancelled. So its between Me109, Mustang or Zero/Zeke


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 6, 2005)

I'm just going to tell myself that it's a later model p-51, so I have the bubble canopy. Anywho I'd go with American muscle.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 6, 2005)

the irony in that statement the 'stang was hardly a muscle plane and it had british muscle in it anyway 

but i'd proberly take the -109, it's the best comprimise between the zero's handling and the 'stangs speed..........


----------



## JCS (Sep 6, 2005)

Bf109 for me. 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 6, 2005)

109 for me too (though I would of picked the Spitfire)


----------



## toffigd (Sep 6, 2005)

Bf 109 for sure. Especially E-7 version


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 6, 2005)

'stang for me.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 6, 2005)

The Mustang has the advantage when entering the fight. And since I have no real clue about dogfighting, so am seriously green, I'd take the Mustang.


----------



## Udet (Sep 6, 2005)

Hands down: Bf 109 G-6/AS, G-10 or K-4.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

I marginally took the Mustang "D" over -109. The Zeke should even be in this survey, piece of crap!!!


----------



## Maestro (Sep 6, 2005)

Hmmm... I would have taken the Spitfire, but like it isn't there I'll take the P-51.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2005)

I say take the zeke out and put the spit in. Either way, I'd still take the 109.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 7, 2005)

In a classic WW2 style dogfight, a 109 for sure.

Reasons being;

*Better climb than almost any contemporary,
*Better acceleration than almost any contemporary
*Very high power to weight ratio 
*Excellent armament set-up with the nose mounted Mg151/20 and the two Mg 131s (or maybe a Mk 103 in a later model  ),
*Good low speed handling because of the wing slats,
*Good in both the horizontal and vertical planes

The only advantages the Mustang had over the 109 were at high speed (ease of control, pseudo-laminar flow wing) and the Zero is wildly outclassed in terms of speed, climb, dive and roll.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 7, 2005)

> The only advantages the Mustang had over the 109 were at high speed (ease of control, pseudo-laminar flow wing)



I thought the high wing-loading would give the 'schmitt the advantage there?



> and the Zero is wildly outclassed in terms of speed, climb, dive and roll.



The Zeke is so bad??  

Probably the 109F (does the BV155 count?  )

The P51 is more manouverable than the Gustav/Kurfurst surely?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > The Zeke is so bad??
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, just stay above 350 MPH, something the -109 and -51 could easily do!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Not to mention above 275, your turning is going to be next to impossible in the Zero.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 7, 2005)

> The P51 is more manouverable than the Gustav/Kurfurst surely?



the -51 was a bit of a dog in a turning fight, i still think the -109 should win this.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Bf-109G-6 for reasons already stated, and I agree with FBJ, the Zero is crap.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

The Mustang would almost always enter the fight at a higher speed, giving it the initial advantage. If it was an out and out dogfight, both entering at same speed and altitude I would take a Spitfire 21.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 8, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> The P51 is more manouverable than the Gustav/Kurfurst surely?



At an equal energy state, I would say no. Particularly if the fight is anywhere below 350-375 mph or and at less than 25,000 feet. 

The 109 was THE outstanding vertical performer for most of the war, as well as consistently being one of the best accelerating aircraft. It was no slouch in the horizontal either. 

Put all those together and you have an aircraft that will out climb a P-51 by a handy margin. A 109 would generally use its superior accleeration/climb to out energy fight its opponent, regardless of the front it was serving in. In fact, along with the 190D and the Spitfire, I'd hazard that the 109 was one of the top 3 energy fighting planes of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm not an expert but wouldn't the Corsair or Hellcat rank highly in the energy fighters? Possibly the La-7?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

I would agree with the Corsair. Again though I am not a expert in that asspect either.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 9, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> schwarzpanzer said:
> 
> 
> > The P51 is more manouverable than the Gustav/Kurfurst surely?
> ...



There is an interview with a description of a P-51D vrs Bf-109 fight in the verticle to the stall points. Not only did Bud Anderson win but his description indicated the planes were pretty equal. 

I would also add the P-38 as a top high energy fighter. The P-38 accerated very quickly @ 2.8mph/sec, and could climb to 20K fully loadded in 7 min @ 1,100hp. Climb clean in wep power in as little as 5min. Its energy retention was also exceptional.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 9, 2005)

Id take the P51, stay out of the way of the -109 untill it was low on fuel and then pounce on it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

Id take the 109 and just pounce on the P-51.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 11, 2005)

P51 Mustang for me. Because it was pretty good in dogfights with its M2 Browning .50

Also, its American.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2005)

i still say -109.........


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 11, 2005)

Bf-109.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

Yeap Id still go for the Bf-109.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

I go 109G.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

Same here Bf-109G-6 to be exact.


----------



## Holmes (Sep 14, 2005)

We got Mustang, so it has to be at least 1943. So...

For sure NO: 

a) Mustang - long range escort plane which was made "famoust WWII fighter" only by american propaganda. No match for good 109 pilot (but P-51 Runtang could always put the nose down and fly away). In DF it was as useless as brick. It is only EF fighter so suprise speed alt advantage is the only key to victory.

b) Zeke - in 1943 it's flying museum. She has a chance only at low level DF.

With PLEASURE:

a) Spit IX - superuniversal, multipurpose fighter. Good at DF&EF. Superb armament. 

To WIN: 

a) 109 F4/F2/G2/G6 - in DF it could outmaneveur any fighter from written above list. If attackin with a little advantage could easly win.

Of course all depends of PILOT  F.e. good Zeke pilot could kill P-51 in few minutes during DF duel


----------



## Holmes (Sep 14, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> P51 Mustang for me. Because it was pretty good in dogfights with its M2 Browning .50



M2 in compare with MG-151 is a toy


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Six Browning M2 .50 cal would make easy meat out of any fighter. The Mustang entered combat at a higher altitude and faster speed than most of it's opponents. It was in a perfect situation to bounce it's opponent. Remember that the majority of those shot down did not see their destroyer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

While I agree with you asssessment there and I too choose the Bf-109 as you did, I think you underestimate the Spitfire a bit much.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

That's an under-estimate of the Spitfire. A Spitfire IX was superior to the Bf-109F. In my opinion it was also superior to the Bf-109G which was getting a little sluggish by that time. 

In any case, why the Spitfire IX? The Spitfire XIV was just as agile as the Spitfire IX while being superior in everything else. Then again there's the Spitfire 21 which held the some agility while being superior to the Spitfire XIV in everything but climb to altitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's an under-estimate of the Spitfire.




That is what I said.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Yes. Yes you did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Just checking


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 14, 2005)

Hey, i would rather want an aircraft that can make sure you take the enemy out before the shoot the mess out of your aircraft. The P51 with it's .50s could lay down a can of whoop-asson any German fighter.

The -109, pretty good aircraft. But once the -190 came into the fight, it made the -109 look like a toy.


----------



## Holmes (Sep 15, 2005)

plan_d: all You have to do to avoid being shooted down by Mustang when flying 109 is to SEE him. That enough  Even if she was higher/faster.

P38 pilot: sure, but to open a can U have to keep it at your 12 for few secs. Without that even a dozens of 0.50s are useless  And armament is only a part (not so important) of fighter characteristic. F.e. take a look at 190 A8/R8 (2 x deadly stunning MK108). Gunned like a tank but is it enough to shoot down f.e. Yak-3? No, because it little plane can easily outmaneuver 190 and run away using DF tactics (exactly the same as 109 vs. P51).

And we should remember that every plane was build for other missions. 109 was a multipurpose fighter (depending on version), P-51 was a long distance, ESCORT plane. P47 was air superiority, high altitude fighter or jabo, etc, etc. 

And one more thing. EVERY dogfights is win or lost by the man and machine (first - the man, then - the machine). The most powerful weapon of every fighter plane is ... brain of it's pilot.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

Having the height advantage is important in any combat. The Mustang enters with that advantage straight away. The Mustang also enters with a speed advantage over the Bf-109. 

The Bf-109 has to avoid the first passes by the Mustang to bring the Mustang down to his level of combat. It's easier said than done because the vast majority of kills were claimed when their opponent didn't even see him.

Think about that; the majority didn't see who shot them down. That's an advantage to the Mustang as it's got a higher chance of being able to pounce it's enemy as it's flying higher and faster. If the Bf-109 is lucky enough to see it's opponent then the Mustang would be in trouble if it's missed it's first oppurtunities. Then the Mustang would do best to break off from action. 

However, the important point is _most of those shot down did *not* see their destroyer!_


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Having the height advantage is important in any combat. The Mustang enters with that advantage straight away. The Mustang also enters with a speed advantage over the Bf-109.
> [/i]



.. depending from the 109 model: statement correct for 109 F or early G, late G's almost equivalent to P51D and 109K had better performance, so the concept is reverted.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

I think generally the Mustang would still enter higher than the Bf-109 because the Mustang would have already formed at high altitude. It would be roaming ahead of the bomber formation, the German interceptors would have to climb up to meet the Mustangs and, more importantly, the bombers.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 15, 2005)

Well, if we assume that Mustang start higher 'by definitin' then the game is over, as it would be over for any other plane of the pool that start with such an advantage!
But this has nothing to do with the machine itself.

Anyway, according to my books
Me109k @ 3375 kg standard weight 
Ceiling 13.500 mt
Time to 10.000 mt : 10min 12s
P51D @ 4450 kg standard weight
Ceiling 12.775 mt (41900ft)
Time to 9000mt : 12 min 36s 

So, technically it seems reasonable that with only a 30 minutes alarm the 109k could climb to an higher altitude than the P51D cruise.

And assuming both starting from a scramble, the 109k would leave the 51D several minutes behind

That this did not usually happen because of wrong tactics, lack of fuel, orders to attack the bombers and disregard the fighters, need to preserve a rare-and-precious engine and so on has nothing to do with the airplane.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

You're missing the vital point though. The Mustang was not an interceptor like the Bf-109. The P-51 was an escort fighter and to be an escort fighter it would almost always have a height advantage. The fact the the Mustang could hold a height advantage over the enemies own airfield that was several hundred miles away from it's own is something to credit to the Mustang. The Bf-109 certainly could not do the same to the Mustang. 

Not only that, the Mustang entered the fight with a speed advantage. It's high cruising speed allowed it to roam the German air space at a speed which would give it that extra energy when entering into a fight.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2005)

pD, u missed what parm was sayin.... Because of radar, USUALLY, the -109G's were already on station, at altitude, prior to the -51D fighter sweeps... 

The -51D's would loose speed in having to increase altitude to attack the -109G's... Ive talked to many pilots, as u know, and most of them verified this...


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 15, 2005)

Plan_D,

According to a couple of WWII P-51 pilots they cruised at 250mph out of Britain, and up to 350mph out of Italy. The second pilot specificaly pointed out that unless they were in an attack mode they never went faster than 350mph (all speeds TAS) because it used to much fuel.

From the start of escorts to mid summer '44 (the close escort phase 2,000ft max from the bombers) it was common to have Bf-109s bounce from above. The P-51 was pretty much done in by 30,000ft with less than 700hp to work with. Control response is greatly degraded as 30,000ft is passed too. Once freed from the bombers they would send planes ahead and clear the way, and that lessened the high altitude bounces but never eliminated them compleatly.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

350 MPH is a fast speed to be entering combat, faster than that of the Bf-109. The bomber formations would be inbetween 15,000 - 30,000 feet, the Mustang would be a more than capable plane at those altitudes. 

The Mustang seperates from the formation and goes roaming out in front. The Bf-109s come down on to these Mustangs, if the Mustangs do not see the Bf-109s it's an unlucky day for them because someone is going to get shot down. However, if they do the Bf-109 has to degrade the Mustang to his level. The Mustang is going fast already and it won't take long to go faster, the Bf-109 has to keep pace with the Mustang to shoot him down while keeping his fuel up so he can intercept the bombers when they come. 

Something easy for the Mustang to do. An easy plane to fly, an easy plane to fight in and an extremely long range. Something that allows the Mustang to keep these superior interceptors away. That's what makes it an excellent machine; it does it's job and it does it well. 

On top of all that though, a bomber formation going at 15,000 feet would allow Mustangs to roam much higher. And they did bomb at 15,000 feet sometimes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Why would 350 be faster than the 109?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 17, 2005)

As far as I know the Bf-109 didn't cruise at 350 MPH. Unless it wanted to waste a lot of fuel. 

Anyway, I don't know why I'm arguing for the Mustang. I'd rather be in a Spitfire 21.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes that is true but you said that the P-51D's speed of 350mph was faster than the Bf-109. The 109 could go 350mph also. The way you worded just confused me. Ohwell I am on 24 hour Staff Duty tonight so I will be online quite a bit with nothing else to do but answer phones.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 17, 2005)

Right, I meant that the Mustang would be cruising at a higher speed giving it that initial speed advantage over the Bf-109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Probably right except for maybe aircraft that were swarming up at full speed to intercept the bombers before they reached there target.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Right, I meant that the Mustang would be cruising at a higher speed giving it that initial speed advantage over the Bf-109.



Your making 2 assumptions, first the Mustang is going 350 though 3/4 were out of Britain and doing 250. And that the Bf-109 is also at cruise or an earlier model either on the level or in a climb.

Even assuming 350mph in the P-51, the Bf-109 has had warning (radar and time to get positioned) and is 10k above the Mustang (a very common situation) not only is that 109 at full throttle he's in a dive, even a F/G is capable of a 100mph advantage over the Mustang in those situations. 

The Bf-109 is always in a high energy state on the attack and the Mustang will always be in an energy conservation state until the attack is imminent or in visual sight. The Mustangs acceleration was only medicore at 2.2mph/sec @ METO throttle.

Of course when the Mustang is attacking and not escorting it will have most of the advantages but that's because he's the one who is prepared not because he cruises faster. Nobody attacks at cruise speed. The attacker will always have the advantage, at least initialy.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Intersting points that I can agree with.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

Which would all be the same for the P-38!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Yes but as wmaxt just pointed out, those assumptions are usually wrong unless they are attacking and not escorting. Until they had a foothold on France in late 1944 they did more escorting than attacking.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

Didnt the B17 formations fly on the average at 30,000 ft and -24's at 25,000 ft?

If so, the Mustangs were way up there and werent about to be dived upon by 109's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

That was not the point of the post. The point was that most of the time the 109's had somewhat of an advantage because they could be prepositoned to *Interecept* the bombers. Now when you have 300 P-51D defending against 125 Bf-109G's I think we know who is going to win as was most of the cases.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

> Now when you have 300 P-51D defending against 125 Bf-109G's I think we know who is going to win as was most of the cases.


It certainly *aint* gonna be the 28 bomber crews that fall to earth in a flaming wreckage of a plane...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

That is true but I was trying to stick with the 2 fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

Well, if it was a 1 on 1 dogfight, with both pilots being equal, then Id say the Mustang. Its superior speed means the pilot could run away and reposition for a better attack (if required).


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

If 2 equal pilots came head to head, at 300 mph, and at 30,000 feet, I give the -109 pilot 3 to 1 odds...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

Me too. But as was stated by most people the guy who got shot down most of the time did not know what happened.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would agree with the Corsair. Again though I am not a expert in that asspect either.



I would take the Corsair too for horsepower and firepower and supposedly the bubble version of the Corsair (canceled because it was not needed) was supposed to be a "war winner' aircraft like the P-51 and the F6F. Also the Corsair, for its size was rather nimble and it had, in the Pacific, the highest kill ratio of any Allied fighter. Now this last statement is important because as far as I know a Corsair and a Luftwaffe fighter never met in combat. The Royal Navy flew them in the ETO.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I too have never heard of a Corsiar and a Luftaffe aircraft ever meeting in combat. I think it would have been one hell of a fight though had a Corsiar and a Fw-190D met up. Man that would have been tough.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2005)

Not finding anything on the Bf-109 combat, but I found these blurbs...

From May 1997 Aviation Historyparaphrased) 
"The US Navy's landing problems did not prevent the hard pressed 
British from seeking early delivery of the high powered fighter for their 
carriers. The export Corsairs became Marks I, II, IIA, III, IV. Vought 
produced 2,020 Corsairs - enough to round out 19 squadrons. The Fleet 
Air Arm encountered the same problems as the US Navy....The British 
devised a new landing system, shortened the wings by 16" and taking a 
cue from USN raised the pilot's seat changed the canopy. They equipped the carrier HMS Victorious with the improved Corsairs for combat duty. 

On April 3, 1944 the Royal Navy had the distinction of being the first 
service to successfully fly Corsairs off carriers in combat - When the 
Victorious launched them in a raid against the Tirpitz near Norway. 

Fleet Air Arm units where created and equipped in the US, at Quonset Point or Brunswick, and then shipped to war theatres on board of escort carriers. The first Corsair unit of the FAA was No 1830 Sqdn, created on the first of June 1943, and soon operating from HMS Ilustrious. At the end of the war, 19 FAA squadrons operated with the F4U. British Corsairs operated both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important European operations were the series of attacks in April, July and August 1944 on the German battleship Tirpitz, for which Corsairs provided top cover.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Did they get any kills. I have never heard of any corsiar kills in the ETO. I may be wrong. Would be interesting to find out though.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 23, 2005)

Still one thing that is always forgotten in these discussions is that the P-51 was an air supremacy fighter. It was meant to project power across continents. On the other hand the Me-109 was a metropolitan defense fighter that was drafted into service as a continental air supremacy fighter. Taken in these terms the 'Stang was a better fighter.

:{)


----------



## volto71 (Oct 23, 2005)

Bf109G....Gustav 4ever!!!!
ciao 8)


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2005)

remember that the Luftwaffe 109's in the defensive mode were flying at US bombers height or possibly 500 ft higher to get in behind and attack from the rear. Seldom were they flying at 30,000 and if they did the P-51's still had the height advantage, provided by their well conceived tactics this from many German pilots interviewed whom all found it incredibly frustrating. the .50 had a much longer range and faster firing making it possibly more lethal than the 2cm operated by the 109G's with only the shorter range 3cm firing through the spinner hub coming late as standard in the war. Plan has made it pretty much clear that 9 out of 10 times the P-51 groups had the upper hand in the air


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

Also another major drawback for the 109's (and the Zero for that matter)armament was the fact that the guns were drum fed which in some manuevers would hopelessly jam the guns. The .50 of the 'Stang were belt fed which decreased the jamming. Also like someone said before the .50s were faster firing and were much better standoff weapons. Also, exept for the cannons on the 109 and the Zero, they packed a bigger punch. 

:{)


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Curzon, that was valid for the MG-FF used on the early E types but, as per my knowledge, not for the MG151 or the MG131.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

You beat me to it Parm...


----------



## Udet (Oct 25, 2005)

Erich:

"that 9 out of 10 times the P-51 groups had the upper hand in the air" as the fundamental consequence of massive numerical superiority.


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2005)

nope friend, being outnumbered is a different ball of wax. Time and time again when the Luftwaffe met the Allied armada of bombers the P-51's were above them on a continual basis just egging on the Luftwaffe to come up and meet them. Not because of the numerical order, because as they left England they climbed and stayed high.

True the German radar system was capable but faints occurred on every mission, Luftwaffe fighter gruppen were told to get in the air on too slow of a basis which was common occurance from the fall of 44 till wars inevitable end


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

I can agree with most aspects except for all the 109's being drum fed.

As for the P-51's yes numerical superiority did play a large role in Mustangs success but I also agree that when you already higher up over the 109's that is a big advantage also.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

Mustang although it would be interesting to organize a dog-fight between an early Zero and an early Spitfire to see which one could win. I like the Mustang, it has great range while still providing protection for the pilot. These were still being used in Korea, but not too much in Vietnam. Korea would have been about the 1950s therefore it goes to show the mark of a great plane while the Bf-109 and the Zero sort of just virtually died away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

The Spit would have taken on a Zero even in the beginning and had no problem. It was more maneuverable.

The Zero died off because the Japs lost the war!

The 109 did not die off. It was used well into the 1960's. Me-109G's were used by Finland until the 1950's. HavLv 33 still had them in 1954. Everheard of the S-99 and the S-199. They were Czech developments of the Bf-109. They were used by Isreal and the Czech republic into the 1950's. The Hispanno HA-1112 which was a Spanish varient of the 109 were used into the 1960's. The last ones being retired from service in November 1965.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 7, 2005)

The Hispanno HA-1112 which was a Spanish varient of the 109 were used into the 1960's. The last ones being retired from service in November 1965.[/quote]

Many of these Ha-1112 and the Hispano version of the HE-111 were used in the movie The Battle of Britain. Also when I was in Spain as a teen (1980's), the 111s were still used as courier planes between bases and the HA-1112 were being sold to warbirders. For the longest time the Confederate Airforce, Planes of Fame and all the other "flying" aircraft museums were using the Ha-1112 in Luftwaffe livery in thier airshows. In fact if I remember my warbird fact correctly the Ha-1112 is the most common version of the 109 flying in airshows around the world. Just curious, these were Merlin powered right?

Also Mustangs were still being used by many Central American Airforces well into the 70's. 

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Also Mustangs were still being used by many Central American Airforces well into the 70's.
> 
> :{)



The Dominican Republic was the last P-51 operator. I think they got rid of theirs in the mid 1980s.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 7, 2005)

The Dominican Republic was the last P-51 operator. I think they got rid of theirs in the mid 1980s.[/quote]

Oh yea! When I was living in PR, I went to my first airshow and remembered taking a pic next to a DR 'Stang. I remember thinking it was much cooler than the F-15 and 16 that it was next. Wow, blast from the past memory. I will dig out the pic and post it.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 7, 2005)

As another footnote, it just occured to me, during the "soccer war" of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras, Salvadoran P-51s and Corsairs clashed with Honduran planes of the same make. That must have been confusing! 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Thats cool, would love to see the pic.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats cool, would love to see the pic.


Me too.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

I will have to see if my mom still has them, but in the mean time check these out. DR 'stangs. For more info check out www.acig.com.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

Doh! Put the same attachment twice. Here's the other one!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

I just noticed the name of the last pic. Don't ask, I only work here.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> I will have to see if my mom still has them, but in the mean time check these out. DR 'stangs. For more info check out www.acig.com.



Actually the site its www.acig.org. Sorry.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 9, 2005)

the name of the jpg is a little odd for the pic!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

evangilder said:


> the name of the jpg is a little odd for the pic!



Like I said, I only work here.

:{)


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

Some fighter pilots would simply state:

"I am what I eat..."


----------



## book1182 (Nov 10, 2005)

When it comes to these planes I don't think it is the plane that decided who would win but the pilots that flew them. 

They only way a zero would win is if it had clipped wings for better roll, bigger engine put in i.e. 2000hp would be great, better armor add, and some new faster firing 20mm guns. 

I see a lot of Me-109's getting the win. I think you all are wrong because the P-51 proved that it could rule the sky over Europe and anywhere else. Speed, a good turn radius, and pilot training is what I think made the P-51 a winner. I think the saying goes, "Speed is life, Go slow and your going to get hit."


----------



## evangilder (Nov 10, 2005)

Clipping the wings would not have made much of a difference with the Zero. A more powerful engine would not have either. The ailerons were huge on the zero and above about 275, they are immovable. Plus a bigger engine and more armor adds weight, which would effect speed and manueverability. If the speed are 250 MPH or beow, the Zero is going to outmanuever almost anything. 

Speed may be life, but once you start a turning dogfight, it doesn't really become a factor. Manueverability is the key there. It's more about energy management and making the best of your aircraft strengths while exploiting the enemy aircraft's weaknesses. 

The P-51 was a good fighter, but to say it "ruled the sky" is a bit of a stretch. The 109 was an older aircraft that was still splashing Mustangs. Numerical superiority was what made the numbers good for the Mustang. 

The Mustang was great in that it had the range to take the fight to the Germans.


----------



## trackend (Nov 10, 2005)

Good post Eric it makes sense to me most of what I read in books talks of out manouvering your opponant unless your on the run in which case perfomance is nice to have.
As many guys have posted in the past, stick a top line pilot in a reasonable plane, and the novice in a superior plane is in a whole lot of trouble .


----------



## evangilder (Nov 10, 2005)

Yep, piloting skills make a big difference. But get a great pilot in a great plane, and you have an ace in the making!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

book1182 said:


> I see a lot of Me-109's getting the win. I think you all are wrong because the P-51 proved that it could rule the sky over Europe and anywhere else. Speed, a good turn radius, and pilot training is what I think made the P-51 a winner. I think the saying goes, "Speed is life, Go slow and your going to get hit."



Just another person that has fallen into the myth. Bf-109G's and K's could fly just as fast as a P-51D and turn almost as well. They could climb just as well also. The P-51D is famous because of propaganda and it is on the side that won the war. It was a good escort fighter but not the best fighter. It won because of numerical superiority. The P-47, P-38 and Spitfire were better aircraft than the P-51.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2005)

Clearly for me it would of been the BF109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

The 109 is my favorite fighter of WW2 anyhow. It was not the best but it is my favorite.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 12, 2005)

I actually do not like the Mustang. When compared to its radial engine counter parts in the USAF, USN, and USMC, it was fragile. For example, how many 'Stangs were lost because of a hit on a coolant line. A hit in the same place on a 'Bolt, for example, all you did was tick off the pilot and the crew chief. I am not minimizing the role of the P-51, but it does, in my experience, has an almost cult following. HMMMMM, its almost like those guys who like Spits, 109s, and Lancs. Things that make you go HMMMMM 
;{P

Still, I guess that was a problem with liquid cooled engines. I wonder was the pilot surviviability of a 109 vs a P-51. I exclude a Zero because anything above a spit wad would shred it. Still I don't think the 'Stang was the best plane the US had. If you want to compare kill ratios the Hellcat and Corsair were well above it and the P-47 gave it a run for its money.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Spits and 109s were great aircraft. I like them. Do I make you go hmmm?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

I dont think comparing kill ratios between the Pacific and Europe really proves anything... Different combat, different enemy...

But.... I agree with Curzon entirely on his above post... If the P-47D was manufactured in such numbers as the P-51D, and used in the escort role exclusively, all these P-51 bandwagoneers would be P-47 bandwaggoneers.... Just about all the German pilots I have ever met, or even read about, said that the P-47 was a more dangerous enemy, but the #'s of Mustangs covering a bomber stream was more than the Luftwaffe could handle...

3 Stafflen vs 500 escorts??? Not very good odds is it???


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

Is it me or is he trying to call the Spitfire crap? Do I have to slap him?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

yes, yes you do.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

Anyone who calls the Spitfire crap is an un-informed jackass.... Even my spermatazoa know this...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

Maybe he needs a kick in the nuts!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Yes he did. He said that anyone who likes Spits, 109's and Lancs makes him go HMMMM!

That just shows me that the knowledge of aircraft he has is limited, either that or very very biased which gives him tunnel vision.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

Or, as I stated above, he's just a jackass...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

We will see when he responds.....


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We will see when he responds.....


We will. *Slaps curzondax*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 13, 2005)

He is worse than Lanc for not liking the Spitfire it is blasephemy. Where as liking French bombers is just wrong.

I mean how can you not like it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Yes she is great aircraft, not my favorite but a good aircraft. I think CurzonDax does not like them because they are not made by the United States.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

After seeing those photos, all I gotta say is TALLEY HO!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 13, 2005)

Ho Boy!!! If I would have known that my comment in jest would have made so many so snarky I would have sticked to cutting down French bombers. Allrighty just to let ya all know I pray at the Corsair altar so much that my wife sometimes gets jealous. So please don't slap me, beat me, or make me fly in a French Bomber. I happen to be very fond of Spits (the first WWII plane I saw in person), have flown in a Lanc (at an airshow in Texas more years ago than I care to recollect), but sadly have never seen a Me-109 in flight, just the Spanish versions. These and all WWII aircraft changed history and I will never diminsh that fact. 

I think we are all hard-core fans of a genre that is all but forgotten by many younger than us and to me this a great way to remember and preserve history. We all fanatical to our particular aircraft so if you were insulted, I apologize, if you got and accepted my joke, laugh, and if you were insulted but still laughed, then I applaud you sence of humor. Turn the page.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

No sweat Dax - I rather be kicked in the nuts than fly on a french Bomber!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No sweat Dax - I rather be kicked in the nuts than fly on a french Bomber!



Yea me too. (Shivers at the thought).

:{)


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

*slap* By the way, I've got lanc flying a French bomber to your house ...I'm sure you'll both enjoy one another's company while in it. And then we'll blast you out of the sky with Spitfires ... who's filming it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> So please don't slap me, beat me, or make me fly in a French Bomber.
> :{)



LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 14, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> I happen to be very fond of Spits (the first WWII plane I saw in person), have flown in a Lanc (at an airshow in Texas more years ago than I care to recollect), but sadly have never seen a Me-109 in flight, just the Spanish versions. These and all WWII aircraft changed history and I will never diminsh that fact.


That is OK. Lucky person to have flown in a Lanc! Lanc will not be happy for sure.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > So please don't slap me, beat me, or make me fly in a French Bomber.
> ...


----------



## crowdpleaser (Nov 14, 2005)

damn guys i will finish u all in a dogfight with my zero, its light, fast, well armed but 1 minor is when u shoot me ill surely be dead cause, i havent got any armor, so i must relei(?) on perfect handling its shoot or be shot!

greeting 

crowdpleaser


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> *slap* By the way, I've got lanc flying a French bomber to your house ...I'm sure you'll both enjoy one another's company while in it. And then we'll blast you out of the sky with Spitfires ... who's filming it?



Now are we going to make this very Hollywood and use Me-108s to sub for 109's or the Hispano versions of the 109. Then of course, like in all Battle of Britain movies, you use EVERY version of the Spit, including bubble canopy ones. Lastly I will intecept with EVERY version of the Corsair like in Baa Baa Black Sheep, even the French 20 mm armed ones. Now there's irony, a French Corsair shooting down a French bomber. Also you repeat every scene like a million times from different angles or use VERY expensive special effects, with the wrong versions of the planes, to make it look very cool, you know like Pearl Harbor. Lastly you get Stephen Spielberg to direct because everyone knows a Moth or a Ford Tri-Plane can manuever like a F-105 evading a SAM.

:{)

PS- BTW, I happen to love all of the movies and series mentioned above.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 14, 2005)

.. and I'll fly a French LeO, but instead of the tail gunner I will get Michel Platini: you dare to come close with your Corsair/Spit/FW and he'll shoot you down with a penalty kick.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> .. and I'll fly a French LeO, but instead of the tail gunner I will get Michel Platini: you dare to come close with your Corsair/Spit/FW and he'll shoot you down with a penalty kick.



Damned soccer hooligans.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

crowdpleaser said:


> damn guys i will finish u all in a dogfight with my zero, its light, fast, well armed but 1 minor is when u shoot me ill surely be dead cause, i havent got any armor, so i must relei(?) on perfect handling its shoot or be shot!
> 
> greeting
> 
> crowdpleaser



If you really think so. The Zero was not very well armed and she did not handle very well over 275 mph. She was a myth! Maybe on that flight sim of yours she might be alright.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

Yep. You would do okay in a turning dogfight at 250, above that, you are going to be meat.


----------



## TigerSnake (Nov 14, 2005)

I leave this stuff to the 'Down to earth'' Pragmatic' EXPERTS!!!

EX-RN CAPT. Eric "Winkle" Brown is a living legend among the global test-pilot fraternity, with unrivalled experience since 1939 in an incredible variety of fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. He graduated from carrier-based fighter operations and deck-landing trials to test-flying at the Aeroplane Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down in 1943, and became Aero Flight CO and Chief Naval Pilot at Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough until 1949.

In late 1945 he led a British technical commission, which entailed evaluating and ferrying 55 types of German aircraft. Apart from new jet fighters and bombers such as the Arado Ar 234, Heinkel He 162, Messerschmitt Me 262 and Me 163, they included even more exotic aircraft, like the tandem-twin Dornier Do 335 and the prone-pilot Berlin B9 and Horten Ho IV tailless research glider.

He was a highly experienced Combat pilot and a big fan of Grumman A/C

He was also very highly regarded by Grumman and the USN as a test pilot. It was he who, after the Americans scrubbed the Corsair as a FLEET CARRIER based A/C, was able to train service pilots to operate them from ESCORT CARRIERS!!!

Captain Brown was asked at a Test Pilot's Conference in 2002 which aircraft did he regard as being the best FIGHTER of WWII...

His answer: The Zero until 1943 - then little to choose between the FW 190D, P51D and Griffon engined Spitfires.

END OF STORY! (pity he wasn't able to test the Yak3!!)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

Still the tactic Du Jur was to dive away from the Zero, not turn with it.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 15, 2005)

Welcome aboard, TigerSnake, but I think you will find that that is the opinion of _one_ man. I know a couple of guys that fly a Zero today, regularly, who would disagree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2005)

And Eric Brown is a pack of lies anyhow.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2005)

DerAlder. We've had this before but because one man may be wrong about something or you disagree about what he says doesn't make him a liar.
Personally I would agree that the Zero wasn't the best fighter in 1942/3. But if you look at what it was up against in its theater of operations then its a fair opinion. People will argue that the Wildcat performed better which is also a valid opinion. 
Test pilots are not fools or they wouldn't last long, neither do they suffer fools gladly. Tiger is right when he says that Eric Brown is widely respected in that community, and I for one wouldn't disagree with the views of his peers.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 15, 2005)

I would disagree with his opinion though. While I may not have flown the Zero, or any other plane for that matter, it seems to me that the Zeke is shrouded in myth that came from the initial shock of the entire Japanese success and has ran through as skimming references to the U.S being beaten in the first six months of war. 

The fact of the matter is, the Zeke had range, climb and low-speed turning. In a dogfight if the Zeke's opponent fought on the vertical, the Zeke didn't stand a chance because it wasn't able to turn well above 250 MPH - and it was a slow plane. A few Spitfire Vb out in the CBI in 1941 - used properly, would have soon shattered the myth of the Zeke.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2005)

1.43 to 1 kill ratio of the USAAF between Jan 42 and Nov 42. Although this includes the Oscar, but it says somethig out the Zero invinicability myth...


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 15, 2005)

Also compared to Allied planes the aircraft was fragile. With almst no armor and no self sealing tanks once a Allied fighter with its heavier firepower got behind it and started to score hits its was adios muchachos.

Still it was nimble and had great range and I think there are only three flying today and two of those appeared in the movie Pearl Harbor. Also I think that it also the most expensive warbird to own, approaching 2 million US dollars.

:{)


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2005)

I agree with you PlanD but the Spitfires weren't out there and the Zero was at least as good as anything it was up against. 

Personally from what I have read the reason why the USA could hold there own against the Zero's wasn't because of the aircraft the USA had. It was the better training, discipline and ability to modify their tactics that made the USA so formidable.

Since I joined this thread it was suggested that I read some books that were reccomended and I am glad that I did. There were a number of times when Jap pilots came back spitting with fury because they got in each others way. Chased planes when they should have concentrated on the allocated task letting the American planes either get away or get through to their targets. As far as I can tell they were still flying V formations until late in the war. Even we learned that lesson.

As I said in my post, I don't think the Zero was the best fighter in 1942 but it was a valid opinion given the opposition.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 15, 2005)

It is certainly one of the rarest to own.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 16, 2005)

evangilder said:


> It is certainly one of the rarest to own.



No doubt! I was reading a little on actual Zeros, not modified Texans, used in movies. Pearl Harbor used two out of the three still flying. There are several in flying condition in museums around the world, but only three are currently flying. There are various types in museums around the world in varying stages of either display or restoration. The USN museum in Pensacola has a gorgeous Zero. From what I read they're the only Japanese WWII aircraft flying. The others that you see are either Vultees and Texans that have been mutated to look like Zeros, Jills, and so on. So when when you see Tora Tora Tora! or re-runs of Baa Baa Black Sheep they are these mutants (they technically are not replicas).

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 16, 2005)

Actually, if you come to Camarillo, I can show you a real A6M3 that flies at airshows all season. I have worked on it and sat in it. There is also an A6M5 in Chino that flies regularly. In Camarillo, we also have a non-flying A6M2 that is up for sale. It needs work, so the asking price is $695,000.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

Eric, I was waiting for you to give him the sales pitch!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 16, 2005)

hehe, even at that price, it still needs ALOT of work. If I had the time and the money, I would invest in it. It could be made flyable, but it's going to take a lot of TLC to get there. I hope whoever does buy it will make it flyable again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

Yep!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

Glider said:


> DerAlder. We've had this before but because one man may be wrong about something or you disagree about what he says doesn't make him a liar.
> Personally I would agree that the Zero wasn't the best fighter in 1942/3. But if you look at what it was up against in its theater of operations then its a fair opinion. People will argue that the Wildcat performed better which is also a valid opinion.
> Test pilots are not fools or they wouldn't last long, neither do they suffer fools gladly. Tiger is right when he says that Eric Brown is widely respected in that community, and I for one wouldn't disagree with the views of his peers.



Yes but when eneogh pilots who actually flew an aircraft and fought against an aircraft can dispute what he says that tells me hes full of it.


----------



## TigerSnake (Nov 19, 2005)

Tra la la!

easy to call a man a liar when you don't agree with him!

Brown was an EXCEPTIONAL pilot!!! More types flown than ANY OTHER pilot! More DECK LANDINGS than any other pilot!

He was the test pilot's test pilot!

For 'Arm Chair' pilots to criticise a man of his stature is utterly ludicrous!

The fact is that the IJN pilots LOVED the Zero and prefered fighting with it right up to the end of WWII! Offered replacements like the Shiden (4x20mm...armour...manouverability...self sealing tanks...POWER!), they let their preference for the Zero be known in no uncertain terms!

The IJN's shortage of aircraft and pilots (and flawed Top Brass thinking) was the deciding factor in the Pacific Air War...the jig was up after Midway!

Jiro Horikoshi's design was BRILLIANT and as original as any other fighter of its day.

Incidentally, I have done a little flying myself and if I was asked what airplane I would have liked to have flown in WWII...Tempest V or P38

C'mon boys...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2005)

TigerSnake said:


> Tra la la!
> 
> easy to call a man a liar when you don't agree with him!
> 
> ...



There is no denying Brown's Career and capabilities but at the same time he as also known as an exaggerator, to put it mildly. After a single flight test evaluation, he has attempted to dispute the reports of pilots who had hundreds of hours in the same aircraft...

Sure, many IJN pilots loved the Zero till the very end, those who survived and never took their fight above 300 mph....The Zero was brilliant, but over rated. Statistics as early as 1942 proved that.

I fly too - on occasion.....


----------



## TigerSnake (Nov 20, 2005)

Now the discussion IS getting ridiculous...

Brown has the USN...RAF...RN...RAE...Grumman and a whole host of other 'Aviation Amateurs' behind him and his test findings!

I was hoping for some learned and well thought out banter on the subject...I rest my case.

Thank you one and all!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

My Grandfather was a Black Sheep, and did some test flight work after the War.... If my Gradfather thought Brown was a moron and someone he could never trust, thats good enough for me...

And Joe is correct, what Brown did on several instances was call distinguished fighter pilots liars, discounting the veterans opinions and stating that HIS opinion was the only one that mattered...

The guy was in love with himself and the glory he courted...


> I was hoping for some learned and well thought out banter on the subject...I rest my case.


If that was some sort of wiseass comment, u came to the wrong website pal...


> Brown has the USN...RAF...RN...RAE...Grumman and a whole host of other 'Aviation Amateurs' behind him and his test findings!


Bullshit.... There was a certain Brig General who damn near ripped his head off for some of the things he said concerning pilot quality and dedication... U dont disrespect the dead to a man who lead those dead heros...

Piss on Brown....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

TigerSnake said:


> For 'Arm Chair' pilots to criticise a man of his stature is utterly ludicrous!



My suggestiont o you would be to hang around here and learn what people do before you accuse people of things such as being 'Arm Chair" pilots. FBJ happens to be a very experience pilot and maintenance technician. I happen to have a privat pilots liscence (rarely get to fly though) and also happen to be a Blackhawk crewchief with almost 1500 hours of flight time and fly every day in that including about 3 Maintenance Test Flights a weeks. We happen to know a thing to two about flying. I wouldn't call that armchair pilots or crews.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2005)

and i've played on IL2 FB


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

So tell us Tigersnake, your profile shows you were in the RAN - what did you do there that makes you such an authority that you can attempt to call some of us "armchair experts."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

I'm a little curious too. Very little.

TigerSnake, why don't you just quit acting like a complete and utter shithead and try being a bit civil on these boards. I don't give a rat's fuck what or who you may be in reality, but you've made all of five posts and already you've got Les on your case. That ain't a good thing, by the way.

You disagree with the "armchair experts" on this forum? Fine. That's all well and good. You some kind of uber-guru or something? Then lay off the attitude and fall in with the rest of us laymen. Enough with the bullshit sarcasm. It's annoying as hell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2005)

damn it i should've pretended to him i'm Squadron Leader Stuart Reid of the BBMF, too late to go back and change my lasts posts? he'll never know he obviously aint read up on any of us, might be a fun little game to tell him i fly all the BBMF types


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2005)

He'd probably believe you if you said you were Maverick out of Top Gun


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

Goose is more believable!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

Wow, almost timid to put my sense into the discussion about the zero and the shiden. For starters, even if everyone wanted tbe shiden, they couldnt have got them, because not that many were produced. Second it hand engine troubles, making it unreliable, and making long over water flights, or combat a difficult affair indeed. When the shiden was available, good pilots to fly the more demanding aircraft were in short supply, as were trainer aircraft and aviation fuel. The zero was a pilots airplane and because of its easy handling and relatively great low speed qualities, it was easy to fly even for a beginner. Hope that made you realize your not as smart as you would seem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Who was this post for?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

For 'Arm Chair' pilots to criticise a man of his stature is utterly ludicrous! 

The fact is that the IJN pilots LOVED the Zero and prefered fighting with it right up to the end of WWII! Offered replacements like the Shiden (4x20mm...armour...manouverability...self sealing tanks...POWER!), they let their preference for the Zero be known in no uncertain terms! 


thats part of what was said above


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

I'm going to double post this...

DerAdlerIstGelandet wrote: 
Tigershark I take personal offense to your armchair pilot coment and I am pretty sure that FBJ does also. I suggest you tone it down a bit, or move on to someplace else. 


Yep - I'm anxious to hear about his RAN association.... 

To put this in perspective: 

I lived close to Edwards AFB, and even worked there for a spell. I've met many test pilots, some were real good guys, some were assh*les. I got to meet Chuck Yeager on several occasions, none of us could wear the guy's jockstrap, but his arrogance and disregard for those around him ruins the perception that many would expect of one like him. I seen him embarrass the Edwards Aero Club safety officer (who was a Major, former F-16 line pilot and a current test pilot) over a minor disagreement. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to unilaterally browbeat someone with your experience, especial when there was no cause to be brash or arrogant.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Well said FBJ. I know the test pilots in my unit they are quite arrogant also. They are breed of there own. Both are great guys though however. I would go to war with them and back again anyday. Wait a minute I did that already!

I too am anxious to hear what this tigershark guy has to say.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

I could care less what another piss-ant new member has to say...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed when it is not productive.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Actually, if you come to Camarillo, I can show you a real A6M3 that flies at airshows all season. I have worked on it and sat in it. There is also an A6M5 in Chino that flies regularly. In Camarillo, we also have a non-flying A6M2 that is up for sale. It needs work, so the asking price is $695,000.



Oh to have that kind of money! From what I understand that is bargain basement for a Zero. The price tag I was talking about was for a fully restored flying one, at least thats what I have read. Still I would love to see one flying, I have only seen the Zero at Pensacola and the one NASM. THey may have had thier faults but from what I have read in Sakai's autobio, they were a dream to fly and it is a gorgeous plane.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

I found out on saturday that the zero has been sold. It will be going to a new museum at Ford Island in Hawaii. They have a new Pacific War museum opening up in 2006. I have seen the plans for the new museum and it will be incredible. The Zero will be hung from the ceiling as part of the exhibit. I am hoping to go see it someday.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

Cool. At that price I am not suprised that someone gobbled it up. My plan is to be in Hawaii in 07 for a second honeymoon so hopefully I will see it too. Still I hope that more Japanese planes make it to museums. There is only a smattering of fighters in museums. I know that there are several Bettys in pieces in storage in the US. I hope that the curators and the restorers can get over the financial hurdles. 

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

It's ashamed it couldn't be restored to flying condition, but at least it's in a worthy enviornment....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Unfortunately, it would be very expensive to restore it to flyable status. When it flew in to CMA and underwent it's first inspection, it was discovered that during the recovery process, the wings were hacked off the airplane to get it out. When they put it back together, they basically welded the wing root back together!  Needless to say, that is what grounded it for good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Unfortunately, it would be very expensive to restore it to flyable status. When it flew in to CMA and underwent it's first inspection, it was discovered that during the recovery process, the wings were hacked off the airplane to get it out. When they put it back together, they basically welded the wing root back together!  Needless to say, that is what grounded it for good.



That's incredible! Without knowing anything about the original recovery situation, it seems that some folks think some aircraft are put together like a model airplane where you could just remove a wing and cut the thing apart and glue it back together later. I wish it was that easy!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

I know. The worse part was that the CAF bought it before they knew about the spar. It actually flew for awhile with the welded spar! Lucky no one was killed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

You ain't kidding! See - it goes back to the comment Doug made that I posted on the other thread!

It makes it worse when you got some idiot putting the thing back together!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

yep


----------



## SeaFury (Nov 21, 2005)

Yak 3 for me! My drawing is not about Yaks!


----------



## SeaFury (Nov 21, 2005)

Sorry about huge pic people....I have a few things to learn about getting these posts properly organised


----------



## SeaFury (Nov 21, 2005)

One 'prototype' has a Centaurus....my favourite engine!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I know. The worse part was that the CAF bought it before they knew about the spar. It actually flew for awhile with the welded spar! Lucky no one was killed.



Eeeeek!!! Ay dios mio! Those crazy Texans!

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I know. The worse part was that the CAF bought it before they knew about the spar. It actually flew for awhile with the welded spar! Lucky no one was killed.



The CAF or whatever its called today, has been known for thier somewhat crazy antics. Back in the 80s they often used to crash land a Hispano version of the He-111 on one wheel in thier airshows. From what I uderstand it was one of thier B-17s that did the crash landing in Tora Tora Tora! Even in the 60s, I would not be going around crash landing 20 year old warbirds. I love what the CAF, or what ever they are called now, has done for historical preservation but I still think some of thier acts are a little quirky. 

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2005)

Nice drawings SeaFury, and welcome! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

The crash landing in Tora Tora Tora was domne by Paul Mantz and it was an aircraft that was taken from a reclamation facility. It was not a CAF aircraft. I don't know what you are referring to about "crashing" he-111s. There was one in the inventory that crashed a couple of years ago due to pilot error. 

The CAF preserves warbirds in flyable condition and I think they do one hell of a good job. I have been a member of the organization for 5 years and your description of them is inaccurate. They are not reckless cowboys. It is an all volunteer organization the does meticulous, time consuming restorations of rare warbirds that fly at shows on a regular basis. 

If the CAF had not been formed, there would be far fewer warbirds in the US today.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 21, 2005)

Even,

Are you sure about Paul Mantz, It was my understanding he was killed in filming The Flight of the Pheonix in the early 60s?

Your certainly right about the CAF, I hope they keep it up for a very long time.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Sorry, you may be correct on that. Paul Mantz crashed a bird from the reclamation yard for 12 o'clock high. The story with the Tora Tora Tora crash was as follows:

The B-17 "Flying Fortress" that lands with one wheel up is no film-trick. The plane got problems with its landing-gear and the pilot was asked to circle until the film-crew got cameras in position to film the crash-landing. The B-17 was not badly damaged, it flew again but was lost in a fatal crash while water-bombing a forest-fire some years later.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 21, 2005)

He, Paur Mantz, was an exceptional pilot though. He actualy flew the Pheonix, though I understand, the landing didn't work.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Yep, Mantz was incredible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

Paul Mantz also did all the flying in the old comedy "It's a Mad Mad Mad World." He actually flew the Twin Beech through the billboard....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Yep, right where the 101 at Moorpark road is now. There isn't a trace of that old airport anymore, sadly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2005)

Hmm interesting tid bits about the B-17 in Tora Tora Tora. I did not know that.


----------



## SeaFury (Nov 22, 2005)

Hi People! Hope you don't mind if I 'insert' another one of my Corel drawings while I work out the right scales.

I do these for fun...pretend that I am a particular designer and work with his 'style'.

This one is an imaginary design by Professor Doi of Kawasaki....obviously inspired by Ju87!!!

I can do drawings of actual Airplanes, Classic Cars, Trains and Coaches too...

Very nice site this.

Attachmant didn't work...will try again!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2005)

Thats very nice and something that I could seen Japan actually making back then. Good job! 8)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmm interesting tid bits about the B-17 in Tora Tora Tora. I did not know that.



Thats really why I love Tora Tora Tora and Pearl Harbor. It is some of the few WWII movies where the director had enough of a budget to let the aircraft go all out. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

SeaFury said:


> Hi People! Hope you don't mind if I 'insert' another one of my Corel drawings while I work out the right scales.
> 
> I do these for fun...pretend that I am a particular designer and work with his 'style'.
> 
> ...



Have to say your Corel drawings are neat and very good but my suggestion would be to start a thread of your own to put them in. That way they are not distracting from the actual topic of the thread. Still though, good Corel drawing.


----------



## SeaFury (Nov 24, 2005)

Thank you!

Good idea! Still getting the hang of how to get the best out of your fantastic site! Us 'old boys' are not really Nerd material!

I actually posted wrong drawing, that was a 'starter'. I will try to get the final drawing up....in the meantime, here is a Rolls Rocye!

I will try to get a proper thread going.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 24, 2005)

Hello All!
Just joined the forum. I have strapped on the odd machine of quality. This is my first foray into the cyberworld other than general web stuff and email, and of course flying around up there where all those wonderful old aircraft have been. I'll just hold high and dry for a while, watching, and waiting. Then, when I see a good target I'll come down out of the Sun! That is if 'Sea Fury' leaves me any room!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 24, 2005)

Welcome aboard Falco. Have a look around and you will get the feel of who the personalities are on the board and where people's individual expertise is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

Welcome aboard Falco. Well hopefully Seafury will leave us all some room and post his drawings in his own thread.  Im just kidding aroudn Seafury.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 24, 2005)

I think we are all hard-core fans of a genre that is all but forgotten by many younger than us and to me this a great way to remember and preserve history. We all fanatical to our particular aircraft so if you were insulted, I apologize, if you got and accepted my joke, laugh, and if you were insulted but still laughed, then I applaud you sence of humor. Turn the page.

:{)[/quote]

As a new guy I have been browsing the 'threads' to get a feel for the subject. The fight gets a bit tough in places - as it should. Curzon Dax hit upon about the most significant qualifying point I have seen. In the same vane as him I would say that personal interest in a specific aircraft, patriotism, fanatasism, real knowledge about aircraft, and personal experience in the air; plus technical facts of aerodynamics, airframes, engines, fuel capacity, power, p/w ratio, wing loading, differing corner speeds, strategy, tactics, weapons, culture, training, and many other factors, ('Who won' must carry some weight) make it just about impossible to reach a consensus much less a unanimous conclusion. (If one nation had perfected a fighter to carry/deliver a homing rocket that could kill those with guns only from a 1000 yards without getting into a dogfight could it have been the best fighter?) I have observed that there are probably some nationalities that are less likely to accept 'facts' than others. For the sake of this forum the existence all of those points of interest, argument , agreement, dispute, animosity, is a great thing. I am sure all have actually learnt a lot from the 'facts' submitted in sometimes desperate argument, by someone else - but might not admit that! I too have my favourites. I will weigh them against the 'facts', 'facts! ',
and 'facts?' you have all submittedy and then present.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

No I was making a joke, I dont think anyone here was offended.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 25, 2005)

Welcome to the forum Falcon and Seafury.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2005)

Welcome Falcon and Sea Fury. Falcon, I see you're a pilot, what do you fly?


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 25, 2005)

Thanks for the welcome lads. For FLYBOY J - In my real life I flew Winjeel, Vampire, Macchi MB326, UH-1 Slick Gunship in Vietnam, Avon Sabre, MirageIII, F-4, F-111C, RF-111C. Since then , FIAT G-59 and oodles of civvy singles and twins. Love my flying. Love a/c. You might think I sound old but I know I have at least another 25 years of great flying left in me. I still fly quite a bit and have a small aviation business. Aerial photography is now my specialty A/G and A/A. I like the passion displayed in this forum. Keep it up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2005)

falcon39 said:


> Thanks for the welcome lads. For FLYBOY J - In my real life I flew Winjeel, Vampire, Macchi MB326, UH-1 Slick Gunship in Vietnam, Avon Sabre, MirageIII, F-4, F-111C, RF-111C. Since then , FIAT G-59 and oodles of civvy singles and twins. Love my flying. Love a/c. You might think I sound old but I know I have at least another 25 years of great flying left in me. I still fly quite a bit and have a small aviation business. Aerial photography is now my specialty A/G and A/A. I like the passion displayed in this forum. Keep it up.



Very very cool! I'm looking forward to your participation here! There are a few of us on this forum who fly or have flown, but my god, hearing some of the stuff you've been around I'm honored! There are guys here who have great knowledge in aviation history and you'll be surprised with some of the things they come up with. Welcome and enjoy!

So tell me, did you ever "torch" your -111?!?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 26, 2005)

Knowing that you have flown the F-111 makes you alright by me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

great to annother man of your experience on board! welcome.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Yeap there is allways room for experience.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 26, 2005)

I did 'dump burn' in the F-111 FLYBOY J. I am impressed with the knowledge of aviation history in the forum. Sometimes the questions from the real enthusiasts can be a bit curly. I also flew in the USAF on exchange duties 'evangilder'. I suppose I have to throw my hat in the ring on my preferences for WW2 fighters eh? The main types generally nominated by you old hands seem to be well agreed upon as the 109, Spitfire, 190 and Mustang, Zero, it just seems a bit hard to shuffle them into an agreed order. That is understandable because the pecking order changed throughout the war as each side got surprised and made changes. As stated a couple of posts ago thje variables are numerous and sometimes one just has to dive in with technical data modified by gut feeling and a touch of romance - Spitfire Mk XIV, P-51D,Fw 190, Corsair, Bf109G. And the pilots of all of those would be a bit jumpy if they knew a Zero was lurking the neighborhood! Silly old me left the PC9/A out of my lineup of steeds. Ours is the 950HP version, and I would like to get into the USAF TrojanII with more grunt, or better still trhe PC21!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

another fighter man i take it??


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 26, 2005)

I feel a bit hybrid having done the chopper and F-111 bit, but nothing matches flying a fighter, single seat of course. How about you lanc? Can you explain what the 'unconfirmed and confirmed kills' mean please. I haven't been able to find a reference on them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

falcon39 said:


> I feel a bit hybrid having done the chopper



Good man having flown the UH-1 in Vietnam, my hats off to you. My father was a Huey guy. Flew them for 20 years. I fly the Blackhawk now in the US Army. Not a chopper pilot, just a crewchief though. Do a little bit of private flying when the army lets me and I can afford the German gas prices.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 26, 2005)

Welcome falcon... Glad to see our little site here agrees with ur approval... The members personal histories here make this a very interesting place... 

From Crew Chiefs to Submariners, from Tankers to SEALs to Special Ops, from Airforce guys running around with M-16's to the Mechanics and Aviation Mates that allowed u to fly, Im sure that, if u stay around long enough, that u will fit right in here.....

Welcome!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Agreed Les.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 26, 2005)

Thanks Adler Les. Never say you are "just a crewchief"!! The whole team is needed to do the job. I know that I owe my life to my crewchief and gunner in Vietnam. One of them was an ex-infantry soldier from the OZ army and he could always put his first rounds from the twin-M60 doorguns exactly on target, and he had hawkeyes as well. I can tell you wasn't "just a crewchief"! I haven't had any flak on my favourites yet. I am still working my way through the whole forum history. I note a bit of turbulence in places! Opinions that I greatly respect, and consider worthy of researching are those of Johnnie Johnson, Dougie Bader, and Adolph Galland.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2005)

[quote"Les"]
From Crew Chiefs to Submariners, from Tankers to SEALs to Special Ops, from Airforce guys running around with M-16's to the Mechanics and Aviation Mates that allowed u to fly, Im sure that, if u stay around long enough, that u will fit right in here..... 
[/quote]

where do i fit in 

and falcon the kills don't really mean anything, the longer your posts, the more kills baiscally..........

one last thing, what do you think of the Avro Lancaster??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2005)

Im in the ATC but I doubt ill go into the RAF. But still. 

Welcome Falcon, look forward to hearing more from you! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

falcon39 said:


> Thanks Adler Les. Never say you are "just a crewchief"!! The whole team is needed to do the job. I know that I owe my life to my crewchief and gunner in Vietnam. One of them was an ex-infantry soldier from the OZ army and he could always put his first rounds from the twin-M60 doorguns exactly on target, and he had hawkeyes as well. I can tell you wasn't "just a crewchief"! I haven't had any flak on my favourites yet. I am still working my way through the whole forum history. I note a bit of turbulence in places! Opinions that I greatly respect, and consider worthy of researching are those of Johnnie Johnson, Dougie Bader, and Adolph Galland.



Agreed.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 27, 2005)

Lanc I have to tell you something that you must never tell my old fighter colleagues. The Lancaster is the only four-engined a/c that I would love to fly. Back to fighters now. The human factor that makes selecting 'the best' difficult was well exemplified by the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots of 'The Battle of Britain'. My fighter flying was all in peace time and the scramble take-offs in Mirages etc were very serious affairs. But I still have trouble getting my head around the magnitude of what those BOB pilots and the whole team of observers, radar ops, ops rooms, maintenance troops all did. How do you factor that into the equation, and still respect someone else's choice of pecking order?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

I agree with you. I dont think that anyone can understand what they were going through. The stress factor must have been incredible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2005)

A true fight for survival...

I think if I was Hugh Downing, I would of has a stoke within the first 4 days of the BoB...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Me too...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2005)

I'm pretty sure on the second day he thought it was a bad week to stop sniffing glue. 

And I doubt anyone is going to get that, but still.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 28, 2005)

Politics and national allegiances aside Adler, I am sure it was no walk in the park for German fighter jocks either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'm pretty sure on the second day he thought it was a bad week to stop sniffing glue.



You're a madman!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A true fight for survival...
> 
> I think if I was Hugh Downing, I would of has a stoke within the first 4 days of the BoB...


It was. I'm most people would have cracked fairly early on in that campaign but his cool head saved the day and the country. (see the quote in my sig).


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 28, 2005)

I would say that the Mustang is the better pick. the six 50 caliber machine guns would tear into a zero and 109. It is faster than both the zero and 109. It may not be as maneverable as the zero but neither was the hellcat and they had success using the thach weave. Against the 109 the Mustang could just out run the 109 since the Mustang could go over 450 MPH.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2005)

The P-51H could do over 450mph but I dont think that saw much, if any service in WW2. P-51D's could "only" do 437mph. (Late 109G's could probably match this and 109K's could easily). With equal pilots in equal situations id have to go with the 109.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P-51H could do over 450mph but I dont think that saw much, if any service in WW2. P-51D's could "only" do 437mph. (Late 109G's could probably match this and 109K's could easily). With equal pilots in equal situations id have to go with the 109.


Agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

falcon39 said:


> Politics and national allegiances aside Adler, I am sure it was no walk in the park for German fighter jocks either.



Agreed 100% with you. As you said Polotics and national allegiances aside my hats are off to the pilots who flew for both sides. What they did, not everyone could do and they were all very brave.



Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I would say that the Mustang is the better pick. the six 50 caliber machine guns would tear into a zero and 109. It is faster than both the zero and 109. It may not be as maneverable as the zero but neither was the hellcat and they had success using the thach weave. Against the 109 the Mustang could just out run the 109 since the Mustang could go over 450 MPH.



Disagree mostly since in a dog fight, the P-51D would not be going 437mph (not 450 like you said, that was the P-51H which as was stated did not see much for combat in WW2). You dont dogfight at your max speed, it is considerably slower.

P-51D: 437mph

Bf-109G-6: 387mph
Bf-109K-4: 452mph

If both a P-51D and Bf-109G or K fought one on one with one another my guess is that they would be flying less than 360mph each in there fight. Might be wrong but that is my guess. You dont turn as well at higherspeeds as you would at lower ones. The main thing that made the P-51D so successful was its shear numbers. 5 Bf-109s versus 35 P-51D's. The numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> falcon39 said:
> 
> 
> > Politics and national allegiances aside Adler, I am sure it was no walk in the park for German fighter jocks either.
> ...



I agree with you because it was late in the war and germany's factories were constantly bombed thus causing them to produce fewer but better planes than the Allies. Also the U.S. could mass produce anything it needed for the war, planes being one of them. But don't get me wrong the P-51 was a great plane and it turned the air war over to the Allies favor when it was introduced.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 28, 2005)

A bit off topic, but isn't that 452 mph figure for the 109K4 with a special high altitude prop and 1.98 ata rating? I think the more usual top speed was around 440-448 mph, but this is all off the top of my head. Does anyone have a 109K kenblatt on their H/D?

I have one German document with engine ratings and speed for the 109G-14/ASM, 109G-14/U-4 and 109K-4.

Speed ratings are 680, 665 and 710 kph respectively at 1.8 ata. 710 kph is about 441 mph.





Does anyone have anything more comprehensive, like a engine and speed curve chart from RLM?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> A bit off topic, but isn't that 452 mph figure for the 109K4 with a special high altitude prop and 1.98 ata rating? I think the more usual top speed was around 440-448 mph, but this is all off the top of my head. Does anyone have a 109K kenblatt on their H/D?
> 
> I have one German document with engine ratings and speed for the 109G-14/ASM, 109G-14/U-4 and 109K-4.
> 
> ...



Not sure on that, you might be right. All the figures I have seen for the K-4 are 452mph hour.


----------



## falcon39 (Nov 30, 2005)

A fighter pilot in the guns/cannon fight must get his guns to bear on his target by pulling 'lead', which basically is aiming ahead of the target so that when he fires, his ammo reaches the critical point in space just as the target gets there. If he is well practiced a good fighter pilot keeps his E up with airspeed much greater than his target, manipulates the 3 dimensional image of the fight in his head, projects the target movement, to get ample 'lead' on the target, tracks it for a period long enough to make sure the target's flight path is going through his aim point, and goes for a 'flythrough shot', disengage away at full power and preferably climbing to convert kinetic energy into potential energy. That is where excess power and accelleration is advantageous. If the target explodes then the jock swaps to another target or rejoins his flight element to engage more targets or go home. If the target flies on, then the attacker has the option of using his greater energy to advantage for another flythrough shot, or, he can slow down to his 'cornering speed' when in close contact with the target for a steady tracking shot, by sitting behind the target a/c . Cornering speed is considerably slower than maximum speed, and is where the you get the best performance in terms of maximum 'g', max turn rate, and minimum turn radius - and maintain it long enough to get a firing solution. Mind you none of this is easy. The other guy is not just sitting there letting you get a nice sight picture. Most WW2 fighters had a 'corner speed' in the range 160 to 220 knots. The combination of power and high max speed allowed the pilot to keep high E. A high powered engine allowed the pilot to maintain his 'corner speed' in close, because at corner speed the angle of attack is high, the 'g' load high, and therefore drag very high, requiring lots of power. Some folk say that horse racing is the sport of kings, but fighter pilots know what really is the sports of kings!


----------



## falcon39 (Dec 2, 2005)

You can see from my last post that fighter pilots really got to earn their pay when they fought against someone in a figfhter with perhaps a slower cornering speed and with higher power/acceleration. That is where experience, guts, motivation, cunning, tactics, numbers of aircraft, formation types and numbers, mathematics, training and luck played their part. And it is also another factor that makes it so difficult to say which 'machine' was the best.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 2, 2005)

excellent posts falcon 39


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2005)

> That is where experience, guts, motivation, cunning, tactics, numbers of aircraft, formation types and numbers, mathematics, training and luck played their part. And it is also another factor that makes it so difficult to say which 'machine' was the best.


You're speaking to the already converted brother.... If u read around in some of the older stuff, u'll see almost ur exact words being repeated by several different members...

Plain and simple fact, certain Aces flew their aircraft as an extension of themselves, and did things that an average pilot couldnt even grasp... 

Most pilots were just that, pilots...


----------



## SeaFury (Dec 3, 2005)

Hi people! I see you guys have met my best friend Falcon. He sure is an impressive guy...we have been friends for over 20 years.

He was a good friend of Major Jim Evans who was here as an exchange pilot in the 70s and went on to become USAF Chief of Staff!

I think he might have forgotten to mention his time as an F4 instructor in the USA. I believe he used the Call Sign Flying Kangaroo and had a lot of of fun on Truckie CB channels while he was airborne!!! ("Your 10.20 is Chino??? You just told me it was San Diego! What sorta rig you driving son???")

We share a pashion for aircraft and have done some mad aerobatic stuff together...

Keep up the passion...

Cheers!

SeaFury


----------



## SeaFury (Dec 3, 2005)

Hi people!

Can anyone tell me if Rear Admiral 'Jumping Joe' Clifton is still alive....my favourite Carrier Pilot! Love to know how he he is.

SeaFury


----------



## falcon39 (Dec 3, 2005)

That MIKE RYAN Sea Fury. You Navy wackers can never remember details! Comes from all that total concentration on that little red ball I guess.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2005)

falcon39 said:


> A fighter pilot in the guns/cannon fight must get his guns to bear on his target by pulling 'lead', which basically is aiming ahead of the target so that when he fires, his ammo reaches the critical point in space just as the target gets there. If he is well practiced a good fighter pilot keeps his E up with airspeed much greater than his target, manipulates the 3 dimensional image of the fight in his head, projects the target movement, to get ample 'lead' on the target, tracks it for a period long enough to make sure the target's flight path is going through his aim point, and goes for a 'flythrough shot', disengage away at full power and preferably climbing to convert kinetic energy into potential energy. That is where excess power and accelleration is advantageous. If the target explodes then the jock swaps to another target or rejoins his flight element to engage more targets or go home. If the target flies on, then the attacker has the option of using his greater energy to advantage for another flythrough shot, or, he can slow down to his 'cornering speed' when in close contact with the target for a steady tracking shot, by sitting behind the target a/c . Cornering speed is considerably slower than maximum speed, and is where the you get the best performance in terms of maximum 'g', max turn rate, and minimum turn radius - and maintain it long enough to get a firing solution. Mind you none of this is easy. The other guy is not just sitting there letting you get a nice sight picture. Most WW2 fighters had a 'corner speed' in the range 160 to 220 knots. The combination of power and high max speed allowed the pilot to keep high E. A high powered engine allowed the pilot to maintain his 'corner speed' in close, because at corner speed the angle of attack is high, the 'g' load high, and therefore drag very high, requiring lots of power. Some folk say that horse racing is the sport of kings, but fighter pilots know what really is the sports of kings!



Great info Falcon. I got to fight in mock dogfights with L-29s, 39s and T-33s. My father in law flew fighters and bombers in the USAF and I got to tutored as a civilian. He emphasized what he called "the energy egg,' and keeping every thing in the vertical until a firing solution is gained. It was quite an experience and about once a year I get to play with these guys who own these aircraft....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2005)

great stuff guys, we've had a lot of great experienced people join the site recently, i hope you all enjoy the site and love the lancaster


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Yeap I agree. Great stuff being put out here.


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 7, 2005)

Simple fact is this, all these aircraft are the best that thier respective country's industrial war-making power could produce. They all were exellent aircraft in all thier own ways for all four are some of my fav aircraft too. But the point is, who in the long run had the biggest war-making industrial power and in the case of WWII it was the allies. Yes, depending on the situation all these aircraft can get the upper hand on all these aircraft. But like it has been expertly said what chance do 20 109s have against a whole group of 'Stangs. I think its not who has the better plane, and that is very important, but who had the capability to build more of them. 

:{)


----------



## falcon39 (Dec 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ I am pleased that you have had a taste of the energy egg, and in an a/c of some pewrformance as well. 
I have enjoyed perusing the posts all the way through from page 1. Things seem to have slowed down a bit lately as there seems to be a good general understanding of the balance of a/c types/designs/engines, available numbers to fly and to replace those shot down/damaged etc, pilots, training, and design and manufacturing capability. 
What else is lurking in the fertile minds out there that can be thrown in the ring to tussle over? Maybe some 'what ifs'. What if Hitler had not exercised his personal ideas on the use of the Me 262? That is an a/c that would have been a great 'energy egg' user to get in quickly for a high deflection fly-through shot, zip off out of range, and uphill out-accelerating and outclimbing the prop a/c, and then reposition for another squirt. Those great technical minds of the German fighter pilots would have come up with some interesting multiple attack tactics to keep the Spits/Mustangs/P47/P38 etc turning. For instance a pair of 262s could bounce a formation and get them turning in defence, then as they pull off to go high and reposition the next pair of jets is right on the spot to keep the attack going. A third lot of jets could do the same, and as they puill off the first pair are back in the fight etc etc. I have been in such fights in 3 x2 Mirages versus 2 x 4 Hawker Hunters over the South China Sea. We kept our Mirages high sub-sonic to M1.2 and kept the mostly subsonic Hunters turning defensively. Mind you if we made the mistake of slowing down to their speed they would have a great chance to get some kills. That performance disparity would have been similar with the 262s v the big piston a/c. From both a strategic and tactical point of view he was a silly boy eh?


----------



## falcon39 (Dec 8, 2005)

How did that happen?


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 8, 2005)

Hmmm Curzon, for the sake of our 'virtual pub' I have to disagree!
If we apply your logic all discussion are over before start: we all know the outcome of the war, so with your rule all Allied and Russian aircraft are superior to the Axis types. Example 'the IL-2 was ultimately superior to Bf109 and FW 190 because Ivan produced so many crates and pilots that no matter how many were shot down the IL2 always succeded in crushing the German army'

I think that if we want to continue our discussions about 'which is the best' we should try to 'filter out' the things related to external factors, like achievements heavily related to pure numerical superiority or special tactical situations (like kills obtained on landing aircrafts)

If Maradona was playing as n.10 in my pub soccer team and we lose 10-0 with Liverpool, that does not mean that the n 10 of Liverpool is better than Maradona...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Yes but everyone is better than Maradona now....drugs, alcohol and bad eating habits.


----------



## CurzonDax (Dec 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but everyone is better than Maradona now....drugs, alcohol and bad eating habits.



Here here! :{)


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 1, 2008)

SeaFury said:


> Hi people!
> 
> Can anyone tell me if Rear Admiral 'Jumping Joe' Clifton is still alive....my favourite Carrier Pilot! Love to know how he he is.
> 
> SeaFury



He was quite down that day in 1962 when he learned that he had been passed over for the third and final time. After I got out in February of 1963, he wrote, but I am afraid I never got back to him. Then, I guess it was in about October that he tracked me down telephoned me where I was a Southern California newspaper editor. He had joined Litton Industries, and I promised we wouild get together soon. It was not long after that I read that he had had both legs amputated and had died soon after. He died, I have to believe, of a broken heart.

Buster Evans


----------



## drgondog (Jan 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If both a P-51D and Bf-109G or K fought one on one with one another my guess is that they would be flying less than 360mph each in there fight. Might be wrong but that is my guess. You dont turn as well at higherspeeds as you would at lower ones.
> 
> The main thing that made the P-51D so successful was its shear numbers. 5 Bf-109s versus 35 P-51D's. The numbers speak for themselves.



Chris - I don't know if you feel the same way now as you did when you posted this... but the greatest contribution made by the 51s was in the Jan-May, 1944 timeframe when there were an averarge of two groups (or less) of Mustangs to perform Target Penetration and Withdrawal escort for each Bomb Division of 10-13 Bomb Groups... and all or most of LuftReich assests would be concentrated somewhere along that 20-40 mile path in general. Except for Sweeps out in front, the US Fighters were largely spread out and initially 'reactive' to the threat - meaning many of the engagements started with a skillful positioning by LW controllers to a 'blank spot' and provide high cover for the attacking force.

In mosts cases Mustangs were attacking in flights and sections - rarely entire squadrons, much less an entire group.

I should be wrapped up on the research for the 8th soon, but a (perhaps) interesting note is that for the 'Mustang only' groups in the 8th AF - (357th and 339th only flew P-51s) their Awards (not claims, but we know that all awards may not have been valid) of Me 109s shot down were:

421 Me 109s awarded vs 81 Mustangs downed by ALL German fighters (including Fw 190s, Me 262s, etc) 

Just making the extreme conservative assumption that all P-51s were shot down by 109s, the air to air ratio is more than 5:1 - so the actual ratios of air to air combat between Mustangs vs Me 109 was far higher than 5:1.

Of the highest scoring groups with more than 170 Me 109 awards were 4th (263), 56th (264), 352nd (320), 355th (173), 357th (326) - only the 56th flew P-47s dominantly. The 8th AF lost a total of 632 fighters during WWII in air to air combat for awards of 2414 Me 109s, 1947 Fw 190s and 124 Me 262s...

Admittedly it will be more interesting when I get the details of all Mustang combat against the 109 in Jan-May, 1944 (actually include 354FG starting in Dec, 1943) as that is the period when the 8th AF FC did Not have numerical superiority near the targets in central to east germany.. actual numerical superiority did not occur until the P-47D's got enough range to help the Mustangs - late in 1944 and then finally converted.

Last comment on my part is that I don't feel that it was clear superiority of a/c as I have said many times before - but doctrine and increasing training edge. The Luftwaffe made the grave mistake of taking aggressiveness away from their pilots by emphasizing 'bombers only' and it cost them dearly Jan-May, 1944.

Regards,

Bill

PS - So far the best source for collecting the data is Kent Miller's works combined with 8th AFVCB, USAF 85 and Olynyk. 

Kent names the type from 8th AF VCB and closely correlates but there are differences between the 8th AF VCB which were later REDUCED in USAF 85. My data so far is USAF by total and 8th AF VCB by name/type. If USAF 85 is lower number I use that.

For losses, if there is an 'unknown' cause, but German fighters were in the area - I assign a 'Air' Loss which means even if it was mechanical or weather casue - it goes into my "air to Air" column as a loss. I'm trying to be conservative on behalf of LW.

Cross checking is a bitch and will never be 100% reconciled between the three sources. I have too much time on my hands but eventually I will have a month by month by tpe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

Over the last few years with more research I would lean more to a comibation of superior numbers, better training time and superior tactics at the time.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Over the last few years with more research I would lean more to a comibation of superior numbers, better training time and superior tactics at the time.



Chris _ I know there are no absolutes to the question of air superiority in numbers in a battle area. 

Having said that, at what period of time do you place "available or likely" ratios of Mustangs to Me 109s over Central and Eastern Reich during the big air battles of 8th AF plus 354 and 363FG Mustangs?

starting with 1:8 (maybe) when the 354FG started on 1 December
1:5
1:1
2:1
5:1
7:1

I have always thought the only way to even attempt to parse this question is to consider the above mix of Mustangs as they came into operations versus the mix of Me 109s available (operational vs 'on the field') of LuftReich.

Even the above analysis only provides a solution if the 8th and LW chose to put all their available assets into a space perhaps occupied by three or four bomb goups - say 100 cubic miles (16 miles long, 2 miles on each side, 1-1.5 miles in height) say around Eschwege where fighters from Augsburg, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Berlin could meet?

In other words discount JG26 and JG2 as otherwise occupied over France and Holland

How would you analyze the question if you were trying to get a grip on this question over time?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

Honestly I dont think it can be done. That is why I have someone changed my views on the topic over there years.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Honestly I dont think it can be done. That is why I have someone changed my views on the topic over there years.



Statistics are interesting but at the end of the day there was a huge difference between the numbers of Allied Fighters on the ground in England and Italy versus the number over Brunswick or Berlin on a given day.. starting with zero in fall 1943


Of course the % (over Brunswick, Berlin, Munich, Posnan, Brux, etc) increased gradually from Dec, 1943 and March, 1944 to the point in time when P-47D's finally got enough range to be part of the Long Range Escort mix.

But there was a window of significant time in which the LW could hold numerical superiority over escort fighters anywhere they chose in Central and Eastern Germany, and still have enough left over to attack the bombers in that same area.

In my opinion, in order of importance for LW, it was a.) Tactics, b.) subsequent attrition of skilled pilots due to poor tactics (letting US become the aggressor), c.) failure to replace the attrition with adequately trained pilots, leading to d.) attrition of even more pilots.

I don't think Performance of the individual fighter adversaries was ever truly significant between Me 109 and P-51 for example, although the LW design performance peak was generally below attacking B-17 and escorting P-51 and P-47 peaks which did contribute negatively to the Me 109 scores against US fighters.. it wasn't until the G6 'up engined' to G6 A/S that they regained parity where they needed it.

Just random thoughts


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

Do you know how many USAAF fighters of all types were available around those times for missions over Germany?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do you know how many USAAF fighters of all types were available around those times for missions over Germany?



Short answer - yes. Longer answer it depends.

The USAAF SOP was 64 fighters per group on base in inventory in the 1943 timeframe. Try to put up 48 at bomber R/V.

In 1st part of 1944, the TO&E increased to 72 with same objective of 48 at bomber R/V. With 51s the Groups would frequently put up 2-5 spares and generally have at last that many as 'early return's'

By 1945 some Groups were carrying 96 fighters as TO&E. 355th was one of them but they also maintained all 2 Scout Force ships as a reinforced "E-Flight".. ditto the 364th and 55th who were supporting the 3rd SF and 1st SF respectively in the same way.

The very best way to get a feel for number of long range escorts at any time is use the number 48/Fighter Group of P-51s or P-38s. That would be a high 'effective' average for the actual number of 51s or 38s actually making the target because of mechanical problems/aborts... but it would be the PLANNED number.

When the 56th finally got P-47M's they could go to Berlin but for all intents and purposes the P-47D equipped groups rarely went past a line drawn from Bremen through Kassell and Mannheim.. that's where they would turn back on a Penetration, or Pick up on a Withdrawal Support Escort

As for bomb groups

The typical number of bombers would be four squadrons of 9 per Bomb Group for a maximum effort in late 1943, early 1944. They would be lucky in the fall of 43 to put up 30 ships per group thanks to LW. That number gradually increased until mid 1944 when many bomb groups could put up 45-50 bombers on a max effort. 

In mid 1944 each bomb group might contribute the 36+ as a single unit then add 9 to another Combat Wing to bring the total strength sent out to 45-48 bombers. The heavy bomb group TO&E started at 48 and increased to 72 by war's end.

The typical number of bomb groups per Bomb Division effort would be 10-12 and at the end of the war there were 13 Bomb Groups of B-17s each in the 1st and 3rd BD plus 15 groups of B-24s in 2nd BD.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2008)

So, to expand:

1-1, 43 4th FG flying Spitfires - max range Paris

6-1-1, 43 4th and 56th and 78th flying P-47s - a little deeper penetration - to Holland/german border

12-1-1, 43
P-47
4, 56, 78, 352, 3533, 355, 356, 358, 359 - go to Munster
Deep Escort
P-38 - go wherever
20, 55
P-51 - go wherever
354FG (9th AF)

No of fighters to cover ~ three BD of 900 a/c ~ 120-150 fighters depending on aborts 

2-1-1, 44 (trade 358 for 357FG in mid Feb)
P-47
4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 356, 359, 361 - go to Munster/Dummer Lake

P-38 - go wherever
20, 55
P-51 - go wherever
354FG,(9th - assigned to 8th)
357th mid Feb

Number of fighters to provide Long Range target escort ~ 120-150 until mid Feb then 160-200

3-1-44
P-47 - go to Dummer Lake
56, 78, 353, 352, 356, 359, 361
P-38
20, 55, 364
P-51
354FG/363FG (9th assigned to 8th)
4, 355 (3/8), 357

Number of LR escorts ~ 280 until mid March - then ~320

4-1-44
P-47 - go to Bremen
56, 78, 352 (until mid April), 353, 356, 359, 361
P-38
20, 55, 364
P-51
354/363FG (9th assigned to 8th)
4, 355, 357

number of LR escorts ~ 320 until mid April, then another 40-48 from 352

5-1-44
P-47 - go to Bremen/Kassel/Frankfurt
56, 78, 353, 356, 359 (until mid May), 361 (mid May)
P-38
20, 55, 364, 479 (late May)
P-51
354 and 363 return to 9th for pre invasion assignments
4, 339, 352, 355, 357, 359/361 (mid May) 

number of effectives increase to 45-48/group as bugs shaken out
~ 360-390 until mid May, then another 135-144 as the 361st, 359th and 479th come operational in P-51s and P-38s

At the end of May, the 8th AF can put up equivalent strength to entire LuftFlotte Reich - but still spread out to allocate 2-3 Fighter groups to cover each Bomb Division of 10 Bomb Groups. 

A cat and mouse game in which 120-140 Mustangs have to escort 300 bombers over 40 miles in one area while two or more thrusts are focused on other areas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for the info Bill. I will have to sift through tomorrow when I get home from work. I need to get to bed now, its after midnight. You have a good night.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thanks for the info Bill. I will have to sift through tomorrow when I get home from work. I need to get to bed now, its after midnight. You have a good night.



Chris don't waste a lot of time. 

It is useful to use only when someone throws out something like "my squadron/staffel was outnumbered 8 to 1 by the (choose either P-51/P-47s)" .. because it means that unlucky bastard just happened to jump precisely in the one area where than COULD be true - namely when one Fighter Group is relieving another at an R/V point. (2x 40-48 fighters in cubic mile).

Otherwise 8th AF doctrine was to attack in flights, then section, then commit entire squadron and call for help.. and usually fight long over before 'help' arrives.

Extend that to a Gruppe strength attack and you can see how difficult it would be to pull several defending squadrons into that area - so local numerical superiority for 8th AF was not easy to achieve but converse is not true due to skills of LW controllers.

And, at the end of the day it would be more likely that only one squadron of the 'possibles' above, would actually be in a position to bounce any attack by the LW unless it was a very large and sustained attack


----------



## Nostalgair (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi All,

This is quite a debate!

I had the pleasure of speaking to a chap who had flown for a period with an evaluation unit, where fighters from both sides were pitted against each other.

I asked him about the 'best fighter' and he was very particular in listing the various aspects that contribute to a fighter's worth. Solely in air-to-air combat he said that the Zero was the only thing that he could out-turn a Spitfire in and get a bead on it. He credited this to the light weight and absence of armour-plating.

An interesting viewpoint from someone that flew a wide array of fighters.

Cheers,

Owen


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2008)

The Zero can out-turn about anything, below 275 MPH. After that, it's a brick. The barn-door sized ailerons gave it a great turn radius, at a cost. Once you hit 275 MPH, there isn't enough human strength the move them and the stick feels like it has been set in concrete. The thick wing cord of the Zero also causes it to not be able to dive as fast as other fighters of that vintage. 

I would be curious to hear other test pilots opinions. I may ask some of the guys down at the CAF what they feel is the best fighter. We have a Zero in our stable (a real one) as well as a Bearcat and a Hellcat. Most of our pilots have flown a large number of aircraft.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jan 8, 2008)

ME109 for me, but that because of flight sims(il2), but il take a 109G10 over any p51


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

The Ace-maker Bf-109 hands down!

From 1939 to 1945 it remained a top notch fighter, the final K-4 version out-speeding, out-turning and out-climbing any Allied fighter in the ETO. Sadly for the Germans too few were flown by proper trained pilots and too few were at all available.

Of the three the P-51 is ofcourse the second, by 1943 the Zeke design had reached its limits and was completely outdated compared to the US F6F Hellcat F4U Corsair.


----------



## renrich (Jan 15, 2008)

No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

You are seriously misinformed Renrich! Look at the performance differences for crying out loud!!

The P-51B, C D were pigs compared to the Bf-109's equipped with MW-50 boost. The only thing the P-51 had going for it until the introduction of the Bf-109 K-4 was speed.

Top speed of the K-4 was 719 km/h, climb rate in excess of 5,000 ft/min, turn rate excellent on par with the late Spitfires. 

The F6F isn't even in the same league as the Bf-109! Are you even thinking right now ??

The F4U Corsair is the only fighter I'd rate up there with the Bf-109.

There's a reason the Bf-109 gave birth to majority of aces in WW2, including the top three of all time. The top ace even choose it over any other available in the LW. The fighter was a thoroughbred!

You should visit the aviation forum and take a peek at some of the threads there, Crummp posted some good graphs to look at.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> You are seriously misinformed Renrich! Look at the performance differences for crying out loud!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.



Not true, not even close to being true.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?



Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.

The 51 was not the best fighter over Berlin, what made it the best fighter "perhaps overall" was the fact that it could "get" over Berlin in the first place and that it was built in such large numbers. Other then that it was a decent fighter based on performance alone (not including range). But this chat is for the best fighter in WW2 thread.  

Numbers won the war, attrition won the war, better planning won the war, better strategic planning won the war, better tactical planning won the war (as you hinted at and I expanded on).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> No way the contemporary models of BF 109s could compete with the P51 Bs, Cs or Ds or the equivalent F4Us or F6Fs. To begin with it could not even get into the fight unless it was over it's own base.



That is not a true statement at all. Especially the part about only being able to fight unless it was over its own base. Come on now...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is not a true statement at all. Especially the part about only being able to fight unless it was over its own base. Come on now...



Agreed, thats what I said also.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.
> 
> *No Hunter - and if you read my reply in context, it was about the 51 described as a 'pig' in combat with a 109.
> 
> ...



Increased numbers of adequately trained fighter pilots, not just the aces, and increased training over the LW training capabilities opened the floodgates also.. this is the flip side of attrition. I would say even more important was the aggressiveness of the 8th AF fighter pilot in finding and attacking German fighters wherever they could find them and ignore the odds when under manned in the attack.

In the second half of 1944, what was left of LW Fighter Leader staff to fight against the escorts was further complicated by trying to achieve the mission with less talent behind them and trying to save the rookie during his first series of missions - but if the 8th AF fighter pilot had not been extremely aggressive, even that would have been less of an issue rather than critical

The ad nauseum beliefs that Mustangs had "8:1" or "12:1" numbers advantage in an attack is silly also. in most cases it was 1:4 or 1:2 (Mustangs to LW fighter) because the tactics were to bounce with as few as possible while protecting bombers.

Hunter, there were very FEW Mustangs to protect very large number of bombers in the first half of 1944 - and the 40-50 plane Group that were in the same area as the LW were mostly spread out over 3-6 miles covering the bombers in 8 plane sections.

So, at any given point that the LW chose to fight - there were only 8 to 48 available if the Germans chose to stay.

Someday, more people will look at the individual battles, the orders of battle, and the detailed tactical situations that actually existed when the Mustang came into play and how quickly they decimated the LW over Germany when the very good Jug could not go there and the very fine P-38 had a little too many extreme cold issues were solved and dive brakes were installed..

And at the end of the day, when the P-38L arrived it probably was a better 'dogfighter' than the Mustang until the 51H was in production.

At any rate the sharp remarks were about the 'pig' comment and the implication that the 109 failed to 'sweep the skies' of Mustangs because of other factors than performance. 

At the dominant altitudes of 22,000 - 30,000 feet, in which most of the big fights were engaged:

1. Except for the sharp climbing turn perfectly executed and timed it (109G6) could not escape with raw speed or 2.) acceleration in a dive if chased, and 3.) except for the exceptional pilot, it could not out turn the 51 ( it may turn 'with' the 51). 

The Me 109K series was the P-51H in concept and it, in my opinion was slightly better than the 51D as a pure dogfighter... but not better than the P51H for example.

So, the choice is a matter of preference rather than crystal clear based on graphical or flight test results. The results that counted were over Berlin when the Mustang was greatly outnumbered and the LW was transferring into Luftflotte Reich large numbers of experienced fighter pilots from other fronts

Regards


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

Wow I could comment there on many of your points but I am at work so......with limited time at the moment I will say this.

I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:

-The way you say the 51 was out numbered by the LW is suggesting that the LW was there to fight the 51 (or any escorts). They were trying to avoid the escort most times and not engage them in fights. They were after the bombers, not the fighters. The bombers out numbered the LW defenders in most fights, not even including the defending escorts. Attacking bomber boxes has been described by many LW experts as being the worst thing they has ever done or fought vs. So to discount the kills (indirect kills) or not mention them or factor them into this chat is wrong. The defending LW was outnumbered many many times by the combined attacking force of bombers and escorts. BoB where Hurrs and Spits attacked LW med bombers was very different then LW attacking US bomber boxes. 

-While there were many Experts left in the LW it is a fact that the general level of training had started to decline in the LW in 43. Allied planners did a better job planning for the future then the LW (or Japan) when talking about pilot training programs. Wars are not won by a few experts, then are won by the average pilot. Allied pilots were receiving better training then the new LW pilots were in 43......then add to the fact that the Allies stepped up the air war on all fronts........you can see how it had the LW training program burning at both ends of the candle. LW ended up sending poor souls up who barely had any real flight training in a real plane.......= easy kills. LW lost many pilots (new and vets) to bomber guns, lost pilots to escorts and had a poor plan in place to replace them with good pilots (hell they even sent bomber pilots to be fly fighter planes) = easy kills. So as the war went on as Allied pilots got better the average LW pilots got worse again = easy kills.

-You like to compare what "actually happened" in WW2 instead of looking at performance tests of the actual planes. Well that is just your choice (and some others) and thats fine......but there is weaknesses in that view (just like there is in believing performance tests blindly). I like to factor in both views, using a balanced unbiased point of view to form a opinion (not saying anything neg about your view point). I just think that believing blindly in what actually happened during WW2 you can not possiblely factor into the debate everything that effected those results during WW2 to make a accurate decision on which is a better plane. You need to look also at performance results from all planes for a unbiased (unclouded) point of view on which was a better plane. If you use real life results from WW2 you are not getting which is the better plane (many other factors effected the results in WW2 besides which was the better fighter and that is not what we are talking about here).

-PS the P-51 was no pig in my eyes, it was a good plane with great range, cheap to produce and available in numbers. It would not be my number one choice in any of the following areas: grd attack, defending fighter, or best long range fighter regardless of price. But overall if I was a country during WW2 who had to fight on many fronts, escorted bombers, it would of been my choice as a overall best fighter. Was it the best dog fighter? Not even close. Was it the best overall fighter used in many roles.....yes IMO. I think the USA made the best choice in making the 51 its main fighter when factoring everything in the big picture.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Wow I could comment there on many of your points but I am at work so......with limited time at the moment I will say this.
> 
> I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:
> 
> ...



We can agree depending on how you limit or expand the objective criteria you wish to pose for 'best'. If you want to pose best based on ability to take on the opfor single engine fighters over their capital from 700 miles away, the list diminishes to very few choices..I have no problem not nominating the Mustang as 'best dogfighter' and have been on record that I probably feel the Corsair fits my own choice for 'better' but - opinion based and supported by performance chart - it fails the test of 'what really happened' because the F4U didn't fight the 109. 

The candidate for 'best at any price' long range escort might be P-38 (L/K) but until those models it failed (performed lower than expectations) the test of 'what really happened' in the same discussion in context of fighting Me 109.
Doolittle wasn't concerned about 8th AF budget when he chose the 51 and gave the 9th all the P-38s

So, I have no problem bringing 'what really happened' as I have outlined my 'framing' definitions above, nor do I have problems discussing 'chart performance' nor flight tests. They all serve a use in discussing potential versus what 'really happened'

But I don't dwell on it w/o caveating what I mean by it.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

Bill I agree with your comments, seems we always do agree with each after a few moments of clarity.

Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.

PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2008)

I understand that the Germans did a review of the difference between the 109K-4 and the Mustang 'Neiderschrift Nr6730' of Daimler Benz 24th January 1945.
Does anyone have a translation as it could be handy in this thread?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill I agree with your comments, seems we always do agree with each after a few moments of clarity.
> 
> Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.
> 
> PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.



You made the point so clearly Hunter that I was compelled to NOT change one word - lol.

Hell, going after a box of B-26 Marauders was a dangereous undertaking and certainly represented more defensive firepower tha Do 17s or He 111's in BoB.

On the other hand attacking a B-17 with an FW 190A8 was a more certain score than attacking a 111 with a Hurricane.

I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if the shipment of dive brake kits destined for the P-38J's had not been sunk. The lack of ability of the P-38 to dive w/o almost immediately going into compressibility prevented a lot of scoring by the 38 versus Fw 190 and Me 109.

I've done a lot of data gathering on the different group award/loss statistics, by a/c type and the 479th FG really stands out. The P-38J equipped 20th/55th and 364th had far better air to air success with the 51 after they converted, but the late arriving P-38L equipped 479th had a better air to air ratio than the 35t7th FG and the 56th FG - each only flying one type (51 and 47 respectively), and then attained a better ratio with 51's.

But time was in 479th favor as the real heart of LuftFlotte Reich had been carved out by May-Sep timeframe and really down hill in fall of 44, so hard to draw serious conclusions about P-38L.

A lightly loaded P-38L was a handful for any piston engine fighter at any altitude.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren, et.al. Here is my argument on this issue: I believe the BF model you are talking about is the Bf 109K-14. My source says that it was introduced operationally the last two weeks of the war so it really had no influence on the war. My source also says that it could attain air speeds of over 450 mph at 35000 ft with MW50. It was armed with 2-MG 131s and 1-MK103 or MK108 cannon. Range would be about 356 miles at 20000 ft. Initial rate of climb about 4820 fpm. If you will notice my original post mentioned contemporary AC. To me that means that a model introduced at about the same time in the war as another model. Therefore the Bf above would probably be compared with the P51H or the F4U4 or the F6F5. Funny thing about paper performance. The manufacturer calculated performance of the P51H was 471 mph at 22700 feet with an intial rate of climb of 5120 fpm and of course the typical range of a P51. Pretty good, better than the Bf. But, in a test the P51H touched 451 mph at 21200 ft with an initial rate of climb of 4680 fpm. Not quite as hot, huh? Do we really know what the real world performance was of the Bf109K? Now the P51B had performance numbers somewhat similar to that of the H model as far as Vmax. The P51D not quite as hot as the B or C but probably made up for it with heavier and more reliable armament and better pilot visibility. The B on average probably had 15 mph on the D at best altitude, but that is probably not tactically significant in the real world. TACTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! To me those are key words. All this paper stuff on performance doesn't prove much. If the Bf above had better V max at 35000 feet than a P51H or D, how tactically significant is that? How much ACM took place at 35000 feet? My guess is practically none. My guess is that the Bf109K was a desperate attempt to get a fighter that could get well above the B17s and 24s and then swoop down on them in a firing pass but it wasn't meant to be an air superiority fighter. If one AC makes a run on another from above and they get in a fur ball they are going to get lower and lower if the fur ball is continued. Which brings us to another point. If the Bf has a range on internal fuel of 365 miles, how much combat time does it have left after it gets to 35000 ft? That is what I meant by referring to only fighting above it's own base. The facts are, the P51 more than held it's own with all the recips the LW threw at them and did it over and over again hundreds of miles away from it's own bases. As far as the Hellcat is concerned, I think we would be talking about the F6F5 which was an honest 400 mph plus airplane. The Hellcat did have some kills in the ETO, 6 or 8 sticks in my mind. I don't know if any Hellcats became kills for the LW. I know that Eric Brown is highly biased(for European fighters) but here is what he says about ACM between an F4F3 and the Bf109G-6. "The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the Me109G-6 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat." The Hellcat was a very successful warplane. The Corsair was an even better performer.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

The thing about attacking a bomber box with thousands of .5 cals pointing and firing at you is that it really removes much of the benefits of being a skilled pilot.

My point being if you are Ace quality pilot fighting in a dog fight vs other fighters......even if out numbered. Your skill as a pilot shows and will keep you alive most times.

But if you are a Ace attacking a heavy bomber box, much of those benefits that you gain as being a Vet and Ace pilot will not help you much when attacking a wall of heavies with their thousands of .5 cals firing at you.

Attacking a heavy bomber box and surviving has as much to do with luck then being a good pilot. Attacking fighters, even being out numbered, and surviving has more to do with pilot skill and less about luck.

Allot of great/Ace LW pilots lost their lives attacking that wall of .5 cals.


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter, I believe you are on the mark with your observations. Have a book called "Horrido" about the LW aces and the LW held the pilots who shot down 4 engined bombers in high esteem. Actually when attacking a box of bombers, one had to be lucky, not much skill in it, not to be hit. It must have been terrifying.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> The thing about attacking a bomber box with thousands of .5 cals pointing and firing at you is that it really removes much of the benefits of being a skilled pilot.
> 
> *No question about it*
> 
> ...



Yes, many did.

A lot of Mustang aces lost their lives, or freedom, strafing, few in air to air combat. They didn't have to attack B-17s and the LW Experten didn't have to shoot up German airfields! Same issue of luck and many fewer probabilities of bailing out when mortally damaged.

The 355th FG for example lost 2x to strafing over air to air. 

It had it's top ace Henry Brown lost to flak, my father was shot down (and rescued by another ace), the first 355 ace was KIA strafing an airfield, and an ace (Lenfest) was lost trying to rescue Brown when he got stuck in the mud. 

The last 355FG ace shot down was Cullerton who was hit by flak over Ansbach A/F, then survived being shot in the stomach with his ownn .45 after surrendering to an SS Officer. A nearby priest saw it and managed to get Bill to the hospital in time to save him.

attached is a testimonial to the dangers of strafing German airfields. Charlie Sweat was KIA in first 355th airfield attack, and last mission in P-47 on March 8, 1944.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

Agreed, I could not think of anything involving air combat being terrifying then flying into a hail of fire from all directions which you could do only so much to avoid then firing at this damn bomber and watch it just absorb everything you fire at it. Terrifying and frustrating to see many of your fellow comrades who you have fought with for years being "wasted" (in a sense) vs these slow moving tanks firing hundreds thousands of .5 cal bullets at you. Most of your experience and abilities as a pilot being useless to help you. Just the finicky "Lady luck" deciding whether you live or die. The escorts guarding the bombers were just the extra nail in the coffin so to speak.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Yes, many did.
> 
> A lot of Mustang aces lost their lives, or freedom, strafing, few in air to air combat. They didn't have to attack B-17s and the LW Experten didn't have to shoot up German airfields! Same issue of luck and many fewer probabilities of bailing out when mortally damaged.
> 
> ...



Totally agree strafing / ground attack was another brutal job where much of your skill as a pilot was useless, you had to depend a great deal on luck to survive.

From what many many LW pilots have said there was no harder flak/AA fire more dangerous then in Russia. Russia massed AA fire in their armies from what I have read. Again many many LW pilots were shot down or killed attacking ground targets over Russian targets.

I will say this again, I would be begging to fight enemy fighters before attacking bombers or ground targets (over any target).


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2008)

> The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?



Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

*Fuel*
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

*Pilots*
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies. 
The USAAF RAF on the other hand didn’t lack well trained pilots. USAAF RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses strengths of their a/c.

*Priorities*
Most Bf-109’s Fw-190’s over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what’so’ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109’s and 190’s carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze’s available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn’t stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you’re just spewing out words without thinking. This so called slaughtering you’re talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that. Now taking into account that a B-17 B-24 contains a crew of 9 to 10, costs allot more to manufacture than several single seat fighters and has the ability cripple your industry, well, then shooting one bomber down was worth a whole lot more than shooting down 10 or more escort fighters. It is no mystery that the LW concentrated on the bombers . The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers. So in short Bill I’d have to say the only slaughtering taking place was that of the USAAF bombers. And this was accomplished by the German fighters while having to watch out for revengeful escorts and even shooting many down. This is nothing other than remarkable considering the situation the LW was in. 

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.
Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109’s 190’s than it lost in return, well I’d never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn’t anywhere close to the claimed figure. 

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you’re just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn’t make so much sense if it wasn’t an excellent fighter. 



> Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights.



Mostly, yes exactly.

Now as to the F6F Hellcat, well you’ve got to be kidding me! The F6F was a slow heavy a/c compared to the small and nimble Bf-109. Performance agility wise the Bf-109 is a far superior fighter to the F6F Hellcat.

This having been said the pilot alone, like pointed out above, can make up for the largest of performance agility disadvantages of an a/c. More than a few pilots demonstrated this during WW2, dive bombers being turned into Zeke killers etc etc..


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Totally agree strafing / ground attack was another brutal job where much of your skill as a pilot was useless, you had to depend a great deal on luck to survive.
> 
> From what many many LW pilots have said there was no harder flak/AA fire more dangerous then in Russia. Russia massed AA fire in their armies from what I have read. Again many many LW pilots were shot down or killed attacking ground targets over Russian targets.
> 
> I will say this again, I would be begging to fight enemy fighters before attacking bombers or ground targets (over any target).



I wonder if comparing German airfield flak to Russian flak is like comparing rear ends on burros - intellectually stimulating but emotionally the same?

I would estimate that 20% of the strafing losses I have examined are from hitting the ground or trees trying to stay low until the very last second - then misjudging.

I know my father cranked in a little 'nose up' trim just before entering the attack - so that if he got hit or distracted he was more likely to pull up slightly rather than make a big skid mark on the grass.

I have no idea which is worse but both the Germans and Russians did a better job of AA than the Allies


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2008)

> I have no idea which is worse but both the Germans and Russians did a better job of AA than the Allies



The Allies used highly effective proximity fuzes in their larger AA pieces (75mm up) so I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?
> 
> The crucial factors to consider here:
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?
> 
> The crucial factors to consider here:
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Allies used highly effective proximity fuzes in their larger AA pieces (75mm up) so I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.



Call away. Are you suggesting that 90mm flak was used by Allies to defend against low level attacks by fighters? That WAS what Hunter and I were talking about.

Which one of us 'missed the point"??

If I missed it, could you tell me where this defensive arrangement was the scourge of Ju 87 and me 262 and Fw 190G (and whatever else) attacks on Allied airfields - maybe I missed out on that.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Nice attempts at dodging the real issues at hand Bill.



> Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source?



Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill. The lack of fuel was so great that by late 1944 that many a/c couldn't take off when needed, and just had to sit and wait to be shot up by Allied grond attacks.



> And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?



LoL, maneuverability has nothing to do with it ! The LW fighters were bounced attacking the bombers and were heavily armed (Thus slower), they were easy targets in this situation. 

If maneuverability was the deciding factor then the P-51's P-47's over Europe would've been eradicated.



> So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?



LoL you bring forth these to prove your point ??!! (And thats despite their being many aces flying on the western front) Yes Bill the LW consisted of MANY rookies by mid 1944 to 1945 trying to defend the Reich. Your little list doesn't in any way disprove this fact. There were also experienced pilots in the LW no doubt, but they had to lead the rookies, so they themselves became targets.

Also you so happily skidded around the fact that the LW were the ones doing the actual slaughtering, rightly concentrating on the bombers as their main targets. Its none other than amazing that the LW fighters managed to additionally shoot down as many escorts as they did whilst they themselves were easy targets when they pounded the bombers, and esp. amazing when you additionally consider the fuel situation and decreasing pilot training.

As to Galland disagreeing with me, no I don't think so Bill, cause Galland was of the exact same opinion that the bombers were the ones who needed to be brought down, not the escorts, the escorts needed just to be bypassed. Or are you under the illusion that Galland shared yout vision and didn't see the sense in one strike taking up to ten Allied personnel out the fight, a far more expensive piece of machinery and meanwhile securing the home industry was more important than fooling around with the escorts ?? 

Now as to there being only 52 LW pilots shooting down 5 or more P-51's P-47's, Ha !, where did you get that figure ? Kacha's LuftWaffe Page ?? Just so you know that list isn't even near complete yet! And additionally MANY LW pilots were never awarded their kills as they were shot down.

And about the ~2500 Bf-109's and ~1900 Fw-190 claimed shot down, well that's just hilarious, esp. when you look at the actual LW lossess of both types due to air ground attacks. 

And about the Me-262's, well again by far he majority were shot down while landing or taking off, atleast 80%.

And as to most of the USAAF fighter losses being to German FlaK, again thats just pure hogwash Bill. The USAAF did the same trick in Korea, claiming that most their fighters were lost due to groundfire in an attempt to glorify their own efforts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill.



Do you know what is funny Soren, Bill has probably talked with more pilots from the Luftwaffe (and the USAAF as well) except for maybe Erich (I dont know whether Erich or Bill has talked to more) than anyone on this forum and he *has the pics to prove it as well.*

So you might want to rethink what you just said...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2008)

While I believe I brought up some valid points, as I believe Soren and Bill have also. 

I think Soren and Bill you both come off being bias towards USA (Bill) and Germany (Soren). The real truth is somewhere between what you both say. You both bring up good points, I agree with you both.......but you both lose some creditability IMO b/c you both come off bias (each of you to a lesser or greater degree). 

I respect both of your knowledge a great deal, both of you know more about WW2 then I do or will ever know. Sorry if I have offended you with this post, but I came here to gain knowledge about WW2. You both have sooooo much to offer but you lose some creditability when you argue like this (instead of debating in a progressive way) and show your clear bias.

Again sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. My intent was to keep this thread progressing in the right direction without bias twisting the truth.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nice attempts at dodging the real issues at hand Bill.
> 
> Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill. The lack of fuel was so great that by late 1944 that many a/c couldn't take off when needed, and just had to sit and wait to be shot up by Allied grond attacks.
> 
> ...



I will wave the 'BS' flag here. The Korean War air loss total has been revised upward as the Soviet records have been obtained. Ditto WWII. I revised my own air loss total from my research based on 1980 data sources about 40% based on cross referencing German reports for KIA/POW 355FG pilots as well as using Woods/Butler to flesh out claims/awards in areas where the 355th had a loss to an 'unknown' cause.

I have broken out flak from 'strafing' to attempt to separate where a pilot hit a tree trying to avoid flak, but at the end of the day it could have been pilot error, a fatal wound causing loss of control or an engine failure at the wrong time - so no evaluation is perfect. You don't like my methods? Trot out yours for comparison. 

Nobody (i.e any historian that I know) lies just to inflate scores or glory. It is simply too easy to spot by someone with an opposing view and ability to research

As to 'hogwash'?? How many MACR's have you researched Soren, do you know what that means? How many Fighter Group (USAAF) Squadron and Group Histories have you researched? I have read ALL the Macr's available at NARA and Maxwell and the ones on-line such as passport.com.

So again, you denigrate a comment or statistic that I offer because you don't like the number - but you just can't offer data or a fact driven opinion - just ad hominum attacks on people that disagree with you.

Pathetic.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> While I believe I brought up some valid points, as I believe Soren and Bill have also.
> 
> I think Soren and Bill you both come off being bias towards USA (Bill) and Germany (Soren). The real truth is somewhere between what you both say. You both bring up good points, I agree with you both.......but you both lose some creditability IMO b/c you both come off bias (each of you to a lesser or greater degree).
> 
> ...



Hunter - No offense taken, your perspective is your perspective. 

Could you offer an example where I 'twisted the truth'? then illustrate the 'real truth' so that I can learn from my error?


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Pathetic ?? Ha! (Talk about snide remarks ) No, what's pathetic is you totally twisting Galland's own words Bill! 

I have Galland's book, and in it he as-well more than once highly stresses the point that the bombers were top priority and that the escorts just had to be bypassed. The orders coming from the OKL emphasizing the exact same.

As for the few dedicated LW fighters tasked with protecting the interceptors, they were the only ones who took the fight to the escorts, and that was while being grossly out-numbered. You should know how many dedicated fighters were assigned to protect the interceptors, VERY few! But despite this they were causing trouble for the P-51's, esp. the later boosted Bf-109's and the new Fw-190 Dora-9's were real menaces and had to be grouped up on.

Also I will AGAIN ask you to realize who was doing the actual slaughtering Bill. Even in 1945 the German fighters mostly shot down a similar amount of bombers as they themselves lost in fighters, now if you consider that a bomber usually contains 10 crewmembers and costs the same as roughly 10 fighter a/c, then who really got slaughtered ?? 

Moving onwards it is also very strange how you can ever dispute the huge effect the lack in pilot training had on the LW's efforts, how the heck could it NOT be a huge factor ??!!

Anyway in the end I'm not trying to bash the P-51, it did its job as an escort fighter well, it performed well at the altitudes where the bombers were flying and it had the range needed. The escorting P-51 fighters were indeed an important factor to the Allied success, I have never doubted that Bill and I never will. But the P-51 is highly overrated, esp. by you, but that's understandable seeing your father owned one and that you actually flew one. But fact is that the only advantage that the P-51 had over the German fighters was range and early on performance over 22,000 ft, in maneuverability it was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190, esp. not at SL up to 22,000 ft. Now that having been said the P-51D enjoyed a good speed advantage over its main oppponents in the beginning, and it wasn't really matched in speed until mid 1944. And like fighter pilots often say, speed is life!

As to the P-51 alone being a threat to the German war effort, it NEVER was, the Allied bombers however were. 

One last thing: The Ground attack abilities of the P-51 weren't very good Bill, first of all because it couldn't carry very much and secondly because its guns weren't near powerful enough for the role, and thirdly because it was very vulnerable in the role.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

Ah I can see how this thread is going to turn out....


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Hunter - No offense taken, your perspective is your perspective.
> 
> Could you offer an example where I 'twisted the truth'? then illustrate the 'real truth' so that I can learn from my error?



Like I said I meant to offense to you or Soren, get a feeling from your last sentence I did offend you.

I was not saying you or he was actually twisting to truth, more that the truth can be lost when two people get their defenses up and start talking from the corner that the other person has put them into. 

The truth tends to get lost/twist/clouded when two people argue and insult each other like you both are.

Hope I cleared up any potential insult you or Soren might of felt from my one post.......none was meant. I also hope you both see what I am saying and clean up this little insulting match you two are having to the benefit of having the real truth come out (I am not claiming to know the whole truth, just parts of it and I am here to learn from others).

Education is the main idea of this forum, I think we should "all" stick to that theme. 

Otherwise this thread will be closed or the Mods will step in and warn you both to chill out. Either way I have tried.


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren, re your remarks about the Hellcat, they don't jibe with Eric Brown's. I know he is biased(toward ETO airplanes) but have you read his book, "Duels in the Sky"?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, what's pathetic is you totally twisting Galland's own words Bill!
> 
> *Have you a.) read the letter I am referring too? and if so, would you care to annotate what you believe are examples of twisting his own words?*
> 
> ...



Well, I won't argue 'best' ground attack simply because the Tempest, Jug, Fw 190 were more duarble to small arms and light flak. But if no other fighter type is available in numbers to get to central and eastern Germany and achieve those results - how 'not very good' is that?

Having said that the Mustang destroyed more German a/c on the ground than the other 8th AF fghters combined.. and also suffered the most casualties in that role. If one Mustang destroyed a specialized Ju 88 or Do 217 on the ground and prevented that a/c from destroying a bomber that day (or night) how do you judge the value? The strafing attacks destroyed a very large number of t/e night fighters - how many RAF crews survived because of that?

If that Mustang destroyed 10 me 262s at Lechfeld and damged 10 more to point of missing ops for prolonged time, preventing loss of 10-20 to whatever B-17s or B-24s - and no other fighter could get there, what is the value or trade off if you lost three Mustangs and their pilots?

You tell me whether that is 'good' or 'poor'? 

Final note - ground victories were awarded on basis of a.) combat film AND the number of fires observed. The 51 might put 200 rounds of 50 cal, breaking main spars, destroying engines etc but only be awarded a 'damaged'

The number of actual a/c destroyed beyond repair could be overstated because a fire could go out and the a/c repaired - but a larger number were damaged w/o award to point of salvage. How many? Who knows.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Bill this response will be very short as I'm busy...


I see you're stilling clinging to that 8:1 12:1 disadvantage facing the LW I've talked about before. Well just so you know this came from Erich in an earlier thread and I trust him very much on the subject. IIRC I was in that thread originally talking about the LW fighters being out-numbered in the air by mid 1944 till the end of the war, mostly around 5:1, but this was from pilot anecdotes. So I hope we're done talking about this now.


Re. the std. 109 G-6 without Rüstsätze being a dedicated fighters, no this role was assigned to the best performing fighters. Also in the list you posted (Please do again thank you) that no Rüstsätze's are mentioned but this doesn't mean that the particular a/c didn't feature one, unless the list specifically lists others that do ofcourse, so does it ?



> But to say 'it was no match for Me 109s and Fw 190s is a prime example of you overstating the relative match between the fighters. If what you said is true the Mustang and P-47s would have been decimated in late 1943 and Spring of 44 when there were MANY experienced and talented pilots 'remaining' from the massive transfers into LuftFlotte Reich.



I said the P-51 was no match in terms of maneuverability, assuming the planes are cleanly loaded ofcourse, and esp. not at SL and up to 22,000 ft. But I also said that the P-51 enjoyed a good speed advantage early on, esp. above 22,000 ft, and like fighter pilots say: SPEED IS LIFE!. If we were to believe that maneuverabilit was the deciding factor then how come the Zeke were litterally decimated by the US Navy fighters ??

Now I have to cut it short cause work is calling, so I'll address the rest later.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill this response will be very short as I'm busy...
> 
> 
> I see you're stilling clinging to that 8:1 12:1 disadvantage facing the LW I've talked about before. Well just so you know this came from Erich in an earlier thread and I trust him very much on the subject. IIRC I was in that thread originally talking about the LW fighters being out-numbered in the air by mid 1944 till the end of the war, mostly around 5:1, but this was from pilot anecdotes. So I hope we're done talking about this now.
> ...



Ok. 

I will ask you how your world changes if someday you decide that data does not support local air superiority of 8th AF fighters over German day fighters at the point of attack for this period of discussion. It shouldn't alter your world view but what conclusions would you draw?

If I were to take your position and decide that USAAF pilots always outnumbered their opponents in the multiple you talk (say 5:1) about I would wonder why any bombers were shot down by German fighters until the Me 262 came around.. 

If LuftFlotte Reich had 400-550 s/e day fighters in the inventory at any given point during 1/44 - 6/44 it would imply 2000-2500 fighter 'effectives' in the air over the target on any day.. in other words two to three fighters guarding every B-17 and B-24 bomber to and from the target, plus all the P-47s that didn't have the range to do target escort.

Back to the math.
Since the average effectives for each Fighter Group was 40-50 each that would mean at least 40 to 60 individual Fighter Groups of long range fighters (P-38 and/or P-51)..

What does your research tell you about the 8th (and 354th FG - 9th) AF long range equipped groups in our 1st half 1944? Do you suppose 60 Fighter Groups, 30?, 10?.. what would your answer be?

Just food for thought Soren. We can both be bull headed about our convictions but hopefully we can learn from each other. I'm willing to be convinced that my research is wrong but yo gotta show me yours to refute mine


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

It seems we agree quite well with each other after-all Bill.

If we're talking early 1944, then yes I agree that the US escorts were not out-numering the defending German interceptors. I was primarily thinking mid 44 to 45 however, and so was Erich.

And ofcourse before the boosted AS version of the 109G-6 fighter appeared the std. G-6's as-well as lightened Fw190A-6 -7's were used as dedicated fighters. Against these the P-51 held a clear advantage in performance above 22,000 - 25,000 ft, and thus the Mustangs could litterally just run away from the LW escorts and attack the occupied interceptors. The P-51 was a menace for the LW, there's no doubt about it.

As to the list, well thats my point Bill, whether the a/c were equipped with kits or not, it isn't listed. 

Again a short post, I'm sorry, but work is calling....


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> It seems we agree quite well with each other after-all Bill.
> 
> If we're talking early 1944, then yes I agree that the US escorts were not out-numering the defending German interceptors. I was primarily thinking mid 44 to 45 however, and so was Erich.
> 
> ...



Tip of the hat to you Soren.. good exchange and I enjoyed (most) of it.

Chris did we suprise the crap out for you? LoL I DO respect Soren and recognize that while I am often wrong I am RARELY uncertain.

Soren, send me your email address via PM or if Erich has it I will see that you have my latest roll up on 8th AF ops - that way you whip my ass using my own stuff


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2008)

LOL you guys!!! Lets all have a big group hug now!!!!


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> LOL you guys!!! Lets all have a big group hug now!!!!



No thank you Hunter and I am not singing Kumbaya..


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Roger that Bill! 

I just switched internet phone company recently so I don't have a mail until tomorrow, but I will send you my new Email first thing in the morning.

The reason we sometimes to get into a furball is I sense we're very much alike you and I, and ofcourse we have a bias as-well. Hunter was absolutely right, we were putting each other in corners spewing snide remarks at one another, and that will make anyone put up their parades, which will make people misunderstand each completely to which we're both guilty. We started nitpicking again as previously.

I also respect you Bill, I have so since the beginning of your membership but esp. lately. You've made good contributions to this board for sure and I've come to respect you very much lately. And as a matter of fact, despite from your occasional slight bias toward the P-51, I generally don't see you as a biased person Bill. 

PS: Hunter I never took any offense by what you said, after-all you were right about what you said.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Roger that Bill!
> 
> I just switched internet phone company recently so I don't have a mail until tomorrow, but I will send you my new Email first thing in the morning.
> 
> ...



Ditto Soren. 

Please understand that my 'bias' toward the Mustang is related to the importance I attach to USAAF strategic campaign against Germany and my belief that was one of the feature battles in WWII - namely control of the air.

It is not a belief that the Mustang was the Best Fighter, or Best Escort Fighter or Best Piston Engine Fighter - but at one time or another it may have been all of those depending on your selection criteria, but I do not believe it was the best Dogfighter by any normal definition, nor the Best anything by May 1945 as the Ta 152 had truly arrived and there were no plans for a Super Mustang to compete beyond the H

I am not even emotionally attached to the P-51 as The Favorite. That for me is the F-86E and F.

But if you understand (not necessarily agree) the above connections it leads to insight about why I think the Mustang was so critical to Allied war effort. If it had not come exactly when it did, given the problems with the P-38, there is no telling whether the Oil campaign would have been started or whether the Me 262 would have made a bigger impact.

Yes, we do agree on so many things and our debate styles clash but the respect is there - just don't describe my baby as a 'pig'! (just kidding Soren)


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 18, 2008)

How did the P-47N compared to it's contemporaries? I always loved the P-47 when talking about Allied planes.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2008)

drgondog said:


> *I am just about finished with 'my frivolous' research but here are the preliminary results.
> 
> 8th AF FC awards(all fighter types) - 5174 german a/c all types in air combat for 644 losses air to air. Of these the Mustangs were awarded 3621.5 vs 344 losses air to air.
> 
> ...



Well, that kinda confirms the 8th USAAF`s claims were even more ridiculus than we have previously thought - I can kinda understand why all USAAF fighters have 10:1 _claims_ v losses when on occasion they overclaimed an easy 15:1 ratio, and usually overestimated enemy forced by a factor of 2-3.

But, in itself tells little about the actual Luftwaffe losses occuring, their cause, the ratio of overclaim, the context - ratio of forces, training time, different mission goals - of the whole thing happening.

See below :







Besides I have trouble understanding why this stupid discussion about who`s grandpa had the bigger dick in the air, which I think has been settled a couple of times in a good, amiable, and reasonable way, has to be restarted in such a manner.

As for the USAAF`s effect on the German fighter arm in 1944, please see below :


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Well, that kinda confirms the 8th USAAF`s claims were even more ridiculus than we have previously thought - I can kinda understand why all USAAF fighters have 10:1 _claims_ v losses when on occasion they overclaimed an easy 15:1 ratio, and usually overestimated enemy forced by a factor of 2-3.
> 
> *Several specific examples should be easy to obtain then. What examples do you have at hand? And please consider the below questions?*
> 
> ...



Are you saying then, that USAAF had negligible effect on the German Fighter Arm? Do you have a corresponding chart showing the pilots KIA, WIA as contrasted with the a/c production?

Do you have a chart which shows the monthly a/c damaged and/or destroyed on the ground? 

Do you have one showing the number of fighters removed from operations due to battle damage and the average number of days such a/c were unavailable?

Do you have a corresponding chart showing 'what didn't get built' as a result of Germany prioritizing fighter production in 1944? How did the increased production, resources and skilled labor reallocation take away from other battlefield capabilities?

And the last question might be "what happened to the prior months production" for each of those months?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 18, 2008)

Bill,

Not sure if I am understanding one of your points above, so I am just asking so we are comparing apples to apples.

Are you suggesting that Allies vs Axis powers had different opinions on what a kill in combat was? 

Yes I know USA considered grd targets kills, but besides that.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Not sure if I am understanding one of your points above, so I am just asking so we are comparing apples to apples.
> 
> ...



Not what I was trying to convey Hunter.

The eternal debate is Award versus Claim. Both the Luftwaffe and 8th AF had pretty serious conditions. Eye witness and combat film, preferably both.

Despite these conditions (including major component like wing or tail lost, uncontrllable fire (OPINION), seen to explode) there were claims and awards by both sides in which the a/c in question returned to base.

In my own research I count a 355th a/c which was damaged in a gun fight but a/c came back and crash landed/destroyed as "air to air' loss. Which is why some of my numbers are slightly different from other respected folks.

My question to Kurfurst (and Dr Prien) were to get clarification from LW perspective regarding what constitues an air to air loss.

Simply stated I say an a/c that was shot up so badly that it was forced to land immediatley, or crash landed to save the a/c, is an a/c that was 'shot down' if you want to compare apples to apples in the claim/award game.

But a German perspective that says 'hey it wasn't destroyed' is legitimate. So is the 8th AF/RAF pilots claim that he shot it down.. so here is a potential area of dispute in the 'claim/award' debates... THAT was my focus.

A lot of shot up B-17s were salvaged after a crash landing (some fighters-not many) from battle damage. In my opinion that also counts or should count as a 'loss-air to air' - either side.

The difference is that in the former case of forced to land immediately a USAAF pilot and crew is either dead or POW. The German pilot walks away from a damaged aiplane that may be easily repairable or salvaged. But is the latter an 'air to air' combat loss in LW records?

So, how did the LW account for that in it's operational records?

Similarly the Luftwaffe records are not complete, some of ours are not complete. To further complicate the problem many German records were lost in the chaos of the closing days of the war.

A specific example that comes to mind is an 'award' that my father got on July 28, 1944 near Mulhausen. Six 109s bounced a squadron of B-17s, one of the 109s was seen to blow up in the attack and my father lead a flight down after the other 5. He caught the trailing guy and chased him to the ground where the 109 crashed and blew up. Two confirming witnesses, combat film of the shooting, the hits and the burning wreckage.

In 20 years of research I have been unable to find a corresponding LW loss record for either of those two me 109s near Mulhausen or within 100 miles of Mulhausen. I DID find a 7./JG3 listing for two 109s lost in air combat but no location, whereas the other losses for JG3 that day were in France. So, maybe these guys were on TDY in the Leipzig-Mulhausen area? Who knows.

Those exist on both sides. Equal existence is the one where the other guy 'was seen spinning out of control - with no real chance of recovery". Well a lot of those DID recover and fly away. 

That is why so much energy is sometimes given to shrill voices citing 'gross over claiming'.. and sometimes right on both sides of the question.

Bomber claims being worst of all. But funny, the overclaims on B-17s and B-24s by German standards (verified crashed) are pretty seriously overstated - frequently, not always but I have never seen 'under claiming on US bombers shot down. 

Oh well, we will Never truly have a grasp on this subject.

Guys like Ted Damick come as close as it gets for USAAF Fighters as he has researched every damage report, accident report, salvage record, etc - and guys like me send him our inventories with corresponding Macrs, squadron level engineering reports. He has put together about a 200,000 record data base(IIRC).

I have yet to see a similar collection of data/records from the LW but Prien may have something similar, as well as Leo Etgen and others.

Kurfust - are you aware of any large repositories of LW records including damaged, damaged/repaired, damaged/salvaged?

I don't know if that clarifies the question.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 18, 2008)

Yes it does thanks.

It's a tough one also. I think a claim is a "kill" when the plane cannot be returned to service due to excessive damage. If it can be repaired and put back into service then it just damaged. 

Now countries with poor logistics and spare parts that are at hand....would have more kills as a result then a country with good logistics and lots of spare parts. Oh well what can you do. LOL


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 18, 2008)

Good book but with few mistakes overall. But still worth buying, I have it.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 20, 2008)

Bill made some points of interest. I enjoi the discussion.

What I would find important is the number of A/C written off due to damage. Whether or not the damage was received due to mechanical issues, pilot error or enemy action is of secondary importance.

These number should be obtainable for all sites.

Regarding the everlasting P-51-Bf-109 debate, I have the personal opinion that the P-51 had a distinct edge in performance over the stand. -109G6 with DB-605A when it appeared early in 1944 in the high escort role. This edge must have been serious, it impressed the germans. Of the 109´s, only the GM-1 boosted 109G5´s and G6/U2´s in clean fighter configuration could compete with the P-51B at high altitude on something like close to but not equal terms. And there were never many of those GM-1 boosted A/C in clean configuration avaible. The introduction of G6´s with DB-605 AS and the boosted DB-605ASM should be taken as a response to the P-51B. With them the later Bf-109G was still slightly inferior in performance but not anymore that distinctive at altitude. 
The introduction of the boosted 109K in late 44/ early 45 gave them finally a plane which could compete with the P-51D in every respect encountered but it took three important quarters of a year (with respect to the strategic bombing campaign we could equally say: DECISIVE quarters) for this development to happen.



> In 20 years of research I have been unable to find a corresponding LW loss record for either of those two me 109s near Mulhausen or within 100 miles of Mulhausen. I DID find a 7./JG3 listing for two 109s lost in air combat but no location, whereas the other losses for JG3 that day were in France. So, maybe these guys were on TDY in the Leipzig-Mulhausen area? Who knows.


There are several Mühlhausen in Germany. There is a Mühlhausen in central Germany as well as a Mulhausen on the german-french border. If the latter is the case, it would fit the 7./JG-3 nicely.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 20, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Bill made some points of interest. I enjoi the discussion.
> 
> What I would find important is the number of A/C written off due to damage. Whether or not the damage was received due to mechanical issues, pilot error or enemy action is of secondary importance.
> 
> ...



This was central Gy 'version' on east side on way back from Leipzig - about 20-30 minutes east of Leipzig on the return.

This sin't the only eample of the mysteries. On 24 April, 1944 the 357FG bounced a Gruppe of Me 110's and theoretically shot down 10 for the loss of two Mustangs which collided with their victims. I have been unable to determine any loss records from LW of any Zerstoyers in Munich area that day.. but eyewitness MACR and Encounter Reports wescribing the loss of a Mustang hitting a 110 ca't be overzealous 'claiming'

Same situation on 7 July with 355th when they were awarded 10 Me-410's for loss of one Mustang colliding in mid air with the debris of one. No record of the Me 410 losses around Erfurt and nowhere near 10 much the rest of the Me 410s shot down by other groups. It is hard to imagine massive overclaiming on a t/e figher that could not escape, maintained nice formation, on a clear day... and the combat film/witness combinations

From my own research I found increasing examples of unobtainable records to validate a battle much less a loss.

At any rate this is a research 'opportunity' that will never be fully complete, even on Allied side.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 20, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Regarding the everlasting P-51-Bf-109 debate, I have the personal opinion that the P-51 had a distinct edge in performance over the stand. -109G6 with DB-605A when it appeared early in 1944 in the high escort role. This edge must have been serious, it impressed the germans. Of the 109´s, only the GM-1 boosted 109G5´s and G6/U2´s in clean fighter configuration could compete with the P-51B at high altitude on something like close to but not equal terms. And there were never many of those GM-1 boosted A/C in clean configuration avaible.



Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway. The 51 was certainly a lot faster than the G-6 or 190A at altitude, but as long as there weren`t too many of them, such performance advantage of a _few_ aircraft didn`t not weight much in the Big Picture.

The early battles of 1944 were not fought by these aircraft, but G-6s, A-5/A-6s and P-47Ds/P-38Js.



> The introduction of G6´s with DB-605 AS and the boosted DB-605ASM should be taken as a response to the P-51B.



It wasn`t - the AS engines were in consideration - they won out against the two staged, four speed DB 628, itself a 605 deriviate as a simplier solution - before the p-51B did it`s first sortie with the 8th AF, the first /AS protos flew in December 1943.. 



> With them the later Bf-109G was still slightly inferior in performance but not anymore that distinctive at altitude.



Not quite. The Mustang was a tad bit faster, the 109G with the high alt engines climbed better and had an overall better powerloading, with all that comes from that. In fact, the ASM and V1650-3/7 engines were very similiar in output, but in the 109 it drove a lighter aircraft.



> The introduction of the boosted 109K in late 44/ early 45 gave them finally a plane which could compete with the P-51D in every respect encountered but it took three important quarters of a year (with respect to the strategic bombing campaign we could equally say: DECISIVE quarters) for this development to happen.



Imho, performance differences between the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and the K-4 were rather marginal. The 109K (and G-10) initially had the same output of 1800 PS, and was something like 20 km/h faster than the rest due to aerodynamic refinements. That`s it, and 20 km/h of top speed is not a big deal - in practice, even less - it`s about as much as indivual aircraft of the same type from the very same factory differ from each other due to varying production quality.

PS : Bill, sorry I will try to answer later. In a nutshell. 

IIRC look up the combat between that 15th AAF P-38 Group in 14 July(or June) 1944 vs. our guys from the 101st.

The graph I posted is not some production figure but first/secondline strenght of daylight fighters, compiled by HoHun from ww2.dk. In_ theory_, it should be possible to compile exact shipments, losses to enemy and accidents etc. per month..

I am afraid I am not proficient on the manner the Germans recorded their losses, but I understand your point. In any case, I am MASSIVELY sceptical about these 10:1 kill ratio claims... look at the known records of the BoB`s loss ratios, rather close to 1:1 overall...


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2008)

Against the std. Bf-109 G-6 in early 1944 the P-51 held a distinct advantage in speed, esp. above 25,000 ft, and this was a big advantage. The unboosted G-6 had to rely on its superior agility and climb rate to get out of trouble, but above 25,000 ft the climb rate of both a/c wasn't that different. 

The same went for the Fw-190 A-5/-6 -7's, they relied on their superior agility to get out of trouble. 

The introduction of the G-6/AS in mid 44 finally evened things out, and later the G-10/-14 were introduced as-well, but sadly for the Germans like delcyros points out there were too few available. The introduction of the K-4 as well as the Dora-9 finally gave the Germans the edge in terms of individual performance they had needed 5-6 months earlier. 

The Bf-109 K-4 was far superior in turn performance climb rate compared to the P-51 at all altitudes, and on top of this it was faster, however yet again way too few were available. Compared to the P-51 the Fw-190 Dora-9 was superior in turn performance climb rate all the way up as-well, although not by as huge a margin but still considerably, and speed was similar, but again too few were available.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 20, 2008)

Bill, I hope You will have success with Your research, keep us informed, that´s all very interesting!



> Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway.



I understood that the merlin powered Mustang flew in late 1942 and the P-51B claimed it´s first victim in mid december 1943 over Bremen during an escort mission (Me-110, claimed by Charles Gumm). By march to april 44, Mustang units escorted regularely and provided very effective high cover. The 109G6AS appears to start entering combat units at about late april 44, when Mustangs have already established their strength. You are correct that neither of the planes was overly representative for the large scale. But once the LW engaged those few spoofy Mustangs appearing in december 43 over Germany they found themselve significantly outperformed at the altitudes they had to engage them until they got the later -AS / -ASM in their hands. That´s what established their "healthy respect" for this plane (Günther Rall).


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 20, 2008)

As for claims I know of ! RCAF pilot that was awarded a damaged , a B17 crew called up with his letters on the side of his aircraft and congratulated him for saving them by damaging the 109 ...he never fired his weapons he figures possibly they caught aglimpse of sunlight reflecting off the 109 and said they were hits


----------



## drgondog (Jan 21, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway. The 51 was certainly a lot faster than the G-6 or 190A at altitude, but as long as there weren`t too many of them, such performance advantage of a _few_ aircraft didn`t not weight much in the Big Picture.
> 
> *Good observation. The first operational sorties for the 354FG Mustangs were 1 December 1943. It was sole and exclusive Mustang Group until 363rd (9th also) and 357th (1st 8th AF) started in Feb.*
> 
> ...



AFAIK the Luftwaffe approach was same. Major component (wing, tail)lost, a/c blow up, a/c crashed as a result of an attack (either mid air or into ground - also a source of USAAF error), major fire not believed to be stoppable if a/c left visible sight (source of error), seen to spin out of control (another major source of error for both sides) but not seen to hit ground. The latter two could result in a Destroyed award or a Probable Award

I would be massively sckeptical about 10:1 also, until much later than 1/44-5/44 when a lot of old hands were still flying. 

My rollup for 8:1 air to air, 4:1 for air awards to ALL losses are predicated on a.) high degree of understanding of all 8th AF losses by types, and b.) data for Awards which ARE subject to the challenges of matching an 8th AF 'claim' translated into an Award - but subject to at least the uncertainties introduce by 'shot down' but repaired discussion above.

This is highly variable when you look at the different fighters.. when you look at my Lightning data, compiled with same rules, it is down in the 2:1 ratio, the P-47 in the 7:1 and the Mustang in the 9:1 area. I'm still tweaking and am sending my stuff to Soren soon.

In my opinion, and I'm still building the monthly data, the ratios were 'less' across the board but growing until perhaps May, dipped a little in June-Aug, and climbed in September till end of war. The June-August timeframe found more 8th AF air to air losses as result of getting caught strafing on the deck by roving LW squadrons and Gruppe's.

Kurfurst, the key issue still is completeness of LW records. I have found several significant 'holes' in loss data. And, reflect that the pioneer and major source of all our discussions reside in Prien's excellent work to piece it together. The 8th AF data is pretty solid, the MACRs are nearly 100%, the damaged/written off category is visible and countable, the flight accidents are accounted for over the UK.

What is less certain is the 'award to actual' because we can't match up to central LW reports by theatre and winng and pilot to parse the data and draw conclusions... But I pretty much KNOW which US aircraft were either lost in air combat or lost to Unkown causes that suspiciously SHOULD be in the "air loss" column just to be conservative. My tables reflect this.

But, if Tony Woods' data for his published Award records are considered accurate I could show you huge holes in claims by JG3, JG27, JG26 over Munich April 24, 1944 for example, in consideration for actual USAAF aircraft and crews lost versus what was awarded... It points out that even the highly respected LW awards process had significant flaws which seem to be as serious as the USAAF.

I am not going to get into an argument here because I feel all airpowers struggled with matching awards to actual a/c destroyed. Given that a shot down 109 could be repaired is an excellent example of how a USAAF claim could be an award for an aircraft NOT destroyed, but honest in the context that the Jug pilots cased, shot, hit and watched the 109 crash land. In his mind it doesn't occur that this a/c is not destroyed..

If you want to see what I have generated let me know.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jan 21, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?



Ray Tolliver was first American that the German Fighter Ace community came to trust to tell their side of the story. Ray coincidentally was trusted by American Fighter Aces for his fairness and contributed to bringing the two groups together (along with Trev Constable).

Ray also was a USAF fighter pilot and Col (retired) with his last assignments including being an F-100 Squadron CO. 

Damn good guy and helped me immensely when I started thinking about doing a book. Most of my LW photo collection comes from him or Galland via him


----------



## drgondog (Jan 21, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?



I think all of his books are good, some better. He does not edit the interviews or quotes to fit his own (Toliver or Constable) opinions if they differ - so what you get is unfiltered German POV.

I use Luftwaffe Fighter Aces a lot to go after pilot/unit details and perspectives.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

p-51d no contest


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> p-51d no contest



Explain why?


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

well it was the best alaround fighter it had the speed truning range altitue weapons porduction speed


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

it also out flew everything


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> it also out flew everything



You know this because you flew it in sims right?

Just wondering...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You know this because you flew it in sims right?
> 
> Just wondering...



LMAO!


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 1, 2008)

I would take the 109. then stang. uhh i would take the zeke if i wanted the other guy too get a kill!!!!!!! All i flew the 109 in the sims does that count. how about the Fw-190 dora !!!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2008)

joy17782 said:


> All i flew the 109 in the sims does that count. how about the Fw-190 dora !!!!!!!!



No...


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

well yes the sims and dogfights on the history channel


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

Of those choices i would go with P-51 but the Spitfire isn't in the poll. In a dogfight I think i would pick that. I'm not technical as has been posted but what I do understand is that the spit was well liked by pilots because it was comfortable and pilots felt like an extension of the plane which I believe helps dogfighting. Now as eveyone gets ready to trash such a stupid statement, I understand roll rates, etc. But pilot skill is an important factor and if the plane fits, fly it. 

He still hasn't changed that freakin avatar. It creeps me out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2008)

fly boy said:


> well yes the sims



Voting for the P-51 is fine but you do realize that computer flight sims are not flying a real plane right?


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2008)

As a pure fighter: Bf-109 100%!
As a long range fighter escort: Zero from 41-43, and P-51 from 43-44

One has to keep in mind that the A6M Zero was a first class fighter in 1941-42 and remained competitive up till 1943, infact superior to USN fighters up till then.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 2, 2008)

I agree but I'm not sure I would want no armour and no self-sealing tanks. Was the ammo comparable to a Spit or Bf 109?


----------



## fly boy (Feb 4, 2008)

alder i have read the power of the p-51 and how most pilots were top aces in it


----------



## Soren (Feb 4, 2008)

The P-51 was a fine a/c which did its job well, however it is often overrated. The P-51 wasn't individually anything special, being out-performed by a good number of German fighters. That having been said the P-51 was a responsive aircraft at the speeds where most of the dogfighting was taking place by 43-45, speeds where the differences in wing-loading between fighters suddenly became irrelevant as neither pilot nor aircraft could take the maximum loads which the lift permitted. This is exactly why the Fw-190 really handed it to the Spitfire in dogfights and often by outturning it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2008)

fly boy said:


> alder i have read the power of the p-51 and how most pilots were top aces in it



Actually the top aces were in the Bf 109.

As for power the Bf 109, Spitfire, Fw 190 and many other aircraft had the same power.

Again I am not saying your pick is wrong. All of these aircraft were fine aircraft and could be considered top.

I just am wondering how you came to your conclusion.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> The P-51 was a fine a/c which did its job well, however it is often overrated. The P-51 wasn't individually anything special, being out-performed by a good number of German fighters. That having been said the P-51 was a responsive aircraft at the speeds where most of the dogfighting was taking place by 43-45, speeds where the differences in wing-loading between fighters suddenly became irrelevant as neither pilot nor aircraft could take the maximum loads which the lift permitted. This is exactly why the Fw-190 really handed it to the Spitfire in dogfights and often by outturning it.



Soren - pretty good observation. The 51B/C and D had excellent high altitude performance 600 miles from home..

In my opinion the Luftwaffe failed to capitalize on four years experience and let the 8th AF gain it in painless measure - then had to confornt an airplane that could compete over their own airspace with a flood of great students led by increasingly skilled leaders.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2008)

Agreed. The idiotic top leadership of the LW made sure it was never used to its full potential.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 31, 2013)

Mustang for me, it was about even with the 109 in most aspects (better in some, worse in others) and could chew up the Zero before the Zeke pilot sees him.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 1, 2013)

Quit it. If both pilots were aware of each other and of equal skill the Spitfire Mk.14 @ +21 lbs. boost was the way to go. Low and slow: A6M. Low and medium speed: Bf-109. Fast at any altitude: P-51. Now that's all I got to say about that.


----------

