# P51D/K vs Me109K-14



## schwarzpanzer (May 29, 2006)

Sorry, I know a lot of people believe these are pointless, but I can't help thinking that, including pilot skill, the K-14 could 'have' a P51 interceptor.

A high climb rate, pressurized cockpit, 470+mph top speed, decent agility, experienced pilot and the (for me) ideal armament of 3x MG151's I find very impressive.8) 

Then again the 'Tang was a beauty too...

Any thoughts?


----------



## davparlr (May 29, 2006)

My info shows the K-14 of a max speed of 452 mph.

Also, this is the last Me-109, which came out later than the P-51D. If you compare this to its contemporary, the P-51H, it would come up 30 mph slower. Also, my sources say only two made it to the front.


----------



## Udet (May 30, 2006)

schwarz, hello:

Are you referring to the K-4? That´s the version of the Kurfurst which saw the most service.

The K-14 did not reach production.

Now, the P-51 D could of course get chewed by the K-4. The P-51 K never saw action in the ETO.

My vote went for the the Bf 109, insisting that you might be referring to the K-4.

cheers!


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

yes the P-51K saw service over the Reich in 45, alongside the D model


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 31, 2006)

Udet said:


> schwarz, hello:
> 
> Are you referring to the K-4? That´s the version of the Kurfurst which saw the most service.
> 
> ...



A P-51K is just a P-51D built at the Dallas factory (instead of Inglewood) with a few slight differences, mostly the prop type I think. 

Lots of P-51Ks saw action in the ETO. Your probably thinking of the P-51H, which didn't see deployment outside of the CONUS before the end of the war.

If it was a one-on-one fight, 190K vs P-51D, i'd prefer the 109K myself, particularly below 25,000 feet and in any sort of turning fight.

Its just as fast as a P-51D, climbs a lot better and accelerates and turns a bit better. 

Squadron on squadron combat would be a little more difficult to judge, as it comes down to co-operative tactics and advantage more than plane performance. 

Don't forget that the P-51D/K had some advantages of it own: better visibility, a gyroscopic gunsight, stronger construction and USAAF pilots were starting to recieve G-suits at the time.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

paddle blade height and width, tail fin and sometimes the canopy were the differences in the K vs D model according to vets. there were not a lot of K's given over to the 8th AF. On average less than a dozen per squadron and in fact some squads used the D till wars end.

not real sure where this debate is going to go as the K-14 is a bogus a/c. even the last ditch wooden tail K-4 did nothing to appease the tide of overwhelming suppiority in US man power and machines and with that don't even try to come up with tech specs to work it out which the better a/c at any given altitude. Go buy a couple of late war Luftwaffe books and read for yourself, but the time the K-4 was in it's limited production, flying for Germany was suicidal


----------



## Udet (May 31, 2006)

Sorry, my mistake.

I must have mingled the P-51 H somehow here.

The 78th FG had some P-51 Ks indeed, but if i recall correctly there were not avialable in significant numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2006)

Well in this case I truely think it would depend on pilot skill. By the way the K-14 was never built Schwarzpanzer, accept for maybe a test varient.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2006)

I went with the P51. Most of the reports that I have read would give the advantage to the 109 at speeds up to 250, between 250-300mph nothing in it, but over that the P51 seems to have the advantage. The 109's controls get very heavy over 300 and most reports state that you need two hands on the stick to get any meaningfull maneuverability.
So keep your speed up and my money is on the P51.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 1, 2006)

It would be all pilot and whoever pulled the right manuever at the luckiest time even if pilots were "equal" in skill. It's not even knowing tricks it's when you choose to use one over another one at an opportune time.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 1, 2006)

Yeah the P-51 could really let it rip out the best when attacking at very high speeds. But at low speeds........

It could get flamed a lot easier.

But the Bf certainly got a lot of whopings in some major dogfights. Look at the Battle of Britain when it actually outclassed the Spitfire in many ways but still took quite a pounding.


----------



## book1182 (Jun 1, 2006)

You all are forgetting that it doesn't matter what the performance chart said. Most planes don't even come close to that chart. I would say that if you took the average maintenance for each aircraft provided by that ground crew I would have to go with the P-51. I think the pilot skill, maintenance provided, and similar performance give the P-51 the slight edge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

I dont think you can go off pilot skill. The Luftwaffe still had many many great pilots with lots of combat skill. German Maintenance Provided was never lacking, there mechanics were very good and trained very well.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2006)

By the time we are talking about the average pilot in the Luftwaffe wasn't nearly as well trained as the USA or even British pilots. By the end of 1944 new German Pilots had less than half the flying hours of Allied pilots. Also more of their training was done on obsolete aircraft.
Experienced German pilots who had survived the carnage of the early years were the best and well able to add to their kills, but even these were wounded or killed one at a time.
There was nothing wrong with the mechanics they were as good as any, being well trained and experienced.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 7, 2006)

Workmanship with the K-4 wasn't as good, I've heard of pilots with 20mins of training getting into Ta152s, but the Luft still had their Experten


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2006)

I agree though with the way you said it. The Experten and the experienced pilots (which there were still plenty of in 1944, not as many as 1942 or whatever, but there were still plenty) were something to be reckoned with but by the end of 1944 the bulk of the Luftwaffe was made up of inexperienced pilots that were basically thrown into the cockpit, hell in 1945 the Hitler Jugend was even flying planes. I have heard they were flying He-162s as well.

Now that I think about the Maintenance as well, late 1944 and 1945 spare parts were just not available so many aircraft were canabalized and even flying on aircraft that were not quite ready for combat.

So now that I think about it more, I can agree with what you are saying somewhat.


----------



## Brain32 (Jun 7, 2006)

Hi all, first post here Well I would put this situation like this; P51 would most certanly be able to put off BF109K away from it's bombers, but in any prolonged fight, especially if they go low and slow I would give a slight advantage to the 109K. P51 was not exactly known as the most stable fighter at low speed, so I think 109 with it's leading edge slats and excellent low speed manouverbility would really be in advantage, if P51 pilot would slow down that is. Ofcourse this is in case of "sterile" 1vs1 situation which I guess couldn't happen in RL. All in all I would say a draw.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2006)

In reality, given the situation of the war, the Bf-109K would rise up with three or four wingmen to meet twenty to fifty P-51Ds. While any Bf-109K was chasing a P-51D to bring him down, there would be four on his own tail. 

The Bf-109K is going to win a one on one dogfight, however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2006)

Exactly. The P-51D was really no better than any other of the top fighters out there at the time. It was a great escort fighter with its range but in the end the only thing that made it stand out was the fact that it was in such huge numbers and could overpower the enemy in those numbers, just as plan_D just said.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 11, 2006)

what happenned anyways when a model is phased out for a later one... like where did all the Bf109Es go when the Gs went into service? they were sent to the scrap metal?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2006)

Training schools...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 12, 2006)

Interesting how the poll has turned out a bit uncertain as to which one is tops.


----------



## bogy (Jun 12, 2006)

Me 109 K4 better then P51 D? I am doubt about that.

As you now, Me 109 had a engine with 2 stage compresor and P 51 D had a 4 stage compresor. Me 109 could flight at 10.000 meter altitude maxim, altough P51 D came over 11.500 meter - it has supercharger. That mean match engine power (speed cumulated)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> what happenned anyways when a model is phased out for a later one... like where did all the Bf109Es go when the Gs went into service? they were sent to the scrap metal?



As Les said training schools, and some were still used in front line service. For instance II/SG 1 still used Bf-109E-7/B in Stalingrad in 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

bogy said:


> Me 109 K4 better then P51 D? I am doubt about that.
> 
> As you now, Me 109 had a engine with 2 stage compresor and P 51 D had a 4 stage compresor. Me 109 could flight at 10.000 meter altitude maxim, altough P51 D came over 11.500 meter - it has supercharger. That mean match engine power (speed cumulated)



And the K-4 used MW-50 and reach 727kmh without a supercharger.


----------



## ricardox (Jun 12, 2006)

the p51 was rated as the best fighter plane of all time!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2006)

ricardox said:


> the p51 was rated as the best fighter plane of all time!!!


You need to read some of the threads in information provided in this thread. many other aircraft OUTPERFORMED the P-51 including many German aircraft. Turn off Discovery Wings for a few hours and read some of the threads before shooting off your mouth....


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You need to read some of the threads in information provided in this thread. many other aircraft OUTPERFORMED the P-51 including many German aircraft. Turn off Discovery Wings for a few hours and read some of the threads before shooting off your mouth....




Thanks Joe,

I have this gag reflex that bugs me when people always just say " P-51 was best fighter in WW2". Its a pet peeve, it drives me crazy. Most times (99%) they have no idea what they are talking about, like you say they have just watched too many TV shows. P-51 was a great plane for the role that it preformed (aka long range escort fighter). Thats what he should of said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2006)

Yep!!!


----------



## Erich (Jun 12, 2006)

sorry to say this ........... but ............ polls like this are absoloutely worthless. Putting in the hands of test pilots at wars end will give you the tech graphs you so desire but not under actual combat experiences which during late war for the Luftw. is hard enough as they were only interested in surviving and not noting just how nimble the P-51D or K or ? was . It is all up to pilot skill who will come out on top


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

Ricardox is working himself to getting band without even starting off in this forum.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 12, 2006)

Im with u Erich, and I have stated years ago that these threads are all guessing and hypotheticals... Its all bout the guy strapped in....

And for the record, the P-51D was not the best fighter of WW2......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah but they can make for interesting conversations.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 12, 2006)

For some people maybe....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 13, 2006)

that poor little Mustang noob....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

Your still a noob...


----------



## Dragon Ace (Jun 13, 2006)

Just a noob putting in another two cents worth, but I've always said that in a dogfight, it's seventy-five percent the pilot and twenty-five percent the aircraft. That's without factoring in conditions of how the fight comes about. 

Either way, it'd be one helluva fight to have filmed, eh? 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

And I would agree with you for the most part, unless you are talking Bf-109G vs. P-26. Then pilot skill does not factor that much because the Peashooter is going down.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 13, 2006)

I have heard of Bong (I think it was anyway) who managed to stay on the tail of a P-38 in a T-6 and the P-38 pilot couldn't shake him...


----------



## davparlr (Jun 13, 2006)

I am still bugged by the continuous desire to compare the P-51D to aircraft that came out a year or more after it and that probably were specifically designed to to combat it. That was a generation of aircraft design in those prolific days. It is like comparing the F-4 to the F-15. I have read many good dicsussions on the comparisons of the P-51 to the P-38, F4U, FW190D (although the F4U-4 and 190D were a good six months after the P-51D). Comparing it to a K4 is not relevant. Most of these advance aircraft barely made it into the air, much less into the war. Please keep the sides equal.

Also, the P-51K performed less than the D. I think the orginator meant the P-51H.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2006)

Did the P-51D engage in aerial combat with the Bf-109K-14??? If so, ur argument


> I am still bugged by the continuous desire to compare the P-51D to aircraft that came out a year or more after it


is bullsh*t....


----------



## davparlr (Jun 14, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Did the P-51D engage in aerial combat with the Bf-109K-14??? If so, ur argument is bullsh*t....



Since my research indicates indicates that only TWO (like one, two) K-14s made it to the front, it is unlikely. And, the argument that the K-14 was a generation past the P-51D and more in the P-51H, which was 30 mph faster than the K-14, is valid.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

When he started the thread, he meant to put K-4 not K-14. Thats why it is a valid arguement.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 15, 2006)

besides, if comparing a plane that came out a year later than the other is invalid... then the 109 vs Spitfire argument is invalid


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

I dont believe any K-14s made it to the front since as far as I know only 2 if any where actually built and were prototypes.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 15, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> besides, if comparing a plane that came out a year later than the other is invalid... then the 109 vs Spitfire argument is invalid



No, depending on the versions compared, that would be valid. The 109 and the Spitfire were contemporary pre-war fighters. Comparing a prewar Me109 to a late war spitfire would not. Remember, from 1939 to 1945, aircraft design went from some biplanes to jet and rocket powered models. An incredible increase in technology in only 6 years! I would estimate that generational changes occured about every 6 months in the later years of the war.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 15, 2006)

War speeds up all technology: 500 years of war in Italy produces Michaelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, Donatello etc. 500 years of peace in Switzerland produces what? The cuckoo clock


----------



## davparlr (Jun 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> When he started the thread, he meant to put K-4 not K-14. Thats why it is a valid arguement.



Good comment and good matchup.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 15, 2006)

If two planes engaged in combat against eachother, it is a viable comparison to discuss, regardless of how many years and versions/marks there are...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2006)

That I agree with as well. You can compare the Bf-109V-1 to the Spitfire XXI. It is obvious which aircraft is better but you can compare them. Who cares what year they were made in.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2006)

As it was fair to compare the Bf-109E-4 against the Spitfire Mk.I. The Bf-109 reaching it's fourth operational mark and already seeing combat service. That is a fair, and often, comparison so any comparison in war time is fair. Obvious superiority is often a waste of discussion, however.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 16, 2006)

true
and it had two MG151/15s? i thought those were phased out


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> War speeds up all technology: 500 years of war in Italy produces Michaelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, Donatello etc. 500 years of peace in Switzerland produces what? The cuckoo clock



Actually I think it was an Austrian who invented the cuckoo clock but its still a comical quote all the same


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 18, 2006)




----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jun 28, 2006)

My apologies for being tired whilst posting that, I got 470+mph from the Ta152.

I also said the P51 was an interceptor.

*davparlr:*

452mph, that is correct.



> Since my research indicates indicates that only TWO (like one, two) K-14s made it to the front, it is unlikely. And, the argument that the K-14 was a generation past the P-51D and more in the P-51H, which was 30 mph faster than the K-14, is valid.



Yes, that's right. The K-14 likely met a P51D though, as that was the most commonly encountered Allied fighter? and I think, it's intended target?

*Udet:*

Hi Udet, as davparlr said 2 did indeed see service (I even have the unit info somewhere)

I think the K4 is probably a better choice for comparison, based on the 2 comments I recieved

*Jabberwocky:*

Thanks Jabberwocky, your info is very interesting.

Sorry, what does CONUS mean?

Can I just ask afew questions on this?:



> Don't forget that the P-51D/K had some advantages of it own: better visibility,



Wouldn't the Galland hood even it out a bit?



> a gyroscopic gunsight



Weren't these troublesome?



> stronger construction



How so?



> and USAAF pilots were starting to recieve G-suits at the time


.

I've heard @ 30,000 ft the air temp is 70 below freezing, is this true?

Would the suit add warmth? Being in a K must have been much less comfy then?


The K14 did exist! I even have the unit No of the one who recieved 2 of them somewhere.

This links the best I have at the moment:

http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircraft/axis-bf109.htm

K-14

DB 605L 2-stage super

452mph @ 19,700ft


*Der Adler*:



> When he started the thread, he meant to put K-4 not K-14. Thats why it is a valid arguement.



I did mean K-14, I now regret that. I think it was davparlr that suggested the K-4 would be a better comparison, so I don't see why he gets abuse for the opposite, please level it at me if at anyone.


*loomaluftwaffe:*

besides, if comparing a plane that came out a year later than the other is invalid... then the 109 vs Spitfire argument is invalid

I like it looma, well said!



> and it had two MG151/15s? i thought those were phased out



They were surely the biggest that would fit??

The MG151/20 was often swapped for the hub MK103/MK108 though.

- I wonder though how much extra space over the MG151/15 the MG151/20 would take up?

So far as I know, the MG151/15 could be upgraded to an MG151/20?


I would like to add that a stated good point about the Mustang was that a novice could use it, whereas it would take a skilled pilot to make the best out of the Kurfurst.

The armament debate (nose vs wings) also fits here, as in the Soviet evaluations of Yak vs Hurricane etc.


*PlanD:*



> As it was fair to compare the Bf-109E-4 against the Spitfire Mk.I. The Bf-109 reaching it's fourth operational mark and already seeing combat service. That is a fair, and often, comparison so any comparison in war time is fair. Obvious superiority is often a waste of discussion, however.



I agree with every word you said there.


BTW: If anyone has opinions on a (theoretical) K-14 vs P51H 1-on-1, then I'd like to hear them...


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

in all probability the Bf 109K's would of been phased out for the Dora and the Ta 152H series especially as they could clock 465mph and beyond. with this in mind you can basically forget the K-14 vs andy Allied escort fighter.

JG 53 was whipped into nothingness in 1945 and only JG 300 and JG 301 were really doing home defence duties. JG 2 and JG 26 were also heavily engaged by US and RAF/RCAF forces to the point of submission


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

Agreed Erich.



schwarzpanzer said:


> The K14 did exist! I even have the unit No of the one who recieved 2 of them somewhere.



I am not telling you that it did no exsist. Read my damn posts and understand them before you comment!

The K-14 never reached combat status. It was being tested! 2 were probably built and they were in testing units!


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 2, 2006)

I'm surprised how close that was. The Mustangs' speed and maneuverability was some of the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Well the speed of the Bf-109K and the P-51D were very similar and the P-51D was not as maneuverable as everyone thinks.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2006)

the 109K was going to be phased out and replaced in time either with jets or the Ta 152 which could bust 500mph ............. yep ! so to compare a non-combat operative K-14 with the WW 2 present D and K of the P-51 is a bit silly as the posting of the same accord that I have replied to with more what if answers on the axishistory.forums.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Agreed


----------



## pathchampion (Jul 6, 2006)

I would bet all my money on the BF Messersmitt 109 K-4 Kurfurst, because of the all-great fly ability, and its strong arment, (2x 13mm. MG 131 mountet on the engine top, and 1x 30mm. canon MK 108 shooting out of the propeller hub) and here's some data so you can judge for yourselfs  Max. Speed: 727km/h with Manthol/Water mixture enable, and 6000 ft. altitude, Cruise Speed: 590km/h, Ceiling: 12,500 m, Combat radious: 210 km, Fuel capacity: 400 l. Wing area: 16.05 sq.meters, Horse power: 1550 hp. so go, judge for yourself


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 6, 2006)

at least ur better than those noobs who make only 1 post of 'The Mustang was rated the Best fighter of all time!!!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

pathchampion said:


> I would bet all my money on the BF Messersmitt 109 K-4 Kurfurst, because of the all-great fly ability, and its strong arment, (2x 13mm. MG 131 mountet on the engine top, and 1x 30mm. canon MK 108 shooting out of the propeller hub) and here's some data so you can judge for yourselfs  Max. Speed: 727km/h with Manthol/Water mixture enable, and 6000 ft. altitude, Cruise Speed: 590km/h, Ceiling: 12,500 m, Combat radious: 210 km, Fuel capacity: 400 l. Wing area: 16.05 sq.meters, Horse power: 1550 hp. so go, judge for yourself



While I agree with you on the Bf-109K one on one vs a P-51D you also have to remember though that the Bf-109K lost some of its great flying characteristics as it got faster but heavier (not as much as some people like to make it be, but it did). Now having said that, I voted for the Bf-109K as well.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well the speed of the Bf-109K and the P-51D were very similar and the P-51D was not as maneuverable as everyone thinks.


But as I understand it the 109 was better at slower speeds, less than 250, about equal up to 350 but a lot worse above 350.
Seen as these planes are built for speed, the edge would be on the P51.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 7, 2006)

Erich said:


> the 109K was going to be phased out and replaced in time either with jets or the Ta 152 which could bust 500mph ............. yep ! so to compare a non-combat operative K-14 with the WW 2 present D and K of the P-51 is a bit silly as the posting of the same accord that I have replied to with more what if answers on the axishistory.forums.com



I could not find any reference that said the Ta 152 was capable of 500 mph. The fastest I could find was 472 mph, which is 15 mph slower than the P-51H, which was built in much larger numbers.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2006)

the P-51H was not operational in the ETO. mph according to vets of JG 301, you will not even find it written in the war diary by W. Reschke. this may have been in a dive ? but would assume the craft could plunge like a rock doing well over the 500 mile mark. Sadly so very little written about the bird except it was a rocket in the hands of the pilots. Reschke claims he did over 750km per hour several times while in III. and Stab./JG 301 not in a dive but at quite the altitude

~ preview: I have a very strong interest in JG 301 as I had a cousin serve in 5./JG 301 during the fall of 44 before he was shot dwon KIA south of Misburg

v/r E


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

Hey Erich, is he mentioned in Lorants/Goyats book??


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2006)

no he is not as that is ALL JG 300, books and web-sites are incorrect, W. Reshcke served in JG 302 first then a transfer into JG 301 for the remainder of the war, funny though he is the rep for all three former Wilde Sau Geschwaden.

My cousin went to flying school for some weeks and then immeidately into II./JG 301 in September of 44, he had two missions, 21st and 26 November in his white 2 Fw 190 A-9 possibly an R11, then shot down and killed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

The training those kids got was so inadequate prior to joining an active Staffel, its sad.... Reading the III./JG 54 Green Hearts book, its amazing any of them survived....

Only the luck of bad weather kept most of them alive... Hats off to ur cousin, once again, who did his duty the only way he knew how...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

That USSBS survey about the bombing of the refineries said that *NO* av gas was made available for training flights after Nov 1944.

I dont know if thats an exaggeration, but its indicative on how desperate the fuel situation had become.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 7, 2006)

Some pilots just arriving had as little as 15 hours of stick time, with only the basic rudementary flying formations....


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 7, 2006)

During the Battle of Britain pilots where going to squadrons with as little as 7-8 hours on Spitfires/Hurricanes generally though it was around 10-12.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 7, 2006)

lucky them, some kids got to familiarize themselves for 20 mins in a He-162 then thrown into combat


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 8, 2006)

How long will this one last -- two, three weeks?"

And untrained British Pilots proved him wrong.


----------



## AngelC (Jul 8, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> War speeds up all technology: 500 years of war in Italy produces Michaelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci, Donatello etc. 500 years of peace in Switzerland produces what? The cuckoo clock



Is true but 1000years of war in Germany -Italy produces Adol Hitler , Benito Musolini and others


----------



## davparlr (Jul 8, 2006)

Erich said:


> the P-51H was not operational in the ETO. mph according to vets of JG 301, you will not even find it written in the war diary by W. Reschke. this may have been in a dive ? but would assume the craft could plunge like a rock doing well over the 500 mile mark. Sadly so very little written about the bird except it was a rocket in the hands of the pilots. Reschke claims he did over 750km per hour several times while in III. and Stab./JG 301 not in a dive but at quite the altitude
> 
> ~ preview: I have a very strong interest in JG 301 as I had a cousin serve in 5./JG 301 during the fall of 44 before he was shot dwon KIA south of Misburg
> 
> v/r E


Not a lot of info on the Ta-152. Apparently they came out when Germany was struggling with their industries and work force. I think the Ta-152 never really had a chance to work out the bugs. From what I have read, the H was grounded when the war ended.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

Glider said:


> But as I understand it the 109 was better at slower speeds, less than 250, about equal up to 350 but a lot worse above 350.
> Seen as these planes are built for speed, the edge would be on the P51.



Are you talking about mph or kmh.

These aircraft would not be travelling at top speeds in a fight against each other more than likely anyhow. They would not be flying faster than 300mph to 350mph in fight. The only way they would meet each other at speeds higher than that is if one pounces the other from a higher alltitude, so that does not really make an advantage for either one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

AngelC said:


> Is true but 1000years of war in Germany -Italy produces Adol Hitler , Benito Musolini and others



That was a dumb comment.


----------



## Erich (Jul 9, 2006)

there is more info on the Ta 152 and the operational H model than one knows, the H-0 and H-1 were the operational crates for III./JG 301 and the Geschwader Stab of JG 301. there are several books covering the craft more from a tech standpoint than operational though that is in the works last heard ....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

Can you recommend some books Erich?


----------



## Erich (Jul 9, 2006)

somehow I knew this ws coming .........

Ta 152 by Monogram publications, soft-bound OOP but one of the best
and in fact Monogram is re-introducing the Ta 152 in a huge format filled with much unpublished info within a years time or so I was told.

Schiffer pubs TA 152 by Dietmar Harmann, an almost copy of the operations listed in the Monogram booklet. Funny he has asked researchers to help him find more of the JG 301 diary.

Will Reschke's JG 301/302. Self explanatory, he covers but not in real detailed form the escapades of III. gruppe and Geschwader stab of JG 301 in my opinion.

JG 301 soft bound booklet by Kagero publications out of Poland. the profiles are crap and the translation work from German to English from Reschke's book is not entirely correct, the info on my cousins date of death / that mission is incorrect.

there is I am hoping a book on JG 301 in the future from EE but still waiting since 1992, the Geschwaderstab painting of the 4 major Tanks, green 1, 2, 3 and 4 are quite lovely in the painting and Jerry adds his touch on the pilots and the small portion of history that was allowed on the small placard that comes with the painting, singed by Loos and Reschke in pencil..........beautiful 

EE is producing a 2 volume book set on the Dora 9 and the first volume will have the role of II./JG 301 and their Doras but I am thinking that seriously the Ta 152H and pilots will be covered in the JG 301 info as it would be a natural. guess I better find out first hand before I say more.
A japanese publication ? also produced some text on the Ta 152 as well but not sure of title or publisher


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2006)

Cool thanks, I will check these out.


----------



## pathchampion (Jul 11, 2006)

Isnt it the BF Messersmitt 109 K-4 Kurfurst vs. the P-51 Mustang we're talking about?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2006)

If you would read all the posts you would see how it led to the Ta-152. Please read everything before you say such things here.


----------



## Erich (Jul 11, 2006)

yes the K-14 was bogus it should be the K-4 against the P-51, and Adler is correct, it is my humble assumption that the 109G and K would of been eliminated in the Luftw. category had their been more months in the Germans favour and thus the Ta 152H may have been seen in more numbers than shown


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 11, 2006)

Thanks to all those who have added comments.

My thoughts on these type of threads are positive, opinions are shared, new facts and viewppoints learned, which I feel enriched from.

The results are surprising close, the common myth is that the Mustang was far superior and that the Me109 was past it, even in the Battle of Britain, nevermind at the Battle of Berlin.

At 1st glance, even with a little knowledge, you still might think the P51D would win with ease.

The results have surprised me, particularly the low alt superiority of the Me109.

I disagree with the 'they're just prototypes' arguement, as when Germany was getting desperate, prototypes were thrown untried in combat on a number of occasions.

I disagree with the 'these comparisons are pointless' arguement, as in WW2 there was a likelyhood that pilots of equal skill would meet up in opposing planes - if so, what would be the end result? that's all.

Also an edge, however small, can be the difference between life and death.

Also if you had a choice, pesonal preference counts for a lot.

Even the Mustang mythos should be considered, if you feel confident in a P51, but unconfidant in a Me109, the phsycological factor would affect your state of mind and thus could determine whether you win or lose a dogfight.



> While I agree with you on the Bf-109K one on one vs a P-51D you also have to remember though that the Bf-109K lost some of its great flying characteristics as it got faster but heavier (not as much as some people like to make it be, but it did).



The same could be said for the Spitfire. I suspect if the war had dragged on, that there may have been Griffon powered Mustangs? - though kudos to the designers of the P51H for not resorting to that. A lot of the niggles of the Me109 may have been ironed out? - I've heard the combat slats opened more symetrically?

The Gustav6 with underwing extras, like the R-kit cannons etc seemed to be the worst in the handling stakes?

Also, as PlanD mentioned, even though the handling of the Spitfire severely deteriorated between the Spitfire MkI MkXIV, the agility stayed the same and may have actually improved if you include climb and dive - though I believe roll performance always deteriorated?

I wonder how a Spitfire MkXIV would fare against these 2? (equal pilot skill, of course!)

Also, the FW190D-9 and TA152 can be considered contenders...

If it was me, I'd have concentrated all efforts on the FW as soon as the D-9 appeared, and would have ditched the Me for mid low level work as soon as the Anton's overheating problems were solved. The Me109 was much cheaper and simpler to build though and experienced vets had grown to become attached to them, so I would only make the Me for elite pilots, if it were me.

In hindsight, this is right as huge numbers of tricky planes are useless without fuel, ammo and good pilots.

Then the cost and production effectiveness of the Me109 means nothing (unless it used less materiel?) and it's flaws exaggerated - the right tool for the wrong job perhaps?



> These aircraft would not be travelling at top speeds in a fight against each other more than likely anyhow. They would not be flying faster than 300mph to 350mph in fight. The only way they would meet each other at speeds higher than that is if one pounces the other from a higher alltitude, so that does not really make an advantage for either one.



I thought that would be the case, thankyou DerAdler.

At top seed, the pilot would merely be trying to keep in a straight line, surely that wasn't that difficult in a Me109K? I've heard the 'tang had the same problem, due to it's internal fuel tank upsetting the CG?

I have said this once, but unfortunately will have to say it again, I realise I made a mistake in saying Me109 K-14 vs P51D/K, so I will change it to Me109 K-4 vs P51D/K and Me109 K-14 vs P51H (though any late war, high-alt prop-plane is welcome).

Thank you.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 11, 2006)

> so I will change it to Me109 K-4 vs P51D/K and Me109 K-14 vs P51H, though any late war, high-alt prop-plane is welcome.


The Ta 152H takes em all in equal combat, 7 outta 10...


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 12, 2006)

Agreed Les.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

And it will be very hard to compare a Bf-109K-14 since there were only a handfull of K-14s built. Some sources suggest only 2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 12, 2006)

Just in theory then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

You can try, but it still will be nothing more than a "What if situation" of Should Have, Could Have, Didn't happen.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 15, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The Ta 152H takes em all in equal combat, 7 outta 10...



I am not sure how you can justify this statement. After some research I have come up with the following data.

Weight
P-51H 7040(e) to 9500 (loaded) Ta152H 8640(e) to 10470 (loaded)
*Power*
P-51H (Take off) 1380 (mil) *2218 (max)* Ta152 (take off) *1750 (mil)* 2050 (max)
P-51H (33K) *1540 (max)* Ta152 (33K) (1320)
Wing Area
P-51H 235sqft Ta152 *251sqft*
Wing Loading
P-51H (loaded weight,lb/sqft) *40.4*, Ta152 (loaded weight) 41.7
Max speeds
Sealevel P-51H *424 mph*, Ta152H 350mph
30K ft P-51H *485 mph*, Ta152H 465
41K ft P-51H 444 mph (interpolated) Ta152H *472*
Overall Max P-51H *487 mph *Ta152 472
Service Ceiling (ft)
P-51H 41600, Ta152H *48550* 
Rate of Climb (S/L, ft/min) 
P-51H (loaded weight) *5000*, Ta152h 3445
Max Power to Weight (hp/wt)
P-51H (loaded, S/L) *.23*, Ta152 (loaded, S/L) .2
P-51H (loaded, 33K) *.16*, Ta152 (loaded, 33K) .12
Time to Climb (min)
No good data on Ta152H
P-51H (0-15K) 3
P-51H (0-25K) 5
P-51H (0-30K) 8

If this data is correct, and it seems to be consistant across the data base, then it appears that the P-51H has a significant advantage below 30K, a/s, power to weight, wing loading and total weight. The lower the altitude, the greater the advantage for the P-51H with a 74 mph speed over the Ta152 at sealevel.

Going on the data, I would say that it was awash from 30K to 35K, with the P-51 still holding a speed advantage. Above 35K, the Ta152 has all the aces.

Going strickly on data is slippery slope, however, these two planes never met and so we don't have much to compare except data.

Had the three planes that were meant to meet over Germany at 30-35K, the B-29, P-51H, and the Ta152H, it would have been quite a battle.

There seems to be good data on the P-51H including North American charts, but not much on the Ta152H. 

Unless this data is wrong, I don't see the Ta152H dominating the skies at a 7 out of 10 clip, certainly not below 35,000 ft.

Let me know if my info is incorrect (like nobody would!)


----------



## Erich (Jul 15, 2006)

max speed of the Ta 152H was well beyond 472. Since only one well known JG 301 ace has noted his speed in the Tank it has been taken as the top speed....quite incorrect in the books and data sheets. there IS much data on the Ta 152H and it will be in book form soon, possibly with Monogram and it will be a huge monster of a book at that.
Maybe the comparison should be the the TA 152H to present WW 2 US and RAF fighter types but this originally was the K-14 ? /K-4 against the P-51D/K

these comparitive threads drive me nutz


----------



## davparlr (Jul 15, 2006)

Erich said:


> max speed of the Ta 152H was well beyond 472. Since only one well known JG 301 ace has noted his speed in the Tank it has been taken as the top speed....quite incorrect in the books and data sheets. there IS much data on the Ta 152H and it will be in book form soon, possibly with Monogram and it will be a huge monster of a book at that.
> Maybe the comparison should be the the TA 152H to present WW 2 US and RAF fighter types but this originally was the K-14 ? /K-4 against the P-51D/K
> 
> these comparitive threads drive me nutz



Data comparisons are alway hazardous in that there are other factors that affect the effectiveness of an aircraft. Even reported data cannot necessarily be trusted. Is manufacturing data an analysis or test? Was the test properly calibrated? Is the data reported by a pilot? Was it indicated or true airspeed (not likely). What was the pressure altitude? Was data corrected by temperature or pressure altitude? What was the load? All of these are factors in absolute accuracy? In general, pilot reports, unless in a special instrumented aircraft, is unreliable, due to the above factors. Even manufacters data can be unreliable. Unfortunately, it is often all we have.

Comparisons such as this is frustrating but is quite useful in an educational manner. We all tend to learn something new about great airplanes that flew long ago.


----------



## Erich (Jul 15, 2006)

very true but in the case of the Ta 152H-0 it was tested by more than 15 JG 301 pilots and given a robust going over at many altitudes. I am going to say no more as I do not have the large volume in front of me to gaze over, it though should equip us with a more true ? form although not highlighted for it's combat operations that it flew at.........which was something the visionaries had not seen


----------



## davparlr (Jul 16, 2006)

Erich said:


> very true but in the case of the Ta 152H-0 it was tested by more than 15 JG 301 pilots and given a robust going over at many altitudes. I am going to say no more as I do not have the large volume in front of me to gaze over, it though should equip us with a more true ? form although not highlighted for it's combat operations that it flew at.........which was something the visionaries had not seen



Sounds like it will be a good solid data base. It will be interesting to get the results.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

The only problem I see with those figures up there is that I have seen different numbers for both aircraft. Most of the books that I own even give the Ta-152H's rate of climb at around 5000 ft per minute. The numbers you have up there are actually for the Ta-152C I believe and most websites throw them all into one and use those figures.

Tha Ta-152H outperformed the Ta-152C by quite a bit, and as Erich says the Ta-152H could exceed speeds of over 472mph.


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2006)

The climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was 20m/s (3,937 ft/min) at 1,[email protected] u. Notleistung, at 2,[email protected] Notleistung it would be quite abit higher - Most likely around the 5,000 ft/min Adler mentioned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

Exactly and it would be climbing up at notleistung to reach the enemy bombers. 

My guess as well is that P-51H is actually around 3500 to 4000 ft/m rather than 5000ft but like the Ta-152H could use its emergency power or max power setting to obtain 5000ft/m.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2006)

Soren nice siggie.great touch with Wills pic in it.

the Ta 152C was actually used by the GeschwaderStab and possibly II. gruppe together when they were on the same base but I am going to have to check more sources as this is just off the top of my head. primarily the C's were stripped from factory to be used for the existing H's but several were complete and in flying order


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2006)

Thank you Erich, I had Wurger make it for me, and as can be seen he's obviously very good at it  I'm glad he remembered my request to put Willi in there as-well


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly and it would be climbing up at notleistung to reach the enemy bombers.
> 
> My guess as well is that P-51H is actually around 3500 to 4000 ft/m rather than 5000ft but like the Ta-152H could use its emergency power or max power setting to obtain 5000ft/m.



The data was taken from an apparent North American Aviation engineering drawing I found on the internet. It looks very authentic describing the configuration (clean, no wing racks) and War Emergency Power (90" MP, water injection, 3000 rpm). It actually shows max climb at a GW of 8000lbs at 5K feet of almost 6500 f/m. The same drawing show the time to climb numbers and maximum speed. What I don't know is if the data is test data or from caluculations.

I would not be surprised if the data points are incorrect for the Ta152 as there has only been glimpse of its perfomance data. It does seem consistent accross the spectrum, which could just mean there was one source.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

I agree. Its hard to tell about the Ta-152. Do you still have the drawings of the P-51 that you are talking about. I would love to see them, would be very interesting.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

A detailed comparison is on the way....


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. Its hard to tell about the Ta-152. Do you still have the drawings of the P-51 that you are talking about. I would love to see them, would be very interesting.



Yeah, I found a site that looks like it has quite a bit of technical data. I guess the guy is a spitfire fan. Look down to you find the P-51H and at the bottom of that section, is site for various data. I wish we had this on all the aircraft. Let me know if you can't get it, I have the charts on my computer. I haven't really looked around the site, there could be more interesting data.

P-51 Mustang Performance


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Yeah, I found a site that looks like it has quite a bit of technical data. I guess the guy is a spitfire fan. Look down to you find the P-51H and at the bottom of that section, is site for various data. I wish we had this on all the aircraft. Let me know if you can't get it, I have the charts on my computer. I haven't really looked around the site, there could be more interesting data.
> 
> P-51 Mustang Performance



I looked around the spitfireperformance.com site and he has some impressive data including some on the FW-190D with charts in German. Also some data on the P-38 and others. Don't know where this guy got all his data. Research and hard work I guess.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

Thanks for the links.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 21, 2006)

And just for fun.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 21, 2006)

that way the 109 is painted is so wrong


----------



## pathchampion (Jul 21, 2006)

yeah, thts the colors that some of the BF 109 E was wearing during the Battle of Britain.... as far as i know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

The yellow colors are recognition markings and were used to different degrees all the way to the end of the war.

For instance Bf-109G-14 "White 21" from 7./JG 52 based out of Vespren, Hungary in March 1945 was painted similar to that with yellow.

Bf-109K-4 "Black 1" from Stab II./JG 52 flwon by Maj. Wilhelm Batz based out of Neubieberg, Germany in May 1945 was painted similar to that with yellow.

Aircraft on the Russian front used yellow as well a lot.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2006)

The Bf 109's of the "Abbeville Boys" all had the Yellow Cowlings.... During the May 10 thru June 26 1940 "Battle of France", to enable easy recognition of the unit in the air, JG26 painted the undernose of their a/c yellow.... Other units also painted their under cowling yellow too (both in 1940 and occasionally throughout the war)....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

Exactly it was not limited to the BoB.


----------



## dsnow (Jul 17, 2007)

alright, i know this might be a long post, and there might be some spelling errors and what not, but i think i make some very good points and i hope you will all read

while the 109k4 could always out climb the P51D, and at times out run it, the P51D could out dive, and with a 10-15 degree turn of her flaps, the P51D could out turn the 109k4. the 109 performed poorly in high speed dogfights because its controls got real stiff above 400mph, and the 109 couldnt use flaps at speeds around 375mph where as the P51D performed exelently at speed up to 480mph and peformed exelently up to 520mph in compairison to all other propellor planes. 

The only time the 109k4 could out perform the P51D was when the 109 used its emergancy power. This gave the 109 the boost it needed to out run the P51D, however, the 109k4 exausted its emergancy power after only a few minutes, where as the P51D could fly one E power consideribly longer. When both the 109 and the 51 where out of E power, the P51 was faster then the k4, and could out turn it without the use of flaps at high altitudes.

also, the 109's speed increased, and manuverablity decressed steadily as it gained altitude, where as the P51D's performance spiked at certain altitudes such as 13,000ft 22,000ft and 31,000ft. A good P51 pilot could force a 109 into a dogfight at one of these altitudes, and beat it at everything except climb rate.

in my mind the .50cal x6 armorment is better for a dogfight then the x2 13mm MG, and the x1 30mm cannon. this is because the .50 cal is more accurate then the 13mm MG for some reason, and can out fire them since the pony has 6 of them. this high quantity of large MG bullets gives the P51 a 3 times better chance of score a hit on the 109's pilot (.50 cal is usually fatal) and also gives the p51 a good chance of hitting the 109's engine, engine oil, fuel lines or radiator. the 109's HE 30mm is good for taking out bombers or blowing off a fighters wing, but it is inaccuarate, and more or less lobs the shells at its target, it is only effective if the 109 pilot can get the p51 the right distance away from him (the 30mm is fired up alittle and is set to converge at a point at the pilots preflight discrestion). It might take 3 or 4 hits from the 30mm to rip off the p51's strong wings, since the 30mm fires at a low rate of fire, this is hard to do. the p51's main weakness is it unprotected radiator. but the 109's mere 2 MGs fails to take advatage of this

despite all this, i can understand how somebody could favor a 109k4 in a 1v1 fight vs a P51D, however in a 2v2, 4v4 or 8v8 the P51 would have the edge. this is mainly because the 109's main advantage (its climb rate) would become a dangerous manouver in that when a 109 climbs to evaid 1 of the p51s, it loses energy and when faceing up it becomes a big slow target with an exposed pilot for the next P51.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I agree with you on the Bf-109K one on one vs a P-51D you also have to remember though that the Bf-109K lost some of its great flying characteristics as it got faster but heavier (not as much as some people like to make it be, but it did). Now having said that, I voted for the Bf-109K as well.



Chris - I just happened to stumble on to a quote in Caldwell's JG26 Top Gun book. Uffz Georg Genth's comments pg 308 on the K-4 being supplied to III./JG26 in November, 1944. Won't quote the entire paragraph but to summarize.
He much preferred the G-10 as a dogfighter (no underwing tubs, better stability at high altitude)
The K-4s they received had the 30mm Mk108 or Mk103 firing through hub plus two 20mm in the underwing tubs 'greatly reucing maneuverability'
"above 28,000 the K-4 'began to float' causing the pilots to start 'swimming' or 'float' giving similar control feels to a stall"

"Un naturally sensitive" in formation flying at those altitudes.

Interestingly enough on page 313 he notes that II./JG26 pilots reaction to the new Fw90D-9 was also mixed. Loved the speed, climb and acceleration but deplored the reduced roll and turn capability from the Fw190A's as well as less firepower..

In addition, they were concerned about engine reliability and noted that the first mission of I. Gruppe in new D-9s was a disaster, 8 aborted immediately with engine problems and 4 went down with engine failures out of the 18 that took off on 24 December, 1944.

All pointing out early gestation issues in the up-engined/modified 109s and 190's - just like the 51B's in Jan-April, 1944.

Anyway - all anecdotal. My father's own experiences with the later model 109 (I think the two seater at Gablingen was a modified K) was that it was Extremely Stiff in high speed, High G maneuvers above 20,000 feet. I don't recall ever seeing any mod which aleviated this issue in air to air combat with the 51.. but it would outclimb a 51 in a tight spiral right.

At the end of the day it would be a pilot skill issue on a level playing field. Neither ship (51D/K vs 109G-10 or K-4) really had a compelling over all edge... probably true for the 190D-9 vs the 51 also.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2007)

The K-4 wasn't equipped like the "to be K-14" Bill, the K-4 COULD carry gun-pods, but its std. armament was 1x Mk108 + 2x 13mm MG131's. Also no K-4 was ever equipped with a Mk103 cannon, and as to gun-pods, well, AFAIK nearly none of these birds had these installed, and finding a picture of one with gun-pods is practically impossible.

As to maneuverability, well the 109 K-4 was magnitudes better up to 300 mph where the controls became stiff and roll rate decreased, however with two hands on the stick the Bf-109 K-4 would still easily out-turn the P-51 Mustang at high speed, no problem what so ever. The K-4's climb rate was also ALLOT faster than the P-51's. 

But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2007)

Gents never say never as I have it on good authority that some K-4's had the centerline 3cm removed replaced with the 2cm MG 151/20. underwing 2cm waffenpods were installed on K-4's during spring of 45 for ground attack both day and night in I./NJG 11, and for the latter there is written documentation besides the pilots statements.

again the K-14 is a bogus craft, if we are making a switch to the K-4 then so be it


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> The K-4 wasn't equipped like the "to be K-14" Bill, the K-4 COULD carry gun-pods, but its std. armament was 1x Mk108 + 2x 13mm MG131's. Also no K-4 was ever equipped with a Mk103 cannon, and as to gun-pods, well, AFAIK nearly none of these birds had these installed, and finding a picture of one with gun-pods is practically impossible.
> 
> *I'm not the expert. I merely quoted a III./JG26 fighter pilot who flew the K-4, in its entirety, from Don Caldwell's book. You can easily verify the quote. You have not found a contrary quote yet from another quotable German pilot which contradicts Uffr Genth's comments and I am easily persuaded otherwise with another expert opinion - but make it real and not just your opinion?*
> 
> ...



Facts, Soren - toujours facts - where are your facts on any 109 out turning a 51 at high speed? and 'magnitudes better up to 300mph'? 

I can do that math - the plural says at least 100 times better, singular says only 10 times faster.. ??

would you say that your powers of exageration are unsurpassed?

Show us the turn circle or time graphs at low medium and high altitude for low medium and high speeds in any flight test document you care to cite - US or Brit or German and you would have some credibility on this subject.. 

And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 18, 2007)

drgondog said:


> And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??



I agree facts speak volumes.......but that lines above is hardly a fair statement. The number of planes lost does not directly correlate to the quality of the plane.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I agree facts speak volumes.......but that lines above is hardly a fair statement. The number of planes lost does not directly correlate to the quality of the plane.



Soren sez "But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air."

Hunter - it does say something to the 'unbeatable' comment.. Rall was as good as they get and he was shot down, what, 18 times? Not always outnumbered just some airplane pulled lead on him and scored. The list of Experten flying the 'unbeatable' 109 - that were shot down - is quite large.

Ditto for the 190D, for the P-51B/C/D, the Me262, and the Spit - all superb aircraft flown by superb pilots that were 'beaten' in equivalent 'unbeatable' fighters

How would you have expressed disagreement to 'unbeatable'? or do you believe the 109 was unbeatable?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 18, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Soren sez "But the 109 was the "Ace's plane", which meant that it took time to master it completely but once you did it was pretty much unbeatable in the air."
> 
> Hunter - it does say something to the 'unbeatable' comment.. Rall was as good as they get and he was shot down, what, 18 times? Not always outnumbered just some airplane pulled lead on him and scored. The list of Experten flying the 'unbeatable' 109 - that were shot down - is quite large.
> 
> ...



I misunderstood your statement a little, I see you were not talking literally.

No plane was unbeatable, simple as that. Soren knows that, while I don't know when he posted the term "unbeatable" that you are referring to.......he knows the 109 was not literally unbeatable....I think you also misunderstood him.....thinking he was talking literally.

The 109 was a very good plane in its role, but no plane could be unbeatable. In air combat crap happens to fast, pilots are humans who make mistakes, machines break down or do not function at 100% full performance, etc etc.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2007)

I found this that may be of interest

On November 26, 1944 the 2nd SF took 12 P51's to scout Misburg and Bielefeld. Four ships went down to check out Bielefeld while the remaining eight stayed out in front of the Misburg force. Near Hannover approximately 200+ FW-190s and escorting Me 109s, in two separate gaggles, were observed approaching the bombers. 

At the time of the attack, the three B-24 groups that the 355th and 339th FG were chartered to escort were strung out on a 40 mile line due to a navigation error and impossible to cover with even two Fighter groups. The 339th was trailing and closer to Dummer Lake. 

The Luftwaffe Controller detected the lack of coverage and skillfully orchestrated the attack in between the 355th and 339th FG. The large German force split into several smaller forces of 50 to 75 fighters and attacked in waves at the rear of the 339th. 

The 491st BG immediately lost 15 B-24’s to heavily armed JG301 Fw 190 A-8s from a ‘company front’ attack from the rear before the 354FS and 357FS intervened to drive them off in a major dogfight ranging to the deck. The 339th picked up two more large enemy forces further west and the sky in the Hannover-Gardlingen-Dummer Lake region was full of fighters and bombers in various states of distress. 

Shortly afterwards another force of JG 301 fighters attacked the 445th BG strung out behind the remaining 358FS cover 

Seeing the huge danger to the unprotected 445th BG, Bob Whitlow led his eight remaining Scouts to intercept more than 100 Fw 190’s and Me 109 top cover fighters of JG301. The first wave hit the B-24’s and shot down five before the Scouts got there, and dove for the deck. Whitklow’s force hit the second wave head on and completely broke up the attack. 

In a running battle. the Scouts shot down six plus a probable and several damaged before the 358FS arrived to add their firepower to the fight. Lieutenants Bill Whalen and George Ceglarski nailed three and one while Whitlow got two. 

Captain Stauder was later lost returning from the mission when his Mustang was seen to dive inverted into the Channel near the Dutch coast and remains “Missing in Action” 

The leaders of the 445th BG stated unequivocally that the 2nd Scout Force had saved them from the same disaster that hit the 491st. 

In all the 355th and 2nd Scouts claimed 27 of JG301 Fw 190’s and Me 109’s for their worst single day loss in the war. The 339th further behind in the bomber stream also contributed 29 more claims making tis the worst day in the war for JG301. After a review of the film and reports the awards reduced to 27 and 26 respectively.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2007)

What a surprise ! Bill like every other USAAF fanboy is a fan of Rall's comments ! 

I bet you loath what all the other LW experten have to say eh Bill ?


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2007)

In the hands of an experten the Bf-109 was a near unbeatable a/c, the tally of the a/c also speaks for itself. The top 3 aces of all time flew this fighter.

But ofcourse I forgot, Bill thinks the Germans were stupid and that is why they kept the 109 in service from start to finish, it simply can't be because it was a truly supurb fighter.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 19, 2007)

The 109 was a very good aircraft, like many others at the time. The 109 remained competitive with her enemies through out the entire war.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> I found this that may be of interest
> 
> On November 26, 1944 the 2nd SF took 12 P51's to scout Misburg and Bielefeld. Four ships went down to check out Bielefeld while the remaining eight stayed out in front of the Misburg force. Near Hannover approximately 200+ FW-190s and escorting Me 109s, in two separate gaggles, were observed approaching the bombers.
> 
> ...



Glider - did you get this from my article on Mike William's site about the 2SF?

Eric helped me put the 'dark side' force structure together

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> What a surprise ! Bill like every other USAAF fanboy is a fan of Rall's comments !
> 
> I bet you loath what all the other LW experten have to say eh Bill ?



Actually - quite the contrary Soren. I spent quite a bit of time w/Galland on three occasions, and met Rall and Krupinski and Stigler in Tuscon at the Fighter Aces convention.

All of them refreshing in their candor of the strengths and weaknesses of all the Allied and German aircraft..and the particular relevance of pilot skill.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider - did you get this from my article on Mike William's site about the 2SF?
> 
> Eric helped me put the 'dark side' force structure together
> 
> ...



Its a Mike Williams and Neil Sterling site about WW2 aircraft and it may well be your article if your surname is Marshall. Hope I haven't upset anyone, certainly not my intention.

THE SCOUTING FORCE


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> In the hands of an experten the Bf-109 was a near unbeatable a/c, the tally of the a/c also speaks for itself. The top 3 aces of all time flew this fighter.
> 
> But ofcourse I forgot, Bill thinks the Germans were stupid and that is why they kept the 109 in service from start to finish, it simply can't be because it was a truly supurb fighter.



I have always maintained that it was superb. You are the one that whined that the add of 20/30mm pods rendered it 'impotent' and thus fell prey to the inferior Mustang in our discussions of 24 April.

Germans weren't stupid - had no choice but to continually upgrade the 109 to attain near parity with the 51 - as well as redesign the Fw190 to the 190D - same reason... no replacement available in numbers to make a difference.

Look to the number of Experten KIA/WIA in the 109 for a testimony to invulnerability - what is your definition, by the way?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris - I just happened to stumble on to a quote in Caldwell's JG26 Top Gun book. Uffz Georg Genth's comments pg 308 on the K-4 being supplied to III./JG26 in November, 1944. Won't quote the entire paragraph but to summarize.
> He much preferred the G-10 as a dogfighter (no underwing tubs, better stability at high altitude)
> The K-4s they received had the 30mm Mk108 or Mk103 firing through hub plus two 20mm in the underwing tubs 'greatly reucing maneuverability'
> "above 28,000 the K-4 'began to float' causing the pilots to start 'swimming' or 'float' giving similar control feels to a stall"
> ...



Yeah I can completely agree with that.



drgondog said:


> At the end of the day it would be a pilot skill issue on a level playing field. Neither ship (51D/K vs 109G-10 or K-4) really had a compelling over all edge... probably true for the 190D-9 vs the 51 also.



Agreed as well and I think that can be said for most of the top fighters of WW2 whatever kind of aircraft it was. The pilot who could get the most out of his aircraft would be the victor.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed as well and I think that can be said for most of the top fighters of WW2 whatever kind of aircraft it was. The pilot who could get the most out of his aircraft would be the victor.



As has been said over and over here before.......this is the truth. 


People often get too hung up over plane stats that were produced under optimum conditions.....which never really happened under real battle conditions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2007)

Yeap as if paper is the only thing that counts.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap as if paper is the only thing that counts.



As we all know, esp the guys in the military, what the aircraft designers say a machine "can do" and "what it actually does on the day you enter combat" is totally different things.

Chris you are an expert on this, I don't know you real well but is it safe to say the following:

Chris were you ever able to and did modify a chopper to get better perforce out of it? Did you ever modify a chopper to carry a different weapon then it was meant to carry? Did you ever modify a chopper to carry instraments that were not standard with the chopper?

I would guess yes.

While I am sure Chris is a very good tech, I doubt that he is one of a kind or best on the planet (no slight meant Chris  ). 

My point being is if Chris could modify choppers, then WW2 ground crews could modify their standard issue planes also (and they did). Test numbers or designer performance numbers are valueable but they are not the end all be all. Pilots were the biggest factor in a battle.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> Its a Mike Williams and Neil Sterling site about WW2 aircraft and it may well be your article if your surname is Marshall. Hope I haven't upset anyone, certainly not my intention.
> 
> THE SCOUTING FORCE



You haven't upset me - but Soren my be upset as that was one of those missions where the LW achieved local air superiority to get to the bombers - even this late in the war.

Regards,

Bill Marshall


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Chris you are an expert on this, I don't know you real well but is it safe to say the following:



 I would not say that.



Hunter said:


> Chris were you ever able to and did modify a chopper to get better perforce out of it?



No the Army does not allow us to do so. 



Hunter said:


> Did you ever modify a chopper to carry a different weapon then it was meant to carry?



Yes....



Hunter said:


> Did you ever modify a chopper to carry instraments that were not standard with the chopper?



No the Army does not allow this. 



Hunter said:


> While I am sure Chris is a very good tech, I doubt that he is one of a kind or best on the planet (no slight meant Chris  ).



None taken. There are plenty of mechanics out there with way more experience than myself.


----------



## mkloby (Jul 21, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> People often get too hung up over plane stats that were produced under optimum conditions.....which never really happened under real battle conditions.



Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts.



Agreed


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not say that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above. 

Correct?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above.
> 
> Correct?



Yeap


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics.



Hunter - I'm not at all sure of that - at least in the context of USAAF. Cass Hough and Pappy Gunn are two legends - who actually went through channels to a degree to make the Mods in a Service Group or in concert with say RAF for field modifications...

The 'heavy' nose for B-25's, the cheek guns for the B-25/26 in the pacific, the forward firing .50 cal guns in nose of B-17E and F' before the G incorporated the chin turret are examples of that. The exotic grafting of the B-24 Nose (with turret) on a B-17 is another example..plus Malcom Hood inst'l were performed (80+hour) at Service Group level

I have never seen or heard of examples of external (structural) changes made at the 'Line Chief' level.. On the other hand field installations of K-14 gunsights to retrofit to 51's to replace N-3/7's as well changes made to feed belts to reduce stoppages in both .50 cal (51D/K) and 20mm occurred at that level, found to be good and ECO's were propagated across Combat Groups while the changes/recommendations were passed back to Wright Pat and the MFR.

You might have some examples that contradict this during WWII?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2007)

> Facts, Soren - toujours facts - where are your facts on any 109 out turning a 51 at high speed? and 'magnitudes better up to 300mph'?



Does power-loading lift-loading ring a bell Bill ???




> I can do that math - the plural says at least 100 times better, singular says only 10 times faster.. ??



LoL, can you ?? Show me please!

Looking forward to this !



> would you say that your powers of exageration are unsurpassed?



No but I'd say yours certainly are !



> Show us the turn circle or time graphs at low medium and high altitude for low medium and high speeds in any flight test document you care to cite - US or Brit or German and you would have some credibility on this subject..



LoL, ofcourse you want us to believe the graph done by the RAE AFDU ! You want to ignore the fact that the British test-pilots got scared shitless everytime the slats deployed and aborted the maneuver entirely. And if you don't believe me then go read the docs, there's plenty of mentioning of this.

*AFDU*
_"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"_

Oblivious to the British pilots the slats opened WAY before the critical AoA was reached = the a/c wasn't even approaching a stall !

The confusion regarding the function of the slats could've been avoided had the RAF contacted Handley Page.



> And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??



LoL, what a load of pro-allied bias again !

No wonder Mike Williams presents your posts on his site


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter - I'm not at all sure of that - at least in the context of USAAF. Cass Hough and Pappy Gunn are two legends - who actually went through channels to a degree to make the Mods in a Service Group or in concert with say RAF for field modifications...
> 
> The 'heavy' nose for B-25's, the cheek guns for the B-25/26 in the pacific, the forward firing .50 cal guns in nose of B-17E and F' before the G incorporated the chin turret are examples of that. The exotic grafting of the B-24 Nose (with turret) on a B-17 is another example..plus Malcom Hood inst'l were performed (80+hour) at Service Group level
> 
> ...



You used two examples I had thought of regarding US machines, but I have more knowledge of German planes and their history.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying every Tom Dick and Harry mod his plane.....I am just saying it was not rare to seen it done.

Guns added, removed (more then one P-47 pilot did that), guns upgraded, guns down graded, armor added, armor removed, different paint schemes (which affect speed greatly), waxing (added speed), cigar holders added (not that changed flight char. but it was funny), radios removed, ammo loads changed, etc etc. Many were done and done through unofficial levels. Every example I listed I have read about and I am sure I have missed some. 

I am sure others (and you) could add more. How many planes out of say 100 were modified......I am not sure. But there was some that is forsure.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> You used two examples I had thought of regarding US machines, but I have more knowledge of German planes and their history.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I am not saying every Tom Dick and Harry mod his plane.....I am just saying it was not rare to seen it done.
> 
> ...



i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Does power-loading lift-loading ring a bell Bill ???
> 
> Oh, absolutely Soren, Does aerodynamics, combined with stick forces ring a bell with you?
> Mustang Tacical Trials
> ...



I expect Mr Williams has some respect for my scholarship, and will soon be posting one Erich and I and two other gentlemen from 357FG and 384BG will be posting about 24 April, 1944. 

BTW - you have not been able to find sources or published documents to refute this example of 24 April - nor will you Soren.. You just cannot bear the thought of those mongrels from America outfighting your ancestors over your own territory - particularly if you held the advantage.. simply unthinkable!

Until you actually post sources and facts Soren you are an uniformed waste of time -


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

Drgondog and Soren,

Guys keep it polite, debate sure but no name calling needed or insulting someone's homeland.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 23, 2007)

drgondog said:


> i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also



I think we both agree, lots of changes but very few if any "structural" changes done.

But one does not need to make structural changes to change a plane's performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Drgondog and Soren,
> 
> Guys keep it polite, debate sure but no name calling needed or insulting someone's homeland.



Agree; folks, keep it civil or I'm going to lock this thread...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2007)

That is the second time a Mod has told you to tone it down (I was the first one) or the thread will be locked.

What is so difficult about being civil?

This can be debated without insults to anyone or there ancenstors or nationality!

3 strikes and this thread is out. If it spills over to another thread then infractions will happen.


----------



## Soren (Jul 29, 2007)

Back from holiday.

*Bill,* 

Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall - fact is the 109 wasn't even approaching a stall ! 

It was the same for many new 109 pilots in the LW, they were convinced the aircraft was close to stalling when the slats began to deploy, and that the Emil suffered jams with its slats didn't help convince them otherwise. In the beginning of his career Günther Rall was nearly killed in an Emil as one of the slats jammed in a turn, sending the 109 into a spin, Rall managed to recover from it though, but from that day on he never pushed the 109 to limit again, relying purely on energy tactics - eventhough this jamming problem was completely solved with the introduction of the Friederich series, an a/c which was praised for its excellent maneuverability turn performance.

In short the AFDU trials with the Bf-109 are worth nothing at all.

Pilots who know the limits of the 109 have this to say:

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:*
_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

*Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:*
_"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. 
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."_ 

*Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:*
_Did your flying and tactics change with the new plane? 
"No, it was basically the same. Except now we had better climb rates than the Russians and we could split better. And of course gain surprise. With speed, you could hit and run. And not spend much time in their sights. 
The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. 
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again. 
You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy. 
The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble." _


*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories: *
_"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."_

*Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:*
_"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off. 
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight? 
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection. 
- And you was flying a three cannon plane? 
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things. 
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place? 
It must have been about 2000m."_

*Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace, 32 victories, :*
_"The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh."_

*Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot:*
_"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."_

*Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories:*
_"I got in a dogfight against a Yak-9. I was the underdog, quite close to the water. The Yak-9 had bounced me from behind somewhere and the turning started. I pulled the stick, clenching my teeth, and he followed me. We completed four circles about, but then he disengaged and headed for East, for home. We had been on wavetops, altitude no more than 50m. I arrived at the base. I looked for holes but found only one, in the right wing (of the Me 109 G-6)."_


*Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:*_"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him."_

*Major Kozhemyako, VSS fighter ace:* 
_"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful in fights with Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight."_

*Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:*
_"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight." _

And there's plenty more, even from Spitfire pilots.

Now I shouldn't have to post all this really, cause if your understanding of aerodynamics is as good as you claim you would know all this already as even the basics are indicative enough of the clear superiority of the Bf-109.

Compared to the P-51 Mustang the Bf-109 has a MUCH smaller wetted area, a MUCH lower lift-loading, a MUCH lower power-loading and more available power to begin with - these basic facts are all you need really, but we can go through all the rest as-well if you wish ??

So like I said, the P-51 Mustang is NO match in a turn fight at any practical speed for any Bf-109.

Other facts:

1.)The top 3 aces of all time all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces, of all time, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
2.)The Bf-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.


----------



## Hop (Jul 29, 2007)

> Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall



What is this claim based on? The British knew exactly what slats were, and how they behaved on the 109.

As early as 1940 and their test of a captured 109E, they gave the speed the slats opened as 111 mph, and noted the stalling speed was 75 mph.

From the report:


> The slots open at about 110 m.p.h., and as they open the ailerons snatch slightly, and there is then slight aileron vibration. At 83 m.p.h. the aircraft becomes unsteady laterally and aileron buffeting sets in which increases in intensity as' the stall is approached. There is thus ample warning of the approach of the stall.



and:



> The aircratt stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 0.5 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. *When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall*. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.



Eric Brown commented on the slats:



> I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-g manoeuvres such as loops or tight turns, so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 mph (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening of the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees.



So the British certainly knew that the slats opened at much higher than stall speed (and any test pilot would have known this anyway, as slats were hardly unknown devices). They also knew that the 109 had a fairly gentle stall, so the idea they would be frightened of stalling the aircraft is daft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Back from holiday.
> 
> *Bill,*
> 
> Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall - fact is the 109 wasn't even approaching a stall !


I know you responded to Bill, but I had to comment on this...

Soren, even back in 1940 what kind of competent test pilot (even one flying a captured enemy aircraft) would be afraid or even hesitant of stalling an aircraft????? Cripes, one could slow the thing down in either Vs or Vs1 and ease into a stall with little or no problems. Power off stalls would could be done with no need to input rudder so the aircraft would stall straight ahead, and I would expect this to be done on the first or second flight. I've test flown homebuilts and once the aircraft seems to be sound, the first thing I start doing is stalling it and acquiring a feel on how the aircraft would perform during landing, and I'm sure this was done to captured aircraft on both sides...

During WW2 I would expect those intelligence officers responsible for evaluating a captured enemy aircraft and gathering information to insist that during the flight test profile the aircraft being fully evaluated to know EXACTLY when the slats would deploy and EXACTLY when the aircraft would stall in bank angles in increments from 10 to 60 degrees, at least! Shoot - If I was the test pilot I would want to know how the slats worked and how the aircraft stalled with them deployed. After doing this one could easily take the aircraft into simulated combat against other aircraft and know exactly where and when the slats will deploy and where and when then aircraft is going to stall.

I'm sorry Soren, I have a very hard time believing that and if there actually was a test pilot who was afraid, or for a better word "cautious" about pushing a new or even captured aircraft to it's limits to test an "unknown" system (in this case the L/E slats) then that fellow doesn't belong in a capacity to test aircraft....


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

Quit the excuses Hop, testing stall speed hasn't got anything to do with this, and that you even assumed this is ridiculous. Stalls under zero G is another thing than stalls under G.

Straight from the AFDU:
_"The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening *near the stall*"_

The slats don't open near the stall, they start to open way before that.

And like Walter Wolfrum said:
_"*Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed.* I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

And Erwin Leykeuf:
_"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. *Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat.* One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. *Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing.* For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. "_

A pilot who is flying a new plane isn't going to "fool" around as crashing is always a distinct possibility. The bang and slight notch which accompanied the deployment of the slats scared new pilots, making them believe a stall was emanant - the British test pilots suffered the same problems concerns, hence why they didn't push the 109 to the limit in turns.

If you still dont "buy" the facts above then tell me this; How come when the Bf-109G will easily out-turn the FW-190 that it doesn't easily out-turn both the Mustang Mk.III Tempest in the AFDU tactical trials, as a FW-190G (Ground attack version) manages to turn with both in the AFDU tactical trials ?? 

The answer is easy: The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall, just like the new LW pilots. And the fact that the AFDU says the following only underlines this fact: _ "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall, just like the new LW pilots. And the fact that the AFDU says the following only underlines this fact: _ "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"_


Show us proof of that Soren - "Flight testing 101" - one of the first thing you ascertain is stall characteristics, that is needed to understand how the aircraft is going to behave at low speeds and landing. No properly trained pilot "should be afraid" of stalling an aircraft - that's just plain hogwash!!!


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

I didn't say they were afraid of stalling the a/c FLYBOYJ, I said they were afraid the a/c was about to stall when the slats came out in turns. The slats go *bang!* when they deploy in turns as the critical AoA is approached quickly, thus the slats deploy quickly, and this scared new pilots who weren't used to or knew anything about the slats. Stalling the a/c in slow straight flight wasn't a problem as the deployment of the slats was then slow and gradual, so no loud bang or notch was felt.

The proof is right infront of you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> I didn't say they were afraid of stalling the a/c FLYBOYJ, I said they were afraid the a/c was about to stall when the slats came out in turns. The slats go *bang!* when they deploy in turns as the critical AoA is approached quickly, thus the slats deploy quickly, and this scared new pilots who weren't used to or knew anything about the slats. Stalling the a/c in slow straight flight wasn't a problem as the deployment of the slats was then slow and gradual, so no loud bang or notch was felt.
> 
> The proof is right infront of you.




No it's not - if the slats deployed loudly with a *bang* as you say, that would be all the reason why to fly the aircraft through the full deployment of the slats, at varying air speeds and at varying angles of attack. You are now talking "new pilots," I'm talking test pilots, RAF pilots who flew captured birds, that's where this whole discussion originated from. I'd like to see a pilot report, flight test card or some other documented evidence that RAF test pilots were afraid or cautious of flying a captured Bf 109 through full slat deployment at varying angles of attack, at varying speeds and on to a full stall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2007)

Here Soren...

_*Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine*, compared the Me 109E to 
the Spitfire I as follows: 
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was 
mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the 
Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is 
was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was 
outstandingly better in turning circle. 106 
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I 
found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if 
not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with 
fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 
400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E 
performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and *it had good 
stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept 
snapping in and out*. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a 
heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the 
rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in 
combat._ 

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ? 

The AFDU comments:
_"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"_

Remember the first 109 the British test-pilots got to fly was the Emil, which slats unfortunately had a frequent habbit of jamming in turns. So the British test pilot's first experience with an a/c equipped with automatic LE slats is one with a violant departure spin in hard turns because of the slats jamming. So who's to blame the test pilots for thinking the same will happen if you push the Bf-109G that far ? - Hence the comment above made in the AFDU report. 

Is this proof enough ??


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here Soren...
> 
> _*Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine*, compared the Me 109E to
> the Spitfire I as follows:
> ...



Again its a Emil, and the snapping in and out suggests something is awfully wrong!

*Dave Southwood, modern Bf-109 pilot:*
_One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this._

You can read the rest here:
The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ?
> 
> The AFDU comments:
> _"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"_
> ...


No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.

"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Your original post was "The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall."

The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

Oh and since we're at it, another comment by Dave Southwood:
_The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang_

Again, the mustang suffers from heavy elevators at high speeds as-well.


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.



It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.

As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?

_Turning Circle 
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. _



> "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"
> 
> Your original post was "The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall."
> 
> The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....



Since we were talking about the Bf-109*G* what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109*G* past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.

Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.





> the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall



All it says there was some embarrassment about the slots - perhaps it scared the bejeezers out of some test pilot or the writer was trying to make fun of the -109. In either case that statement no where comes close to proving that captured Bf 109Gs were never stalled during evaluation, that they were never flown at high angles of attack and that there was any reluctance or prohibitions in allowing the slats to deploy or dealing with a high AoA or high speed stall after they were deployed.


Soren said:


> As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?
> 
> _Turning Circle
> 47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. _


I read it fully...

What would make you think that RAF test pilots wouldn't fully test the slat mechanism on the "G" when they did so on the "E" several years earlier - you're not making sense...

This is not a plug for the Spitfire in the old turning battle, but more of an invalidation of your original statement about RAF test pilots not fully stalling the Bf 109, be it an Emil or Gustaf. Unless there was something dreadfully wrong with the slats or airframe, the test pilots evaluating the aircraft would of had the slats and *bang" figured out within a few flights....




Soren said:


> Since we were talking about the Bf-109*G* what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109*G* past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.
> 
> Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?


No Soren again, read above - no pilot would be afraid of letting an aircraft stall unless he was 100 AGL...


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2007)

Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused. 

Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.

As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
_"the 109G’s maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "_

Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!

From: Mustang Tacical Trials

The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.

The 109G in question:


----------



## drgondog (Jul 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.
> 
> Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.
> 
> ...



Soren - you are perhaps the greatest waste of intellectual capital - and time - that I have ever run across in my entire 61 years.. absolutely incredible specimen.


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2007)

Here we go with Bill's insults again.. 

Bill your completely OT comments above don't strike me as very mature for a 61 year old I must say.

You should note that the mods have been warning against using insults for some time now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.
> 
> Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.
> 
> ...



Soren, as stated, I'm not here to argue the 109s turning ability, comparing it to other aircraft, or trying to justify the noted test results. You made the statement that when the noted 109s slats deployed, pilots were afraid of it stalling - there was no evidence to support that, in fact everything shown here proves that the aircraft WAS stalled in more than one configuration as this would be one of the first things done when evaluating the aircraft.

I'm sure you're familiar with the USAAF evaluation of the 109G at Wright Patterson.

_"f. Stalls and Stall Warning. 
Automatic Handly-Page type slots are provided on 
the outboard leading edges of the wing. They extend at about 240 kph 
indicated. The airplane’s stall characteristics are good with little 
tendency to fall off on either wing. No specific stall checks were made 
but it is believed the stall with wheels down and full flaps is about 150 
kph indicated." _

and BTW, here are the comments made about its turning ability....

"g. Maneuverability and Aerobatics. 
The radius of turn is very poor in this airplane 
and it is probably due to the poor elevator control. It is very hard to 
maneuver at high speeds. At cruising speeds the controls are very light 
and all normal aerobatics may be performed easily."

Me 109 G Flight Tests

Bottom line Soren, not stalling an aircraft during flight evaluation in several flight configurations is like test flying the aircraft without retracting the landing gear. But to answer your question about the turning radius of the 109. Did you ever think that those who evaluated the 109 did not fully master the aircraft after only flying the aircraft 3 or 4 hours? Some of the quotes you posted earlier came from pilots who had hundreds if not thousands of hours in the aircraft and were probably the most proficient 109 drivers during WW2 and it is that reason why I believe you see that difference in opinion with regards to the evaluation of the Bf 109 turning radius....


----------



## drgondog (Jul 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> Here we go with Bill's insults again..
> 
> Bill your completely OT comments above don't strike me as very mature for a 61 year old I must say.
> 
> You should note that the mods have been warning against using insults for some time now.



Actually you are right. I apologise for the comments about wasting intellectual capital


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Nov 18, 2009)

I think the k14 is probably the better fighter. 
First of all the K14 kills in a climb and firepower making it ideal for interceptor missions But being built as an interceptor it lacks some important qualities such as maneuverability and rate of role (because of the wing mounted guns). So really the only advantage the mustang has over the k14 is its maneuverability, and of course its range. 

A fighter that would have had a more similar performance with the p51 would have been the fw190Dora (most likely the d-13).


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

P-51D/K could have done whatever any German piston-engined fighter did.
Neither 109 (Ks included) nor 190 could do what Pony did, project the power thousands KM away.
The conclusion is that P-51D/K were better.

(Sorry if the difference in range was already adressed)


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2009)

Its not really that simple tomo.

The Bf-109K was undoubtedly the better interceptor, while the P-51D/K was undoubtedly the best escort. They were aircraft designed for different duties which they both did very well.

Both were great aircraft and I don't really think either one was better than the other.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

While I might agree that 109K would be better (point-area) interceptor, the margin against 51D would be minimal. 
The main strength of P-51D (power projection away from base) overshadowed the same category of Bf-109s by huge margin. And that difference over weights the advantage 109 might held as an interceptor.

The one of main qualities of a weapon system (availability in decent numbers early enough, compared against a nominally similar system) was firmly in hands of P-51D/K when compared vs. 109Ks (let alone K-14). Circa 10 months IIRC.


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> While I might agree that 109K would be better (point-area) interceptor, the margin against 51D would be minimal.



I really don't see the margin as minimal considering that the 109K would be able to climb to intercept much quicker and once there also be more capable of outmaneuvering the opposition. Not saying that the P-51 would be useless in the role, I can think of plenty other a/c less suitable in the role, but it just wasn't as good as the Bf109 in that role. 

The P-51D/K was however a far better escort, the Bf109 not even coming close there, infact very few a/c did.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

I would be inclined to give the edge to the 109K for interceptor role due to climb and firepower advantage - particularly against bombers.. against the better Allied fighters in 1945 the interceptor role against a fighter sweep is more problematical - leaning toward who sees whom first.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 21, 2009)

Soren, the slats on the 109 were either in or out. There was no partial or gradual deployment.

One thing I have not seen in this thread is the mention of the build quality, or should I say the LACK of build quality, of late war 109s.

When 1.98ata boost was being tested for the K-4, a comment was made about the poor quality of the 109 airframes.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Soren, the slats on the 109 were either in or out. There was no partial or gradual deployment.



Incorrect. The speed at which automatic leading edge slats deploy depend upon how quick the AoA changes.


----------



## Altea (Nov 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.



Since 109 had always a better rate of climb than 190, and some lower WL, that seems logical.


But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never... -It was either NII- VVS, or LII-NKAP jobs.- Only real conditions flights to validate T-103 and T-101 giant wind tunnels results.
Of course both 109 and P-51 complete airframes went in TsAGI windtunnels, but full test results were never published AFAIK, even if they were partially used by soviet designers (from Arlazarov, Surgenko memors...).

NII had only ex british Mustang mk I, with some wear in rather bad condition. Turning tests were made at 1000m hight. With new Packard engined P-51 B/C/D at 7000-9000m and full-laminar wings (new condition), results should have been different.

Moreover, the soviet P-51 (23-25s) was turning ALLOT better than the soviet Bf 109E-3 (26.5-29.3s).

Regards


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 22, 2009)

if i remember right there are US test that tell thar mustang with merlin has around same turning rate of 190, so saw that 109 has best turning rate of 190 the 109 gas best turning rate of mustang


----------



## Altea (Nov 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> if i remember right there are US test that tell thar mustang with merlin has around same turning rate of 190, so saw that 109 has best turning rate of 190 the 109 gas best turning rate of mustang



If US Merlin Mustang, has the same turning rate than US FW 190, and better turning rate than US 190, *may *only show that US FW-190 has better turning rate than US Bf-109.

I won't praise the lack of accuracy of some US, british, german tests....


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Hehe, trust me Altea, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Bf-109 turns a lot tighter than either the P-51 or Fw190, both in the form of testing and pilot testimonials. According both to pilots physics the Bf-109 was even a close match for the Spitfire when it came to turning. I believe the Spitfire generally might have been a bit better though, except for the Mk.XIV vs the 109 K-4.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 22, 2009)

Altea said:


> If US Merlin Mustang, has the same turning rate than US FW 190, and better turning rate than US 190, *may *only show that US FW-190 has better turning rate than US Bf-109.
> 
> I won't praise the lack of accuracy of some US, british, german tests....



i'm agree with the lack accuracy on enemy plane test.
but your conclusions are illogical if US Mustang (the mustang it's US own) has the same turning rate of US 190 (190 it's Deutsch own), and the Deutsch 109 has best turning rate of Deutsch 190 you can't conclude what your conclude, you can conclude that Deutsch 109 has best turning rate of US mustang because it's sure that Deutsch 190 its' not badest of US 190


----------



## Altea (Nov 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hehe, trust me Altea, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Bf-109 turns a lot tighter than either the P-51 or Fw190, both in the form of testing and pilot testimonials. According both to pilots physics the Bf-109 was even a close match for the Spitfire when it came to turning. I believe the Spitfire generally might have been a bit better though, except for the Mk.XIV vs the 109 K-4.



I don't understand well why should i (we) trust you that Bf-109 G turns tighter, moroever a lot tighter than the P-51D. I don't care a lot about testimonials and their contradictions (well if i do, it's far, far away in the last place and even for a very few of them...), and _all_ testing _we have_ are showing exactly the opposite.

According both to pilots and physics Bf 109 was outurned by virtually all oponents in _so called TsAGI_ test trials you have previously quoted: Spit, P-40, P-39, P-63, Hurricane, Yak-1, La-5F, 5FN...Exception are made by MiG 3, early La-5, and some heavy late 1941's, early 42's Yak-7 and LaGG-3 without slats and old M-105P engine.


----------



## Soren (Nov 23, 2009)

Altea said:


> I don't understand well why should i (we) trust you that Bf-109 G turns tighter, moroever a lot tighter than the P-51D. I don't care a lot about testimonials and their contradictions (well if i do, it's far, far away in the last place and even for a very few of them...), and _all_ testing _we have_ are showing exactly the opposite.
> 
> According both to pilots and physics Bf 109 was outurned by virtually all oponents in _so called TsAGI_ test trials you have previously quoted: Spit, P-40, P-39, P-63, Hurricane, Yak-1, La-5F, 5FN...Exception are made by MiG 3, early La-5, and some heavy late 1941's, early 42's Yak-7 and LaGG-3 without slats and old M-105P engine.



Sorry but that's quite simply false Altea. Check out the 109F2 which managed 19 sec to 360 deg in Soviet tests, and that was with a worn and damaged a/c.

But just out of pure curiousity, would you care to show me the physics which prove that the Bf-109 didn't turn tighter?


----------



## dragonandhistail (Nov 23, 2009)

The 109K-4 squeezed the last little bit of life out of an antiquated airframe. Sure it could go faster but it handled poorly, was less robust, and was less maneuverable at high speeds. No 109 flew for any amount of time at high speeds like that so that stat is useless. Pilots were key and clearly the 109 pilots in that time frame were too few and poorly trained to match the average P-51 pilot. Apologists for the Germans beware...you lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> Sorry but that's quite simply false Altea. Check out the 109F2 which managed 19 sec to 360 deg in Soviet tests, and that was with a worn and damaged a/c.


What was worn and what was damaged???????????


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What was worn and what was damaged???????????



I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2009)

Glider said:


> I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.



Agree.

If we're talking flight tests that involved sustained maneuvers that don't involve full power, the test results should be pretty evident and accurate excluding any damage to the airframe that will cause it not to perform to its aerodynamic design.


----------



## Altea (Nov 23, 2009)

> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but that's quite simply false Altea. Check out the 109F2 which managed 19 sec to 360 deg in Soviet tests, and that was with a worn and damaged a/c.
> ...


----------



## Altea (Nov 23, 2009)

Glider said:


> I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.



Yes, even if they were 3 points kiss-landed on soviet (allied) side by slovakian renegades or german pilots due to navigation errors and Kursk magnetic anomaly, captured dry of fuel on airfields or bought directly to german manufacturers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Apologists for the Germans beware...you lost.



No one here disputes that, so whats the point?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 23, 2009)

Would the Mustang tested by the Soviets be one of the 10 Allison Mustangs received from the British?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Would the Mustang tested by the Soviets be one of the 10 Allison Mustangs received from the British?



yes


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Altea said:


> > Certainly* not *19, but *19.8-20.6* that makes *20,2* s to me.
> > Moreover the plane reached 515 km/h at SL, so it wasn't that damaged, and AFAIK tested without it's guns and ammo, those being send to another NII-APIB test center in the meantime.
> >
> > In it's turn soviet Mustang was reaching only 459 nom. and 483 km/h forced (5min WEP) at S.L. And it took full 10.5 or 9 min to climb to 5 000 m. So if there were be a worned and damaged plane, it should be that one.
> ...


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2009)

Altea said:


> Yes, even if they were 3 points kiss-landed on soviet (allied) side by slovakian renegades or german pilots due to navigation errors and Kursk magnetic anomaly, captured dry of fuel on airfields or bought directly to german manufacturers.



And its worth remembering that the RAF had access to FW190 and 109G fighters that because they were lost, made perfect landings an RAF Manston thinking that they were in France. Fully operational aircraft with no damage at all.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 24, 2009)

Altea said:


> Certainly* not *19, but *19.8-20.6* that makes *20,2* s to me.
> Moreover the plane reached 515 km/h at SL, so it wasn't that damaged, and AFAIK tested without it's guns and ammo, those being send to another NII-APIB test center in the meantime.



The Bf 109F-2 captured and tested in Soviet-Russia was indeed in poor condition, whatever you claim on the contrary; the test team noted the defects in the supercharger and that the tested aircraft completely worn out, having been overhauled several times:

_Just by luck, on 22 February 1942 Ober-Lieutnant A. Niss, commander of the JG51 Squadron's 8th Detachment, got lost and was fired on from a machine gun near Tushino Airfield. His radiator and fuel tank were damaged and the German officer was forced to land within Soviet troop unit positions. 
Captured by Red Army soldiers, the fighter was quickly restored by technical personnel from the 47th Aviation Division based in Tushino, but the first flight of the captured Messerschmitt ended in a crash landing. The right undercarriage leg and wing tip were broken. The machine had to undergo one more repair (this time by a TsAGI team) and then Me 109F No. 9209 was handed over to the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute for comprehensive testing. Engineer-Captain A. S. Rozanov, one of the institute's foremost experts on German aircraft, accepted the bird. 
He encountered serious problems from the outset. The experienced engineer noticed that the aircraft had undergone major repair at least four times and was completely worn out. The unstable spring -weather and frequent Air Defense Command flight bans also retarded his efforts. On 5 April, Rozanov wrote the following to his direct supervisor A. N. Frolov: "While plotting the altitude curve, I faced a serious obstacle. Supercharger pressure slightly decreases up to the altitude limit of 2900 meters and then sharply falls off. It is possible that the supercharger coupling is worn out and it becomes "powerless" at altitude. I report to the command element regularly and, of course, they swear at me for dragging out the testing. I will have to "pump up" the altitude-airspeed performance curve using science..." _

See: Bf-109F - Luftwaffe

The same holds true to the tested Bf 109E - I believe this one was sold to the Russians before the war,arriving in crates and they assembled it themselves - the engine seems to have some problem at low altitudes and not developing power properly (blatantly obvious from the extreme shape of the climb curve between ca. 0-2000 m), likely due to a poorly set up or malfunction first supercharger speed (the curve above that appears to be normal). This - lack of power output at low altitudes would explain why the Soviets measured such absymal turn times such as ~29 secs at 1000 m, whereas the German specs for the 109E was 18.92 secs for a sustained 360 degree turn at 0 m... and much more in line with the 18-19-20 secs measured on the F/G models.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 24, 2009)

Glider said:


> I admit that I was wondering about that. Whenever a German aircraft is tested it often is labled as being worn and/or damaged and/or the flaps are damaged and/or the testing country doesn't have the ability to fix obvious errors and/or the test pilots are scared.



The subject was discussed multiple times, and more than sufficient documentary evidence was posted as evidence. It can be firmly stated that most 109s tested (there weren't so many in anyway, ALL British tests for example stem from four Bf 109s ) were in pretty poor condition, operated by pilots 

- a *Bf 109E-3* Wnr 1304 emergency landed in France in 1939 (the French already noted some oil and supercharger problems). This was the only one the pilot got fairly familiar with the plane, and it shows in RAE's report, which is far more through and objective than all the rest.

- *Pingel's F-2* that crash landed in Britain, being referred to in the British letter as of being 'doubtful of any use' for testing; the engine was a mess (obviously using the props to plow the British countryside didnt do much good to it), and possibly something else as later something else went wrong in the air and the aircraft dived into ground with no appearant reason, killing its (Polish IIRC) pilot.

- *Black Six, a G-2/trop* abandoned in Africa by the Germans due to combat damage from P-40s to the prop, and some systems like radiators malfunctioning. Taken apart, took in crates and shipped to Britain where it arrived in extremely poor conditions, and was put together again from parts cannibalized from another 109G.. surely a typical story for the frontline 109Gs in the LW ! 

- the *G-6/U2 WNr 412*-something, a nightfighter that indeed landed in Britain in error in probably good shape, but the ship had gondola guns and was tested as such. Took about 4 months for the Brits to crash it (the Brit establishment testing it never ever flown a 109 before btw), Erich Brown logged _a whole hou_r in this crate (also flying the 109 for the first and last time for his life).

I have to say, just plain facts, you can speculate and be in denial as much as you wish. All of these reports I believe are available on my website for checking... the condition of aircraft are clearly stated.

Of course this does not only relate to German aircraft in Allied hands, but vica versa at well. I am surely everyone here considers German testing results of the Spitfire IX (reached something like 620 km/h at altitude), La 5 FN (dunno about its condition, but given the specs measured, probably chewed and spit out by gozzilla) and Mustang III (supercharger faults) entirely representative of the type's performance in operational conditons.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 24, 2009)

Altea said:


> I don't understand well why should i (we) trust you that Bf-109 G turns tighter, moroever a lot tighter than the P-51D.



Well, for one, Soviet trials showed about 20 secs turn time for the 109G, and some 23-24 secs for the P-51A... 

Basically I can see nothing on the physics side that would help it in turning. Basically it lacks on both accounts when it comes to turning, ie. either having massively greater excess thrust (it doesn't engine ain't powerful enough compared to the size of the airplane), and/or lower wingloading.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2009)

Kurfurst - at least you provide some specifics when the comment is made about a worn or damage aircraft. When one says the aircraft is on "poor" condition, that opens up a lot of room for speculation. What is "poor" about it? Is the airframe bent? Does the engine have internal problems? Did the engine suffer a prop stike or sudden stoppage? Are there damaged components? Was there holes in the structure? It seems Bf 109E-3 Wnr 1304 with it's oil and supercharger problems was capable of at least giving idea of general performance as it seems the aircraft was at least capable of being able to be flown to its maneuvering speed (Va). It is obvious that a captured aircraft that suffered any type of crash or hard landing MAY have some structural problems (asymmetry out of tolerance) that will inhibit its actual performance - but let's get specific. To say an aircraft is "worn out" is hogwash unless you could put some specifics behind the lack of performance. To me as an aircraft mechanic with 32 years experience, to say an aircraft is "worn" paints a very broad picture of either multiple discrepancies wrong with the aircraft or normal wear and tear that had negligible affect on the aircraft's performance.

And as previously stated - you also have test pilots who may be extremely proficient all around pilots but may not fully master this captured aircraft they are tasked to test. Lets face it, Gunter Rall is going to fly a -109 better than Brown any day


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 24, 2009)

Hi,

For most of these aircraft I've mentioned, I've the reports on their conditions on my website. You can read the French and British report on the F-2 (also the Russian site I linked).

For example:







You can read the other reports on my site, too. I was not there the 1940s, I can't tell you if there was a strange humming noise coming out of the reduction gear  - I can only read the reports written on the events, and I am sure they are already a concentrated, selected reflection on the reality..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> You can read the other reports on my site, too. I was not there the 1940s, I can't tell you if there was a strange humming noise coming out of the reduction gear  - I can only read the reports written on the events, and I am sure they are already a concentrated, selected reflection on the reality..


And that's fair enough. At least when you read the report it gives some inkling of what was going on with the aircraft. To say that an airplane is "worn out" paints a very broad picture in determining why noted performance figures were attained.


----------



## Altea (Nov 24, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Would the Mustang tested by the Soviets be one of the 10 Allison Mustangs received from the British?



Yes, but they were only 4 from russian archives. Might be 6 if the pair used for operationnal trials at Kalinin Front were not the same, that was previously tested in TsAGI or LII or NII.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Additionally I have often wondered about the intangible of stick forces at high speed as well as the slat effects and true change to CL at high AoA for the 109.. I'm agnostic regarding actual increased delta CL for the 109 or more contribution to stall retardation as AoA/Airspeed reaches critical points? One, Both? and how does one prove it?



Bill,

Yes we have indeed had quite a few discussions regarding this before, but we have also drawn and uncovered some reliable conclusions from these, you must have forgotten that? I am also quite sure we came to agreement in our last discussion on the subject. You were also to make an analysis with the figures we obtained, but you've apparently been busy with other projects, for which you have my full understanding btw (Haven't had much time lately myself). 

The Clmax of the Bf-109F series and onwards with slats deployed and flaps gear up was 1.70, as listed in MTT documents, that is a fact that we know by now. This is also very close to NACA's own std. which states that the handley page type automatic slats provide a minium increase of 25 to 30% in critical AoA Clmax of the covered area, should there be any doubt. 

V24, a Bf-109F with no slats and a slightly shortened wing span was also measured to have a Clmax of 1.48 flaps gear up at Charlais Meudon. The shortened wing span and thereby slight decrease in wing AR probably reduced the Clmax of this wing compared to the normal F, G K wing by factor of 0.05 to 0.10 in the Cl range. Which means that the slats increased the overall Clmax of the 109F,G K's wing by approx 12.5 to 14%.

Furthermore NACA provided the Clmax for the P-51D in Report nr.829, as 1.35.

So we have the Clmax for both the Bf-109 the P-51, and additionally we also have the Cd0 for both a/c:
Bf-109: 0.0023
P-51: 0.00167

Just stating the facts.

Last but not least, both the 109 -51 suffered from heavy elevator forces at high speeds, but according to what I've rad about both a/c a simple two hands on the stick took care of the that problem.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What was worn and what was damaged???????????



I have made that clear a number of times on this forum before, but somehow people here forget very quickly. Also there is no need to get aggressive FLYBOYJ, I am merely telling it the way it is in a polite and controlled manner. 

Anyway seeing as how Kurfurst already took care of this issue and don't feel the need to elaborate on what I wrote.


----------



## Altea (Nov 25, 2009)

What are your thoughts on this?[/QUOTE]

Hello DrGong



> Altea - I have never seen a 'full set' of full scale wind tunnel tests for any of these birds and certainly not for a fully functioning B/C/D Mustang with Radiator in operation generating potential thrust - and certainly not a full range of both Parasite drag and trim drag at various Reynolds Numbers and angles of attack.



B/C/D Mustang never went to TsAGI tunnels. It's a pity. But partial data are circulating in soviet/russian litterature. So the Mustang's wing Cd is quoted either 0.0077, or 0.0075. How equivalent it-is to NACA values, i don't now? We have to use soviet Langley-Field/T-103 wind tunnels equivalence curves published in some RDK (constructor files) mid thirties to convert values . From rich NACA-TsAGI exchanges. Only i can say that Yak-1 so called Clark YH Profile (in fact a TsAGI R-II-14 with different shape) had a Cd 0.015 value at lambda =5




> If you go back and check the various threads, we have been down many a manueverability rathole and the required data to model these birds through a full range of asymmetrical, various altitude, different inital airspeed, for different flight regimes has not been available for good modelling.



Well if we have *reliable** power request and available power curves, it should make the deal.
Assymetrical, you now...turning at 300 m radius the outer wing is not so far away from the inner one to complicate our life. So for the flow curvature from the Leading Edge to the BE of the wing in turn. (Curvature rate exists, but it's small...)

* measured, not extrapolated




> Additionally I have often wondered about the intangible of stick forces at high speed as well as the slat effects and true change to CL at high AoA for the 109.. I'm agnostic regarding actual increased delta CL for the 109 or more contribution to stall retardation as AoA/Airspeed reaches critical points? One, Both? and how does one prove it?



Difficult to say. A lot of soviet fighters were tested with slats fixed closed, then free-opened. For Me-109's you should ask to Kurfurst if such experiments were made. There was a positive effect of course on the turn rate, but at the other side assymetrical and intempestive jumps around rated AoA and so in turbulent conditions. I suppose that Me-109 suffered from those drawback too, like all planes of that kind without dashpots for slats. 

From NII trials, there was no huge difference at landing with opened slats and without them (Cl~ 0.05 +) for the 109E3; but it was no at max AoA (~ 15,5°) and rather around 12°.

What else? Hope makes live. Maybe TsAGI test results would be published someday...


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

What we do know:

Bf-109 Clmax: 1.70
P-51 Clmax: 1.35
Bf-109 Cd0: 0.023
P-51 Cd0: 0.0167

What can we use this for? Short answer: To get an idea of how well the two a/c stack up against each other in the horizontal with power/thrust being equal. And we do that by using the equations below:

*Methods for calculating drag lift, all of which can be used to determine G loads, L/D ratios stalling speeds etc etc:*

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests 

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2 

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi 

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) 

Coefficient of drag at zero lift (Cd0) = Established in windtunnel tests

Note: End results are in Newtons (N), so you'll have to convert into Kilogram force (Kgf).

1 Newton = 0.1019716213 Kgf

*Methods for calculating turn radius:*

Radius = (V^2) / (g * √[n^2 - 1])

Radius(min) = (Vstall^2 / g) * (n / √[n^2 - 1])

Vstall = Aerodynamic stall speed for the aircraft in question.
g = gravitational constant (i.e. 9.82 m/sec^2)
n = steady-state maneuver load factor (i.e. maximum amount of g's you can pull)

*Methods for calculating 360 degree turning time and the turn rate*

360 deg turn time = 2 * pi * r / V

360 deg turn time = 2 * pi * radius / velocity

The turn rate in degrees per second is then found by dividing 360 by the time:

Rate of Turn = 360 / time

__________________________________________

Plugging in the 109 51's figures and it becomes quite clear that the Bf-109 holds a very clear edge when it comes to horizontal maneuvers, while the P-51 definitely holds the edge in straight out speed (Depending on which 109 we compare it to ofcourse, in this case I picked the G-10).


----------



## Altea (Nov 25, 2009)

Hello,



Kurfürst said:


> The Bf 109F-2 captured and tested in Soviet-Russia was indeed in poor condition, whatever you claim on the contrary;
> 
> _Just by luck, ....
> . The experienced engineer noticed that the aircraft had undergone major repair at least four times *and was completely worn out. ....*. _



This sounds doubtfull since this sentence is not written* nor* in the guenine russian text, *neither * in quoted sources. Maybe a translater deviation from accuracy, i don't know...
*But*, for sure it wasn't a new plane, don't need to precise that!




> The same holds true to the tested Bf 109E - I believe this one was sold to the Russians before the war,arriving in crates and they assembled it themselves - the engine seems to have some problem


You mean all five of them, baught by russians ?




> This - lack of power output at low altitudes would explain why the Soviets measured such absymal turn times such as ~29 secs at 1000 m, whereas the German specs for the 109E was 18.92 secs for a sustained 360 degree turn at 0 m... and much more in line with the 18-19-20 secs measured on the F/G models.


There might be another explanation for this, the E-3 was just tested a "nominal" power, just as for soviet planes, not at "forced" one.

BTW, congratulation for your site. Can you give us more datas about 109E/F/G turns, please? I mean radius, bank angle, speed...

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> I have made that clear a number of times on this forum before, but somehow people here forget very quickly. Also there is no need to get aggressive FLYBOYJ, I am merely telling it the way it is in a polite and controlled manner.


I was not getting aggressive, please develop some thick skin, the only thing you have stated was vague information as you did on your original post


Soren said:


> Anyway seeing as how Kurfurst already took care of this issue and don't feel the need to elaborate on what I wrote.



Kurfurst did provide information on the captured aircraft and it shows specifics for each aircraft. With that said there was enough information attained to come up with some performance conclusions based on the tests and the operating condition of each aircraft. For example - full power was not needed to place some of the aircraft in maneuvering speed so performance data could be achieved at Va airspeeds. Slow flight and stall speeds were achieved, so you see, unless you could come up with specifics on why one of the captured birds revealed the performance data at hand, you're painting the whole thing with a very broad brush. And as I repeated earlier, I'm sure Gunter Rall few the 109 a lot better than Brown.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

The engine wasn't performing well FLYBOYJ, and that will affect the turn rate nomatter the entrance speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> The engine wasn't performing well FLYBOYJ, and that will affect the turn rate nomatter the entrance speed.



No it won't - you could achieve Va speeds by a dive and come up with the same amount of energy/ airspeed needed to perform the specified maneuver, and for the most part you won't need full power to attain data at Va. If you're testing an aircraft that is not developing full power then you will not be able to gain sustained performance data and data relating to performance (top speed, Vx, etc). Again it depends on the example being tested and at least one of them had a fully functional engine.

The point here is I've seen many "worn out" aircraft still perform exactly to what the flight manual states.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ,

Yes you can get enough speed to perform the maneuver, but that's the not the point, the point is the time in which you complete the maneuver. A 360 degree turn will take longer the more power you take away from the aircraft. Why ? Cause you'll be taking away thrust otherwise used to keep up the energy turn rate in the turn.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2009)

I think I am missing something here so I would ask that somebody please point it out to me.

As I understand it ( and I am not an engineer or pilot) any wing increases it's lift coefficient as it's angle of attack increases.

As the angle of attack increases the drag coeffecient of the wing changes.

Slats/slots change the airflow over the wing and prevent stalling at high angles of attack. 

Slats/slots do little or nothing to improve coeffecient of lift until an angle of attack just below stall is reached. 

Increasing the angle of attack further means the unslatted/slotted wing stalls and the coeffecient of lift drops.

On the slatted wing the angle of attack can be increased a number of degrees more, thereby increasing lift, before stall occurs. 

But hasn't the drag been going up as well? The wing at these higher angles of attack ( over 13-15^) having an even higher coeffecient of drag than it did at 10-12^ angle of attack?

If this has been gone over before or if I missed it, my appoligies, but could someone point it out to me.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

Shortround,

Lift drag are directly related. So the higher the lift, the higher the drag.

The Cl determines how much lift the wing produces, which in turn determines how much drag is produced as-well.

Mathematically it is explained like so:
(Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) = Cdi [induced drag]

The Cdi makes up for around 95% of the total drag, so it's pretty significant.

What an a/c in essence is trying to do when executing a tight turn is reducing the forward speed of the original path you started out traveling towards, whilst at the same time speeding you in another direction. In other words the wings are acting kinda like giant airbrakes, and so the larger a surface area you can present towards the direction your going (i.e. the higher the AoA you can pull), the faster you're going to loose progression speed in that direction whilst adding speed to a new one. And what the slats allow you to do is just that: to present a larger surface area in the direction your a/c is going without it stalling out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> Yes you can get enough speed to perform the maneuver, but that's the not the point, the point is the time in which you complete the maneuver. A 360 degree turn will take longer the more power you take away from the aircraft. Why ? Cause you'll be taking away thrust otherwise used to keep up the energy turn rate in the turn.


Only if you're doing full power maneuvers - remember, Va will be at a lower power setting and airspeed and will determine your maximum maneuverability. As long as you're maintaining the required Va airspeeds you can and will determine the maximum performance parameter for the aircraft and again you're not going to operate the aircraft in Va at max power, and goes for any aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> Shortround,
> 
> Lift drag are directly related. So the higher the lift, the higher the drag.
> 
> ...




Soren - I'll try to sum up responses in this one post.

First - you are right about 1.70 being posted by you as a Max CL for fully deployed slats for the 109

What I was getting to is that in the crafting of a sophisticated model of a 109 in a turn you need a.) a Polar Drag set of data specific to the 109, b.) you need the airspeed/AoA data for deployment of slats - and c.) as Altea says a *reliable* set of Hp curves for the altitudes you wish to model.

CD0 is an interesting drag datum but it is solely related to the Wing in question.

Parasite Drag is a function of everything other than Induced Drag (Form drag, Friction Drag, etc) and, as you can see from the attached Drag Polar, it varies non linearly with velocity. The values are extrapolated from various charts in Preliminary design but only 'finalized' in flight tests and wind tunnel tests.

Induced Drag is as you note above and pretty accurately calculated with the equation you posted.

Back to CD0 - it is good for one angle of attack and represents the minimum drag of the airfoil, but equally it is Always at a very low angle of attack for the airfoil in question and not very useful in high AoA profiles that would be needed in turning manuevers.

As to stick forces - I only know what I believe to be true from other pilots that flew the 109 but the 51, while not as 'friendly' at high speed as a boosted P-38L, is easily a one hand capable stick. The rudder was tougher at high speeds but the reason the reverse boost rudder modification was made to the Mustang was to stiffen it up at high speeds to discourage yanking the tail off while turning in a high speed diving chase - the elevator stiffened up but not to point where two hands were required.

Admittedly I never came close to maxing out any manuever in the Mustang but I was both in the 400 mph range and 5+ G turn range so I have a sense of the control forces and can say they aren't near as bad as you seem to imply.

Anyway I found a good representation of a typical Drag Polar to help explain my point


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2009)

FLYBOYJ,

For the best 360 degree turn time you need all the power you can get, taking any of it away and you're going to take longer performing that 360 deg turn, that's a fact. Sure you can easily reach the highest possible split second turn rate even without engine power at all, all you need to do is just reach the Va as you mentioned, BUT, it will only be for a fraction of a second before you burn away all your energy, and its going to go A LOT faster with any reduction in thrust.

So in short, if you loose engine power you're also going to hurt your 360 deg turn time.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Soren - I'll try to sum up responses in this one post.
> 
> First - you are right about 1.70 being posted by you as a Max CL for fully deployed slats for the 109
> 
> ...



Bill,

The Clmax of 1.70 is the official gear flaps up figure of the Bf-109F, G K series from Messerschmitt, it's listed in several MTT documents, the Cd0 being listed alongside as-well. (I've posted these docs on here many times before) Furthermore the P-51's Clmax Cd0 are listed by NACA as-well. So these figures we do have and can also be 100% confident in.

As for the control forces of both a/c, I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to make the P-51 sound bad, I was just pointing out that elevator forces are mentioned to be similar in that a/c compared to the 109 at high speeds. In short the same is said about the 109, modern pilots mentioning that 5+ G maneuvers are quite easily achieved with one hand on the stick at moderately high speeds. Exceeding 700 km/h and the 109's elevators becom very stiff however, but two hands on the stick will solve that according the pilots. Above 750 km/h and it becomes very hard even with two hands and trimming is needed.


----------



## Altea (Nov 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I think I am missing something here so I would ask that somebody please point it out to me.
> 
> As I understand it ( and I am not an engineer or pilot) any wing increases it's lift coefficient as it's angle of attack increases.
> 
> ...




Obviously you have understood everything







link: http://i92.servimg.com/u/f92/13/42/66/40/fs_bmp10.jpg

But all i wanted to say previously it's there is too much different slats, profiles, sizes, shapes, relative positions and so different results to extrapolate from a plane to another with minimal accuracy.


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> 
> As for the control forces of both a/c, I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to make the P-51 sound bad, I was just pointing out that elevator forces are mentioned to be similar in that a/c compared to the 109 at high speeds. In short the same is said about the 109, modern pilots mentioning that 5+ G maneuvers are quite easily achieved with one hand on the stick at moderately high speeds. Exceeding 700 km/h and the 109's elevators becom very stiff however, but two hands on the stick will solve that according the pilots. Above 750 km/h and it becomes very hard even with two hands and trimming is needed.



My understanding was that 700 km/h was the practical limit in the 109 from Kurfursts site:-

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above? 
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories

"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up? 
Nnnooo, they don't lock up. 
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over. 
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories

How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds? 
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help. 
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out

Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then. 
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer

Its also worth remembering that the 109G was red lined at 700 km/h unless you were below 3 KM and considerably slower than that at altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2009)

Thank you Altea.

What would be interesting would be chart showing the increase in drag as the angle of attack changes. 

Also what would be interesting is the angle of attack the 109 needed to get the 1.7 CL


----------



## Milosh (Nov 26, 2009)

> How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
> "It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
> Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out



What is this flettner he mentions?

There was a Flettner tab on the rudder of late production 109s but this was not cockpit adjustable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> For the best 360 degree turn time you need all the power you can get, taking any of it away and you're going to take longer performing that 360 deg turn, that's a fact. *Sure you can easily reach the highest possible split second turn rate even without engine power at all, all you need to do is just reach the Va as you mentioned, BUT, it will only be for a fraction of a second before you burn away all your energy, and its going to go A LOT faster with any reduction in thrust.*
> So in short, if you loose engine power you're also going to hurt your 360 deg turn time.



Soren, you have not factored in bank angle and reduction of thrust will not diminish that quickly, especially in an aircraft with a basically aerodynamically clean airframe, like a WW2 fighter.

"When airspeed is held constant a larger angle of bank will result in a smaller turn radius and a greater rate of turn."

"When angle of bank is held constant, a slower airspeed will result in a smaller turn radius and a great rate of turn."

The point here Soren is there's a lot that could of been gained from a captured -109 that was not developing full power and all one had to do is ensure the aircraft had enough power to perform in Va(as anything outside of that could technically damage the aircraft) and you could probably capture 80% of the performance data needed to give a good analysis of the aircraft, and I believe that was accomplished in some cases.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you Altea.
> 
> What would be interesting would be chart showing the increase in drag as the angle of attack changes.
> 
> Also what would be interesting is the angle of attack the 109 needed to get the 1.7 CL



SR - all (er, many) of the airfoil lift and drag profiles for WWII era wings can be found in Theory of Wing Sections by Abbott and Von Doenoff - 1949. My copy was $4.00 in 1965.

Most of the airfoil section charts include CL vs AoA as well as Moment Coefficients and many have comparisons for smooth to rough airfoil effects. There are many airfoils plotted out as function of chord as well showing the pressure distribution as a function of Chord.

The 1.7 CL IIRC was around 16 degrees for the 109 slat deployment at CLmax - but Soren and Kurfurst (and probably Altea) would know for sure.

The 51 wing under optimal conditions would 'break' around 14-15 degrees.

Predicting how drag would change as function of AoA - in the context of manueveing AoA - needs wind tunnel data to develop the Drag Polar throughout the velocity range... and even then it is less precise for high bank angle drag as 99% of all wind tunnel drag is set with airframe symmetrical to the stream tube (i.e 'heading directly into the wind')

When an a/c turns in curvilinear flight the Parasite drag must include control deflections (aileron, rudder and elevator) trim drag as well as attempt some fudge factor for the increase in span wise flow properties over the wing.

When many of the computer gamers engage in these performance discussions they a.) calculate the Induced drag (easily) because the may pick a velocity, look up the wing dimensions, pick a gross weight, assume a wing geomerty efficiency factor, use the appropriate density for the altitude of interest ----> Out pops INDUCED DRAG for high speed level flight.

b.) At the top speed of that a/c for a specific altitude, they pick the Hp denoted for that run and convert to Thrust with the key assumption being the propeller efficiency. There is a component of Propeller Disk Drag embedded in Parasite/Form Drag but often discounted as too difficult to find data for it in Wind Tunnel tests.

c.) Using the Thrust calculated in b.) and the Induced Drag calculated in a.) then the Force Equation of Thrust = Induced Drag + Parasite/Form Drag can be solved for that velocity to obtain Total Parasite Drag (all Drag components other than Induced Drag due to lift).

NOTE: This result is 'true' for level flight at the velocity and Hp and altitude at MAX speed - in which there is no excess thrust to accelerate the airframe any faster.

All this (Induced and Parasite/Form Drag for Total Drag is valid at the extreme 'right' of the Drag Polar chart I presented - at max velocity. For all velocities less than max the Total Drag of the system is less and less until that point where Induced Drag and Parasite Drag 'cross over' near the middle of the Velocity range.

At the instant of time that the airplane rolls into a turn, all the initial Drag information goes out the window.

As the bank angle increases, the CL increases as a function of Bank angle, the CD of the wing changes with the 'new AoA' required for the higher CL and All the Parasite Drag components change (friction Drag reduces, form drag could increase due to major flow separation, form drag due to aileron and elevator and rudeer control gaps decrease, parasite drag of radio mast, etc devrease as velocity decreases) and Trim Drag increases due to the control deflections required to sustain Bank and turn and angle of attack.

At some point in time the limits of Bank Angle, Lift required for the Weight of the A/C, and the Velocity will reach equilibrium in the turn.

ALL the initial values calculated from Max Speed have degraded. At this moment in time the aircraft is operating at the velocity and AoA just short of stall, the power available is equal to power supplied.

At this point an assumption may be made that Induced Drag for this velocity in calculable by assuming that spanwise flow contributions for banked flight are negligible (not necessarity true). Thrust may also be calculated if Hp available in this flight config is reliable (probably true).

But remember - Parasite Drag/Form Drag is NOT what was used at the beginning of this exercise as the velocities are significantly less in the max turn than they were at top velocity, same altitude, and ALL of the Parasite/Form Drag components(friction,radio mast, radiator cowling, separation form drag at high AoA, etc) are 'tweaked', particularly the Form and Trim Drag at high AoA.

Looking at the Drag Polar Chart the Total Drag of the system has been lowered (moved to 'left on the curve') as a result of lower velocity but without the Drag Polar OR the engineering estimates for Form Drag/Parasite drag components you have no way to accurately re-calculate these components of drag in this new 'high trim' (elevator, aileron and rudder deflection) state.

The CD0 of the wing at minimum drag or the airframe at top speed are not useful for any condition of high AoA banked flight.

For the same reasons the CLmax at stall is less useful for banked flight as all these data are collected for level flight conditions with a singe set of control positions that are not likely to be the same as a high speed highly banked turn.

I hope some of this makes sense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2009)

Thank you for your explaination and the book recommendation, I see they are available on Amazon in the 12.00 range used.

I have seen a few charts (in addition to the the Altea provided) that show CL's of 1.6-1.8 not being reached until AoA exceeded 20 degrees but since the exact airfoil/wing was not specified I would not claim that the 109 couldn't reach that CL at a lower AoA, less than 20 degrees. 

Every thing you have said makes sense to me and again I thank you for the time and trouble you went to to post it.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for your explaination and the book recommendation, I see they are available on Amazon in the 12.00 range used.
> 
> I have seen a few charts (in addition to the the Altea provided) that show CL's of 1.6-1.8 not being reached until AoA exceeded 20 degrees but since the exact airfoil/wing was not specified I would not claim that the 109 couldn't reach that CL at a lower AoA, less than 20 degrees.
> 
> Every thing you have said makes sense to me and again I thank you for the time and trouble you went to to post it.



SR - Remember that all of the airfoil data given are for 2-D (infinite span/AR) airfoils. 

Aspect Ratio, Plan form (elliptical/rectangular) tip geometry/artio to root chord, etc need to be applied - and that all wings of even same exact plan form design have slightly different characteristics based on aileron, twist, mfr tolerances/roughness, flap, boundary layer control fences, slats, etc.

All of these factors can be considered but airflow is NOT really laminar and does funny things at High AoA and sideways motions - particularly imbedded in propeller thrust turbulence.

While Aero design is a science - it is the physics of assumptions in the preliminary design phase and gets 'fined tuned' based on empirical results and data for the next design.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2009)

Thank you again.

I do remember seeing a study over on the NASA site about a comparison of 8 (at least) aircraft/wing shapes with airflow patterns and stall air flow both with propelleers and without. Single engine and multi engine but I can't seem to find it now. 

"While Aero design is a science - it is the physics of assumptions in the preliminary design phase and gets 'fined tuned' based on empirical results and data for the next design."

Very true, if airplanes could be designed on therory and wind tunnel tests alone there wouldn't be any need for test flights or modifications after test flights


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

Bill,

IIRC the Clmax of the 109 was reached at around 17 to 18 degrees AoA.


----------



## Altea (Nov 27, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you Altea.
> 
> What would be interesting would be chart showing the increase in drag as the angle of attack changes.
> 
> Also what would be interesting is the angle of attack the 109 needed to get the 1.7 CL



Well, i'm not the Bf-109 specialist.

Some sources (AFDU...) quoted it's wing profile at NACA 2312. But RC builders plotting the 109E profile saying 2412, since 70'ies. Maybe german 2R1 profile is 100% similar to the NACA one?
And what about the pressure field distribution towards the 109 wing to estimate slats rule?

Anyway freeflow values may be very different from propeller blowed ones, with Karman fairing, + whole fuselage fin, elevators influence...

It' why it would be very kind of Kurfurst to send other sustainted values for the sustainted 18.92s turn...
Radius, speed, bank angle for a plane in good condition.

Unfortunatly, Kurfurst's link :
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_Kurvenwendigkeit/Me109turntimes.pdf
doesn't work...

Is someone here can help us with that document ?

Regards


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

The 109 used the NACA 2R1 airfoil, a modified Clark Y airfoil with increased lift and reduced drag characteristics. It is listed in MTT documents.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 27, 2009)

Altea said:


> Is someone here can help us with that document ?
> 
> Regards



Here it is!


----------



## Altea (Nov 27, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Here it is!



Thank you very much Kurfurst, sorry for disturbing you...

I will try to study it in german , it can takes a while...

Well to resume 18,92s for 203m radius at 2 540 kg weight, no ?


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 28, 2009)

Altea said:


> Thank you very much Kurfurst, sorry for disturbing you...
> 
> I will try to study it in german , it can takes a while...
> 
> Well to resume 18,92s for 203m radius at 2 540 kg weight, no ?



Yes it is, as well using 990 PS output, 0 m altitude (ie. 5 minute emergency, though the DB 601A-1 had a special 1-min takeoff rating with 1100 PS). 

There is another figure below the 18.92 sec figure, but that is assuming a -50 m/sec diving turn with altitude loss.


----------



## Altea (Nov 28, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Yes it is, as well using 990 PS output, 0 m altitude (ie. 5 minute emergency, though the DB 601A-1 had a special 1-min takeoff rating with 1100 PS).
> 
> There is another figure below the 18.92 sec figure, but that is assuming a -50 m/sec diving turn with altitude loss.



 -50 m/s loss from 0 m altitude turn? 

But seriously now, thanks for that valuable information....even if i wasn't enough advanced in my translation to be on that point yet. 

And what about* ca *and *cw* values, were they constructor estimated or tunnel measured ones, please? And so for the propeller output?

Regards


----------



## Gaston (Oct 25, 2010)

Altea said:


> Since 109 had always a better rate of climb than 190, and some lower WL, that seems logical.
> 
> 
> But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never... -It was either NII- VVS, or LII-NKAP jobs.- Only real conditions flights to validate T-103 and T-101 giant wind tunnels results.
> ...



Can anyone contact Altea or tell me what he means by "But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never..." ?

Does that mean none of the 360 degree turn times of different aircraft types were made the same day?

These TsAGI tests contradict the British comparative tests in respect to sustained turns. Are there original documents of these tests and, more importantly, where can I see them?

If there are original documents, what does Altea mean by " full test results were never published AFAIK" ? 

I would just like to know as much as possible about these TsAGI tests, and especially the 360 degree turn times portion of these tests and their relevance to make comparisons.

Thanks.

Gaston


----------



## Gaston (Oct 25, 2010)

Altea said:


> Since 109 had always a better rate of climb than 190, and some lower WL, that seems logical.
> 
> 
> But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never... -It was either NII- VVS, or LII-NKAP jobs.- Only real conditions flights to validate T-103 and T-101 giant wind tunnels results.
> ...




Hello, sorry for reviving such an old thread...

-Can anyone contact Altea or tell me what he means by "But AFAIK, TsAGI made virtually no comparative trials between planes. Never..." ?

Does that mean none of the 360 degree turn times of different aircraft types were made the same day?

These TsAGI tests contradict the British comparative tests in respect to sustained turns. Are there original documents of these tests and, more importantly, where can I see them?

If there are original documents, what does Altea mean by " full test results were never published AFAIK" ? 

I would just like to know as much as possible about these TsAGI tests, and especially the 360 degree turn times portion of these tests and their relevance to make comparisons.

Thanks.

Gaston


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 26, 2010)

best you can do is send him a PM. in his profile he doesnt furnish an email address.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

1945 average US pilot vs 1945 average LW pilot my pick would be the P-51.
1945 experienced US pilot vs 1945 experienced LW pilot ...Me109


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 21, 2011)

I thought the K-14 model was armed with only 30mm cannons. It would be a bomber destroyer if so, not an anti-fighter fighter. performance maybe, but trading in the mk108s for 151/20s seems to me to be the only way they can truly have at each other


----------

