# Gold-Clash



## Soren (May 12, 2005)

*Bf-109G-10 vs P-51D*






*Bf-109G-10 Statistics: *

Engine: DB-605G.
Power: 1800 HP.
Max. Speed: 698 km/h (434mph).
Empty Weight: 2300 kg.
Loaded Weight: 2776 kg.
Max. Weight: 3275 kg.
Wing-area: 16.4 sq.m.
Armament: 2x 13mm (MG 131) 1x 30mm (MK 108).

*Aerodynamic statistics:* 

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 169.2 kg/sq.m.
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.0.
Airfoil: NACA 2R1 14.2 - 2R1 11.35.

*Additional features:* 

Automatic-Slats Flettner-Tabs.





*P-51D Statistics: *

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1650+ HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Empty Weight: 3175 kg.
Loaded Weight: 4263 kg.
Max. Weight: 5487 kg.
Wing Area: 21.83 sq.m.
Armament: 6x M2 Browning .50 cal. 

*Aerodynamic statistics:* 

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 195.2 kg/sq.m.
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.8.
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 (14.8% or 15%) - NAA/NACA 45-100 ( 12%).

*Additional features:* 

Tear-shaped cockpit Laminar wing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If both pilots are equal, then wich one would you bet your money on in a dogfight between the two ?

Or wich one do you think is better at what ?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

Turning dogfight and I'll take the 109, any other situation and I'll take the Mustang


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2005)

OK to start this off I would have to plump for the P51 in a fighter to fighter combat. Its handling characteristics were better which would mean that the average pilot would get the best out of the plane. 
Its a cleaner aircraft which would accelerate faster and the armament whilst light is sufficient to deal with a fighter. The 109 was past the peak of its development and visibility isn't nearly as good. At high speed the controls were I believe very heavy but this eased with height.
Let battle commence

Note - If it was a question which would you prefer to attack a B17 or B24 in, then it would be the 109.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2005)

Glider said:


> OK to start this off I would have to plump for the P51 in a fighter to fighter combat. Its handling characteristics were better which would mean that the average pilot would get the best out of the plane.
> Its a cleaner aircraft which would accelerate faster and the armament whilst light is sufficient to deal with a fighter. The 109 was past the peak of its development and visibility isn't nearly as good. At high speed the controls were I believe very heavy but this eased with height.
> Let battle commence
> 
> Note - If it was a question which would you prefer to attack a B17 or B24 in, then it would be the 109.



The Bf-109G-10 didnt have heavy controls at high speeds, only at VERY high speeds of over 750 km/h, at wich speed the P-51 had equally heavy controls. 

The 109 G-10 would outturn the P-51 with ease, and the rolling caracteristics of the two is about the same. Also the 109 will accelerate and climb MUCH faster than the P-51, making the 109 a better Dogfighter.

However the 109 had triggy handling, and the Slats would make young unexperienced pilots nervous when deploying, making them back off their maneuver. However the 109 had very gentle stall caracteristics and a better turn performance because of the slats, and the pilots who knew the plane would draw benefit from this. The P-51 had some very nasty spin caracteristics btw !

In the dive however the P-51 is undoubtedly the better of the two, and its allround visibility is better aswell.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 12, 2005)

I think the P-51 had a better armament too. It would be difficult to connect with that single, slow firing, low velocity 30mm gun in a dogfight. It's really a gun meant for short range against large, slow targets that don't manuever too much. The G-10 only had two other useful guns.

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I think the P-51 had a better armament too. It would be difficult to connect with that single, slow firing, low velocity 30mm gun in a dogfight. It's really a gun meant for short range against large, slow targets that don't manuever too much. The G-10 only had two other useful guns.



I will agree that the P-51 had better Fighter vs Fighter armament, but I will not agree that it was difficult to hit with the 30mm Mk108. It would take nomore than ½ sec for the Mk108's rounds to reach 300m, at wich time an enemy fighter wouldnt be able to evade at all, also I will add that it was actually a very accurate cannon.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 12, 2005)

One 30mm gun firing only 600 rounds per minute with very slow velocity against a twisting, turning foe? And the machine guns have a radically different trajectory making the two guns unsuited for use together in this match.

Assuming a muzzle velocity of 540mps (1,770 fps) it would take longer than 1/2 second to reach 300m. The velocity begins to drop off sharply immediately after the projectile ceases to be acted upon by the expanding gasses as it leaves the barrel.

Just as a reference point, we have all seen gun camera footage of .50BMG rounds streaking towards a target. Those rounds leave the barrel at 2,850fps. and have excellent velocity retention compared with any other round. Deflection shooting is difficult enough with the .50BMG.

I disagree with you. The G-10 is a wonderful aircraft but it is outfitted for a very different role than the P-51 whose armament, six .50's firing at a combined 4,500rpm, is perfectly suited to tearing up little, lightly constructed Me-109's.


----------



## Jank (May 12, 2005)

I'll grant you that. I've seen plenty of film and even with 6 fifty calber machine guns it can be hard to get hits if your enemy has seen you befor you get nto position.


----------



## delcyros (May 13, 2005)

Factoring engine power and weight, the Bf-109 G-10 clearly beats the Mustang in acceleration (with ease), climb rate and powerload (+it has a lower wingload), indicating some important advantages in one-on one engagements. The Mustang on the other side has an advantage in initial energy thanks to it´s higher cruise speed. So it depends on the situation, I think. A usual climbing Bf-109 intercepted by a Mustang at cruise mode lacks much energy to deal with it (this would have been a probable situation in 1944). However, I think the Mustang can do better than this with higher grade fuel plus it has the advantage of a better armement for such dogfights (but be aware, Mustang pilot, make sure you don´t get hit by one of those 30 mm!). It should be also mentioned that the Bf-109 G-10 fielded in late 1944 was commonly not in this clean fighter configuration but fitted with different field conversion kits, which would decrease it´s performance considerably.
The laminar flow profile wing of the Mustang is a two shaped knive, at high speeds, it reduces drag and therefore allows a higher top speed as well as generally less fuel consumption, but at low speeds it will prone to stall the plane at comparably high speeds and low angle´s of attack. The Wing of the Bf-109 G-10 will stall at much lower speed/angle of attack, thanks to it´s profile as well as the automatic leading edge slats. This is a great advantage at low speeds or prolonged turnings. I would rate the energy keeping qualities of both planes about equal (Mustang has better aerodynamic quality and Bf-109 G-10 a better powerload), but I might be wrong with this.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Close to call. I thnk the Mustang would just edge it.


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> One 30mm gun firing only 600 rounds per minute with very slow velocity against a twisting, turning foe? And the machine guns have a radically different trajectory making the two guns unsuited for use together in this match.
> 
> Assuming a muzzle velocity of 540mps (1,770 fps) it would take longer than 1/2 second to reach 300m. The velocity begins to drop off sharply immediately after the projectile ceases to be acted upon by the expanding gasses as it leaves the barrel.
> 
> ...



Again I say; "I agree that the 6x .50's was a better fighter vs fighter armament !" However your making too much out of the Mk108's low V0, and in reality it wasnt that big a problem at all, and the LW pilots found this armament very effective against fighters aswell. (E. Hartmann actually preferred this armament against fighters to any other) 



> However, I think the Mustang can do better than this with higher grade fuel



And so would the 109, and by a huge margin infact !

The Mustang used much better grade fuel than the 109G-10, the DB-605G used 87 octane fuel and yet it produced 1800 HP ! Try putting some 100 octane(150 Grade) fuel in the DB-605 and see what happens  



> The Wing of the Bf-109 G-10 will stall at much lower speed/angle of attack, thanks to it´s profile as well as the automatic leading edge slats. This is a great advantage at low speeds or prolonged turnings



Not that your wrong about anything here, I just would like to add;

The slats would pop out at high speed turns aswell, the AoA just had to be sufficient, thus tightening the turn even further. 

British test-pilots would almost shit their pants whenever turning the 109 at high or low speed because of the slats suddenly popping out with a loud BANG, making the Brit pilot think (Hell no !!) thus backing off the turn/maneuver intirely. Like a British test quotes: "_The 109 was embarrased by its slats popping out near the stall_" This explains the poor British test-results with the 109 in turning circles, as the test-pilot simply didnt want to push the plane anymore as soon as the slats popped out, wich in reality was only a booster to turn-performance and aileron-effectiveness at sufficient AoA at all speeds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> [The Mustang used much better grade fuel than the 109G-10, the DB-605G used 87 octane fuel and yet it produced 1800 HP ! Try putting some 100 octane(150 Grade) fuel in the DB-605 and see what happens



I think you might have gotten about 200 HP more out of the engine provided it didn't start detonating since it was designed for octanes between 87 and 96. 

Here are two good sites, if you haven't seen them already.

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm#basicaspects


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

> I think you might have gotten about 200 HP more out of the engine provided it didn't start detonating since it was designed for octanes between 87 and 96.



You can be very sure it wouldnt detonate !  

Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell.



> Here are two good sites, if you haven't seen them already.
> 
> http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html
> 
> http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm#basicaspects



Already read the last one, but yes they are both good sites.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I would think eventually you would be burning holes in the pistons.


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> > Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but I would think eventually you would be burning holes in the pistons.



No no no !  They were perfectly capable of handling 100 octane 150 grade fuel. However I understand your thought, as its a rather steep increase in octane and fuel-grade.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > > Yes it was designed "To get the most out of 87-96 octane fuel", but it could easely and safely run on 100 octane/150 grade fuel aswell
> ...



Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!



Definitely !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Well with that aside, and the data from thise sites, I think we know which engine wins on power!
> ...


----------



## wmaxt (May 13, 2005)

Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate. Higher grade fuel will not hurt an engine and Might produce more power but not always especialy if nothing else changes. Often it will alow the same power with better fuel efficency. Generaly it will allow more boost and that will produce more power.

I have a Super Charged T-bird and better fuel helped both. The same can be expected from a Super Charged aircraft engine.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate.



Not always, I would agree if we were talking about a high comperssion engine, 10/12 to 1 compression ratios or large piston engines (radials). The Merlin and Damlier Benz were talking about aircraft engines were talking about carried about a 7 to 1 compression ratio, if that. Putting a super high octane fuel in in these engines there under certain conditions would be like lighting a cherry bomb on every power stroke. I think about 100 octane is as high you would want to risk without doing damage after a period of time, although I know that up to 130 octane (purple) was run in P-51s. 

Also, you can't compare an automotive turobcharged engine in this matter. Automotive engines are designed to be run at varible RPM and operate at a constant atmosperic ambient temperature. Aircraft engines are designed to carry a relitively constant high RPM at higher operating temps.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 13, 2005)

Here is a link to a PDF file for DB605 performance, http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

German C3 fuel was roughly equivelant to Allied 100/150 fuel.

Also note that MW50 was required to achieve the higher power output.

The MK108 was not the predominate weapon in the 109 til after mid 1944.

By Olivier Lefebvre who is a well known 109 expert

_G-6/U4
Produced 1943 : 181
01/1944 : 119
02/1944 : 51
03/1944 : 303
04/1944 : 404
05/1944 : 118
06/1944 : 144
07/1944 : 240
08/1944 : 49
09/1944 : 55
10/1944 : 14

G-14/U4
08/1944 : 59
09/1944 : 32
10/1944 : 228
11/1944 : 118
12/1944 : ????, 56
01/1945 : 11, 47
02/1945 : 2

G-10/U4
12/1944 : ???, 62
01/1945 : 129, 79
02/1945 : 132
03/1945 : 95

(Red numbers are coming from someone who went to the Freibrg archives and sent me the details of 109 productions from the C-Amts reports. Black number for 01/45 is coming from japo book)
We can see some discrepencies in here...._

And another post from Oliver's site by Pirx,

_These figures are surprisingly low... if I add them up, the result is:
Sum G-6 = 1678, which would be 14% out of the ca.12.000 overall
Sum G-14 = 448, which would be 8% out of the ca.5.500 overall
Sum G-10 = 129, which would be 8% out of the ca.2.600 overall
As the December figures miss, let's double the percentages of G-14. For the G-10, I use the precentage given in the plans in Prien&Rodeike, which leads to 55%

-->
Sum G-6/U4 = 1678, which would be 14% out of the ca.12.000 produced
Sum G-14/U4= 900, which would be 17% out of the ca.5.500 produced
Sum G-10/U4= 3288, which would be 55% out of the ca. 5.955 planned

Roughly <20%, for G-6 G-14 in the 2nd half of 1944 and 55% of the G-10..._

Not included is the K-4 for which maybe 8-900 were built in 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Good Show KK!


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 13, 2005)

Some links on German Avgas

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...rts/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_toc.htm
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate.
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 13, 2005)

Nice sites Krazi.

From the site: _*The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline*, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer._

The C-3 fuel was roughly equal to U.S. 100 octane/130 grade fuel.


----------



## Udet (May 14, 2005)

I do not hesitate to appoint the Bf 109 G10 as the winner.

Right, there were fighters of the version fitted with field conversion kits but there were many reaching service right like the one shown in the photo.

I happen to know men who flew this particular model with success against the enemy during the tough months of 1945.

The 30mm cannon in the nose, whatever the muzzle velocity, was not -at all- a "disadvantage" when in combat against the six .50 cal Mustang guns.

Right, the Mustangs armament was good enough to destroy a Bf109...but what makes you think the Bf109 G-10 armament was "less efficient" at getting Mustangs burnt beyond recognition?

Just like in the G-6 version, there were G-10/R6 fighters, fitted with one 2cm cannon under each wing in a gondola. 

I have guncamera footage of Bf109s fitted with the underwing gondola cannons getting chased by USAAF fighters. Before having such material in my possession, i was acquainted with the typical song saying the underwing gondolas "implied a dramatic decline in the performance of the fighter making it *an easy prey* for enemy fighters".

After seeing my material i would not be so sure on the veracity of that typical song the allies enjoy singing so much.

In most of those guncamera shots, the gondola fitted Bf109s are being tailed by the foe. I was surprised to discover that from the rear, the gondolas under the wings look real small and slender and not that protruding.

I am not dispute a cleaner wing is better. And that 2 kilograms are heavier than 1.5 kilograms (the extra weight). My point is i do believe the allies have exaggerated on the consequences of having the fighters fitted with underwing gondolas. 

Also i was surprised to see the Bf109 pilots attempted evasive action and you could see everything but a fighter "uncapable of manouvering": the 109s turned and climbed like hell. In fact, in some of the shots the USAAF pilots flatly missed the gondola Messerschmitts who managed to find their "out".

It appears to me the rail fitted Typhoons of the RAF (to have it armed with non-guided rockets) suffered more than the gondola fitted Gustav.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 14, 2005)

LOL Udet, I know one fanatical Luft luver/British hater who crys the blues because people use the British tested gondola G6 as an example of a typical G-6. He claims this a/c is not typical of 'clean' winged G-6's performance since the gondolas cause a drastic reduction in a/c performance.

You Luftluvers should get your stories straightened out.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2005)

There can be no doubt that gondolas as well as drop tenks reduce the performance considerably. However, the quality of ´this change is matter of debate. The Mustang tested with drop tanks suffered bad handling as well as reduced performances (excepting the dive). But what counts more are the negative effects in the ability of the plane to keep it´s energy. No matter if a Luftwaffe plane or a USAAF or anything else.
I think we should also consider the probable conditions of engagement. Quantity has it´s own quality. By that the Luftwaffe had a nominal number advantage up to early january 45 but was unable (better unwilling, since Gallend tried but was not allowed in the last moment to do so) to concentrate it´s efforts on a certain region with enough planes to deal with escorts and bombers, resulting in a real quantity advantage of the Mustangs. The P-51 enjoied also a better gunsight and some early G-suits late in the war as well as a generally more careful pilots training.
The Luftwaffe has the advantage to fight over their own terretory and to choose where they wanted to fight and where not.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

Udet the Gondola's lowered maneuverability considderably ! This is also quoted by many LW pilots, aswell as Finnish pilots.

Heinrich Beauvais especially noted the rapid decrease in turning performance, looping and climbing when fitted with gondola's.

Also what makes you think the Gondola's weighed only 2kg ? They weighed considderably more than that ! (And thats not accounting for the extra ammunition required)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 14, 2005)

"_Just like in the G-6 version, there were G-10/R6 fighters, fitted with one 2cm cannon under each wing in a gondola. _"

This "Gold-Clash" involves a G-10 outfitted with one Mk. 108 and two Mk. 131's. Hence the issue with the armamant specific to that gun configuration.

"_*ut what makes you think the Bf109 G-10 armament was "less efficient" at getting Mustangs burnt beyond recognition? *_*"

I have already outlined my reasons previously in this post. Long range and deflection shots against a small twisting and turning foe with a single, slow firing, slow velocity gun would be very difficult. Complicating this issue is the fact that he 13mm 131's have radically different trajectories making their combined use with the Mk. 108 unfeasible under those circumstances. 

According to Soren though, this was not a problem as evidenced by this configuration being the preferred set up for fighter to fighter engagements. I frankly find that hard to believe, but assuming it is true, my assumptions underlying my thesis are flawed.*


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> According to Soren though, this was not a problem as evidenced by this configuration being the preferred set up for fighter to fighter engagements. I frankly find that hard to believe, but assuming it is true, my assumptions underlying my thesis are flawed.



DAVIDICUS the Germans would almost always try to get close to their foe in a dogfight before firing, that was their strategy. And under these circumstances the MG131's and the MK108 worked just fine in conjunction with each other. At longer ranges the usual thing to do for the Germans was to fire either the two MG131's or the MK108 as to cripple the enemy before getting close (The MG131 was used more than the other in these situations though)

Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks !  )


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks !  )



Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.

One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.



4 30mm "Minen" hits and the B-17 would either go down or be in such a crippled state that it wouldnt stand much chance of making it home.



KraziKanuK said:


> One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.



True.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2005)

I think that most people are agreeing on the effectiveness. All countries encouraged their pilots to get close before firing because hitting a moving twisting plane was so difficult. If pilots did that then it wouldn't really matter what guns you had, the target was likely to be history. Most pilots didn't get that close, most of the gun camera film that I have seen proves that.
Then you have to rely on the ability of the pilot to hit a target and that is when the differences in the guns start to count. A slower firing weapon with a poorer trajectory will not be as effective. I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved. 

I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

Glider said:


> I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved.



Wich is why the Mk108 was an 'Auto-cannon'  Despite what many people think, the Mk108 was an accurate cannon, and at 0-300m it was perfectly capable of hitting an evading foe. It might take 20-35 rounds to get a hit, but it only toulk 'one' hit and the enemy fighter was history. By comparison it would take an awful lot of 0.50 hits to bring down a fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Glider said:


> I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
> At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.



You bring up food for thought there Glider. The US was developing "bomber destroyers" (the XP-58 for example) with huge cannons that would of sunk a destroyer, but against a bomber?!?!. Had Germany developed long range bombers capable of reaching North America, have we ever given thought to the fact that they would be unescorted? Germany could barely keep a fighter over England for 30 minutes, you think they would of done much better over the US? And forget the jets, I'm talking ME 264 or JU 390.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2005)

Escorted or even unescorted the B17 and B24 took a lot of knocking down and that was with 20mm and 30mm guns. Using 0.5's would be a very risky business.
Also don't think just of attacks on the USA mainland. Anyway, the oceans around the USA are of a size that was only likely to happen from carriers at least initially. Heavy bomber raids on the islands that the USA used to attack Japan would have needed to have been stopped and I don't see a 0.5 as being the tool for the job. Heavy bombers escorted by even Zero's would have been a difficult combination. Zero's may lack speed and diving ability, but if you have to stay with the bombers then agility and endurance become more important and that they had in spades.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2005)

Soren
I am not questioning the accuracy of the 108, I agree that it was a very accurate weapon. Its the ability of an average pilot to aim it accurately using basic sights against a small(ish) target that is manoevering. We may need to agree to disagree but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 which were better at a longer range ballistically anyway, than with a 30mm 108 which most people agree was essentially a shorter ranged weapon.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

Glider said:


> but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 .



Sure he would have an easier time making a hit with the 6x0.50's, but it also toulk alot more of those hits to do any real damage. A single hit from the Mk108 would spell disaster for any Allied fighter, and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2005)

Soren
As I said I think its agree to disagree, both are good arguements. 

Would anyone else like to comment on the merits of the two positions?


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

Ok Glider, we'll agree to disagree. 

In any case the Germans found the Mk108 more than suitable for Fighter vs Fighter engagements, and therefore continued its use.


----------



## Udet (May 14, 2005)

Krazikanuk:

You are krazy.

Luftlover? I do not think so. I will present you the opposite side of the comment you posted there: I hate bullshit, wherever it may come from.

I will elaborate a bit further and try to see if you can get the idea behind my posting:

The "Luftlover" you are referring to is DJ_Dalton. Whether you like it or not the guy made several real strong points; i can say non of those having a contrary view in here came close to shatter his comments.

Yes, he referred to the funny British testing of a G-6 (gondola equipped) fighter being compared to the Spitifre. What you forgot to mention is he DID SAY the test showed the contemporary Spitfire could not achieve a significant superiority over the gondola equipped G-6.

I am not dispute the gondolas implied drag and extra-weight. Sure, a Bf109 pilot who had flown a "standard" Gustav would feel the effect of the gondolas when being put in the cockpit of the G-6/R6.

The point is the G-10 made an improvement over the G-6. If the G-6/R6 (gondolas) could hold its own against the contemporary Spitfire, the G-10/R6 could be even more capable of doing so with the Spitfire or whatever enemy fighter in turn.

A "standard" or "clean" G-10 (no gondolas) could surpass the P-51 with ease.

Get the point now?

The guncamera I have showing gondola fitted Bf109s getting chased showed me beyond any reasonable doubt the Gustav fitted in this fashion was not at all an "easy prey".

Some got pounded and went down. There are others the USAAF pilots simply could not caught. 

It would be like suggesting German pilots flying gondola equipped Bf109s were told before scrambling "guys, we have good news: your fighters are capable of chewing a heavy bomber, hunt the bombers. The bad news: if you get caught by enemy fighters in your gondola Gustav you will die."

It was not the Luftwaffe style of doing business.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 14, 2005)

Soren said, "_... and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round._"

Maybe if you were to sneak up on an unsuspecting P-51 but in a twisting turning dogfight, as here where both pilots are aware of their foe, involving longer range and deflection shooting, I am still having problems digesting your argument even though as you said, pilots prefereed their single Mk. 108 (which at longer ranges clearly could not be used in conjunction with the two machine guns). 

The fact that the Germans continued the use of the Mk. 108 would also be consistent with its effectiveness against heavy bombers against which its effectiveness can not be denied. When your country is being pounded into the stone age by heavies, the fighters are merely an obstacle to the real threat you must engage.

Where have you learned of this German pilot preference and what exactly was said? I'm not challenging you but instead just unable in my mind to reconcile your position with the Mk. 108 performance specifications and what I have seen on gun camera film regarding the character of dogfights against an aware and evasive foe.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 14, 2005)

No Udet, it is not Dalton, though I do think he is a 'buddy' of the other.  

As for the G-6/R6 K-4 holding its own against a contemporary Spit:















Spit LF IX vs 109G
_Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an *inferior performance to the Spitfire in ALL respects* with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet._

The nick 'gun boat' used by LW pilots for the gondola 109s was not a nick of endearment.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2005)

Udet Krazi is right, the Gondola equipped 109 lost both considderable maneuverability and performance over the cleanly equipped configuration 109. (Especially the maneuverability suffered !)

The extra weight of the Gondola's and its ammunition wich was situated in wing, wich wasnt a good thing, as a heavy loaded wing (Not talking wingloading), will not be as effective as a lightly loaded one. Also the extra drag and aerodynamic disturbance the gondola's add to the wing, isnt a good thing either. 

Btw each Gondola weighed atleast 50kg, without ammunition ! Just the gun itself weighs 42.5kg, then add the aerodynamic-coating and the extra attachment-parts joints.


----------



## Udet (May 15, 2005)

Krazi:

Thanks for posting those graphics.

The point is that when the discussed topic is aircraft, graphics are not as enlightening as guncamera footage is.

I wish i had my Luftwaffe guncamera shots available in the mpg format for immediate upload; those shots could certainly help you train your posture.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

Gun-cam footage doesn't show anything besides one aircraft being shot down by another. This could be due to pilot error or luck. It's not always the capability of the plane that brings it on the tail of it's opponent. 

You can see aircraft from both sides being blown to pieces. All it shows is the devestation that can be caused to an aircraft.


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2005)

Agreed, plan_d. Gun camera footage shows _one_ engagement. I have seen gun cam footage of allied planes getting chewed up and axis planes getting chewed up. It doesn't really prove much.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Gun-cam footage doesn't show anything besides one aircraft being shot down by another. This could be due to pilot error or luck. It's not always the capability of the plane that brings it on the tail of it's opponent.
> 
> You can see aircraft from both sides being blown to pieces. All it shows is the devestation that can be caused to an aircraft.



On the mark "D" - Unless gun camera footage could provide data like airspeed, altitude, aircraft attitude, "G" loading, etc. it is nothing more than a conformation of a kill or damage. That's why today's HUDs are so cool! 8)


----------



## delcyros (May 16, 2005)

Umm, what are the sources of these graphs?
As far as I see, they don´t fit to the generally accepted values (esspecially the K-4 graph is wrong). One reason could be that they are not recalculated to ISA standart atmospheres. This has to be checked first. The graph shows an error at 25.000 ft for the K-4 graph. 
The K-4 made during tests at december at Rechlin 725 Km/h (450 mp/h), recalculated to standart atmossphere. I am convinced that this is not included here (typical for Oberammergau, a Me-262 speed tests resulted in 525 mp/h during winter, also not recalculated to standart atmossphere, later tests ar Rechlin with more involved planes confirmed the top speed of 535-540 mp/h).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Umm, what are the sources of these graphs?
> As far as I see, they don´t fit to the generally accepted values (esspecially the K-4 graph is wrong). One reason could be that they are not recalculated to ISA standart atmospheres. This has to be checked first. The graph shows an error at 25.000 ft for the K-4 graph.
> The K-4 made during tests at december at Rechlin 725 Km/h (450 mp/h), recalculated to standart atmossphere. I am convinced that this is not included here (typical for Oberammergau, a Me-262 speed tests resulted in 525 mp/h during winter, also not recalculated to standart atmossphere, later tests ar Rechlin with more involved planes confirmed the top speed of 535-540 mp/h).



Was the true airspeeds calculated at 59F sea level, 29.92 atmospheric pressure (1013 mb and 15C for my European friends)?


----------



## Schöpfel (May 16, 2005)

Its my understanding that the 450 mph figure for a Bf 109 K4 is based on estimates using a non-standard thin-bladed propeller. Somewhere around 444 mph would be about right using the standard production 9.12159 propeller. All 109K charts that I've seen are based on calculations from Messerschmitt's Oberammergau facility. That's where the one above is from. Any one have datas for flight tests of Bf 109K-4s?


----------



## Udet (May 16, 2005)

Well, I´ll be damned.

If you happen to watch a reasonable long film from the guncamera, i´d bet anything guncamera footage can provide with relevant data on the performance of the planes involved.

If you watch a mere 10 second long film commencing at the very right moment when the enemy plane is getting hit, i give you the point it told nothing beyond showing the end of a plane.

A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action.

If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.

It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft.

Moving back on topic...i have these kind of films of gondola equipped Bf109s -either G-6s or G-10s, i could not tell it that accurate- being pursued or tailed. Some got pounded and went down, but -whatever the graphics and specifications might tell- several others found their way out.

I see everything but a "clumsy" plane. If you want to know clumsy -and impaired manouvering- go watch an IL-2 getting creamed.

Conclusion: if a gondola fitted G-10 could manage to evade the pursuers, i can confidently affirm a "standard" or "clean" G-10 could perform even better.

The BG109 G-10 is so beautiful.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)

"T_he point is that when the discussed topic is aircraft, graphics are not as enlightening as guncamera footage is_." Give it up Udet. You might as well be arguing your prowess with the TOTALLY HOT, EDUCATED and WELL MANNERED ladies.


----------



## Sal Monella (May 16, 2005)

There isn't an emoticon for laughing so hard that you cry so this will have to do.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

Udet said:


> A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action.
> 
> If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.
> 
> It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft.



It still doesn't give you speed, altitude, G loading, aircraft attitude, etc. or any relevant data on how the aircraft is actually maneuvering. I've filmed air-to-air maneuvering (and was filmed) and unless you have outside data to show what's really going on "looks are very deceiving."


----------



## Udet (May 16, 2005)

It appears to me there is distortion in the communication process here. 

A guncamera film of a tailed or pursued Bf 109 evading interception shows a tailed or pursued Bf 109 evading interception.


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2005)

Yes, it shows a Bf-109 being tailed, but does it really show the flight characteristics of the airplane? Not really, it shows the flying skills of the _pilot_. Hmm, long turning fight, one of 2 possibilities, good piloting skills of the plane being pursued, or bad gunnery skills of the pilot in the camera airplane. Which you choose depends on you.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

Now now fellas... I do see some validity in Udet thoughts... While the footage may not show the specifics, it does show that in given circumstances, a P-47 can out turn a Fw-190A and a P-38 cannot turn inside a Bf-109.......

Or visa versa.....

Some clips i have viewed show a P-51 make such a weak hearted attempt at evasion, u woulda thought the pilot was sleeping during aerial evasion techniques..... The guys Mustang was obliterated........ 

U know that he has the capabilities to make a tight ass turn and try to disengage, but he basically waggles his wings and slow turns to the left, and gets smoked........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Now now fellas... I do see some validity in Udet thoughts... While the footage may not show the specifics, it does show that in given circumstances, a P-47 can out turn a Fw-190A and a P-38 cannot turn inside a Bf-109.......
> 
> Or visa versa.....
> 
> ...



True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick


----------



## evangilder (May 17, 2005)

But that's just it. Yes, it _may_ show some performance, but only at the hands of the guy behind the stick. If he's good, you might get a glimpse of some good manuevering that the plane is capable of. But I have seen clips from both sides and neither side's clips have proven anything to me other than I need to have respect for the guys who flew those planes. That is regardless of who they flew for.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Now one thing I think gun camera clips show well is armament effectivness


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 17, 2005)

Why watch movies in an attempt to discern whether one high performance fighter or another has superior performance abilities. There's little value in studying such film footage. (Unless you're Udet and watching said films for hours on end keeps you from going through your mom's Crisco jar in two days flat.)

How do you know if either pursuer or prey are suffering from battle damage or machanical defects?

How do you control for relative pilot skill?

Does the attacker have one or more jammed guns?

We've all seen hours of these films and the wide variability in apparent performance of both attacker and attackee, even in reverse rolls with the same plane, renders any conclusions unreliable.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

From Udet....
"True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick."

From David....


> Why watch movies in an attempt to discern whether one high performance fighter or another has superior performance abilities. There's little value in studying such film footage. (Unless you're Udet and watching said films for hours on end keeps you from going through your mom's Crisco jar in two days flat.)


I think u need to stop with the personal attacks... I did not see anywhere that Udet was insulting u in such a manner.... Ur argument is pointless against him, or did u not read his post........

And I agree Udet. It is a good way to view a fighters ability to withstand an onslaught of lead, or the lack thereof.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

That is about the only thing tha footage will show you. You can discern anything about the aircraft because you do not have eneogh info. You do not know the experience of the pilot, you do knot know how the pilot is feeling (it may not be his day, he may be sick, he may not have had any sleep, he may have gotten Dear John letter). I really do not understand people that want to present gun cam footage as evidence to how good an aircraft was. "I have seen many footage of P-51's being chewed up by Me-109G's" Or "I have seen many footage of a Me-109 getting chewed up by a P-51D"! It does not prove anything.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 17, 2005)

Lesofprimus, you quoted Udet as saying, "True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick." 

That was FLYBOY's post and not Udet's. Your point is, well, pointless, or did u not read his last post below ....

*If you happen to watch a reasonable long film from the guncamera, i´d bet anything guncamera footage can provide with relevant data on the performance of the planes involved.

If you watch a mere 10 second long film commencing at the very right moment when the enemy plane is getting hit, i give you the point it told nothing beyond showing the end of a plane.

A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action

If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.

It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft*..


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

I made a mistake dammit. Gggrrrr....... Early in the morning and didnt have my coffee yet.....

U are correct and Udet is.... Well... Udet I suppose... Everyone has their own opinion, and if he feels he can gleen the info needed from Gun Camera Footage, so be it....

And my post, irrelevant as it was, was not pointless.... U should not have the need to attack him like that....

If ur trying to mimick me, then u did a pretty damn good job....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I dont see how gun camara footage can show how an aircraft really is.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

It really doesnt, but thats MY opinion, as it is urs and Davids.....

Udet has his as well.......


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2005)

sorry gents but gun cam footage is useless in determining which is best the P-51D or Bf 109G-10. If given sufficient height and equal quality of the two opposing pilots then it will be a draw. By the way some G-10's were fitted with the MG 151/20 through the nose mount plus being unarmored for some pilots to give a slight speed edge although the G-10 was the fastest variant of the G series flown.

think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....

ok 2 centos'


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2005)

And 100% correct I might add.... 

BUT...... Some people look for certain things in making their judgements on certain things, and Udet is a some people I suppose......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

Erich said:


> think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....
> 
> ok 2 centos'



See my post several back! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

The problem is I think he downloads lets say 10 clips of a P-51 getting shot down and calls that reason for comparison. Well there are 10 clips of the 109 getting shot down too. (numbers are just figurative here for both of them  ) Footage does not prove anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

You got to admit, everyone loves watching gun camera footage. Personally I like Korean War clips. There something about seeing a Mig getting blasted that, well, I don't know, gets me excited!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I do love looking at WW2 clips. I just dont base anything off of them, except that "That damn that guy is having a bad day!"


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

Erich said:


> sorry gents but gun cam footage is useless in determining which is best the P-51D or Bf 109G-10. If given sufficient height and equal quality of the two opposing pilots then it will be a draw. By the way some G-10's were fitted with the MG 151/20 through the nose mount plus being unarmored for some pilots to give a slight speed edge although the G-10 was the fastest variant of the G series flown.
> 
> think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....
> 
> ok 2 centos'



If both pilots know their plane to the highest degree, it might very well be a draw !

The only thing I would add as advice to the P-51 pilot would be: "Don't get low with the G-10 !" and "Maintain height !"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Experience played a big part in it.


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2005)

do not believe that the G-10 had that good low altitude performance as one might think. The a/c was originally designed to take on the 30,000 feet plus of the Mustang while the Fw 190A and even Doras were to fly at medium height while the upper G-10 eschelons to take on advanceing/pouncung Allied escort fighters. the G-10 was the ultimate single engine nf of the war tackling Mossies until the Me 262 single seater became available but never in enough number at tnight to make a difference except a pin prick and keep RAF Mossie and RAF bomber crews on their toes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

How Night fighter units were fitted with the G-10?


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

Erich said:


> do not believe that the G-10 had that good low altitude performance as one might think. The a/c was originally designed to take on the 30,000 feet plus of the Mustang while the Fw 190A and even Doras were to fly at medium height while the upper G-10 eschelons to take on advanceing/pouncung Allied escort fighters. the G-10 was the ultimate single engine nf of the war tackling Mossies until the Me 262 single seater became available but never in enough number at tnight to make a difference except a pin prick and keep RAF Mossie and RAF bomber crews on their toes



At sea level, in level flight, the G10 could do 575 km/h and the P-51D 578km/h. If they both started combat maneuvering the P-51 was very quickly in deep trouble at that altitude, and if the P-51 starts climbing or turning at that altitude it is litterally dead meat ! 

At sea level the G-10 will climb at over 4,600 ft/min


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

Yes the 109 could climb with anything in the sky but here is the thing they were not fighting in a climb. If the 109 climbed away it had a good chance to get away but at the same time they would not dogfight at highspeeds. You just do not have the turning radius at high speeds.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes the 109 could climb with anything in the sky but here is the thing they were not fighting in a climb. If the 109 climbed away it had a good chance to get away but at the same time they would not dogfight at highspeeds. You just do not have the turning radius at high speeds.



Neither plane has good turning radius at high speed. Below 400mph you better not try and turn with the Bf-109G-10 if your in a Mustang ! Above 400mph both aircraft get stiff elevators, while the P-51's aileron effectiveness remains pretty good so does the G-10's.


----------



## Udet (May 17, 2005)

The problem some people here have is they are already attached to the nucleus of an idea. 

Such situation implies most of these guys have minimun tolerance values for processing divergent points of view.


Erich:
Being you, one of the very few persons whose knowledge and attitude I happen to respect very greatly is that i clarify: i did not suggest guncamera footage will tell in all due accuracy which plane is superior.


Whatever these guys might call it, the outcome of all this implies either a going getting rough or a blow to the allied chit-chat (propaganda) displayed to mock and to minimize the late war effort of the Luftwaffe pilots.

(i) Let´s give them the point a Bf 109 G-6 with underwing gondolas was "no match" against enemy fighters.

Then they should attempt responding some questions:

1. If it were not match against Mustangs, Jugs, etc., why was it G-6/R6´s could find their out -several times in an environment of overwhelming numerical inferiority-?

2. Perhaps German pilots were not -at all- "ill-trained" by mid/late 1944 so they could manage to leave the pursuers behind flying a fighter with a "dramatically diminished manouverability".

3. Perhaps neither the Mustang or the pilots flying it were as about perfect as accordingly depicted in the allied causerie?


I find it funny to discover some guys here do not get my point here and rather resort to attempt diverting the discussion to the pond where they feel comfortable playing.


----------



## evangilder (May 17, 2005)

Part of the problem here, Udet is that you hae a tendency to word things that either puts them on the defensive, or just puts them off. We all know that allied propaganda is flawed, but you seem to come forward with the attitude that we have all been drinking the Kool-Aid. 

I have never stated nor thought that the German pilots and planes were inferior, with the exception in numbers. Yet you seem to lump all of us that are in countries that were on the allied side of believing everything that has been crammed down our throats. You have raised some interesting points, but if you toned down the rhetoric a bit, you might find that your message is better rreceived and more prone to discussion.


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2005)

several things to point out now.

The gondloa G-6 was to be used for bomber destruction as it's primary purpose, and secondary to fighter vs fighter, and in fact it was worked on to drop the gondolas if at all possible. As I just said the idea was being worked on. the gondloa birds were prime bomber killers especially in the night role by I. and III./JG 300.

The G-10 was developed off the very fast and efficient G-6/AS with a streamlined cowling, larger intake and air and oil cooler. the G-6 was being terminated with the G-14 and AS version being built and soon after the G-10 a bit faster and cleaner lines was introduced for the high altitude protection role or just plain Allied escort intercepting. Because of sufficient numbers of the a/c were produced for the Luftwaffe the 109 was also in useage in the 109 equipped units on the Ost front although JG's 51, 52 and 54 already had the tried and true G-14/AS whcih could keep up with any soviet model at any altitude, but because of the reduction of the Reich and the pulling back of Ost front units, US P-51's with drop tanks could not invade into Luftwaffe/Ost front held air space, Czech areas and into Austria and Hungary, so the faster G-10 model was a very much needed tool in the last months of the war.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Luftwaffe was avery competent force even into January of 1945 and true the well known ace pilots with much experinece were being thinned out and many were given the chance to fly in JG 7 and JV 44 thus ending their carreers for most on not even flying the jet but moving ever so inward the Reich the last months of the war.

the G-10 seemed to be an answer to the P-51 if given enough numbers but it was always the case of being simply overwhelmed in the air. The P-51 units loaded to the plenty in their squadrons on 9 out of 10 occassions always held a height advnatage besides having the larger number of a/c to put in action on any given operation with the Luftwaffe. the G-10 was also given the oppourtunity to show itslef in the ground attack role a role it was not well suited with the underwing mounted 2cm gondolas. these were used by several units such as JG 300 to fight off Soviet bridgeheads and by night flying units such as NJG 11 with the same pricniple - blast out any MT found or eliminate ground and road build ups at important road junctions.

To answer Adlers question. After the G-14/AS was running low in the night fighter units the G-10 was supplemented and given to I./NJGr 10 for mossie cahsing and then removed from that to follow up on RAF 4 enigne bombers. The Three gruppen in NJG 11 used the a/c with it's G-14/AS and later in I. gruppe a few K-4's. One or two special night Kommando's also flew all black G-10's to chase RAF 4 engine jobs as well.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Part of the problem here, Udet is that you hae a tendency to word things that either puts them on the defensive, or just puts them off. We all know that allied propaganda is flawed, but you seem to come forward with the attitude that we have all been drinking the Kool-Aid.
> 
> I have never stated nor thought that the German pilots and planes were inferior, with the exception in numbers. Yet you seem to lump all of us that are in countries that were on the allied side of believing everything that has been crammed down our throats. You have raised some interesting points, but if you toned down the rhetoric a bit, you might find that your message is better rreceived and more prone to discussion.



I agree Evan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

As do I even. Udet you automatically assume that we all feed this crap. I only know of a few people that posted here that ever posted such nonsense. However I am sorry Udet but the 109 was not the best plane since bread and butter! (this coming from a guy whos favorite plane is the 109) 
Secondly if you do not want people to think this of you then you should not use gun camara footage with remarks of "I have seen many footage of P-51's getting blown out of the sky" as sources for your arguments. There is footage that shows the other way around also.

And comments like this: 



> Being you, one of the very few persons whose knowledge and attitude I happen to respect very greatly



Dont help your cause either.



Erich said:


> To answer Adlers question. After the G-14/AS was running low in the night fighter units the G-10 was supplemented and given to I./NJGr 10 for mossie cahsing and then removed from that to follow up on RAF 4 enigne bombers. The Three gruppen in NJG 11 used the a/c with it's G-14/AS and later in I. gruppe a few K-4's. One or two special night Kommando's also flew all black G-10's to chase RAF 4 engine jobs as well.



Thanks for the info Erich.


----------



## Udet (May 19, 2005)

Der Adler:

What on earth makes you think i was referring to you when commenting on the allied propaganda over fed ghoulies?

Perhaps i should have added a "you know who you are" to my idea.


Do not misunderstand the core of my comment: i see the Bf109, throughout its entire chain of evolution, as one of the greatest fighters of WWII. Or did i ever anything like "combat with enemy fighters in the Bf 109 was piece of cake"?

So there is footage showing German planes getting creamed by allied fighters? Pointless remark.

I´d ask, have you ever seen footage of Mustangs getting digested by German interceptors? If so, how many shots have you seen?

You respond to me as if guncamera footage from German fighters showing USAAF fighters getting destroyed in combat would be available at the newspaper corner store. You would be surprised on how rare such view is for most WWII aircraft buffs.

The common thing is to watch guncamera films showing GERMANS getting pounded and shot down.

Quite actually, the most common stuff you can watch from German guncamera are a few -dozens- boring and over repetitive films of German interceptors pounding B-17s and B-24s.

Since you are kind of familiar with my tone in the forum, you´d not believe it but when i was in my early teens (i´m 21) i was convinced the USAAF had won the war in the air "all by itself". 

That in fact, the German planes by 1944 had been absolute "crap" when compared to Jugs, Mustangs, Lightnings, Spitfires, etc., and that late war German pilots could "hardly take off". 

That in fact, the Luftwaffe had received a brutal treatment from its enemies, and that the USAAF and RAF had been "so superior" their losses had been *minimum* during the process of defeating the Luftwaffe. 

I recall the narrations of my grandfather and the books.

SUPREME BULLSHIT!  

It was during my mid/late teens (2-4 years ago) that my interest grew and that i had the chance of meeting veterans and acquiring stuff when staying in Russia.

It was then when i learned i had been an allied propaganda overfed ghoulie myself.

We know it: the Luftwaffe, during 1944, in fact took very very high losses. The news, however, were i discovered the Luftwaffe caused horrific losses to the USAAF.

Dozens of thousands of USAAF pilots and airmen took off to never be seen again.

That German fighters and pilots were everything but the "helpless ducks" portrayed by the victor´s hogwash. That even though their training got shortened they remained skilled and competitive warriors.

Also i learned the Luftwaffe was not defeated on any "decisive" day; it was rather a long process of losses one sole nation fighting three large enemy air forces could not afford.

What else did i learn? Ah! the fuel crisis which grounded so many fighter units in the last months of the war; an issue perhaps more critical than losses. So many times the allied guys would not meet the Luftwaffe guys in the air not because "they had already been shot down" but due to the simple reason there was no fuel to take off.

The same process implied learning the Bf 109 remained one of the best fighters; great enough to meet veterans who flying those in the final weeks of the war delivered lead and gained kills against the allied "marvels".


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> Der Adler:
> So there is footage showing German planes getting creamed by allied fighters? Pointless remark.



This is proving that you are not reading the posts properly. He mentioned that because your remarks about Allied aircraft getting chewed up are also pointless. 

It works both ways, there are German, Allied and Soviet gun-cam of the other sides getting destroyed. 

*That was his, and just about everyone elses point*


----------



## evangilder (May 19, 2005)

You act like you are the only one who discovered that the propaganda is not the real truth. Geez, do you think that some of us, as historians are looking at the facts and not the propaganda? You do not have the monopoly on the facts. So stop treating us like we are all programmed zombies and you may find that people will respond better.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 19, 2005)

Plan_D, your last post should be filed under:


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

No, David, I had to point it out to him because he obviously doesn't get it.


----------



## Udet (May 20, 2005)

Plan_D and Evangilder:

I appreciate the counseling very greatly, thanks.

Back on topic please. Plan and Evan, how many guncamera films of P-51s getting creamed by German fighters have you seen?


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

Several, I work at a WWII aviation museum. We have more tapes and videos of that stuff than you could imagine. What does it show me? That war is a nasty business. It also can show off the skills of the pilots involved. Does it show the full capability of the aircraft? Not really, there is no telemetry data to show the speed, altitude, g load, etc. It does show some manuevering that is possible, I will give you that. 

But realize that most of us here know that the Mustang was not the end all fighter that nothing else could touch. The Germans were very capable of putting up a hell of a fight, and did. Some allied planners thought the war would be over by Christmas of 1944. Obviously, they didn't realize how much fight was left.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2005)

I agree. Guncam's don't show what an airplane is capable of, but it does sometimes show how hard a 'target' the enemy can be.

------------------------------------------

Anyway back to the topic:

The Mustang was infact not as 'excellent' a fighter as its often put out to be, and the 109 could easely handle it if pilot skill was equal. The F4U-4 on the other hand, is one of the best fighters of WW2, along with the Spit XIV and Fw-190D-9.

In this 'Clash', as a pure fighter I would definitely go for the 109 G-10 , but as an escort-fighter I would go for the P-51.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2005)

I agree as well... What i get out of gun cam footage is the destructiveness and accuracy of different weapons and ammo, and their affect on certain aircraft.....



> The Mustang was infact not as 'excellent' a fighter as its often put out to be, and the 109 could easely handle it if pilot skill was equal.


I agree 100%..... The -51D won the battles because of sheer #'s of aircraft...... As has been pointed out many times here, how can 4 alert -109's possibly combat 30 -51D's??? Prayer and a good chute......

But it also goes both ways.... An excellent -51D pilot could easily handle an equally skilled pilot in a -109.... Combat conditions vary, and so do pilots instincts and reactions...


> In this 'Clash', as a pure fighter I would definitely go for the 109 G-10 , but as an escort-fighter I would go for the P-51.


Intereseting choice... I would go with the -190D-9 as a pure fighter, and the -51D as an escort....... 

Thats why the greatest pilots that lived through the war should be especially regarded by people such as ourselves......



> The F4U-4 on the other hand, is one of the best fighters of WW2, along with the Spit XIV and Fw-190D-9.


I agree once again, but some would add that the Spit IX was the better of the Spits......


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2005)

just again watched some dramatic gun cam footage of SturmFw's decimating the rear of a B-24 pulk. What shows ? the destructiveness of 2cm and 3cm Minegeschoss rounds and how the B-24 could take the punishment...........not very well I might add.

and what would be shown in the propaganda useage of these films. where to fire your rounds, closely spaed to cause the most damage in the less amount of time.

yes I know I am repeating this but want to make it clear

time for a Bier


----------



## Gemhorse (May 21, 2005)

A truly fascinating discussion.....

As a humble student of WWII Aviation History, I've always regarded the War as a closely fought thing, very even in men and material, and I've consumate respect for those that fought in it....All these aircraft that were used extensively, were superb for their time and it's a pleasure and a privilege to be able to discuss and learn on this site, from those who have researched in depth......

Between these two great aircraft there isn't anything I can add, other than the Bf-109's chief weakness was apparently it's undercarriage, which doesn't really count here, but the courage and skill of some of it's pilots' are of legend, they were tenacious to the end. I have read also of Mustangs being shot down, as they weren't infallible, we perhaps forget sometimes that this War was fought largely by young men in the prime of their life, and to quickly learn their skills and to fly fight, and survive those years, was indeed a feat in itself......

I just think we're all lucky to live in an age where we can discuss it in retrospect, and that the awesome craftsmanship of selfless Restorators around the world has given us museums of these aircraft to view, and airshows to watch them fly as they were......

I keep reminding myself, Life's too short to get bitchy about the Past......


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

It´s a fine topic. 
Still on my view, if you factor the probable combat situations properly, the P-51 has a big advantage: cruise speed, altitude (remember the Bf-109 would climb), G-suite, better gunsight and numerical advantage. If we compare one -109 and -51 in an empty airspace at equally skills and altitudes I would like to be in a -109G10 but that´s not very probable in 1944 or isn´t it? I do personnaly think the 109G10 is the better dogfighter of both, but there are other factors in an aerial dogfight and pilot skill is probably the most important of them.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

> there are other factors in an aerial dogfight and pilot skill is probably the most important of them.


Yup........


----------



## evangilder (May 21, 2005)

Pilot skill has alot to do with it. The Finns did some serious damage with Brewster Buffaloes and there were some Filipino pilots that shot down Zeroes with P-26s!! I would think that the P-26 kills over the Zero also involved some luck though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2005)

SOME luck?  Thats an underestimation


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2005)

> I agree 100%..... The -51D won the battles because of sheer #'s of aircraft...... As has been pointed out many times here, how can 4 alert -109's possibly combat 30 -51D's??? Prayer and a good chute......



That the 109's lacked fuel didnt help the matter either. Considdering what the LW had to cope with, they did better than the Allies if you ask me. And the 109 remained more than competitive to the very end.



> But it also goes both ways.... An excellent -51D pilot could easily handle an equally skilled pilot in a -109.... Combat conditions vary, and so do pilots instincts and reactions...



I agree, it depends very much on the pilot ! Strictly talking the two planes, the 109 G-10 was a better dogfighter than the P-51 though. But if the P-51 pilot knew his plane it would be a very tough fight for them both.

Its very much about knowing your plane's strengths and weaknesses.



> Intereseting choice... I would go with the -190D-9 as a pure fighter, and the -51D as an escort.......



No no no, I meant in this Clash between the P-51 and 109  As a pure fighter the 109 G-10 'was' superior to the P-51.

Amongst all German fighters the Dora-9 was better than the 109 G-10 though.



> Thats why *the greatest pilots that lived through the war should be especially regarded by people such as ourselves.*.....



True.



> I agree once again, but some would add that the Spit IX was the better of the Spits......



I don't see why though, as the Spit XIV 'was' concluded better by the British themselves. But it may be a case of 'looks' then


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

> Considdering what the LW had to cope with, they did better than the Allies if you ask me. And the 109 remained more than competitive to the very end.


100% Correct....


> No no no, I meant in this Clash between the P-51 and 109


OK gotcha.....


> I don't see why though, as the Spit XIV 'was' concluded better by the British themselves.


The IX was considered the better dogfighter, and more agile of the 2... I also agree with u that the XIV was the better aircraft... 

But.... Many pilots preferred the IX to the XIV, but I think that it was probably more so becasue of mission parameters and pilot preference than actual performance differences....

There are a couple of Spit guys here that could probably go over more of the refined differences off the top o their heads....


> Amongst all German fighters the Dora-9 was better than the 109 G-10 though.


100% correct, IMO and Urs as well.. Some will have different opinions on this.....


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2005)

> The IX was considered the better dogfighter, and more agile of the 2... I also agree with u that the XIV was the better aircraft...



I agree that some British pilots liked the IX better because of its lighter stick forces, but actual British tests confirm that the XIV was infact as or even more maneuverable than the IX. (With higher stick forces though)



> But.... Many pilots preferred the IX to the XIV, but I think that it was probably more so becasue of mission parameters and pilot preference than actual performance differences....



Well it was most likely because of the IX's 'easier' handling.



> 100% correct, IMO and Urs as well..



Well in some respects yeah, but the Spit XIV was VERY competitive to the Dora-9 though. And in a clash between the Dora-9 and Spit XIV, it souly depends on the pilot.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

Yes, it was ease of handling that made some pilots prefer the Mk. IX (or Mk.VIII) to the Mk.XIV. 

I personally think the Mk.XIV is the best, I prefer increased speed over low-speed manuverability. Also, I think the Mk.VIII is better than the Mk.IX. The Mk.IX was a stop-gap, the Mk.VIII was the definative Merlin-engined Spitfire. 

The Mk.VIII only served in Burma and Italy though. The Mk.IX had the advantage of using old Mk.V airframes.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2005)

The Fw 190D was not superiror to the G-10 though..............

Thje G-10 had a better high altitidue performance and was faster in the haul out-straight shot


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

I'll be honest... I know alot more about the Dora than I do about the G-10...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

> Thats why the greatest pilots that lived through the war should be especially regarded by people such as ourselves......



'ang on, can i just say that ANY fighter pilot that lived through the war should be "specailly regarded" the greats should get no more regard than a guy with one kill, they were all up there fighting, they are all equally deserving of our "regard".........


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 22, 2005)

I see what you're saying lanc. I have the highest regard for all the pilots, including bomber guys like my grandfather and their crews. It's just that the aces naturally deserve some special recognition for their success. What's so wrong about that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

nothing, it's just he made it sound like only aces/great pilots deserverd our "regards".....


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Thats why the greatest pilots that lived through the war should be especially regarded by people such as ourselves......
> 
> 
> 
> 'ang on, can i just say that ANY fighter pilot that lived through the war should be "specailly regarded" the greats should get no more regard than a guy with one kill, they were all up there fighting, they are all equally deserving of our "regard".........



Ofcourse. They all risked their lives, so they should all be specially regarded.



> The Fw 190D was not superiror to the G-10 though..............



No the Dora-9 was infact a tiny bit better, its very close though. 

The Dora-9 was superior because of its excellent high speed handling, superb roll rate and diving caracteristics.

The 109 G10 was a better T&B fighter, and below 400mph would have no problem outturning the Dora-9. The G-10 was also a better climber. But in the end these two qualities arent enough, as the Dora-9 would just avoid the 109 in exactly the same way it did the Spitfire.



> The G-10 had a better high altitidue performance and was faster in the haul out-straight shot.



And the Dora-9 had slightly better engine performance at low altitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Udet said:


> Der Adler:
> 
> What on earth makes you think i was referring to you when commenting on the allied propaganda over fed ghoulies?
> 
> Perhaps i should have added a "you know who you are" to my idea.



Actually to be honest I wasn't talking about myself but rather for the group as a whole! Thank you very much  





Udet said:


> Do not misunderstand the core of my comment: i see the Bf109, throughout its entire chain of evolution, as one of the greatest fighters of WWII. Or did i ever anything like "combat with enemy fighters in the Bf 109 was piece of cake"?



I agree with you on this and I would place the 109 up there with the Spitfire, P-51, Fw-190, and the P-38.



Udet said:


> So there is footage showing German planes getting creamed by allied fighters? Pointless remark.



Insert foot in mouth and then please read Plan_D's post on last page.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> nothing, it's just he made it sound like only aces/great pilots deserverd our "regards".....


U mis-interpeted my meaning Lanc........ All pilots, dead or alive, who fought in that war should be held in high regard....


> It's just that the aces naturally deserve some special recognition for their success.


Thats a better way of saying what I meant.....

I feel the -190D was a better combat aircraft at its desired altitude than the G-10 was at its.........

We need to stop agreeing Soren..........


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

guys both Dora and G-10 were supposed to be developed to counter high altitidue P-51's. The G-10 as a Höhenjager was superior


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

Hmmmm.... I cannot find any evidence to support that Erich.... Although, everywhere I look, it seems that most Luftwaffe pilots regarded the -190D as the best plane the Luftwaffe produced.... I spent 20 minutes searching and couldnt find anyting to support ur statement....

I will agree tho that both were designed for high altitude combat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Everything I have ever seen would support that that the 190s were supeirior to the 109s. I dont know maybe Erich knows something we dont.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

the G-10 becasue of it's speed and height was able to accept equal terms with the P-51 in aerial combat over the Reich but on 9 out of 10 combats on a regualr basis the P-51's by sheer numbers had the advantage as well as the altitidue already in the favour while the G-10's and Doras had to climb unequally to meet their opponent.

the Dora 9 used by JG 26 was to try and counter the RAF spitifire. The Dora/III./JG 54, flying high cover for Kommando Nowotny was to try and keep the P-51/Spitfire escorts at bay and away from the jet airfields.............they failed at doing so.

The Doras in II./JG 301 were to fly high cover for Fw 190A-8 and A-9's of I. and III./JG 301 when on anti-bomber missions.

JG 2's Doras were to try and counter anything that was Allied.

G-10's used by IV./JG 301 were to counter the US P-51's but failed.

G-10's on the Ost front used by JG's 51, and 52 dared to have any soviet a/c meet them on the higer plane and the Soviets suffered from it unless having a 10 to 1 superirority ratio which was common in the spring of 45.

G-10's were used by NJG 11 as a whole throughout late 1944 till war's end to counter high altitidue Mosquito's and then once called off of that to intercept Lancs/Halibags without the useage of radar to make Mossie nf interception that much harder..........

just some examples.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Aah as I said he probably knows somethign that we do not.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

Erich said:


> the G-10 becasue of it's speed and height was able to accept equal terms with the P-51 in aerial combat over the Reich but on 9 out of 10 combats on a regualr basis the P-51's by sheer numbers had the advantage as well as the altitidue already in the favour while the G-10's and Doras had to climb unequally to meet their opponent.
> 
> the Dora 9 used by JG 26 was to try and counter the RAF spitifire. The Dora/III./JG 54, flying high cover for Kommando Nowotny was to try and keep the P-51/Spitfire escorts at bay and away from the jet airfields.............they failed at doing so.
> 
> ...



Theres nothing wrong with this, but it still doesnt make the G-10 a better fighter than the Dora-9.

The G-10 was a worthy opponent for any Allied fighter, sure, even better than most, but this was even more true with the 190D-9. 

If in a 'tough spot', the D-9 always had one VERY reliable escape maneuver, Split S's, as nothing could follow a D-9's Split S maneuver. And as the speed increases to 400mph, the D-9 quickly becomes THE hottest fighter to hit the air in WW2.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

I just read the entire section on the Bf-109 Gustav in the Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII, and nowhere does it mention the G-10 as being the best anything.....

However, the Dora 9 is regarded in all the publications i have as the Best Fighter the Luftwaffe ever produced in #'s.......



> If in a 'tough spot', the D-9 always had one VERY reliable escape maneuver, Split S's, as nothing could follow a D-9's Split S maneuver.


NOTHING..........


> And as the speed increases to 400mph, the D-9 quickly becomes THE hottest fighter to hit the air in WW2.


At what altitude???? The -152H???? Hhhhmmmmm......


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Combat doesn't stay 400 mph very long though.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

Les try Priens, Bf 109 series-variants. or the OOP MOnogram pubs on the 109G and the Dora fighters....

the G10 was the fastest of the G variants and in fact the fastest of the 109's. think about why the Anti Mossie units got rid of the Fw 190's and went over to the G-6/AS and G-10's. Speed at high altitude, and I am not talking about low to medium Soren, this is the reason why I gave the stats on the units flying the Dora and the G-10. principly it was thus in 1945. any unit that had the Fw 190A-8 and A-9 got dibs on the Dora. any unit that still had G-14/AS on hand at least 3/4's strength received the G-10 and later the K-4 in some quantities which were not many. this was usually at the gruppe strength. Here are a couple of examples: JG 4 had G-10's and then Doras in the Geschwader stab along with Fw 190A-9's in the stabstaffel and in II./JG 4 a long standing SturmFw gruppe. it consisted of A-9's.

JG 1 though had both G-10/G-14's as well as Fw 190A-8/A-9's and then a sprinkling of the horrid He 162's in the I./gruppe

JG 3 had Fw 190A-9's in the old sturmgruppe IV. the I, II, and the III. gruppen had G-10 and G-14/AS, but ah wait two staffeln in the spring of 1945 in the old SturmFw IV. gruppe were equipped with the Dora and friend and ace Oskar Romm scored some victories with his agasint Soviet fighters at mid altitude.

JG 51 along with it's mix of 109G's had Fw 190A-9's and some Doras fighting off soviet fighter bombers, and fighters on the Ost front. 

point is that everyone has a consensus and the Dora and G-10 never did fulfill it's promise of being the all out save the homeland fighter. there were just too much Allied/Soviet a/c to contend with. Suppose we could rack our brains silly trying to interview every living veteran that flew one or the other to get their personal opinion and we will never be satisfied. Both a/c flew against P-51 types with some success but also overall a huge failure to keep the skies clean over Germany 

crapo I am rambling........


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> Both a/c flew against P-51 types with some success but also overall a huge failure to keep the skies clean over Germany


100% Agreed erich..... Sheer #'s will usually overcome performance...
For the attack on Mossies, i would also want the fastest thing flying under my ass...... But if im gonna mix it up with Spits and Stangs from 18-30K, i wanna be in the Dora......

Too bad Tank had such problems getting the engine he wanted for his dream....... It took 2 years from prototype flight to actual service.......


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

> I just read the entire section on the Bf-109 Gustav in the Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII, and nowhere does it mention the G-10 as being the best anything.....



There is a reason for that though. The 109 has been very 'miss-presented' by western writers/historians, and has never gotten the full credit it deserves. The Bf-109 was in truth one of the best fighters of WW2, even to the very end.




> > If in a 'tough spot', the D-9 always had one VERY reliable escape maneuver, Split S's, as nothing could follow a D-9's Split S maneuver.
> 
> 
> NOTHING..........



No other fighter, no.



> > And as the speed increases to 400mph, the D-9 quickly becomes THE hottest fighter to hit the air in WW2.
> 
> 
> At what altitude???? The -152H???? Hhhhmmmmm......



Any altitude. (Sufficient altitude is needed though, for keeping the speed up)



> Combat doesn't stay 400 mph very long though.



In a Split S maneuver it does though.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> The 109 has been very 'miss-presented' by western writers/historians


In certain publications, yes... But in alot of the stuff I have and have read, the -109 is claimed as one of the most valuable items of WWII.... I dont think ive really seen it mis-represented...


> The Bf-109 was in truth one of the best fighters of WW2, even to the very end.


I agree 100%....


> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> And as the speed increases to 400mph, the D-9 quickly becomes THE hottest fighter to hit the air in WW2.
> ...


I think the -152H was a match for the Dora in conditions over 28k........


> Quote:
> Combat doesn't stay 400 mph very long though.
> 
> 
> In a Split S maneuver it does though.


100% agreed........


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Your original comment was saying that at 400 mph the D-9 was the hottest fighter of the war. 

I merely state that while that is true, combat doesn't stay at 400 mph for long.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> I merely state that while that is true, combat doesn't stay at 400 mph for long.


I agree except in a Split S combat situation....


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Your original comment was saying that at 400 mph the D-9 was the hottest fighter of the war.
> 
> I merely state that while that is true, combat doesn't stay at 400 mph for long.



I was talking while in Split S maneuvers, a reverse Cuban maneuver would just do aswell. Bottom line is, the D-9 should stay above 400mph, and not get below 380mph. Above 400mph the D-9 is THE hottest fighter of WW2.



> But in alot of the stuff I have and have read, the -109 is claimed as one of the most valuable items of WWII.... I dont think ive really seen it mis-represented...



Most BoB sites and most Spit sites for that matter represent it as virtually "Garbage", as do some western books about it. There are some good books about it out there though, but its few at the moment as its mostly newly published books.



> I think the -152H was a match for the Dora in conditions over 28k.....



The TA-152H was better than the D-9 above 28k, no doubt about it. But the TA-152 wouldnt follow a D-9's Split S or Reversed Cuban maneuvers, it would outturn and outdive the D-9 though, 'and' outrun it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> Most BoB sites and most Spit sites for that matter represent it as virtually "Garbage",


Which is why i consider myself smarter than the average meatball, and always look at both "Sides" of the coin...


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

All I'm saying is; it's all well and good saying the D-9 was the best over 400 mph but combat doesn't stay at 400 mph! The pilot SHOULD keep it over 400 but he won't. 

We could bring this back to your Zero Vs. Spitfire argument that eventually the fight would slow down. So, a Spitfire and Zero dogfight would slow down but a D-9 and Spitfire fight wouldn't? Honest question.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2005)

> but combat doesn't stay at 400 mph! The pilot SHOULD keep it over 400 but he won't.


I will agree to an extent... Alot of times it wont stay over 400 mph cause the poor, unlucky bastard flying the LaGG-3 got blasted outta the sky....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2005)

Soren said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > Your original comment was saying that at 400 mph the D-9 was the hottest fighter of the war.
> ...



so you're suggesting that for the entire dogfight the D-9 simply does split Ss or reverse cubans?? and that's gonna get the spit shot down?? eventually the D-9'll have to do something else, and eventually the speed'll come down, and they wouldn't stay at full speed for long anyway, i can think or more appealing situations than being out of fuel or having a overheated engine..........


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2005)

> All I'm saying is; it's all well and good saying the D-9 was the best over 400 mph but combat doesn't stay at 400 mph! The pilot SHOULD keep it over 400 but he won't.



A good pilot will, and a regular would atleast keep it above 380mph. And if the Spit ever gets on the D-9's tail, it will just do a Split S or Cuban/Reverse-Cuban maneuver and its off its tail with garantee ! And if it combines these three maneuvers, it will be on the Spits tail in a very short space of time.



> We could bring this back to your Zero Vs. Spitfire argument that eventually the fight would slow down. So, a Spitfire and Zero dogfight would slow down but a D-9 and Spitfire fight wouldn't? Honest question.



That was if the Spit decided to TURN WITH the Zero.  



> so you're suggesting that for the entire dogfight the D-9 simply does split Ss or reverse cubans?? and that's gonna get the spit shot down?? eventually the D-9'll have to do something else, and eventually the speed'll come down, and they wouldn't stay at full speed for long anyway, i can think or more appealing situations than being out of fuel or having a overheated engine..........



Yes the D-9 would eventually have to do another maneuver, and it will do so when its at its most maneuverable speed. 

Lets say the Spit gets on the D-9's tail, the D-9 sees the Spit and so makes a Split S, the Spit tries to follow the D-9's extreem rolls in this maneuver but cant keep up (meanwhile the speed continues to increase QUICKLY). As the Spit can't follow the D-9's wild maneuvers it loses sight of the D-9, wich now is at its most maneuverable stage, and has taken advantage of this. So now while the Spit desperately tries to recover from the dive, the D-9 makes one Cuban and one Reverse Cuban maneuver, and is now on the Spits tail. 

Now I don't have to tell you what the spit will do with the D-9 on its tail now do I ? 

Its basically a draw.


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2005)

Dogfights took place more often below 400 mph than they did above. 

Sure, they'll be those pilots who will be able to keep their plane above 400 mph but the majority won't. Also, keeping your engine at full power you're going to start over-heating, as lanc said. 

The Spitfire pilot doesn't have to follow. The speed will drop, the D-9 isn't going to be able to hold up all day. Especially if he's repeating the same move time and time again, the Spitfire pilot will learn and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire pilot doesn't have to follow. The speed will drop, the D-9 isn't going to be able to hold up all day. Especially if he's repeating the same move time and time again, the Spitfire pilot will learn and adjust accordingly.



And the exact same goes for the D-9  

The only thing the Spit can do is to run in circles, wich is pretty predictable and easy to adjust to.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2005)

FUEL FOR THE FIRE: 

1) I don't believe the Dora will sustain maneuvering speed above 400 mph if our Spit starts turning (mainly in the horizontal) and the Dora starts following it. I think you're over-estimating how rapidly a Dora will _not _loose airspeed in a high speed turn. Unless the Dora is going to keep its airspeed up and use its airspeed to "dive and climb" into the attack, its going to find itself under 400mph pretty quickly once maneuvering starts, even at high power settings. I think a split-s is the Dora's best maneuver above 400 mph.

2) Engine overheating will _not_ be a problem IF the pilot enriches fuel mixture as required, the ambient air temperature is low (winter is GOOD), the engine is not detonating and the engne is not being overboosted, easier said than done especially in combat and especially with lower time pilots.

I do believe the Dora was one of the best, if not the best single engine fighter produced during WW2, and as Les brought up earlier, if Tank had his engine 2 years earlier, things over Europe might of wound up very different!


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FUEL FOR THE FIRE:
> 
> 1) I don't believe the Dora will sustain maneuvering speed above 400 mph if our Spit starts turning (mainly in the horizontal) and the Dora starts following it. I think you're over-estimating how rapidly a Dora will _not _loose airspeed in a high speed turn. Unless the Dora is going to keep its airspeed up and use its airspeed to "dive and climb" into the attack, its going to find itself under 400mph pretty quickly once maneuvering starts, even at high power settings. I think a split-s is the Dora's best maneuver above 400 mph.



Hold on ! I wasnt saying the D-9 should *keep following* a Spit in a turn, no what I said (Also), was that it should try and follow only until speed drops below 400 or 380mph at least. If the Fight starts at 420mph, the D-9 is almost guaranteed finishing off the Spit before the speed drops to 380mph.

Bottom line is the D-9 should only follow a Spit's turn if its speed is at or above 400mph, below that it wont have enough time to finish off the Spit and will have to brake of the attack to soon. 

But if directly behind the Spit, the speed suddenly doesnt matter no more, as the D-9's initial turn rate is MUCH faster than the Spits, and that will be enough to finish off the Spit if its tries to turn in this situation. 

So the D-9's goal for a almost sure victory over the Spit, is to get close and behind the Spit, wich it will be able to do with a combination of three very effective maneuvers.

And the Spits goal is to not let the above happen, wich I would suggest requires alot of climbing, as turning is too predictable. If you start turning all the D-9 has to do then is to make one right guess on wich direction you will turn and your pretty much dead, and if it doesnt succeed on its first try the odds have increased it will the next time.



> 2) Engine overheating will _not_ be a problem IF the pilot enriches fuel mixture as required, the ambient air temperature is low (winter is GOOD), the engine is not detonating and the engne is not being overboosted, easier said than done especially in combat and especially with lower time pilots.
> 
> I do believe the Dora was one of the best, if not the best single engine fighter produced during WW2, and as Les brought up earlier, if Tank had his engine 2 years earlier, things over Europe might of wound up very different!



Agreed.


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2005)

I am finding these posts on the Spit and Dora quite interesting

am curious if you have interviewed Dora 9 pilots to get these assumptions or facts ? or is this from research through ? what books please.

If you are going by what Englishman Eric Brown has to say then it is bunk as Eric never came up agasint a Dora let alone flew one for the Luftwaffe in combat


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...



No the Split S are mostly used for defensive purposes to keep from getting shot down.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> I am finding these posts on the Spit and Dora quite interesting
> 
> am curious if you have interviewed Dora 9 pilots to get these assumptions or facts ? or is this from research through ? what books please.
> 
> If you are going by what Englishman Eric Brown has to say then it is bunk as Eric never came up agasint a Dora let alone flew one for the Luftwaffe in combat



Is it me your refering to ?

Well in that case, yes much of it is from reading, and alot from years of depating the issue.

In any case you should tjek out these books: "Focke-Wulf FW 190 Aces of the Western Front" by John Weal, "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front" also by John Weal, and "Focke-Wulf Fw 190" by Malcolm V. Lowe. 

And NO im certainly not going by what Eric Brown is saying, as he's a bloody lier in my eyes.


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2005)

U haven't quoted from Ospreys book have U ? arg.........

think we should definately wait for Crandalls operative book on the Dora coming out later this year or even ............  eeeeeeeeek I am going to say it. Schiffers attempt at the Dora 9.

you're right about E.Brown. although it would have been fun being in his shoes testing a/c after war's end.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

> U haven't quoted from Ospreys book have U ? arg.........



Osprey books are good quality books Erich. The reason I picked these three was because their short and very informative. I have lots of other books on the Fw-190, but most are relatively old ones, and some not souly about the Fw-190.



> think we should definately wait for Crandalls operative book on the Dora coming out later this year or even ............  eeeeeeeeek I am going to say it. Schiffers attempt at the Dora 9.



And why is that ?



> you're right about E.Brown.



Yes. However his hardest, most false and most stupid critiques were not against the 190, but the 109.



> although it would have been fun being in his shoes testing a/c after wars end.



Definitely.


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2005)

this is the reason why Osprey books are in demand............they are cheap. Some of the text is quite wrong and the WW 2 profiles esepcially for German a/c are horrid and incorrect. When the ehck did Willi Reschke release his definitve markings for his supposed Fw 190A-8 in the western front aces that he flew ? there is no known pic of his a/c, esepcially the sought after Fw 190A-8/R2. The book on the Afrika units is terrible with 8/10ths of the profiles a fantasy as well as the camo for the German nf aces another book sadly that I own. For Osprey books stick to the Napoleonics although they are trying with their elite series of US fighter ace books, the profiles again area bit loud.

A friend and I have been asked repeatedly to release our version of the SturmFw units for Osprey. We have declined...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 24, 2005)

I agree that the Osprey books aren't exactly the best sources of info, but I wouldn't call them cheap. 
At least not around here.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> this is the reason why Osprey books are in demand............they are cheap. Some of the text is quite wrong and the WW 2 profiles esepcially for German a/c are horrid and incorrect. When the ehck did Willi Reschke release his definitve markings for his supposed Fw 190A-8 in the western front aces that he flew ? there is no known pic of his a/c, esepcially the sought after Fw 190A-8/R2. The book on the Afrika units is terrible with 8/10ths of the profiles a fantasy as well as the camo for the German nf aces another book sadly that I own. For Osprey books stick to the Napoleonics although they are trying with their elite series of US fighter ace books, the profiles again area bit loud.
> 
> A friend and I have been asked repeatedly to release our version of the SturmFw units for Osprey. We have declined...........



I wasnt really aware of that I must admit, but my answer to that would be "Go buy a modellers book".  

The Osprey books mostly concentrates themselves on the a/c's performance stats and history, and I find their info on a/c's performance stats very correct and detailed, both in a scientific view-point and a common sense one. The Historic parts I regard as reliable aswell. 

Btw are you a writer yourself ?


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2005)

Soren Can I ask on what basis you call Eric Brown a 'bloody liar'. He was British and therefore Eric a little unlikely to have flown a 190 of any type in combat. On this basis you would discount any test pilot who flew any captured foreign plane on the same basis.
However he was a test pilot who flew almost every captured axis aircraft as well as nearly all the USA and UK aircraft extensively. This gave him a unique oppertunity to compare the latest planes against one another.
In addition he did have combat experience and was a fighter pilot first and a test pilot second. Most test pilots had no combat experience although some were given limited combat experience to assist with their evaluations.
You have I take it, read his evaluation of the 190 that landed in the UK and his comparision in mock dogfights against the latest Spits. Where he is full of praise for the 190 and its abilities.

Soren, Can I end with a request that you put up your evidence that he is a liar. 

Feel free to disagree with him but if you get personal, be aware that he is an acknowledged expert in his field, from all corners of the globe, and you, are not.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

Glider said:


> Soren Can I ask on what basis you call Eric Brown a 'bloody liar'. He was British and therefore Eric a little unlikely to have flown a 190 of any type in combat. On this basis you would discount any test pilot who flew any captured foreign plane on the same basis.
> However he was a test pilot who flew almost every captured axis aircraft as well as nearly all the USA and UK aircraft extensively. This gave him a unique oppertunity to compare the latest planes against one another.
> In addition he did have combat experience and was a fighter pilot first and a test pilot second. Most test pilots had no combat experience although some were given limited combat experience to assist with their evaluations.
> You have I take it, read his evaluation of the 190 that landed in the UK and his comparision in mock dogfights against the latest Spits. Where he is full of praise for the 190 and its abilities.
> ...



We have a 'Eric Brown supporter' I see !  (Almost as bad as supporting Kit Carson !  )

First off read my posts a little more carefully before you shoot back:


> However his hardest, most false and most stupid critiques *were not against the 190*, but the 109.



-------------------------------------

As to why he is a lier (either that or just 'Stupid'), I assume you havent read his view points on the 109 ? And if you have, and you agree with them, you havent read A SINGLE other test with the 109 or much info about it either.

Now im not gonna go into the details at this moment as there is simply so many stupid and false comments made by him about 109, that it would take ages to quote. But in short Brown was VERY biased. And if you don't know why, you simply havent read enough books or articles about this particular subject.

Fact is Brown was so wrong about the 109 that German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais and many other German pilots highly disagreed with his statements. Beauvais even tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to meet him, *Brown refused to listen to a pilot who'd flown more in the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested in believing his own negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert !*


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2005)

Soren
I have only read his comments on the G6 which make sense to me, with a balance of positive and negative comments. However, you have obviously seen others and have the advantaqe on me so I give way to you on his view of the 109. 
However to say that he is a liar and or stupid is very rash of you. It implies that you know better than a highly experienced test and combat pilot.
You also cannot deny that he is an expert in the field recognised by other professionals and that also seems to hurt you. 

So I repeat what I said. Feel free to disagree that is what these forums are about, but you are not in a position to get personal.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2005)

I gotta leave 4 work now, but i will comment later... My Grandfather, who flew with VMF-214, called this man a liar as well....


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2005)

> However to say that he is a liar and or stupid is very rash of you. It implies that you know better than a highly experienced test and combat pilot.



Read my comment below.



> You also cannot deny *that he is an expert in the field recognised by other professionals *and that also seems to hurt you.



Yes, he's recognized as a "Liar" by other professionals.  

And no he's definitely NOT an expert, he's an "Expert-liar" thats what he is. 

I think you'll agree that you can't call a guy who presents obviously wrong data an "expert", now can you ? 



> So I repeat what I said. Feel free to disagree that is what these forums are about, but you are not in a position to get personal.



Glider Brown's comments are so false and stupid, that he is rightfully presented as a liar in many books and articles ! So im not getting personal at all, im just handing out the facts here, and fact is Brown was either a liar or just plain stupid.

*As a side note:* Im not barking at you Glider, but at Brown and his sickening lies, thats all. So please don't feel offended in any way by the above.


----------



## Erich (May 25, 2005)

Soren in Luftrwaffe cirlces of searious research Osprey titles are taboo and considered well below average. incomplete and wrong operational text, mis captioned pics still to this day. Copied scans of copyrighted photos, and on it goes. They are cheap booklets nothing more and that is why they are so popular. muach has been used from the old bogus William Greens Third Reich ww 2 a/c.

They are good for starting the fire in the fireplace. Hopefully soon they will wise up. Their campaign titles are rehash of old news that is incorrect and just recopied works from other known authors.


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2005)

Erich said:


> Soren in Luftrwaffe cirlces of searious research Osprey titles are taboo and considered well below average. incomplete and wrong operational text, mis captioned pics still to this day. Copied scans of copyrighted photos, and on it goes. They are cheap booklets nothing more and that is why they are so popular. muach has been used from the old bogus William Greens Third Reich ww 2 a/c.
> 
> They are good for starting the fire in the fireplace. Hopefully soon they will wise up. Their campaign titles are rehash of old news that is incorrect and just recopied works from other known authors.



As I said Im mostly going for the Performance stats in those books, so it doesnt bother me that much. Also I have so many other books about the 190 and 109, that it really doesnt matter much.

As for the Historic part, I really havent found any clear mistakes there yet, maby you could point some out to me ?

Looking forward to Crandalls release you mentioned though. 

Btw are you a writer yourself Erich ? (I think you missed it last time I asked  )

----------------------------

(Small Edit: accidently wrote Grandalls instead of Crandalls  )


----------



## Erich (May 25, 2005)

i think you need to read some of my earlier postings from last year.

I co-author a web-site which is on my profile stats. Still running and very historical and to the point.

Have helped resersach two books already and working on a third from Germany covering the German night ground attack.

My own book co-authored on the "Moskito-jagd over Germany" where we have special emphasis on the almost unknown 10./NJG 11 aka Kommando Welter. 750 pages and we are reducing it, maybe 2 volumes.

I am also writing a book on my interviews with German night fighter crews piloting Ju 88G-6's during late 44 till wars end. "In the Shadow of the Moon"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

I happen to agree about Eric Brown. He was very biased and from what I can tell he did not report on how things really were.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> i think you need to read some of my earlier postings from last year.



Maby, but sadly I wasnt around at that time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

You can still go back and read them.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can still go back and read them.



Where ?


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

While your on the subject of books, have any of you ever read any of the Squadron/Signal publications?

I think the P-51 would just win, but then again I am biased. I do enjoy "sawing" the wings off 109's in my Mustang whilst playing Sturmovik, both on offline. But like that is anything to go by, it's only a game......but still fun


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

I have a couple of them. I like them for the profiles.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2005)

there good for the pic content which has been shown elsewhere in other books. another booklet cheap for the buck. Text is so so unless you get one of the infrequent operational hsitories. Squadron likes to rely on the useage of Variants but then they are incorret at times especially on the photo captions of a particualr a/c and it's sub-catergories.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2005)

too fast on the draw !  

Soren look back in the old threads in avaition and you will find some discussion, some of it heated here and there for old topics on the Me 262/Arado 234, Fw 190, Bf 109, etc..............good stuff


----------



## Soren (May 27, 2005)

Erich said:


> too fast on the draw !
> 
> Soren look back in the old threads in avaition and you will find some discussion, some of it heated here and there for old topics on the Me 262/Arado 234, Fw 190, Bf 109, etc..............good stuff



Thanks Erich, I will


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Yeah I can think of some good heated ones back then. Sometimes they got kind of out of hand though.


----------

