# P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 21, 2005)

I understand that the late war variants of the Me-109 and Fw-190 were not "outclassed" by the P-51 but were instead heavily outnumbered and that this numerical superiority of the P-51's gave the impression that the German fighters were outclassed.

My question is this:

*What sort of numerical differential are we talking about?*


----------



## Erich (Jun 21, 2005)

try 10 or 12 to 1 for starts.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Damn I knew it was high but not that high.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

It was very high... I am although quite surprised to hear it was as high as 12 to 1 ! 

I always thought it was 7 or 8 to 1.

Where did you get this data Erich ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I agree I was thinking for about 7 or 8 myself.


----------



## Erich (Jun 21, 2005)

Soren where do you think ?  the veterans of course. It was always made up in the after action combat reports and although in later 1944 till wars end the German radar systems in Frnce were gone they had very powerful sources that could tell when the Allied heavies were taking off as well as how many US prop fighters were taking off, thus you can easily see how the Luftwaffe pilots felt they were on a continual suicide mission late 44 till wars end. In some instances in 1945 it was over 25 to 1


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

Erich said:


> Soren where do you think ?  the veterans of course.



Oh, ofcourse !  



> It was always made up in the after action combat reports and although in later 1944 till wars end the German radar systems in Frnce were gone they had very powerful sources that could tell when the Allied heavies were taking off as well as how many US prop fighters were taking off, thus you can easily see how the Luftwaffe pilots felt they were on a continual suicide mission late 44 till wars end. In some instances in 1945 it was over 25 to 1.



 Holy mother of mary !  25 to 1 !  

I must admit I never knew this. Always thought it was at most 8 to 1 in relatively rare instances, and that 6 to 1 was the normal...

One thing is for sure, those LW boys managed a hell of alot considdering their situation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I can believe it was that high I just did not think it was.


----------



## Erich (Jun 21, 2005)

after Normandie was done and over and we started plopping our bases on the main continent we could strike anywhere and not just from England anymore. wherever the Luftwaffe was going to be up, the RAF and US was there in overwhleming force. with only 6 ? Reich defence units still in the Reich in February 1945; the others on the Ost front you can easily anticipate my figures on missions of 20/25 to 1 in 1945. It was a bloody slaughter of German youth !


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

Erich said:


> after Normandie was done and over and we started plopping our bases on the main continent we could strike anywhere and not just from England anymore. wherever the Luftwaffe was going to be up, the RAF and US was there in overwhleming force. with only 6 ? Reich defence units still in the Reich in February 1945; the others on the Ost front you can easily anticipate my figures on missions of 20/25 to 1 in 1945. It was a bloody slaughter of German youth !



I must agree. 

However I never imagined it to be 10/12 to 1 in 44.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

It is crazy!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 21, 2005)

I had always assumed it was about 5 or 6 to one as well.

25 to one? That means a flight of six would have faced 150. Hard to believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Not really if you think about it. Most Luftwaffe fighters were up to intercept the allied bombers and how many fighters were escorting and protecting them. In a flight of 500 bombers there was easily 75 to 100 fighters.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 21, 2005)

And where 75 to 100 fighters flew escort for up to 500 bombers, there were only 3 to 4 German fighters to intercept?

Like I said, hard to believe. I had no idea the Germans had so few air to air resources late in the war.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

By 45, the LW were REAL low in men 'and' material.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 21, 2005)

I guess so. Going up against 5 to 1 odds let alone 25 to 1 odds sounds suicidal when your target is the bombers and you can't simultaneously play offense against the fighters while you're targeting the bombers (which pose a danger via their defensive armament as well).

The only thing going for you is your ability to cut and run (assuming the allied fighters prefer to maintain a defensive posture by staying with the bomber formation). Of course, they could always afford to chase after each retreating German fighter with 10 or 15 planes!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

Which they didn't. Roaming escort was always the best.


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2005)

think about 1945 and the 8th AF Mustangs roaming down to Munich and or Prague and then having the US 15th AF Mustangs overlapping that territory as well along up to Berlin. the Luftwaffe had no hope of escape, plus maruading 9th AF P-47 pilots tired of ground attack were just waiting to get a chance at an enemy fighter ........... yes terrible odds indeed !


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 22, 2005)

Fuel fuel fuel....... It was all about that in early 1945... There'd be 25 Fw-190D's sitting on the tarmac, and fuel enough for 4 of them to intercept an incoming bomber stream......

I have read in a couple different books that the odds were upwards of 20-1 in certain circumstances, and even higher on the worst of days...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2005)

I never realised the odds were stacked against the Luftwaffe that much, considering it now they performed miracles doing the damage that they actually did


----------



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

well that's down to the skill of some of their pilots.......


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well that's down to the skill of some of their pilots.......



And the quality of their equipment.... 

By 44-45 the average pilot quality wasnt nearly as good as what it had been.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 22, 2005)

8th Air Force escort procedures.
These numbers are a little complicated, for instance a 1,000 bomber raid may have 1,500 fighters total to cover it, that cover was staggered. 

Outbound to the border of Germany 250 planes Spitfire/P-47 mix
German Border to target 500 fighters P-51/P-38 mix as the time progressed into late 44 it would be P-51/P-47 mix
Return leg same as above.
Inbound similar to outbound.

All Aircraft in the ETO. 8th 9th Air Forces 
Aircraft available to the AAF as follows:
P-38s - 600-700 from Jan 44 to June 44 maintaining +/- 250 from December to the end. Note the numbers of P-38s vrs. their impact.
P-47s - 1,000 by Oct 43, 2,000 by April '44 and mantaining +/- 2,000 to the end.
P-51s - +/- 1,000 from April '44 to September '44 and +/- 1,500 till the end of the war.

Total Fighters Available in the ETO went like this:
1.200 Oct '43, 2,500 Jan '44, 3,000 Feb '44, 4,000 in October '44, 4.600 in April '45.  

These numbers are rounded and represent aircraft available on a monthly basis. The source is the AAF Statisticle Digest.

These numbers Don't include British aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Jun 22, 2005)

I have learned that the generally accepted view of the airwarfare over Europe from mid 1944 until the end of the war is unaccurate; it of course is the view of the victors.

_The "non-stop" slaughter of "ill-trained" teenies flying "inferior" craft sent to a certain, unavoidable and completely predictable death_. You know, that is a tale. A distortion.

Now, before those over-sensitive creatures burst out in anger (you know who you are), it is important to tell that yes, losses for the Luftwaffe were very high, horrible in some days and specific battles.

What I have found is that the majority of those new pilots in the jagdwaffe in 1944 could find their "out" when engaging the hordes of either P-51s and P-47s.

*Finding your "out" in view of such overwhelming numerical inferiority implies having both skill and fully capable fighters.*

Had the allied tale of the "absolute supremacy" of the P-51 over "all" German fighters been true, then no less than 95% percent of the new Luftwaffe pilots of 1944/ 45 would have died.

The whole German territory was easily within the reach of virtually every USAAF fighter group by late 1944 and 1945. This is significant, and certainly helps shattering the allied version of an "undisputed supremacy" of the allied air forces over the German pilots and planes. Why was it that they did not shoot them all down?

Hundreds and hundreds of German pilots found their "outs".

Losses for new German pilots of 1944/ 45 were around 38-44%. A very HIGH loss rate; still it was not even the majority of them.

I have also had the chance of seeing records of many young pilots who died in 1944/ 45, and hundreds of them claimed 2, 3 or 4 enemy fighters before their deaths. Confirming kills was kind of disrupted by late 1944 and 1945, but that does not mean, at all, their claims were false.

While the P-51s were not marvels, they were not "sitting ducks" either, and the fact of having returned to base, claim a kill, implied everything but "being ill-trained". 

What many would address as "luck" I´d call it skill, sound morale, top aircraft and yes, guts.

I am completely convinced that on the event of a numerically equal engagement between P-51 or P-47s against any German fighter of the late war, could have as an outcome, a butchery of USAAF guys.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 22, 2005)

I belive that the P51 could beat the me109 easily but have more of a challenge with the focke wulf. We have too remember that there were a lot of skilled German pilots that flew Fokce Wulfs.


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2005)

it's all in accordance with pilot skill..............period. The Fw A did not have the high altitiude perfomance of late mark Bf 109's till the Dora model became available in small numbers.

the point is there were more P-51 than German a/c. wmax your figure for P-47's includes 9th AF Jugs whom were not necessairly involved with bomber escort duties.

not until the month of February 45 did the US have the supremeacy of flying P-51's to the eastern suburbs of the Reich due to the fact that 3/4rs of the Reich defence had been moved to the Ost front.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2005)

Udet said:


> I am completely convinced that on the event of a numerically equal engagement between P-51 or P-47s against any German fighter of the late war, could have as an outcome, a butchery of USAAF guys.



In what context? Are you assuming the Luftwaffe skill level was maintained as many of the experten killed years earlier are brought back into the picture? Are we to eliminate the fact that allied bombers are not to included into this thought process and this is a statement based on a fighter-to-fighter scenario?


----------



## Sal Monella (Jun 23, 2005)

On these huge bombing raids, where did the bombers take off from?


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2005)

UDET. It is an accepted rule of thumb that when losses reach 20% a unit looses its efficiency. Your figure of around 40% for new pilots plus the inevitable drain on the remaining experienced leaders would confirm that the German fighter units would not be very effective. That is probably at least as important as the number of planes shot down.

The Allied forces were trying to escort their bombers, if the German planes are not effective then they are not going to stop the mission and to the allied view, this would mean that the allies control the air. I am not aware of any allied mission that failed to reach its target. My guess is that this may have happened a few times but not many. This implies to me that the German fighter forces had lost their edge.

In fighter vs fighter the inexperienced pilot is at a massive disadvantage whatever plane he is in either German of Allied. However the chances of a German pilot getting the all important first 6-12 missions under his belt would be slim. A new allied pilot would have a better chance of gaining this experience because they have control of the air and their units more effective.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> I belive that the P51 could beat the me109 easily but have more of a challenge with the focke wulf. We have too remember that there were a lot of skilled German pilots that flew Fokce Wulfs.



And a lot of that comes down to the numerical superiority. The P-51D was very overated. I will agree that the P-51D was better then the Bf-109 however the Bf-109G or K would give a P-51D a good run for its money and with an experienced pilot beat him.


----------



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

Sal Monella said:


> On these huge bombing raids, where did the bombers take off from?



England, mainly the East coast........


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

If you read my post more closely you will see where I made the distinction between escort and all, including the 9th Air Force aircraft, available aircraft.

I agree the P-51 was overated however it was still compettive and even had a couple of advantages (as did the Fw-190/Bf-109) with a skilled pilot was deadly. Pilot skill would be the determining factor.

On pilot skill - by mid '44 German Training before introduction to combat was ~ 110hrs and a few hours ground instruction. AAF training was 350/400hrs, 50+ ground instruction/tactics directly concerning the P-51 in combat and another 20hrs in the squadron prior to combat.
The majority of expert German pilots were killed in the first half of 1944. The skill level of the average German pilot fell rapidly and there was no possible way to recover in the time/conditions available.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2005)

wmaxt I see no distinction at all of 9th AF Jugs.

also the majority of Luftw. skilled aces were not killed in early 1944. you forget the Ost front aces were hardly touched till 45, and they must be considered. what was lost was experienced leaders of Staffeln and gruppen the main-point was Unternehmen Bodenplatte on 1-1-45 a total waste of human resources. Ture the Luftw. was pouned by may of 44 but still dealt many death blows, the Sturmgruppen had not been in-force til 7-7-44 and the overall tactics were then replaced with an angrif von hinten


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> P38 Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I belive that the P51 could beat the me109 easily but have more of a challenge with the focke wulf. We have too remember that there were a lot of skilled German pilots that flew Fokce Wulfs.
> ...



The Bf-109 was a MUCH better pure fighter than the P-51.

The P-51 was out-runned, out-turned, out-rolled and out-climbed by the 109K series, and everything but out-runned by the G series. 

With a properly trained pilot in each a/c, the Bf-109 would make mince meat of a P-51 in a dogfight !

However all this being said, the P-51 wasnt "Designed" as a pure fighter like the 109, but as an escort-fighter, at which role it operated nicely.

So the P-51 was by no means a failure, just not the wonder-plane some people thought/think it was.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

[quote="Soren]

The Bf-109 was a MUCH better pure fighter than the P-51.

The P-51 was out-runned, out-turned, out-rolled and out-climbed by the 109K series, and everything but out-runned by the G series. 

With a properly trained pilot in each a/c, the Bf-109 would make mince meat of a P-51 in a dogfight !

However all this being said, the P-51 wasnt "Designed" as a pure fighter like the 109, but as an escort-fighter, at which role it operated nicely.

So the P-51 was by no means a failure, just not the wonder-plane some people thought/think it was.[/quote]

The P-51 was designed as a replacement for the P-40 even down to the requirements for the use of the same engine and prop. The merlin and extra fuel came later and worked out exceptionaly well.

I agree it was no wonder plane but it was every bit as good as the Bf-109 and with a better pilot compettitive with the Fw-190. This was proven many times in combat. 

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> wmaxt I see no distinction at all of 9th AF Jugs.
> 
> also the majority of Luftw. skilled aces were not killed in early 1944. you forget the Ost front aces were hardly touched till 45, and they must be considered. what was lost was experienced leaders of Staffeln and gruppen the main-point was Unternehmen Bodenplatte on 1-1-45 a total waste of human resources. Ture the Luftw. was pouned by may of 44 but still dealt many death blows, the Sturmgruppen had not been in-force til 7-7-44 and the overall tactics were then replaced with an angrif von hinten



Erich, The first two paragraphs were on escort duties and the rest was on aircraft availability - I thought it was clear. I have gone back and eddited the post to clarify it - sorry for the confusion.

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Jun 23, 2005)

Wmaxt:

That is incorrect.

The "majority" of Luftwaffe experten did not get killed in action. That is another one of the allied tales.

Grab the list of the rough 115 German pilots who shot down 100 or more enemy planes, and you will discover the majority of them in fact finished the war. It can be an illustrative sample.

Also, many of the experten who died during the war, did not so as consequence of enemy action. (i.e. Mölders, Marseille, Lent and a long etc)

I sometimes wonder what the definition of "majority" is in allied depositions.

Finally, and as Erich correctly put it, by late 1944 and during 1945, USAAF losses were everything but "minimum".

As I have mentioned in other threads, it would be interesting to ask the few USAAF guys who survived several Sturmgruppe attacks if German pilots were "ill-trained" by late 1944.

There were cases of German pilots flying Fw 190 A-8s with the extra-armor for sturm attacks that shot down Mustangs.

Now, if a modified A-8, with some 250 kgs of extra-armor could chew a Mustang, think of a "standard" A-8 or of the AS Bf 109s tuned for super high altitude combat, or of the Fw 190 D.


To an important extent they (USAAF and RAF) won due to overwhelming numerical superioriy and not precisely for having had "superior planes, engines, tactics, training...blah, blah, blah..."


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

Udet said:


> Wmaxt:
> 
> That is incorrect.
> 
> ...



Udet, it is correct. The training data is from the records left after the war both German and US I have the British numbers but didn't want to make things more complicated. Majority is defined as more than 50% thats not to say some like Rall, Galland etc didn't make through the war but most didn't (it doesn't matter how). I think all the experts were shot down at least once and were LUCKY enough to live. Their record is no disgrace, looking at the odds its actually quite remarkable that they did as well as they did.

You've said this stuff a lot, Please list the Expert German pilots of mid '43 and show us how many survived to mid '44 and then the end of the war. Then Please list the times the sturm groups decimated the Allies and compare the times it was unable to stop the Allied aircraft.

Minimum in a case like this would mean that there are not enough losses to require different Stratagy or Tactics. BTW I never mentioned "minimum" anything. 

I'm not sure which pilot/s said this but the saying was ~ closing my canopy was like closing my coffin and We fly till we die. Those are fatalistic views and the records verified them. The German pilots didn't get to leave combat when they were worn out resulting in 1. losses due to exaustion 2, denied the opportunity to pass their experiance on. The Allies had the luxury to use both. The high personel scores in the German Air Force are often due as much to the fact they were in combat sometimes over 1,000 sorties that's Twenty times the opportunities that AAF pilots had, why wern't they higher if thier skill and aircraft were vastly superior? 

As for the Vastly superior Bf-109/Fw-190,s they were shot down in 1:1 combat with Allied aircraft often enough.

Again there is no disgrace here they fought bravely against what ended up as insurmountable odds. but the Facts are the Allied Forces had aircraft of comparable performance, better training and better resources supplying more of everything.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2005)

> The P-51 was designed as a replacement for the P-40 even down to the requirements for the use of the same engine and prop. The merlin and extra fuel came later and worked out exceptionaly well.



It was designed and intended as an escort fighter aswell.



> I agree it was no wonder plane but it was every bit as good as the Bf-109 and with a better pilot compettitive with the Fw-190.



As a dogfighter, the P-51 falls awfully short compared to the Bf-109.



wmaxt said:


> This was proven many times in combat.



No, far from it... What was proven was that the P-51's 8-1 ratio in numbres was effective. There's a big difference


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

Soren said:


> > The P-51 was designed as a replacement for the P-40 even down to the requirements for the use of the same engine and prop. The merlin and extra fuel came later and worked out exceptionaly well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. the P-40 was never intended to escort and the P-51 was originaly to be P-40s untill NAA convinced them to try a new design. Escort was not contemplated even by the AAF. At that time self escort was the stratagy. I've also never read escort mentioned in reference to the P-51 until the Merlin conversion showed low fuel consumption in early '43. This includes imterviews with the P-51 designers. In fact the A-36/Mustang I version stopped production for two months in early '43 because it was not enough of an improvement over anything else - the Merlin/realization that escort was required saved it.  

Numbers, tactics and pilot training/experiance do to. I think the P-51 is way overated (the P-38 is quite a bit better in virtualy every respect) but it could and did hold it's own in combat, with/without numbers, even with the majority of Fw-190 encounters and I consider the Fw-190 quite a bit better than the Bf-109. The 109K was a better match to the P-51 but they were late and few. 

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 23, 2005)

And the fact that the Luftwaffe would send up 10 fighters to assault a formation of over 120 aircraft... There wasnt enough fuel........

Here are the Top Aces and what happened to them...

The 300 Club......

Erich Alfred "Bubi" Hartmann - 352, The Ace of Aces flew around 1,456 (missions). He engaged in air combat approximately 850 times, was never shot down by an enemy plane and never lost a wingman (Gunther Capito was shot down but survived). He surrendered to the Americans on May 8th 1945 and was subsequently turned over to the Russians. He was 'tried' for 'war crimes' and was sentenced to 25 years hard labor. He then spent the next 10 and a half years in Russian Gulags. After his release, he served in the Bundesluftwaffe. He "joined old friends" on the 19th of September 1993. 

Erich Gerhard "Gerd" Barkhorn - 301, Flew 1104 missions. Badly hurt in an Me262 crash on April 17th 1945. He surrendered to the Americans at the end of the war but, surprisingly, he was not turned over to the Russians. He retired as a Major General from the Bundesluftwaffe. During a winter storm on January 6th 1983, Barkhorn and his wife were involved in a car accident. She died at the scene and he died 2 days later

The 200 club...........

Gunther Rall - 275, Flew 621 missions. Shot down 8 times. Badly wounded including the loss of his left thumb during a wild combat session with P-47's of "Zemke's Wolfpack". 'Captured' by the British. Joined Bundesluftwaffe. Retired in 1975. Still alive and signing autographs as of 2003

**Otto "Bruno" Kittel - 267, Flew 583 combat missions. Shot down twice and survived before being KIA February 14th 1945. At the time he was flying a FW190A-8 ("Black 1") as Staffelkapitan of 2./JG 54 

**Walter "Nowi" Nowotny - 258, 1st to 250 kills and in only 442 missions! Ouch. Austrian, KIA November 8th 1944 (by Edward R. Haydon) while flying an Me262 against B-17s. "Nowi", finding himself burning alive, nose dived into the ground. He was 23

Wilhelm "Willi" Batz - 237, Evaded Soviet capture at war's end. Joined and retired from the Bundesluftwaffe. Died September 11th 1988

Erich Rudorffer - 224, (12 with a jet) Holds Luftwaffe record of most kills in a single mission with 13. Was shot down 16 times. Bailed out 9 times. Survived the war and served in the Bundesluftwaffe. He retired as a commercial pilot. Was still alive as of 2000 but does not discuss the war years

Heinrich "Pritzl" Bar - 221, (16 with a jet. Another luftwaffe record) Survived the war but was killed in a civilian plane crash in 1957

Herman Graf - 212, (200 in 13 months!) Survived the war. Surrendered to the Americans with Hartmann and was turned over to the Russians. Released in 1950. Died 4 November 1988

**Heinrich Ehrler - 209, KIA April 4th 1945. After shooting down two B-17's and running out of ammo, Ehrler is reported to have said, " Theo! (Weissenberger) I have run out of ammunition! I am going to ram this one! Auf Wiedersehen! I'll see you in Valhalla!" and then he ramed a third B-17. His body was found the next day. 

Theodore "Theo" Weissenberger - 208, Survived the war and was killed in a car racing accident at Nurburgring, June 10th 1950

**Hans "Fips" Philipp - 206, KIA October 8th 1943 while flying a FW 190. This kill was claimed by Robert S. Johnson but Luftwaffe eye witnesses say it was the gunners in the B-17's they were attacking that got him.

Walter Schuck - 206, Flew only 109s and 262s. He survived the war and was still around and signing autographs as of 1999.

**Anton "Toni" Hafner - 204, KIA October 17th 1944 when he lost situational awareness in a low-level dogfight with Yaks (big mistake) and his 109 hit a tree.

Helmut Lipfert - 203, Was shot down 15 times. Survived the war. Surrendered but was not turned over to the Russians and subsequently became a school teacher. Died in 1990


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2005)

here might be a spot to enter an interesting note. Tony Hackl a bomber/fighter killer preferred the 109G-6/AS to take on US fighter escorts and then the Fw 190A-8 to take on US heavy bombers.........

so what is this telling us guys ? I have said repeatedly the 109 was superior at high altitiude and the Fw 190A was the overall best defence prop job against the heavy bomber pulks


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> here might be a spot to enter an interesting note. Tony Hackl a bomber/fighter killer preferred the 109G-6/AS to take on US fighter escorts and then the Fw 190A-8 to take on US heavy bombers.........
> 
> so what is this telling us guys ? I have said repeatedly the 109 was superior at high altitiude and the Fw 190A was the overall best defence prop job against the heavy bomber pulks



I have no quibble with the comments above posts in genral.

First I would never question the bravery of any of the combattants. At times both sides flew with 10:1 odd against them wheather it was P-38 pilots in late '43 or German pilots in '44/'45.

Second I respect the German Aces but how many of them were at or over 30 kills in 50 sorties or less, remember to, the German pilots had a more target rich environment so to speak? And to be fair how many Allied pilots would make it through the sorties the German pilots had to face? BTW I consider it luck to bail out of anything in WWII and live.

My comment to Udet was in relation to his comment that most of the pre '43 experts made it through the war - not Many did. I think it was a terrible waste to lose those fine men but it did happen.

Of course the aircraft evaluations above are in reference to Luftwaffe aircraft available.  

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Jun 24, 2005)

wmaxt:

Whatever records you might have consulted, all I can tell you is have fun! Continue to sing the same old allied song.

Whatever!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> here might be a spot to enter an interesting note. Tony Hackl a bomber/fighter killer preferred the 109G-6/AS to take on US fighter escorts and then the Fw 190A-8 to take on US heavy bombers.........
> 
> so what is this telling us guys ? I have said repeatedly the 109 was superior at high altitiude and the Fw 190A was the overall best defence prop job against the heavy bomber pulks



Agreed completely. That in my opinion is the best way to sum it up.  



Udet said:


> Whatever records you might have consulted, all I can tell you is have fun! Continue to sing the same old allied song.
> 
> Whatever!



O' Brother, here we go again.


----------



## Udet (Jun 24, 2005)

wmaxt is in fact singing the same old allied song.

The "pre-1943 experten who made it through 1944" came right out of his sleeve. 

What I did say was the majority of the Luftwaffe experten finished the war. A fact, not a speculation.

I find it silly having to clarify everybody knows 1944 was the year when Luftwaffe losses peaked.

Mr. wmaxt is likely to divert the discussion to the "who won the war in the end" dead end alley. Would that be the case, I am not interested in going there.

As to why the Sturmböcke "failed" to stop the allied air offensive over Europe. I wonder if wmaxt has ever acknowledged that by mid/late 1943 the USAAF command thought if they could carry on bearing such tremendous losses. And the sturmböck did not arrive in any signficant numbers until mid/ late 1944, kind of late and not enough in numbers; still they proved they were brutally effcient bomber destroyers.

As I have said before, the Luftwaffe was not defeated on any "decisive" battle, but through a long period (1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943) of losses of several degrees that in the end turned the fight as one impossible to win.

You are correct when saying they put a hell of a fight in view of insurmountable odds though; this assertion can be put into deeper perspective if you take into account that, again, by late 1943 the USAAF command really wondered if they could continue waging a war swallowing such tremendous losses.

By late 1943, the USAAF, in the form of the 8th air force, had been on stage in Europe -in significant numbers- hardly for one year, not alone, not by themselves but hand-in-hand with the RAF, and the lower quality VVS in the east.

So after hardly one year of operations they were assessing the continuation of the air offensive against Germany, fighting an enemy air force that had seen non-stop action during the last 4 years: Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Battle of Britain, Operation Marita, Barbarossa, Blau, North Africa, Mediterranean, Artic Circle...

This can certainly help a bit in understanding what kind of airmen the Germans were, and what kind of equipment they had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

No one is argueing what kind of Pilots the Germans were and what kind of aircraft they had. I think everyone has agreed the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 were some of the best aircraft to see action. I think if you read the posts again you will see that everyone has agreed to that.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No one is argueing what kind of Pilots the Germans were and what kind of aircraft they had. I think everyone has agreed the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 were some of the best aircraft to see action. I think if you read the posts again you will see that everyone has agreed to that.



Agreed, The three aircraft here were very closely matched. Each had advantages over the others and with competent pilots each of them could win a 1:1 engagement.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Agreed!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2005)

Heres a listing of the Top German Aces......... * means KIA........

50 of 108 were Killed during the War...

22 in 1944
16 in 1943
9 in 1945
3 in 1942

The 300 Club...

Erich Hartmann 
352
Erich Gerhard "Gerd" Barkhorn 
301 

The 200 club........... 

Gunther Rall 
275
*Otto "Bruno" Kittel 
267 KIA Feb14 45
*Walter "Nowi" Nowotny
258 KIA Nov8 44 
Wilhelm "Willi" Batz
237
Erich Rudorffer 
224
Heinrich "Pritzl" Bar 
221
Herman Graf 
212
*Heinrich Ehrler 
209 KIA Apr4 45
Theodore "Theo" Weissenberger 
208
*Hans "Fips" Philipp 
206 KIA Oct8 43 
Walter Schuck 
206
*Anton "Toni" Hafner 
204 KIA Oct17 44 
Helmut Lipfert 
203

The 100 Club...

Walter Krupinski
197
Anton Hackl
192
Joachim Brendel
189
* Maximilian Stotz
189 (MIA 19aug43)
* Joachim Kirschner
188 (KIA '43)
* Kurt Hans Friedrich Brandle 
180 (KIA 3nov43)
Gunther Josten
178
Johannes Steinhoff
176 
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert
174 
Gunther Schack
174
* Emil Lang
173 (KIA 3sep44)
* Heinz Schmidt 
173 (MIA 5sep43) 
* Horst Ademeit
166 (MIA 7aug44)
* Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke
162 (KIA 23mar44)
* Hans-Joachim Marseille
158 (KIFA 30sep42) 
* Heinrich Sturm
157 (KiFA 22dec44)
Gerhard Thyben
157 
* Hans Beisswenger
152 (KIA 6mar43) 
Peter Duttmann
152
Gordon Gollob
150
Fritz Tegtmeier
146 
* Albin Wolf
144 (+32 unconfimed, KIA 2apr44) 
Kurt Tanzer 
143 
* "Tutti" Friedrich-Karl Muller
140 (KIA 29may44) 
* Heinrich Setz 
138 (KIA 13mar43) 
Rudolf Trenkel 
138 
Walter Wolfrum 
137 
* Franz Schall 
137 (KiFA 10apr45) 
* Horst-Gunther von Fassong 
136 (KIA 1jan45) 
* Otto Fonnekold
136 (KIA 13aug44) 
* Karl-Heinz Weber 
136 (KIA 7jun44) 
Adolf Dickfeld
136 
* Joachim Muncheberg
135 (KIA 23mar43)
* Hans Waldmann 
134 (KiFA 18mar45) 
Alfred Grislawski 
133 
"Hannes" Johannes Wiese 
133 (+75 probs) 
Adolf Borchers
132 
* Erwin Clausen 
132 (KIA 4oct43) 
* Wilhelm Lemke 
131 (KIA 4dec43) 
Herbert Ihlefeld
130 (7 from SCW) 
* "Bazi" Heinrich Sterr 
130 (KIA 26nov44)
Franz Eisenach 
129 
Walter Dahl 
128 (36 4-engined bombers) 
Franz Dorr 
128 
Friedrich Obleser 
127 
Rudolf Rademacher 
126 
* "Jupp" Josef Zwernemann 
126 (KIA 8apr44) 
* Freidrich Wachowiak 
126 (KIA 16jul44) 
"Dieter" Dietrich Hrabak
125 
* Gerhard Hoffman
125 (MIA 17apr45) 
* Walter Oesau 
125 (KIA 11may44) 
* Wolf-Udo Ettel 
124 ( KIA 17jul43) 
* Wolfgang Tonne
122 (KIFA 20apr43) 
Heinz Marquardt 
121 
Heinz -Wolfgang Schnaufer 
121 (Top Nightfighter)
"Bazzi" Robert Weiss
121
* Erich Leie
118 (KIA 7mar45) 
Franz-josef Beerenbrock
117 
* Hans-Joachim Birkner 
117 (KiFA 13dec44)
* Jakob Norz
117 (KiFA 16sep44) 
* "Piepl" Heinz Wernicke
117 (KIA 27dec44) 
* August Lambert
116 (KIA 17apr45) 
* Werner Molders
115 (14 from SCW, KIFA 22nov42) 
Wilhelm Crinius 
114 
Werner Schroer
114 
* Hans Dammers
113 (WIA 13th D -17mar44) 
* Berthold Korts
113 (MIA 29aug43) 
"Bu-Mann" Kurt Buhlingen
112 
* Helmut Lent 
110 KIA 05/10/1944 
* "Kuddel" Kurt Ubben
110 (KIA 27apr44)) * 
Franz Woidich
110 
Reinhard Seiler
109 (9 from SCW) 
* Emil Bitsch
108 (KIA 15mar44) 
"Assi" Hans Hahn
108 
* Gunther Lutzow
108 (5 from SCW, KIA 24apr45)) * 
Bernhard Vechtel
108 
* Werner Lucas
106 (KIA 24oct43) 
Viktor Bauer
106 
Heinz Sachsenberg
104 
Eberhard von Boremski
104 
Adolf Galland
103 
Siegfried Freytag
102 
* Friedrich Geisshardt
102 (WIA 5th D - 6apr43)) 
* Egon Mayer
102 (KIA 2mar44) 
* Max-Hellmuth Ostermann
102 (KIA 9aug42) 
* "Sepp" Josef Wurmheller
102 (KIA 22jun44) 
Herbert Rollwage
102 
* Rudolf Miethig
101 (KIA 10jun43) 
Rudolf Mueller
101 
Josef Priller
101
Ulrich Wernitz
101 
Paul-Heinrich Daehne
100


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2005)

Damn that took awhile....... Phew.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> > No. the P-40 was never intended to escort and the P-51 was originaly to be P-40s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

Les it would be of interest the pilots that you have listed, just what there US fighter scores were of how many and what type........

yeah a pain in the Butt it would be...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2005)

I dont know if i have enough free time to do that.... Jezz what a project...

Heres an old listing I put together awhile ago... Not quite the same as what u asked above, but still pretty good nonetheless...

# / Name / US Kills / Total Kills / Bombers / Fighters 

1. Georg-Peter Eder / 55 / 78 / 36 / 9xP47, 7xP51, 3xP38
2. Heinz Bär / 52 / 221/ 21 / 11xP51, 10xP47, 4xP38, 3xB25, 1xA20
3. Anton Hackl / 47 / 192 / 34 / 6xP47, 3xP38, 2xP51, 3 "??" 
4. Kurt Bühligen / 46 / 112 / 24 / 13xP38, 9xP47
5. Walther Dahl / 41 / 128 / 30 / 6xP51, 3xP38, 2xP47
6. Konrad Bauer / 40 / 68 / 32 / 7xP51, 1xP38
7. Egon Mayer / 40 / 102 / 26 / 8xP47
8. Heinrich Bartels / 39 / 99 / 2 / 14xP38, 11xP51, 9xP47, 2xB25 
9. Siegfried Lemke/ 39 / 70 / 21 / 8xP47, 6xP51, 2xP38, 2xB26, 1xB25, 1xP39 
10. Werner Schroer / 36 / 114 / 26 / 8xP38, 1xP51, 1xP39 

Used several places/books for reference on this info... Some of it u probably originally gathered Erich.... Hehe...


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

Les in about a month I will be able to truely stae whether or not Dahl and Bauer are full of crap or not. Dahl was a BS artist till his death and this is certainty. Bauer was a hot pilot flying a standard FW 190A-8 with 5.Sturm/JG 300 isntead of the heavy Sturmböcke of the staffel/gruppe, but it is interesting that he was wounded severly before December 44 and took over from the ground as Staffelführer of 5th staffel after Klaus Bretschneiders death. Konrad on many occassion was responsible for shooting down multiple P-51's in combat. His first deployement was through JG 51 where he racked up a few Soviet kills. What is odd though is the amount of US 4 engine bombers accredited to him as his total but something is wrong as he had nowhere the figure presented to him upon him being WIA, because after this he never flew operationaly again.

WErner Schroers activiies are with his JG 27 unit in Afrika.

You can easily see and take note of Heinz Bär and Toni Hackl, two greats behind the 109 and especially the Fw 190A-8 in JG's 1 and 11.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2005)

> Les in about a month I will be able to truely stae whether or not Dahl and Bauer are full of crap or not.


What happens in about a month??? U gettin access to some unseen archives???


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

actually the first volume of JG 300 is coming out. It should reveal some excellent first hand information. Hopefully I will be able to share but cannot reproduce any of the pics from the book due to the stress of the copyright relation......it will have to be purchased by you gents.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2005)

Excellent...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Damn Erich you are going to have share the wealth okay!

Oh and by the way Erich it is not going to be over the Romantische Strasse on monday so I will not get any pics of Dinkelsbuehl but I have a to Belgium on Monday and I can get some pictures of some interesting castles or whatnot if we fly over them.


----------



## Erich (Jun 25, 2005)

go for it Eagle !!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 25, 2005)

Soren,

Quit hedging, *After* the Merlin was found to be fuel efficient The P-51 was examined to see if some extra fuel could be placed in the aircraft, an *Experiment*, finding that it could, it was then accepted for escort work. At that point it was built as an escort fighter. There never was an intention. Your statement was that it was designed/intended as an escort fighter was and is incorrect. The H model was intended to be an escort fighter, yes, but is not relevent to this conversation. 

The P-51s in 1:1 combat were able to beat the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 on a regular basis. Was it a sure thing - no. It certainly wasn't a sure thing the other way either. My statement was and remains the P-51 was a compettitive fighter, period. The P-51D was still compettitive 600mi from home and you have to be there to be the best. 

You have not given any information to contradict my statements just restated your responses with different words. Stating your position many different ways doesn't change anything.  

wmaxt


----------



## FalkeEins (Jun 26, 2005)

..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 26, 2005)

Agreed 100%...


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 26, 2005)

FalkeEins said:


> ..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..



Maybe so, especialy a 109K with an experianced pilot. It still wasn't a sure thing for the Bf-109K even then. With a Bf-109G the P-51 it was much closer and had several advantages. An average pilot in a Bf-109G was more often encountered. There are numerous accounts of P-51s that fought with Bf-109s and won, Bud Anderson gives an account of an engagement where he fought a Bf-109 in the verticle and eventualy won - the two aircraft were virtuly identicle in performance during that fight.

Tactics are as important as aircraft performance wheather its having a wingman or staying out of the opposing aircrafts performance specialty. The P-40 couldn't touch a Zero in a dogfight but the Flying Tigers rarely had much trouble shooting them down.

Was the Bf-109G/K a better dog fighter, Probably, that seems to be the consensus. Was it so much better to assure a win every time - no. The P-51 was still compettitive as an aircraft and that was rienforced by the tactics with which it was used. 

wmaxt


----------



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

yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........



Agreed, but on its own the Bf-109 was in trouble to, even with 1 Mustang they lost a number of fights. Most dogfights degenerate to 1 on 1 fights ie. no wingmen. With a competent pilot a P-51 was capable of winning a fight with a 109. That's my point.

I can accept the -109 was a better dogfighter than the -51. I also accept that using a wingman was a significant advantage. Neither one makes the P-51 less than compettitive which is all I've ever claimed.

wmaxt


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........



I think the P51 was not only great with an expericenced pilot but also in how it's built. The P51 was built for distance,speed, and manerivbility. The me109 probably wouldnt stand a chance, but, it all depends on the pilot. whether they shot down none or 100, if the me109's pilot was a good pilot, then lets see how he would pit against American technoligy.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 26, 2005)

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html

_In some respects, Germany had led the way in propeller design by introducing wide, broad chord blade propellers. If one looks at the narrow chord blades of the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109E fighter and compares these to the later Bf 109G, it is readily apparent that the latter’s propeller blades have widened considerable. 

The earlier VDM, variable pitch propeller worked reasonably well at converting the Daimler-Benz 601 engine’s power into thrust. However, as the weight and drag of subsequent models increased, so did the horsepower requirements. With the increased power came the need to utilize that power in a more efficient manner. Thus, German engineers looked to the propeller design as the solution to getting the power to the road, to use the common metaphor. Ultimately, these engineers decided to remain with three blades, rather than four (or more) as incorporated by British and American designers. It must be assumed that the efficiency of their design did not require more than three blades. 

Perhaps the penultimate example of the German three-blade design resides in those used on late war fighters such as the Fw 190D and the Ta 152. Indeed, the chord to span ratio of these propellers is dramatic in comparison to the “toothpick” blades used on virtually every fighter in the American inventory through 1942. 

Another noteworthy observation of the German designs shows us that the propeller blades were not “clipped”, or squared off. The blades have a semi-elliptical trailing edge that tapers to a tight radius at the tip. There can be little doubt that this shape was found to be acceptable. Yet, one must speculate if, somehow, the German designers had missed the boat.Consider the enormous amount of power produced by the late war DB 605A and the Jumo 213A engines, producing up to 1,800 and 2,240 horsepower respectively. Now, compare that with the performance of the fighters in which they were installed. The fastest sub-model of the Bf 109G could do no better than 428 mph. Likewise the much-touted Fw 190D could manage but just 426 mph. When we look at the North American P-51D, we see a fighter that was at least 10 mph faster on 300 to 600 fewer horsepower. Granted, the superlative P-51 was a remarkably low drag design. *Nonetheless, had the Germans found themselves on the backside of the power vs efficiency curve again? I believe that we can say that the answer is yes*._


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 26, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > yes but the tactics involved heavily the use of a wingman, on it's own the -51 was in trouble........
> ...



The Bf-109 was built for speed and manouverability, long range adds weight, a dissadvantage.

The P-51 was a good solid fighter that could hold it's own, more importantly it could do it 600mi from home base. The P-51 was a little more robust than the Bf-109 but not a whole lot. It was also compettitive but it wasn't necessarily a better dogfighter in all regeims. A lot of times the best was up to the pilots. 

From everything I've read the Bf-109G has a small advantage in turning, the K model extends that to add climb and top speed but still not overwelming. Does anyone have roll rates for the -109s, turn radii, etc.?

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2005)

> Soren,
> 
> Quit hedging, *After* the Merlin was found to be fuel efficient The P-51 was examined to see if some extra fuel could be placed in the aircraft, an *Experiment*, finding that it could, it was then accepted for escort work. At that point it was built as an escort fighter. There never was an intention. Your statement was that it was designed/intended as an escort fighter was and is incorrect. The H model was intended to be an escort fighter, yes, but is not relevent to this conversation.



I'm not hedging wmaxt, what you've just said I have no problem with. Anyway as I said, I was talking the P-51's flying over Europe (B, C D), which were intended and designed, 'amongst other things', as escort fighters. Now where I think we misunderstood each other is about the "Original" design of the P-51. It is true the P-51 was intended to replace the P-40, and that its original design revolved around the fighter-interceptor role, but this changed shortly after the introduction of the Merlin engine. 

I was however incorrect in saying that the P-51 from the beginning was Designed/Intended as an escort fighter, and I should have specified it earlier than I did which P-51 I was talking about......sorry.



> The P-51s in 1:1 combat were able to beat the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 on a regular basis.



The few times a P-51 won a 1:1 fight with a 109, were incidents where the P-51 pilot's most certainly were flying against young poorly trained LW pilots. As with an experienced pilot, the 109 had the advantage in everything from climb, turn, roll, acceleration etc etc.... 
So in a 1:1, the 109 pilot would have to make a serius blunder to fall prey to a P-51. (Quite a few fresh LW pilots did) 



> Was it a sure thing - no. It certainly wasn't a sure thing the other way either. My statement was and remains the P-51 was a compettitive fighter, period. The P-51D was still compettitive 600mi from home and you have to be there to be the best.



The P-51 was for sure competitive, no'one is denying that at all ! But against a 109G-10 - K-4, the P-51 just wasn't as competitive as sometimes believed, but infact inferior. 

(Remember we're strictly talking the a/c here)



> You have not given any information to contradict my statements just restated your responses with different words. Stating your position many different ways doesn't change anything.



Hmm.. funny, haven't seen any sources from you either.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Fisher.html
> 
> _In some respects, Germany had led the way in propeller design by introducing wide, broad chord blade propellers. If one looks at the narrow chord blades of the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109E fighter and compares these to the later Bf 109G, it is readily apparent that the latter’s propeller blades have widened considerable.
> 
> ...



The author of that article must be either VERY ignorant, or just not very well educated in aerodynamics. The reason for the P-51's astonishing straight out speed, compared to its weight and power, was almost singlehandedly because of its laminar wing. 
And offcourse he also 'forgets' to mention that the British Spit XIV, which was slower than the 109K-4, not only had 50 more horsepower, but also two extra props and a lower drag wing.  (A clear sign of bias!)

Btw, DAVID what is it with you and 'that' site ?!   (No seriously it is 'very' biased towards the allies)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

Erich I am sorry, I forgot my camara when I left my house at 4 in the morning. I did not get any pictures. I am completly dissapointed there were some great castles and ruins on the rought. Also soem great Mannors in Belgium and the Ardennes looked great from above.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

FalkeEins said:


> ..as one JG 300 pilot put it, it wasn't so much the P-51 you were fighting that was the problem, it was his wingman...the P-51s were too heavy for the later 109s..couldn't stay with them in a dog-fight or climb..



Agreed 100%




P38 Pilot said:


> I think the P51 was not only great with an expericenced pilot but also in how it's built. The P51 was built for distance,speed, and manerivbility. The me109 probably wouldnt stand a chance, but, it all depends on the pilot. whether they shot down none or 100, if the me109's pilot was a good pilot, then lets see how he would pit against American technoligy.



Disagree with you. The only real things the P-51 had going for it was range and strenght in numbers. The Mustang is very overated and was not as maneuverable as you think it was. 

Not to burst your bubble or anything but American Technology was gaining but German technology was still ahead of Americas at the time when it comes to aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 27, 2005)

Publications and interviews are always biased and I have read many of each and depending on point of view, Allied/Axis, they consistently say their aircraft is the best. The performance figures for each are compareable within a reasonable range, I've seen nothing that shows a clear dominance of either. Just stating the P-51s only advantage was better numbers/tactics doesn't cut it. If your tactics aren't working you change them. As for numbers, the number of German aircraft shot down, they remained in the ~400/500 planes/month from March '44 when the Germans had the numerical advantage to Dec. '44 when the P-51s had the advantage. Other than the relative numbers the only difference was the preasence of P-38s until ~August '44, about when the AAF took numerical superiorority in terms of aircraft.

For instince: (source bf-109.com)
Bf-109G6 - Max Speed 387 at 22k Climb 6min to 19k
P-51D - Max speed 437 at 25k Climb 6.7min to 20k
Bf-109K4 - Max Speed 452 at 19.6k Climb 6.7min to 32k

the 109 had slats at extream AoA the 51 had flaps at any speed/AoA. Roll rates are similar and control forces in favor of the 51 at very high speeds.

Right now we have people each saying their plane is better, is there some info out there that can add to this discussion to show a relative advantage one way or the other? 

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 27, 2005)

Soren,

The time line for the Merlin Mustang is like this The first Merlin/extra fuel Mustanges went into production in March '43 when AAF policy was no escort required, as the P-51B/Mustang II long range fighter. The first escort (not sanctioned by the AAF) by the 5th Air Force in the PTO was about that same period. The first long range escort was the 12th Air Force in North Africa in ~August '43 again not sanctioned by the AAF top brass. The AAF and in particular the 8th Air Force did not recognize the need for long range escort until AFTER the second Schwienfurt raid in October'43. At THAT point, realizing the P-51 had the range/performance, it was considered as an escort fighter. Thats six months after the Merlin/extra fuel Mustangs began production. For instance there were 290 Mustanges in the ETO in June '43 (9th Air Force - Tactical air) but the first escort by P-51s was the 354th FG (9th Air Force) in December '43. The first escort by P-51s in the 8th Air Force was the 357th FG in Feburary '44.

As for offering new information, I offered a further breakdown of the history of the A-36/P-51. And above a detailed historical timeline w/specifics of the escort/P-51 interface. As the intention did not exist I could not very well offer emperical evidence could I?  

I think were finaly getting on the same wavelength though.

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Jun 27, 2005)

It's been quite enough of specifications.

You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.

Just like I have met both with German and USA veterans, I have also read articles written by some USAAF aces: Kit Carson and the ultra-arrogant Chuck Yeager, who in a bizarre exercise, ridicules the German pilots when the man himself got surpassed and shot down by a German pilot. The man is completely lucky to be alive today and to be capable of seeing his contradictions increasing as he grows older and older.
That is what I call having both your feet several meters above the ground.

Now, we are all aware the allies captured numbers of fully operational German aircraft when the war ended in Europe -a few planes captured during the war-.

The war prizes included Bf109 of the latest versions, Fw190Ds, Ta152s, Do335s, Me262s, etc.

What came of all them after the war?

Yup, we know they were shipped to the allied victorious nations, tested, most were scrapped and some sent over to museums. Was that about it?

The British "captured" a JG 300 Bf 109 G-6/R6 -fitted with underwing 2cm cannons- during the war and conducted a shameful (also embarrasing)test comparing the German craft fitted for bomb hunting missions with a contemporary Sptifire. The tests proved that even a 109 fitted in such fashion -extra weight and extra drag- could hardly be surpassed by the _leaner_ Spitfire. In some departments the Wilde Sau Bf 109 performed better than the Spitfire.

With this I mean that by carrying out such test, the British themselves involuntarily -and foolishly- made a contribution to debunk the myth on the "inability of the underwing gondola Bf 109s to succesfully engage or evade from enemy fighters."

Has any of you ever wondered why was it not mock combat-dogfight involving the captured German planes and the allied wonders was ever carried out, filmed and duly documented?

Perhaps they did it but prefered to either omit or _classify_ the outcome of such testing.

No one bad mouths the P-51 or the P-47. 
I am confident when saying the great P-47 has been unfairly kicked out of the throne by the Mustang. By the side of the Thunderbolt, the P-51 is chicken.

Mr. wmaxt also is correct when affirming that on a one vs one a P-51 could win the fight. Correct. 

I am 100 percent confident when affirming the late Bf109s were much better dogfighters than the Mustang.

One final point, the burden of proof lies with the allies making the claim of their allegedly superior planes, weapons, tactics, pilots, training and a long list of blah, blah, blahs...

Besides the self made laurels and the self crowning product of their relevant share in achieveing final victory, they have failed to prove their weaponry was superior.

The disturbing issue lies when one can affirm there is sound evidence that will suggest the Bf109s and Fw190s were cookies tough beyond the capabilties of both RAF and USAAF in numerically equal engagements.

They ought to know the winner is not always the one who is the best.

A.R.R.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2005)

Udet said:


> It's been quite enough of specifications.
> 
> You are correct enough when affirming most pilots are likely to affirm the planes each flew were the best, though.
> 
> ...



Very well put Udet - one comment kind of off topic. I've met Yeager on several occasions myself - I think your discription of him is an understatement!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

I as well have met Yeager several times, and can honestly say that he was the one individula I didnt want to meet again... I actually saw Joe Foss cuss him out once back in 1982... 

My Dad thought that was priceless...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I was actually trying to find some info on comparisons between P-51D and Bf-109G and K and you know what I found was interesting most compare it to the Bf-109F and E. I actaully find this quite disturbing since when the D showed up over Germany its primary 109 enemy was the G and the K.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2005)

> the 109 had slats at extream AoA the 51 had flaps at any speed/AoA.



In a hard turn the wings max AoA is reached almost immediately, so the auto-slats are VERY beneficial to turn performance at ALL speeds. And btw, the Bf 109 has combat flaps aswell. So I don't know what your point is here.

Also the Bf-109's wing (No slats) has a higher CL-max than the P-51's wing, meaning the 109's wing produces more lift pr area. 
While a Laminar airfoil produces much less drag, it also produces less lift than a conventional airfoil, and a laminar airfoil also stalls much earlier and much more violently than a conventional airfoil. 



> Roll rates are similar and control forces in favor of the 51 at very high speeds.



Not elevator controls, which would literally 'lock up' in the P-51 at high speed. The late war Bf-109's had excellent elevator control, and even in a VERY high speed dive the 109 could still easely recover. (MUCH easier than a P-51 !)
This is also confirmed by many P-51 pilots which saw the 109 escape this way.

And a quote:

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



> Right now we have people each saying their plane is better, is there some info out there that can add to this discussion to show a relative advantage one way or the other?



This thread inspired me to make a Interceptor vs Escort thread only about the P-51 and the Bf-109. And 'yes', all the info you'll need to point out which is the better fighter will be present. So take a look...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

The Bf-109G and K performed better at high alltitudes anyhow.


----------



## poprune (Jun 28, 2005)

Is it worth considering that, at the time that the 'sweep' tactics were adopted by the Mustangs, Germany was really feeling the bite of shotages and disruption of almost everything?
There was nothing wrong with the later variants of the 109; they were excellent fighting machines, refined over years of war. The same cannot be said of the great majority of pilots who flew them, for whom a 109 must have seemed a horrifying animal, what with thr torque on take-off, wing-loading, high-speed stalls and g forces.
There simply weren't enough men, nor the time or resouces to train them properly. Experten were thin on the ground and getting thinner by the day.

By the way, I wholly endorse the view that every pilot thinks that the plane HE flew was the best thing ever; it comes through every book I ever read. I will, however, take issue with the point that the British deliberately distorted the comparison in tests made between a captured 109 and a Spitfire: to do such a thing would be criminally stupid and that is one thing that the British most certainly weren't (most of them, anyway).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

You are correct in your assumption that the Luftwaffe was running on a shortage of materials and fuel. They were also not able to replace there losses like the allies were able to.

As for the Spitfire vs 109 test. They were not very accurate. They compared it to a 109 that was weighted down with drop tanks and such not. I am sure the results would have varied more if they had removed it.


----------



## poprune (Jun 28, 2005)

Then I'm quite sure it wasn't an official evaluation. Such tests were carried out under rigorously controlled conditions to ensure that the results were fair and accurate. After all, the people who were going to be given the information were squadron pilots who would more than likely meet those same aircraft for real; giving them false gen would result in some very pungent comments at the least! I can see that some figures might be 'bent' for propaganda purposes for civilian consumption, though.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2005)

There is always a bias when testing aircraft. If the pilot likes it he tries harder, if he's Navy flying an Air Force plane - of course it's not as good etc. Many times the bias unintentional but it is there anyway. Sometimes it's just expertise with the various aircraft - the pilot is going to get more out of the plane he has 200hrs in over the one he has 20hrs in. Lastly the captured plane may be running worse than normal or as noted above in a unfavorable configuration.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Very good point there. The British pilots who flew the 109 did not have the experience in the 109 that the German pilots did. The Luftwaffe pilots knew how to get the most out of her while the British were trying to figure her out.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The British test pilots often got worried about the wing slats when they deployed. Which was true for the majority of Luftwaffe pilots, I suppose you could say the tests of the British were like how a rookie Luftwaffe pilot would fly them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

That is probably a very good generalization there.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The British test pilots often got worried about the wing slats when they deployed. Which was true for the majority of Luftwaffe pilots, I suppose you could say the tests of the British were like how a rookie Luftwaffe pilot would fly them.



Exactly. 

The British test-pilots stopped any maneuver as soon as the slats came out, as the loud bang and slight notch in the controls almost made them shit their pants. 
However that the 'Majority' of LW pilots did the same is slightly untrue, the majority of 'fresh' LW pilots did. Properly trained LW pilots didnt make this mistake. -With the exception of the early war pilots flying the 109E which slats jammed, scaring many of the pilots for life. (A good example is Günther Rall who experienced this very early in his career, and never attempted such wild maneuvers again)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The Bf-109 was only the master-piece of engineering it was in the hands of an expert. The Bf-109 still to this day does not get recognition as a great turning fighter and there is a reason for that. The reason is most Bf-109s didn't turn well because their pilots weren't fully capable with the Bf-109 because the 109 was, quite frankly, a twat to fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Depends on the varients. The 109E was known to fly very well at high speeds.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

It still wasn't a nice aircraft to fly, I read somewhere over 1,500 Bf-109E and F were lost in a few months during 1941-'42 due purely to accidents. The difficulty to fly increased in the G and even more so in the K. That's why I think the F was the best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

most of these accidents would be on take off and landing i'm assuming??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> most of these accidents would be on take off and landing i'm assuming??



Landing! - narrow landing gear, high horse power, poor visibility, add a good crosswind and its an accident waiting to happen, even for a seasoned pilot!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

I don't know, possibly. I have read the section again and it wasn't in a few months, it was E and Fs from 1940-1942. 

The _major_ problems being;

There was no rudder trimmer, at high speed constant pressure had to be kept on the rudder pedal to keep it straight. 

The flight controls tightened up above 300 mph, pilots had to hold their arms out in front and could not get good leverage except for fore and aft movement. 

In tight manoeuvres, the slats snatched open which caused sudden yaw, this made aiming almost impossible. Handling the plane in these situations was also extremely tiring.

This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38. 

When the Gustav was introduced the flight controls were arranged poorly. The higher torque engine produced a larger swing on take off and landing, which was already bad enough with the narrow landing gear. 

The only make up for increase of weight was an extra 275 hp in the DB 605A (1475 hp) and GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost. No new larger wing was installed. So, the problems had either remained or were made worse.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38.



The -38 was a handful on one engine (especially on take off) and of course during a dive. Other than that I'm told she was actually easy to fly.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

It required a very good pilot to make it fly to it's full ability though. It was good in the hands of a novice pilot, but only good. It was excellent in the hands of people like Bong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It required a very good pilot to make it fly to it's full ability though. It was good in the hands of a novice pilot, but only good. It was excellent in the hands of people like Bong.



YEPPERS!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Bf-109 was only the master-piece of engineering it was in the hands of an expert.



No, just with a properly trained pilot. 



> The Bf-109 still to this day does not get recognition as a great turning fighter and there is a reason for that.



Your very wrong here Plan_D, as the 109 has actually been called an excellent T&B fighter by virtually all modern pilots who has flown the few remaining examples to this date. (I've seen 'none' who describe it as sluggish in any way)

An American pilot even said he could easely take on two or three P-51 Mustangs in his 109. 

So the few modern day results with the Bf-109 actually presents it as a formidable dogfighter.



> The reason is most Bf-109s didn't turn well because their pilots weren't fully capable with the Bf-109 because the 109 was, quite frankly, a twat to fly.



This 'hardness' to fly myth has been highly exaggerated by british test reports on the 109E and 109G with gun-pods, in reality it wasnt a problem at all as described by German and Finnish pilots who flew it.

Remember Plan_D, there's a reason why the 109 gave birth to such a record braking number of aces, from both Germany and Finland ! It was simply an excellent fighter.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jun 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.



You do know that the Spit had a narrower track than the 109? 

What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.



Exactly correct!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren,

I seem to remember the Finns did well with the Buffalo too!?

Everybody,

As I understand it the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft but I too have heard that it was more difficult than average to fly well and the controls tightened up more than average at high speeds. Passing this off as British dislike or propaganda just doesn't cut it.

As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned. 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.
> 
> wmaxt



EXCELLENT POINT!


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Soren,
> 
> I seem to remember the Finns did well with the Buffalo too!?



Absolutely, they were great pilots ! But most of the Finnish veterans happily admit they liked the 109 better, and that they had more succes in that fighter.



> Everybody,
> 
> As I understand it the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft but I too have heard that it was more difficult than average to fly well and the controls tightened up more than average at high speeds. Passing this off as British dislike or propaganda just doesn't cut it.



I agree it has very little to do with British dislike, but the main variant they tested was the old 109E which admittedly had heavy controls at high speed. The later 109's had very good high speed control, and the controls became stiff not until speeds of over 700km/h ! Infact the the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of up to 85kg !! (Much more than the Spit's stick design) 

The British also tested a 109G-6, but with gun-pods which increased stick forces. 



> As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.



Mostly it was as honest as possible, yes. 

But remember the British practically didn't test their captured 109's at all, as they would stop any maneuver as soon as the slats popped out, which they did almost immediately in any hard maneuvering.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Infact the the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of up to 85kg !! (Much more than the Spit's stick design)
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> 85kg? 172lbs?  Thats more than the P-51 and above average too. That would tire a pilot out in just 3/4 manouvers.



That's really high!


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

> 85kg? 172lbs?  Thats more than the P-51 and above average too. That would tire a pilot out in just 3/4 manouvers.



You missunderstood me wmaxt..

The 109's stick was designed to 'handle' that much force, meaning it was easier for the pilot. The Spit would have to have a stick which reached the roof to be that effective !


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2005)

Look at this(Picture below). 

For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> Look at this(Picture below).
> 
> For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.



The 85kg stick force for elevator is related to what then? 85kg is barely handleable by a weight lifter.

57lbs is still acceptable but very close to the practile limit.

We were talking elevator not aileron, the requirements are different. 

The control stick is a lever, moving the pivot would make a large change in a very small move.

The 85kg you gave is for a later aircraft that had changed those perameters, what are the pertinent numbers?

We started with a comparison with the P-51, what's the corralation?

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

The Bf-109 didn't give birth to the great aces of World War 2, the great aces of World War 2 made the Bf-109 what it was. The Bf-109 required an expert to fly it at it's full potential, unlike a Mustang or Spitfire. 

You keep going on about those slats and how amazing they were but they did scare pilots and they did create sudden yaw. If a pilot is scared of it, he's not going to put it to it's limits. Then the aircraft hasn't got it's potential!

Modern day pilots have the advantage of hindsight. They get people from today, historians, old Luftwaffe pilots etc. etc. telling them not to worry and explaining exactly how it was all done. That's all well and good now but in the 1940s the Luftwaffe were training their pilots to be up there and ready as quick as possible. 

Do you honestly believe that if those aces had flown the Fw-190A instead, they wouldn't have achieved their impressive results?

And on a final note, the FAF had some remarkable pilots which did wonders with anything they got their hands on. Of course they're going to like the -109 more...what else did they have? Gladiators, old Mohawks and Buffaloes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.
> ...



I was actually always thinking about that when I looked at design diagrams and dimensions. The Spitfire was the narrower of the two.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> Look at this(Picture below).
> 
> For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.



This chart deals with aileron force (roll), lighter control forces around one axis. What about elevator and elevator trim position? In a turn the aileron banks the aircraft, the radius of the turn is controlled with elevator back pressure providing the power setting remains the same. Both the -109 and Spit had elevator trim which could greatly relieve back pressure. Are these values assumed with trim in the most favorable position?


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Look at this(Picture below).
> ...



Exactly, as I pointed out above we need info relative to why the stick was designed for 85kg force for elevator movement. 

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

> The 85kg stick force for elevator is related to what then? 85kg is barely handleable by a weight lifter.
> 
> 57lbs is still acceptable but very close to the practile limit.
> 
> ...



With an average pilot the 109G's stick was designed so it could effectively provide 85kg of force for the elevators, and 70kg for the ailerons.

For a 1/5 deflection at 400mph the "109E" would need only 37lbs stick force, so this would be even lower in the 109G and onwards. 

As for the elevator deflection in the 109G an onwards, the stick would need 'much' less force than in the 109E.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually the 109F had an improved elevator control over the 109E as-well, and British tests confirm this:


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren,

85kg and 70kg are a lot and would tire a pilot very quickly. Or are you saying a force of an undetermined value will provide 85/70kg of force to the affected eppanage? If so what's that value?

What does this have to do with the tightening of controls at high speed of the P-51/Bf-109G/K relative to one another? 

What does an E have to do with this?

I think all we really have is the subjective observations of various pilots. Taken as a whole neither plane becomes totaly uncontrolable even near the airspeed limits of the airframes.

The bottom line is that so far the two planes are very close. Does anyone have some data to change that statement?

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> 85kg and 70kg are a lot and would tire a pilot very quickly. *Or are you saying a force of an undetermined value will provide 85/70kg of force to the affected eppanage?*



Yes. 



> If so what's that value?



Sorry but I don't know that value. What I know is that the new stick design effectively lightened the controls for the pilot at high speeds.



> I think all we really have is the subjective observations of various pilots. Taken as a whole neither plane becomes totaly uncontrolable even near the airspeed limits of the airframes.



I agree.



> The bottom line is that so far the two planes are very close. Does *anyone have some data to change that statement*?



Yes I already provided it;

The Bf 109K-4 has a 5lbs (32 kg) lighter lift-loading than the P-51D, plus a better power-loading, wing aspect ratio, Wing CL-max, and a much higher max wing AoA.

All this is enough to prove that the 109 was the better "dogfighter", BUT, not the best overall fighter.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 30, 2005)

No, those stats say it could/should. We still need the actuall numbers produced in the manouvers in question ie how fast does it accelerate, roll, turn, enter an accelerated stall and retain energy. There is often a dissparity between theory and reality.

I've read pilot accounts on both sides that say their plane was better and at least for those pilots that was true or they would not have lived to say it. Or is it only because the Bf-109 is harder to fly at it's max and the average German pilot was to inexperianced to make full use of it?

Right now I see two aircraft that are very close, one has some stats that infer it could/should be better. We have nothing difinitive yet that can tell us it was better or by how much. 

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2005)

> All this is enough to prove that the 109 was the better "dogfighter", BUT, not the best overall fighter.


I agree 100%...


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> No, those stats say it could/should. We still need the actuall numbers produced in the manouvers in question ie how fast does it accelerate, roll, turn, enter an accelerated stall and retain energy. There is often a dissparity between theory and reality.



I must disagree, the stats are more than enough to 'roughly' determine the a/c's performance.

Remember the 109K-4 would do 4,880ft/min and reach 20,000ft in 4.7min, and had a max speed of 452mph. This coupled with the much lower lift-loading and better wing-aspect ratio, power-loading, wing CL-max, max wing AoA, is more than enough if you ask me...



> I've read pilot accounts on both sides that say their plane was better and at least for those pilots that was true or they would not have lived to say it. *Or is it only because the Bf-109 is harder to fly at it's max and the average German pilot was to inexperianced to make full use of it*?



According to pilot accounts and aerodynamic data, this is by far the most likely theory. Although I would alter it to the "average German pilot in 44-45".



> Right now I see two aircraft that are very close, one has some stats that infer it could/should be better. We have nothing difinitive yet that can tell us it was better or by how much.



We won't get any 'real' definitive answer before someone actually goes out and tests these two a/c's against each other, and display the results officially... 

But I can tell you that modern mock fights between the Bf-109 and P-51, are highly in favor of the 109.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

> According to pilot accounts and aerodynamic data, this is by far the most likely theory. Although I would alter it to the "average German pilot in 44-45".



Why would you change it to 1944-45? If you look at the war as a whole the Bf-109 never really gained a massive advantage over other aircraft. In 1940, the Bf-109E was not a cut above the Spitfire or Hurricane. It was equals to both, with many German pilots stating they would not turn with a Hurricane or Spitfire. 
Most give accounts of the Bf-109E being comparable to the Spitfire in a dogfight, while only a few say they were in a superior plane. This says to me, if what you're saying about the _plane_ is true that the majority of pilots certainly were not able to fly the plane to it's full. After all, they weren't all Adolf Galland. 

In 1941-'43 the Bf-109F and G never really gained any upper-hand over the Spitfire. The Bf-109F is stacked up on equal terms against the Spitfire V. It was the Fw-190A that made the Air Ministry quickly jump on to the Spitfire IX. I've seen many Spitfire IX pilots talking about how the Spitfire would out do the Bf-109 in every aspect. 

Certainly, in my eyes, it seems the Bf-109 was only pushed to it's full ability by a select few of naturally talented and combat experienced pilots. This plane was not a rookies plane, for sure. It only came into it's own when an expert could mask it's faults, and make full use of it's perks. Unlike a Spitfire, Hurricane or Mustang in which a green pilot could make the plane do wonderful things.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jun 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> Remember the 109K-4 would do 4,880ft/min and reach 20,000ft in 4.7min, and had a max speed of 452mph. This coupled with the much lower lift-loading and better wing-aspect ratio, power-loading, wing CL-max, max wing AoA, is more than enough if you ask me...



Only problem with those number is that they are for 1.98 ata and required C3 fuel. Consider the low fuel stocks in Germany at the time and the 190 had to use C3 it is questionable, how many of the K-4s in the 4 Gruppen that were suppose to convert to 1.98 really did so. The 4 Gruppen (I. / JG 27, III. / JG 2, III. / JG 53, IV. / JG 53) had only 91 operational K-4s as of April 9 1945. Testing of 1.98 started in Dec 1944 but was questionably cleared in early/mid March 1945. There was also much reliabilty problems with the DB605 which also puts into question the use of 1.98.

1.80 ata gave the K-4 a speed of 444mph


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Man I was just starting to enjoy the fact that KK had left us for good..... Been almost a month with no KK and boy what a great time its been........

Oh well.......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Can I borrow that picture of a can of Whoop ass you have, les? Just for that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I dont think this debate is ever going to come to a conlusion as to which aircraft was better. It has been going on since 1936 damn it.


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

two cents on the topic.

I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Yes u can pD... Here ya go...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

> two cents on the topic.
> 
> I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
> II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
> IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's


erich, whats up with all the 2's (twos) ??? 

Very strange... 

Out of those 66 aircraft, how many JG27 pilots were lost from those K-4's???? Very curious if u have that info...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Thank you for the pic, les. It will come in handy in the future, I'm sure. And maybe the K-4 liked to get shot down in twos?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Heres another.... For when u need just a couple of dashes of whoopass and not the whole can....


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

the III./JG 27 losses could be higher as towarads April 45 it just mentions 109 without variant listed.


JG 4 lost at least 69 K-4's in I., III., and IV. gruppes with the bulk lost in III. gruppe.

will have to check further on losses in JG 27 further


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Erich, please read my previous previous post........


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

Les I am working on it. wanted to indicate though that the III./JG 27 may have had more K-4's lost than what I indicated.

IV./JG 27 lost 25 K-4's in 1945 with 9 pilots KIA


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Oh sorry dude... Didnt know u were talkin to me....


> IV./JG 27 lost 25 K-4's in 1945 with 9 pilots KIA


1 outta 3.... Hmmmmmm....


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren,

The problem with those numbers is that except for the climb and top speed they are static design numbers. There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it. If the point made above about the fuel is valid then the actual Speed/Climb numbers were also unavailable and we are still looking for Performance figures to compare. Anything else is assumption.

As pointed out above this debate has been going on for more than 60 years. I guess they must have been pretty damn close.

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Wmaxt said, "_There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it._"

I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

> Only problem with those number is that they are for 1.98 ata and required C3 fuel. Consider the low fuel stocks in Germany at the time and the 190 had to use C3 it is questionable, how many of the K-4s in the 4 Gruppen that were suppose to convert to 1.98 really did so. The 4 Gruppen (I. / JG 27, III. / JG 2, III. / JG 53, IV. / JG 53) had only 91 operational K-4s as of April 9 1945. Testing of 1.98 started in Dec 1944 but was questionably cleared in early/mid March 1945. There was also much reliabilty problems with the DB605 which also puts into question the use of 1.98.
> 
> 1.80 ata gave the K-4 a speed of 444mph



KK I only have one thing to say "do NOT rely on Mike Williams K-4 figures, they are flat wrong".

And as to the 1.98 boost issue: _Back to the question of maximum allowed boosts, the already mentioned manual for the DB 605 DB/DC engines issued 5th December 1944, already the 3rd edition of it`s kind, notes the use of both 1.8 and 1.98ata for the DB/DC, respectively. According to the recordings of a meeting on the 20th January 1944, after unsuccessfull trials at Rechlin Test Centre, the clearance of 1.98ata was delayed until further testing is performed; particular interest is Gen. Ing. Paul`s criticizing Daimler Benz as it forwarded the clearance of 1.98ata boost directly to General Galland, General of the Fighter Arm, and the Technisches Ausendienst for 'diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden' or because it issued these boost (1.98ata) directly to the troops and set the engines to it. Further the document states that individual fighter-recons may be set to 1.98ata. Given the date of the manual and the meetings and their contents, we can be sure 1.98ata was already in use for some time during December until late January, when the boost was recalled for further testing with II./JG 11. _


And note that In comparison to the Bf 109 K-4`s *10 minute* limitation of running at maximum power, the Griffon 65 engine of the Spitfire XIV was limited to only *5 minutes *at maximum power.




wmaxt said:


> Soren,
> 
> The problem with those numbers is that except for the climb and top speed they are static design numbers. There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it. If the point made above about the fuel is valid then the actual Speed/Climb numbers were also unavailable and we are still looking for Performance figures to compare. Anything else is assumption.
> 
> wmaxt



Well the point about C-3 fuel isnt correct, as it 'was' used.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Wmaxt said, "_There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it._"
> 
> I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.



It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > Wmaxt said, "_There have been hundreds of aircraft that never achieved the theoretical promise of the design and a few that have exceeded it._"
> ...



If I remember right I think as a field mod water injection and different cylinder heads were installed that might of increased the HP of these engines.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

Not as rare as u might think... My Grandfather told me that ALL the Corsairs in his VMF were tweaked out in more ways than one.... Every extra horsepower was cherished... 

Some pilots and mechanics actually used logs books for tracking the different performance changes for the different adjustments they made... Boyington liked to have his aircraft pushing as many HP as was possible...


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren,

How much C3 fuel was available overall and in the field? Any fuel was an issue late in the war. Your making a lot of assumptions and passing them on as facts.  

David,

I also heard of a test program at P&W that ran several 2800s at well over 3,000hp for 250 continous hours each without a failure.  

wmaxt


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace.

As to that test, it was 3,600hp! The engine was a Series 57 (the engine that went into the "M" and "N" models) rated for 2,800hp at WEP.

From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html

_ Right out of the starting gate, the XP-47M was the horse to beat in terms of speed. The XP-47M proved to be nearly as fast as the XP-47J. 488 mph was obtained on at least one flight. The official maximum speed is 470 mph. However, over-boosting the engine could tweak another 15 to 20 mph out of the big fighter. Some may find this next tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents still exist.

*During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure. Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710 and see what happens*._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Advancing the ignition timing, removing air filters, altering spark plug gap, shaving piston heads, and altering propeller tips are some of the field mods I heard mechanics did during WW2 to get more perfomance.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace.
> 
> As to that test, it was 3,600hp! The engine was a Series 57 (The engine that went into the "M" and "N" models) rated for 2,800hp at WEP.
> 
> ...



Wow, thats pretty amazing!


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Soren,
> 
> How much C3 fuel was available overall and in the field? Any fuel was an issue late in the war.



Not much, as there wasnt much fuel in the first place  My point is, "It 'was' used".



wmaxt said:


> Your making a lot of assumptions and passing them on as facts.



No wmaxt, im not. And plz wmaxt, lets not get judgemental here ! 



> Not as rare as u might think... My Grandfather told me that ALL the Corsairs in his VMF were tweaked out in more ways than one.... Every extra horsepower was cherished...



And it might very well be true, however not every P-47 or Corsair had its engine tweaked.. How many did ? Who knows..


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren said, "_And it might very well be true, however not every P-47 or Corsair had its engine tweaked.. How many did ? Who knows.._"

Well, no one said every Corsair or Thunderbolt underwent such "tweaking."

Les said all the aircraft in his Grandfather's VMF were modified. Thast doesn't mean every Corsair in the theatre of operations.

I understand that such tweaking was comonplace. As for how much additional horsepower could be generated, as you said, who knows? Achieving an extra 170 horsepower (2,700hp from 2,530hp) doesn't sound so improbable as to be a rare occurence per your statement that, "_It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare._"

Again, however, as you have said, who knows?


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

> Well, no one said every Corsair or Thunderbolt underwent such "tweaking."



I know, I was just pointing it out.



> Les said all the aircraft in his Grandfather's VMF were modified. Thast doesn't mean every Corsair in the theatre of operations.



I know, and I said that it might very well be true..



> I understand that such tweaking was comonplace. As for how much additional horsepower could be generated, as you said, who knows? Achieving an extra 170 horsepower (2,700hp from 2,530hp) *doesn't sound so improbable as to be a rare occurence per your statement that, "It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare."*



You miss-understood me.. What I meant was that this "tweaking" of P-47D's was pretty rare, except later in the war where it became abit more common.

The 170hp increase in engine-power was easely possible for a good mech, no problem there.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren said, "_You miss-understood me.. What I meant was that this "tweaking" of P-47D's was pretty rare, except later in the war where it became abit more common._"

I think the misunderstanding was on your part. All along, I was talking about the late war "D" variant.

I said, "*I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result*."

To which you responded, "_It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare._"

When you said "them" you were clearly referring to the late war "D" model R-2800 engines described in my post.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2005)

No you miss-undertsood me, as you thought I was implying that an 170hp increase in engine power was hard to accomplish  

Btw, I hadnt noticed you wrote 'late-war' -47D's, so there I actually miss- understood you.

It goes both ways 

Anyway, we do agree with each other.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2005)

Soren said, "_No you miss-undertsood me, as you thought I was implying that an 170hp increase in engine power was hard to accomplish._"

Whether or not you intended to, you did imply that Soren. You said, "_It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare._"

You said that in response to my saying, "*I remember reading somewhere on this forum that the mechanics in the field had tweaked the R-2800 engines of some late war "D" model Thunderbolts. The engines were rated at 2,530hp at WEP but were developing about 2,700 horsepower as a result.*"

When you said, "_that much_" you were clearly referring to the additional 170hp represented by an increase from 2,530 to 2,700. What other reasonable meaning could you possibly have implied? 

Then you, in the same response, continued with "_but it would be very rare._" By this, you clearly implied that while it was possible to go "_that much_" from 2,530 to 2,700hp, "_it would be very rare_." Hence, it would be possible but very rare to see "_that much_" of an increase in horsepower.

When I said, "*It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace*. " I was referring to the "tweaking" I had earlier referenced (which is why I set it out in in quotes) which was a tweaking resulting in a 170hp increase in the later "D" model Thunderbolt.

It was only later that you finally pointed out that "_The 170hp increase in engine-power was easely possible for a good mech, no problem there_."


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 1, 2005)

OMFG..... Someones snorting too much Ritalin.... Take a freakin qualude for christs sake...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 2, 2005)

Hey Les, Primus Sucks. That much cannot be denied but don't sell yourself short.

You suck too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

Every stinking day of my miserable life.......

Atleast u kept the reply short this time..... You really are one anal-retentive dude......


----------



## Soren (Jul 2, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Soren said, "_No you miss-undertsood me, as you thought I was implying that an 170hp increase in engine power was hard to accomplish._"
> 
> Whether or not you intended to, you did imply that Soren. You said, "_It certainly wasnt impossible to tweak them that much, but it would be very rare._"
> 
> ...



DAVID,

What I said was "It wasnt at all impossible to tweak them that much*, but* it would be very rare" 

Which implies it wasn't impossible, but it was rarely done... Now that it can be interpreted in two ways isn't mine or your fault.

Now shall we call it a quits, as this is rather uninteresting ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

> Now shall we call it a quits, as this is rather uninteresting ?


Yup...


----------



## Udet (Jul 2, 2005)

Plan_D:

You bet the F and G versions of the Bf 109 did represent very significant improvements over every contemporary Spitfire.

Both versions could achieve things the E-3 that saw action over England during the Battle of Britain couldn´t.

The alleged story of the "critical deterioration" of the manouverability of the Bf 109, especially on the G version, does not hold water when one sees the performance of the G-6s, G-10s and G-14s that shot down both USAAF and RAF fighters in juicy quantities.

The Spitfire, in fact, was becoming a true pig by 1943, becoming heavier and heavier and less manouverable.

It appears to me there are people clinging desperately to one of the very few -if not the only one- departments where the Spitfire could "outperform" the Bf 109: turning better.

Like if turning better was the sole choice that would assure success for a fighter pilot.

Soren has made useful and illustrative arguments on how the edge slats worked on the Bf 109 apparently to no avail.

Even if you were correct when affirming the Spitfire could turn better than the Bf 109, there are still many choices left for the German pilot to find its "out" and to cleanly outfly any version of the Spitfire. It is there, in all those choices where the Bf 109 is certainly ahead of the Spitfire.

What about just one, the fuel injected DB engines on the Bf 109 against the carbureted Merlins of the Spitfire. Who could handle negative G forces better? Easy and short response: Bf 109.

By the way, the Bf 109 E-3 fared much much better during the Battle of Britain -over enemy territory- against both the MkIs -Hurricane and Spitfire- than any version of the Spitfire did over the Channel and France from 1941 to early 1943 against the Bf 109.

The Bf 109s and the Butcher Birds of JG 2 and JG 26 shot down Spitfires like flies during such period.

The Spitfire did not show any improvement in its performance against the Luftwaffe until the 8th´s Jugs began assemblying in England in 1943.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2005)

Udet said:


> Like if turning better was the sole choice that would assure success for a fighter pilot.



No, but I could tell you that's the second thing a pilot would look at when flying a high performance aircraft. The first is speed.



Udet said:


> Soren has made useful and illustrative arguments on how the edge slats worked on the Bf 109 apparently to no avail.



His arguments were well taken, its a matter of how Luftwaffe pilots exploited this advantage and how RAF pilots exploited the Spits stall warning ability. I think because of this is where we got the "Spitfire could out turn a -109 acceptance," when in actuality we know that there Luftwaffe pilots who turned and out-turned Spitfires numerous times. Pilot Skill!



Udet said:


> What about just one, the fuel injected DB engines on the Bf 109 against the carbureted Merlins of the Spitfire. Who could handle negative G forces better? Easy and short response: Bf 109.



The biggest flaw of the Spit and agree with you 100% I could not believe the Air Ministry would allow any fighter aircraft to possess this crippling characteristic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

Erich said:


> two cents on the topic.
> 
> I./JG 27 lost 42 K-4's during the war.
> II./JG 27 lost 2 K-4's
> IV./JG 27 lost 22 K-4's



Erich do you know how many of these were due to combat loss or do to other reasons?


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

Eagle, yes I can break all of that down, and I think Les also wanted this info. give me a bit today as I am now off work......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

No problem take your time my friend.


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

for II./JG 27

November 21, 1944

6./JG 27, Gerhard Borutzke KIA in Luftkampf, a/c 100 %, yellow 14

January 22, 1945

8./JG 27 Friedrich Metz belly landed his K-4 with 99 % loss near Münster, due to combat with Allied fighters. Pilot ok


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

III./JG 27 lost 102 K-4's

34 of these a/c there is no materials on

5 pilots MIA
13 pilots wounded
40 pilots KIA


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

IV./JG 27 lost 23 K-4's

8 pilots KIA
9 pilots wounded

again some of the a/c there are no details of pilots or what happened

sorry guys my arithmetic was a bit off ...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2005)

Erich, is that a woman in that photo on the left?

(With these "progressive" Europeans, one never knows.)


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

D :

if you are talking my sig it is a 109G-14 II./JG 3 pilot with his wart ~ mechanic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2005)

The one on the left (pilot) appears to have, well, impressive childbearing hips and a rather girly smile. He does appear large for a woman but the Germans are a rather large bunch after all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

He is not a woman just a young boy. Toward the end of the war they were putting young boys in the cockpit as well as on the battle fields.


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

geez D !  the pilot is sitting on the support strut and I can tell you the leather jacket with collar is not the most comfortable thing to wear especially with a belt so he looks broad. His wart is wearing a one piece coverall the same type that I use for work. ~ what does he look like 17 yrs maybe if that ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Probably more like 16.


----------



## Erich (Jul 4, 2005)

III./JG 4 lost 49 K-4's but the listing in EM's authortative book on JG 4 gives at least another 15 109's but not the variant lost in spring of 45.

of the K-4's

4 MIA pilots
7 wounded pilots
13 KIA pilots


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 4, 2005)

Numbers are pretty bad.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Yeah not looking too good here.


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2005)

if I may add a small handy softbound book to be had is :

Messerschmitt Bf 109K by JaPo publications. 92 pages jammed with interesting bits and profiels though those are a little subject to scruitny.

not real sure how correct this is but here goes...

III./JG 1
II./JG 2
III./JG 3
I./JG 4
III./JG 4
IV./JG 4
Stab./JG 6
II./JG 11
III./JG 26
I.-IV./JG 27
Stab./JG 51
III. and IV./JG 51
Stab./JG 52
I.-III./JG 52
II.-IV./JG 53
Stab./JG 77
I.-III./JG 77
III./EJG 1
II./KG J 6
II./KG J 27
II./KG J 55
I./NJG 11 ..... a few
I. Gr. C
II. Gr. C

all these gruppen and Staff units had K-4's on hand to some degree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

From my understanding there were a little over 1700 Me-190K's produced during the war, with just about all of them K-4's. The K-0 was a preproduction built in small numbers, the K-1, K-2, K-3, K-6, K-8, K-10, K-12 not being produced. I have read that a small number of K-14's were delivered before the war was over. How many of the Me-109K's were lost would be an interesting thing to know.

Now for the K-14. Can any of this info below be confirmed. If it is true, she seems she could have been the ultimate high alltitude fighter with the exception of the Ta-152 ofcourse.

_This version was delivered in small numbers during the last two weeks of the War in Germany, and was the final version. It was powered by 1 × Daimler-Benz DB 605L inverted-Vee with a 2-stage superchrager and with the MW 50 water-methonal power-boost system, rated at 1,700 hp (1.268 kW) at take-off and 1,350 hp (1.007 kW) at 31,400 ft (9.570 m). With this engine the Bf 109K-14 could reach the same max level speed as the Bf 109K-4, but at an altitude of 37,730 ft (11.500 m) rather than 19,685 ft (6.000 m). Armament was slightly reduced however to 1 × 30 mm MK 108 or MK 103 cannon in a moteur-canon installation, and 2 × 0.51 inch (13 mm) guns in the upper nose. _http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messbf109.html


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 7, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> It was my understanding as well that such "tweaking" was commonplace.
> 
> As to that test, it was 3,600hp! The engine was a Series 57 (the engine that went into the "M" and "N" models) rated for 2,800hp at WEP.
> 
> ...



Actually during that test three R-2800 (C)'s were simultanously run for 250 hours without a component failure. This was a "bench test", i.e. the engine was mouted to a testing cradle on the ground. Given the 100 octane fuel used in the test, it seems that 3000+ HP should have been possible for combat using PR140 and PR150 av-gas in the field.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 7, 2005)

Udet said:


> Plan_D:
> 
> You bet the F and G versions of the Bf 109 did represent very significant improvements over every contemporary Spitfire.



The Spit V was a good match for the F. The F may have (this is highly debatable) been a little more manuverable, the Spit had better firepower and durability (no question about this).



Udet said:


> Both versions could achieve things the E-3 that saw action over England during the Battle of Britain couldn´t.



The same could be said of the Spit V and IX w.r.t. the Spit Ia.



Udet said:


> The alleged story of the "critical deterioration" of the manouverability of the Bf 109, especially on the G version, does not hold water when one sees the performance of the G-6s, G-10s and G-14s that shot down both USAAF and RAF fighters in juicy quantities.



Lots of 109's got shot down too. And this is really sort of irrelevant given the differences in combat conditions and the fact that something around 90% of kills did not depend on the superiority of the victor's plane, only that it possess sufficient speed and firepower to sneak into position and destroy the target.



Udet said:


> The Spitfire, in fact, was becoming a true pig by 1943, becoming heavier and heavier and less manouverable.



The Spit V, IX, and XIV all turned about the same radius, but the later models could do so without loosing as much altitude in the turn. So this argument is bunk. It was the late model 109's which became less manuverable with increasing weight and armor. There is no question that a 109F could turn circles around a G or K.



Udet said:


> It appears to me there are people clinging desperately to one of the very few -if not the only one- departments where the Spitfire could "outperform" the Bf 109: turning better.
> 
> Like if turning better was the sole choice that would assure success for a fighter pilot.



Agreed. By 1944 the most important things were speed, pilot visability, volume of fire, range, and gunsight quality.



Udet said:


> Soren has made useful and illustrative arguments on how the edge slats worked on the Bf 109 apparently to no avail.



The usefulness of the slats in late war combat is highly questionable. The slats became smaller on some of the later models and they were unlikely to deploy at typical combat speeds anyway.



Udet said:


> Even if you were correct when affirming the Spitfire could turn better than the Bf 109, there are still many choices left for the German pilot to find its "out" and to cleanly outfly any version of the Spitfire. It is there, in all those choices where the Bf 109 is certainly ahead of the Spitfire.



Thats just opinion. It is probably almost entirely cancled out by the superior visability, especially to the rear, that the Spit pilot enjoyed over almost all models of 109.



Udet said:


> What about just one, the fuel injected DB engines on the Bf 109 against the carbureted Merlins of the Spitfire. Who could handle negative G forces better? Easy and short response: Bf 109.



That is wrong. By 1943 the Spitfires were using the US designed/supplied Bendix carberator which had no such negative G issues. This was an issue for the early Spits in the BoB, but by 1943 it was a non-issue. The fuel injection system was slightly more responsive, but also more failure prone.



Udet said:


> By the way, the Bf 109 E-3 fared much much better during the Battle of Britain -over enemy territory- against both the MkIs -Hurricane and Spitfire- than any version of the Spitfire did over the Channel and France from 1941 to early 1943 against the Bf 109.



That is situational. The Luftwaffe' enjoyed substantial advantages during the BoB that were not enjoyed by the RAF over the Channel. The German's were able to choose to engage or not engage over the Channel, where in the BoB the Brits always had to engage. Huge difference.



Udet said:


> The Bf 109s and the Butcher Birds of JG 2 and JG 26 shot down Spitfires like flies during such period.
> 
> The Spitfire did not show any improvement in its performance against the Luftwaffe until the 8th´s Jugs began assemblying in England in 1943.



Again, more a matter of the combat situation as any advantages in plane peformance.

The Spit and the 109 were well matched through most of the war. The early advantage went to the 109, the late advantage to the Spit XIV. The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Well the P-47 later models were the aircraft to beat. I know the P-51 takes all the credit and yes it is due a lot of credit however I truely believe the P-51 was highly overated and the P-47M and N were the best allied aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

And agreed with most points of you last post.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2005)

funny I thought the title of this thread was P-51, 109's and Fw's ? am I not correct ?? so start another one on the spits, and P-47's.......actually don't !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I concur but you know how ever thread no matter what the topic is ends up getting off course all the time.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 7, 2005)

> Thats just opinion. It is probably almost entirely cancled out by the superior visability, especially to the rear, that the Spit pilot enjoyed over almost all models of 109.



The 109 had much better vis over the nose than the Spit thanks to its inverted engine. Only the bubble canopy Spits had better vis to the rear than the 109.



> The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.



It did? Some stats on the 21/22 were worse than the XIV.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front.



Just as did all razorback a/c did. The Galland armour replacing the steel plate armour helped.

Who cares about landing when the objective of a fighter was to shoot down EA. The EA would disappear under the nose sooner on the Spit than the EA would on the 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front.
> ...



I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.



Until the final flair to 3 point the 109 still had a better view over the nose. The 109 pilot could see ground closer to him than the Spit pilot. All se a/c had a terrible time vis wise once on the ground. The 109 could brake harder than the Spit which would fall over on its nose if it tried. Shorter landing run and less chance to run into something.

Take some 3 views and drawn the hiden areas in for each.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.
> ...



Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.

109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.
> 
> 109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!?



Braking harder because the fulcrum point (main wheels) are further forward on the 109 and with less mass forward. If one wants to do ground loops then the 109 should be landing on the main gear first. JFYI, the proper method of landing the 190 was a 3 point at touchdown.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.
> ...



Perhaps - but I could tell you that 3 pointers are more difficult and can play havoc in x-winds. Are we leading into the high -109 accident rate on landing?


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2005)

Small point but German planes were notorious for having weak brakes. I would be suprised if any German could brake harder than any allied plane.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2005)

KK what is Galland armor ?


----------



## Udet (Jul 7, 2005)

The rear visibility was greatly improved with the "Erla" canopy fitted to the late Bf 109 versions, G and K.

Many German pilots praised the modification, although rear visibility in the Bf 109 was never as great as in the Fw190s, Ta152s, P-51s or the late Spitfires.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

Glider said:


> Small point but German planes were notorious for having weak brakes. I would be suprised if any German could brake harder than any allied plane.



Interesting! Another point worthy of research!


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.



Very incorrect ! The 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit 21...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

Where's your proof of this? Before you avoided even touching on the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV was more than a match for the Bf-109K-4 - the Spitfire 21 was even better than the Spitfire XIV in almost every aspect - increased advantage for the Spitfire 21 over the Bf-109K-4. 

Let me demonstrate something; 

The Bf-109K-4 was not very fast, actually. It's ability to climb was hampered by it's small wing - the cockpit was cramped and the pilot was always in a fix to control his aircraft. A well handled P-51D could run rings around the K-4 on a good day...

See, I can state anything I want - anything at all - and it would be disputed but I could just carry on arguing. I think it's time - if you're so sure of yourself - to provide facts and sources. 

And another thing for everybody (I know some people already understand this), just because all the numbers state it should be a marvel of an aircraft - it doesn't mean it will be. If that were true - there'd be no such thing as a bad design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

Part of Skip Holm's pilot report on flying a Spanish -109 (HA-1112). I've met him and he's probably one of the best all-round pilots flying today. Here is his comments on landing the -109.

"Once back in the pattern, an overhead pitch-out approach is my preference. The aircraft is clean, so needs to be slowed down considerably prior to getting the flaps cranked down and the gear lowered. The pattern cockpit work is high, due to the trim/flap wheel requirements. Pulling both the trim and flap wheels at the same time works well in lowering flaps and re-trimming at the same time. Longitudinally, the airplane is markedly stable, even though the elevator is heavier and more responsive than most single-seat fighters. At all times, it is important to remember that the rudder is sluggish for small movements. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph and on final, the power is back almost to idle, and the glide path looks steep. The view looks good until getting close to the runway, then the entire runway is blanked out, with the runway edges being the guides for landing. The most obvious point to remember on the rotation-to-landing is to look out both sides of the canopy, for this will keep the aircraft straight for the touchdown. If the touchdown is not perfectly aligned to the runway, some immediate directional correction is needed, for any delay will only exacerbate the condition and give the pilot more excitement."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 7, 2005)

Well, not exactly the topics tittle, but here I left a comparative between the P-47D and FW-190A-4.


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 8, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Well, not exactly the topics tittle, but here I left a comparative between the P-47D and FW-190A-4.



That is a test of a very early P-47D that is for all intents and purposes a P-47C, as noted at the very top of the document you presented. Note the date of the document, which is June 1943.

Here is a subsiquent document concerning a real P-47D vs. an FW190A conducted in April 1944. Note that the D model is only a -RE4, so its performance was far off that of a RE25.











For the most part, the story is completely reversed, with the P-47 dominating at speeds above 250 mph.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 8, 2005)

The P-51 was great at what it was designed for. It had very long range, could maintain 400 mph class speed for extended periods, had the best pilot vision of any single engine fighter of WWII, had a great computing gunsight, and had excellent guns for the purpose of shooting down enemy fighter aircraft.

Sure you can argue all day about the "in a fair dogfight" situation, but that situation was not realistic. The German's did not intentionally engage in such "dogfights" and neither did the US pilots. Something over 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down on both sides reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or only saw it after they started taking hits. For this kind of combat, the P-51 was excellent. It was made to fight unfairly, and it did so very well. It's ability to see the enemy first and have a 50+ mph speed advantage at the point of engagement gave it a significant edge.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 8, 2005)

Soren said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.
> ...



The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.

How was the K-4 "more than a match for the Spit 21"?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2005)

That is because the type of combat that was pretty much engaged by pilots towards the end of the war was bouncing rather than dogfighting. As you said most never saw the enemy that shot them down.

Now as for the P-51 I will agree it did well with what it was made to do. Its great range allowed it to take the fight to the Germans however I would not go as to say the 51 was the best fighter the Allies had.


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2005)

9 out of 10 times the P-51's had the height advantage thus the overall 50 mph + weight advantage in speed. also enmasse as the Luftwaffe tried in vain to catch their foe which outnumbered them significantly...........this has all be coverd before and we are repeating ourselves. Speed, turning and other specs is getting to be old news and is totally dependendt on pilot skills not a bunch of charts and test run by non operational test pilots.

the P-51 was the best Allied escort in Europe in the late war and the Pilots thank God they had it at their disposal


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 8, 2005)

Lunatic



> The Spit 21 was faster than the K-4, climbed about equally well (especially for actual combat), was much more durable, had better range, had better pilot vision, a better gunsight, and much better armament.



Although I agree with you, the main reasons to claim the Bf-109 was superior were:

- Use of MW-50 during extended periods.
- The pilot had less work load due to the use.
- Better zoom dive characteristics (altough I am not too sure on this fact).
- Better rolling rate at high speeds.
- komandgerart.

Do you got any evidence it was more durable?

Regards.


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2005)

Ale:

what do you mean by saying the 109 pilot had less work load ?

thank you E ♪


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Where's your proof of this? Before you avoided even touching on the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV was more than a match for the Bf-109K-4 - the Spitfire 21 was even better than the Spitfire XIV in almost every aspect - increased advantage for the Spitfire 21 over the Bf-109K-4.
> 
> Let me demonstrate something;
> 
> ...



 

Don't worry, I'll demonstrate exactly why the 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit XIV and 21 VERY soon, and in detail ! But I'll let you ponder about these two things first; The 109 has a higher Wing Thickness ratio= higher CL-max, and it has a higher Wing Aspect ratio= higher Cl-max.

(Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

soren said:


> (Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)



er, yes it does, if it was a match it would be equal, if it is more than a mach, it would be more than equal, meaning it would be better........


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Lunatic said:
> ...



 

The 109K-4 climbed both faster than the Spit 21 initially 'and' in the long run, and the 109K-4 would accelerate faster as-well !

Also the 109K-4 had a 10min boost limit, while the Spit 21 had a 5min boost limit, a clear and big advantage !

The 109K-4 would climb to 32,800 ft in just 6.7min ! The Spit 21 needed 7.85min just to reach 30,000ft !.

So does that sufficiently answer your question ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> soren said:
> 
> 
> > (Btw "more than a match" doesnt necessarily mean superior)
> ...



A match means your up against a tough opposition, more than a match means your up against something either better or "atleast" as good as you.

Ofcourse if we take the word "Match" litterally, it 'does' mean equal, however by the same token NO Allied fighter was a match with any Axis fighter


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you've based your entire argument on climb figures and boost time?



No, why ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

well they're the only arguments you've given


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well they're the only arguments you've given



No, I was just answering Lunatics question in that particular post  

I've already brought up the Wing Thickness Aspect Ratio arguements.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 8, 2005)

Soren said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > well they're the only arguments you've given
> ...



Static design numbers only indicate a thoeretical advantage - by themselves they are just numbers. What are the Dynamic numbers that are exibited by the aircraft?

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



Bf-109 CL-max: 1.48
Spitfire CL-max: 1.12

These figures are from full scale windtunnel tests, no flaps or slats deployed.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 8, 2005)

What is the total effect on the aircrafts ability to maneurver outside the wind tunnel in real life. Those numbers still have only a theoretical affect on the aircrafts ability to produce the performance. We still need the pertinent information.
Acceleration.
Turn time, radii, best speed/altitude.
Energy retention.

There have been many aircraft that had great numbers that didn't cut it.

So far we have Design numbers and some basic performance figures nothing specific to our discussion on maneuvering capabilities except climb. Max speed is only important in disengagement (with Acceleration) or engagement, any maneuvering will automaticaly drop the speed to 350 or lower as the fight progresses. 

Like it or not a major point is that in the vast majority of fights the victim never/to late sees the victor.

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> What is the total effect on the aircrafts ability to maneurver outside the wind tunnel in real life. Those numbers still have only a theoretical affect on the aircrafts ability to produce the performance. We still need the pertinent information.
> Acceleration.
> Turn time, radii, best speed/altitude.
> Energy retention.



Sadly we don't have these at the moment though, so lets partly rely on what we've actually got.



> There have been many aircraft that had great numbers that didn't cut it.



Its not just about great numbers, its about advanced physics. Fact is there are no miracles in aerodynamics, it can all be explained with measurable physical factors.

So those windtunnel test-results are perfectly valid.




wmaxt said:


> Like it or not a major point is that in the vast majority of fights the victim never/to late sees the victor.



And I agree.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 8, 2005)

*Lunatic wrote:*



> That is a test of a very early P-47D that is for all intents and purposes a P-47C, as noted at the very top of the document you presented. Note the date of the document, which is June 1943.



So what...? or maybe the war started in 1944.



> Here is a subsiquent document concerning a real P-47D vs. an FW190A conducted in April 1944. Note that the D model is only a -RE4, so its performance was far off that of a RE25.



And comparing this model with a FW-190A-4 is quite unfair because the model in production in 1943 was the A-5 (early) and A-6 ( late 1943).

But aniway lets see what the outdated A-4 could do.












*"The pilot had no combat experience"*
.....speak by itself...  

"...The FW-190 accelerated faster in the *Initial...."*

Probably when you more needed it.


*..." Water injection was used in the P-47"*

Jah ¡¡¡¡... Give me a GM-1 in the BMW 801D-2 carried by the old A-4 and 
I give you the remake of Vin Diesel on "The fast and the Furios".  

It boosted the performance to 2240 hp....I will let your P-47 parked.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jul 9, 2005)

Erich said:


> Soren where do you think ?  the veterans of course. It was always made up in the after action combat reports and although in later 1944 till wars end the German radar systems in Frnce were gone they had very powerful sources that could tell when the Allied heavies were taking off as well as how many US prop fighters were taking off, thus you can easily see how the Luftwaffe pilots felt they were on a continual suicide mission late 44 till wars end. In some instances in 1945 it was over 25 to 1


 You can tell the pilot morale was always high though.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jul 9, 2005)

It's obvious the P-51 didn't offer techological advantage, rather it was a solid all round performer with awesome range.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2005)

I think Chocks Away has hit it pretty well.

Soren, I don't doubt the validity of your numbers just that with what, 50%-60% of the data on hand, that we can reach a reasonable conclusion. 

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2005)

I have been looking around and the charts that I have found indicate that the 14 and K4 were close with the K4 having a speed advantage between 14 and 24 Thousand ft and the 14 faster below and above that band. This is using 18pd Boost in the 14 and 1.8 ATA on the K4. The absolute max of the K4 was 441MPH and it is noted that the often quoted 452 mph was an estimate using an experimental thin blade prop that didn't make production.
In climb the 14 had a small but consitant advantage at all altitudes.

It should be noted that the German figures are from German documents not Allied tests of German aircraft

Interesting reference only is made to a German paper that contains quote 'A devastating comparison between the Mustang and the 109' unfortunately this I have not been able to find.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2005)

Glider said:


> The absolute max of the K4 was 441MPH *and it is noted that the often quoted 452 mph was an estimate using an experimental thin blade prop that didn't make production*.



Please do tell where you've heard this... 

Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting. (Max level speed with 1.8ata was 444 mph, and 441 mph with 1.75ata)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2005)

Soren said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



All good but C/L - max is rarely considered except during engine out emergencies and figuring out best glide over a distance (or unless we're talking about gliders). I assume these numbers are meant to be a ratio (1.48 to 1, 1.12 to 1, etc.) If so if you're gliding in either of these aircraft you better be doing it close to home because those numbers show both of them glide like a brick. The 1.48 to 1 (for the -109) , that means for every foot "down" you're moving forward 1.48 feet, and with those numbers shown I'm assuming it means that the -109 glides an extra 4 inches forward better than the Spit!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 9, 2005)

Soren said:


> Please do tell where you've heard this...
> 
> Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting. (Max level speed with 1.8ata was 444 mph, and 441 mph with 1.75ata)



1.98 was not cleared til late Feb 45 with service introduction in early Mar 45. Testing of 1.98 began in Dec with II./JG11 (have also seen 2./JG11). II./JG11 had 11 K-4s on strength Jan 1 45 (this does not mean servicable). In Mar 45 only 4 units had been authourized to to use 1.98: I. / JG 27(Bf 109 K-4), III. / JG 27( Bf 109 G-10), III. / JG 53( Bf 109 K-4), IV. / JG 53(Bf 109 K-4) with a total of 79 operational a/c. II/.JG11 was disbanded about the time 1.98 was authorized.

K-4s comprised only 21.8% of all 109s as of Jan 31 45 with 1st and 2cd line units.

1.98 required C3 and MW50. C3 was required by 190A a/c so the supply of enough of the scarce C3 to 109K units is questionable. C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944.

This a translation of a German document.

"_1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame” followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems. DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) . This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings. But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”, Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power. DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled. All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results. Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?) (think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff. It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly. DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come. The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment. _"


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2005)

The November 1944 edition of the Flight Handbook for the K4 states that the max pressure boost was 1.75.
Orders from the OKL ChefTLR F1. E. 3V reported that tests at 1.98 couldn't be reported as the engines failed.
Daimler Benz reports that 1.98 boost not released due to failure of all the engines for the test (internal memo 6642)
Memo 6730 testing to be undertaken at 1.98 by Group 2/11 but only 1.8 engines supplied for combat with strict punishment if this is ignored. This memo also refers to the Mustang copmparison
Meeting held at Rechlin on 16th Jan concludes that 1.98 is not to be used on front line. Memo 6731

The comment about the top speed is based on the Projektburo estimate of 19.1.45 using a 9-12159 prop. The experimental one was a 9-12199 Dunnblatt.

I attach copies of memo 6730 and 6731. My German isn't that good so feel free to comment in case I got anything wrong.


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2005)

Kranz and I seem to have found a similar set of papers and different complimentary ones. Put it together and I don't think the K4 at 1.98 was a viable option if you wanted to make it back to the airfield.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Erich said:


> 9 out of 10 times the P-51's had the height advantage thus the overall 50 mph + weight advantage in speed. also enmasse as the Luftwaffe tried in vain to catch their foe which outnumbered them significantly...........this has all be coverd before and we are repeating ourselves. Speed, turning and other specs is getting to be old news and is totally dependendt on pilot skills not a bunch of charts and test run by non operational test pilots.
> 
> the P-51 was the best Allied escort in Europe in the late war and the Pilots thank God they had it at their disposal



I agree 100%


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

alejandro_ said:


> - The pilot had less work load due to the use.



And how is that, especially when you have 10 P-51's diving down on you.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 10, 2005)

Sorry, I forgot to add, the lesser workload was due to the use of a Kommandogërat.

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

I really dont think that woudl have been too much of an advantage.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > 9 out of 10 times the P-51's had the height advantage thus the overall 50 mph + weight advantage in speed. also enmasse as the Luftwaffe tried in vain to catch their foe which outnumbered them significantly...........this has all be coverd before and we are repeating ourselves. Speed, turning and other specs is getting to be old news and is totally dependendt on pilot skills not a bunch of charts and test run by non operational test pilots.
> ...



Close enough for me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

I think it really does come down to what you using the aircraft for. Obviously a P-47 is a better ground attack aircraft than P-51. The Spit is a better intereceptor than the P-47. The P-51 is the better escort fighter. So and so forth. Each aircraft of each nationality had what it was really good at.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it really does come down to what you using the aircraft for. Obviously a P-47 is a better ground attack aircraft than P-51. The Spit is a better intereceptor than the P-47. The P-51 is the better escort fighter. So and so forth. Each aircraft of each nationality had what it was really good at.



Exactly!  

wmaxt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

And if you want something that can kinda do all of that, whats wrong with a P-38?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

I agree. My favorite allied planes are the P-38 and the P-47.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

Wow, its the same for me too! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Favorite Axis would be the Bf-109 and Fw-190 for me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 10, 2005)

Mine would be Fw-190 first, followed by a whole bunch of Italian planes.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45!

The Fw-190 was very versatile too able to effectively fill many rolls.

The P-47 was good to, at least equal to the '51 interestingly in '44 it cost only $11,569 less than the P-38, $85,578 to $97,147.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45! wmaxt



Who was the second source?


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45! wmaxt
> ...



Consolidated Vultee in Nashville, Tn. 113 Ls were built there. They had been building some sub assemblies before that (Wings and tails?) for a while.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

Never knew that! I worked at Plant B-1 in Burbank where the bulk of P-38s were built. There was a runway outside the facility which was located about 2 miles from Burbank Airport. After the war Lockheed converted that runway into a parking lot. There was also a P-38 final assembly line right at Burbank Airport in Building 304.

I was there right before they closed the facility in 1990. Some of the facilities folks found a wing jig that was sealed in a room (someone decided to brick the thing in a small room). It turned out it was a jig for a Hudson or a Ventura. I don't know what happened to it, it wouldn't surprise me if some bone head disposed of it!


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Never knew that!




Think about this:

P-38K winter '43
432 METO at 29,600ft and 40mph faster than a J at 40,000ft.
Est. service ceiling of 48,00oft (on an Extreamly hot day 45,000ft was done)
4,800ft/min initial climb Fully loaded in Meto power
20K in 5min flat - FROM A STANDING START ON THE RUNWAY in METO.
Dive Flaps
A Second source

if All this started in '43/'44 it would have effectively trippeled the number of the number of the best P-38s available for the rest of the war.

The War Production Board said No to the 2 WEEK delay the K needed to fit into the line. The WPB didn't start a second line until '45. The WPB also rejected the simplified fuel controls that would have given the P-38L the ability to cruise economicaly over 300 mph too.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2005)

The P-38K was really specialised for high altitude combat though, wasn't it? I always the thought the P-38L would be the best all-rounder P-38 because with the extreme high altitude performance of the K - it lost some it's low altitude abilities. 

Am I right? I don't quite remember what it lost though.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The P-38K was really specialised for high altitude combat though, wasn't it? I always the thought the P-38L would be the best all-rounder P-38 because with the extreme high altitude performance of the K - it lost some it's low altitude abilities.
> 
> Am I right? I don't quite remember what it lost though.



The changes were to add 1,875hp WEP engines and wider/longer/High activity Propellars. The P-47 gained performance at low altitudes with those same mods there is no reason the P-38 wouldn't have too. Also the increase in climb figures start at sea level, all other attrabutes of the J/L models would also be included. The performance was additive.   

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Never knew that!
> ...



Wow - Politics?!?


----------



## Soren (Jul 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



FJ,

CL-max is for figuring out the max lift pr area the wing will produce, it has nothing to with glide distance. However all else being equal, the higher the CL-max is, the longer the a/c will naturally glide, as there is then more lift pr area.

With the CL-max figure we can figure out the a/c's Lift-loading by dividing it with the Wing-loading. Example: An a/c with a Wing-loading of 27 lbs/sq.ft. and a CL-max of 1.30, will have a Lift-loading of 20.8 lbs/sq.ft..

Deploying Flaps will normally increase CL-max with a factor of 0.05, while slats by 25% of the original figure. Example: (All using the same airfoil and wing shape.)

Un-slatted wing CL-max: 1.30
Slat equipped wing CL-max: 1.62,5

Un-slatted wing with Flaps deployed CL-max: 1.35
Slat equipped wing with Flaps deployed CL-max: 1.67,5


----------



## Soren (Jul 10, 2005)

Glider said:


> The November 1944 edition of the Flight Handbook for the K4 states that the max pressure boost was 1.75.
> Orders from the OKL ChefTLR F1. E. 3V reported that tests at 1.98 couldn't be reported as the engines failed.
> Daimler Benz reports that 1.98 boost not released due to failure of all the engines for the test (internal memo 6642)
> Memo 6730 testing to be undertaken at 1.98 by Group 2/11 but only 1.8 engines supplied for combat with strict punishment if this is ignored. This memo also refers to the Mustang copmparison
> ...



Oh dear, you used Mike Williams as a source.... Sorry but Mike is VERY wrong, and his interpretation of German documents is awfully incorrect !

Back to the issue of maximum allowed boosts...... 

The manual for the DB 605 DB/DC engines issued 5th December 1944, the 3rd edition of it`s kind, notes the use of both 1.8 and 1.98ata for the DB/DC, respectively. According to the recordings of a meeting on the 20th January 1944, after unsuccessfull trials at Rechlin Test Centre, the clearance of 1.98ata was delayed until further testing is performed; particular interest is Gen. Ing. Paul`s criticizing Daimler Benz as it forwarded the clearance of 1.98ata boost directly General Galland, _General of the Fighter Arm, and the Technisches Ausendienst for 'diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden'_ or because it issued these boost (1.98ata) directly to the troops and set the engines to it. Further the document states that individual fighter-recons may be set to 1.98ata. Given the date of the manual and the meetings and their contents, we can be sure 1.98ata was already in use for some time during December until late January, when the boost was recalled for further testing with II./JG 11.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



Totally understand and agree, but in the pilot world C/L max is looked at in terms of glide performance and is demonstrated during engine out glide. A pilot couldn't care about wing loading or lift loading but mention C/L max and engine out glide performance dances in their heads, especially if we're talking multi engine aircraft. Many aircraft pilot manuals (and I'm talking from a Cessna 150 to a DC-9) I've seen have this expressed on a graph showing glide distances based on altitude. When the CL max is shown on these charts it is expressed in a glide ratio 3.2 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1. As you say yourself "the higher the CL-max is, the longer the a/c will naturally glide, as there is then more lift per area." To a pilot, it's all about being able to glide and if we're talking sailplane, it means everything.

With all that said, if the numbers shown for the Spit and -109 are ratio based on max glide (or max lift loading) over a given distance, both aircraft glide like bricks!


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2005)

Soren
So what your saying is that 1.98 boost was authorised by DB, then that authorisation was withdrawn due to the unsuccessful tests, and Daimler Benz were critisised for incorrectly making the authorisation in the first place.
As a result your statement was correct ie. that it was used albeit unofficially. 
Can I ask what happened after the authorisation was withdrawn?


----------



## Soren (Jul 10, 2005)

Glider said:


> Soren
> So what your saying is that 1.98 boost was authorised by DB, then that authorisation was withdrawn due to the unsuccessful tests, and Daimler Benz were critisised for incorrectly making the authorisation in the first place.
> As a result your statement was correct ie. that it was used albeit unofficially.



Yes, however only minor problems were experienced in the field, such as the current sparkplugs thermal resistance. 



Glider said:


> Can I ask what happened after the authorisation was withdrawn?



It was quickly autherised again after it had been withdrawn, no more than a month after actually, and with new sparkplugs. 

Olivier Lefebvre states: 
_AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation. _


----------



## Soren (Jul 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With all that said, if the numbers shown for the Spit and -109 are ratio based on max glide (or max lift loading) over a given distance, both aircraft glide like bricks!



Yes they would have been awfull Gliders, which is why they had engines, to keep the speed up.  

Anyhow Lift-loading is what people should be looking at when comparing a/c's turn-performance with each other, instead of Wing-loading which is totally misleading.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > With all that said, if the numbers shown for the Spit and -109 are ratio based on max glide (or max lift loading) over a given distance, both aircraft glide like bricks!
> ...



The the ability of an aircraft (with an engine) to glide (simulating an engine failure) and managing that glide to a safe emergency landing is a major emergency perfomace characteristic. This is a big part of the aircraft pilot checkout. Even though your numbers show the -109 was a little better, we're probably talking feet between the two.


----------



## Soren (Jul 11, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The the ability of an aircraft (with an engine) to glide (simulating an engine failure) and managing that glide to a safe emergency landing is a major emergency perfomace characteristic. This is a big part of the aircraft pilot checkout.



Absolutely. 

But my and your point was that without sufficient speed (Provided by the Engine) the 109 and Spit wouldnt fly, they would simply plummet like a brick  Gliders have very high aspect ratio wings which provide an incredible amount of lift for their size, enabling them to fly unassisted once airborne, but their wing aspect ratio is also more than twice that of the 109. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Even though your numbers show the -109 was a little better, we're probably talking feet between the two.



With slats un-deployed the Bf-109 will stall a tiny bit later than the Spitfire, thanks to its lower Lift-loading. With Slats deployed, the 109 will stall even later yet, and at a higher AoA. This higher AoA can be a disadvantage upon landing though, as the forward vision gets severely restricted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > The the ability of an aircraft (with an engine) to glide (simulating an engine failure) and managing that glide to a safe emergency landing is a major emergency perfomace characteristic. This is a big part of the aircraft pilot checkout.
> ...



Agree!


----------



## Schöpfel (Jul 11, 2005)

Hello Soren:

"Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting." 

Do you have a primary source and Kurvenblatt showing this, thanks! You wouldn't be getting your datas, as well as your attitude from that Hungarian would you?  

Ignoring the dokuments and datas available, cherry picking what datas fits your agenda, while resorting to character smears only demonstrates the weakness of your argument and discredits you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Unfortunatly a lot of that can be seen today.


----------



## Soren (Jul 22, 2005)

Oh dear  



Schöpfel said:


> Hello Soren:
> 
> "Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting."
> 
> Do you have a primary source and Kurvenblatt showing this, thanks! You wouldn't be getting your datas, as well as your attitude from that Hungarian would you?



Hungarian ?  



Schöpfel said:


> Ignoring the dokuments and datas available, cherry picking what datas fits your agenda, while resorting to character smears only demonstrates the weakness of your argument and discredits you.



Please explain, what am I ignoring ?! Cause it seems to me that your the one who's ignoring something !

Btw, being rude showes a lack of decent character


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 23, 2005)

I wonder if there is any actual point in using the Bf-109K-4 running at 1.98ata. There are documentes stating the disagreement of engineers and DB against this, mentioning that there isn't point in improving the power if the construction quality was as bad as it was. The best performances are only obtained using C3 fuel, which was scarce and given to Fw-190 units.



> Another point to consider here is the following; the K-4 may have been the latest variant of the venerable 109 but it was above all a product of Germany's late-war industry ..with all the associated quality control problems.. accounts from pilots who flew K-4s in late April 1945 list an array of defects..aircraft poorly trimmed, instruments incorrectly calibrated, no oxygen and no master compass... With chaos reigning as Hartmann's unit fell back before the Russians is it likely that he would take off in an aircraft that would potentially let him down....but of course we'll never know...



http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmann.html




> "...General (Engineer) Paul critized in this meeting, that the Sondernotleistung with 1.98ata on behalf The Company [Daimler Benz] was handed over directly to General Galland, before a through test was completed. He was also extremely critical about on behalf of the Technischen Aussenddienst, this power setting was given directly to the troops/units, and the engines were set to it..."



By the way, for the tests special engines were used, not the production ones. 

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

I can agree with the statement of the K-4. She was being hurridly built and was a last attempt to try and get the super ueber fighter out of the 109.


----------



## pathchampion (Jun 4, 2007)

but, I could imagine that i wouldnt be fun for a US pilot in a P-51 to go "one on one" against Erich Hartmann in a Me-109 K4 or Gerhar Barkhorn in his Fw-90 D9


----------



## mad_max (Jun 4, 2007)

I imagine that it wouldn't be fun for an Axis pilot to go 1 vs 1 against George Preddy
in a pony either. *-)

Opps my bad. Yea I know wrong spelling....like no one else does here.
BTW just turned 50 last week....so I had a senior moment.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 4, 2007)

Put Hartmann in the P-51 and Pretty in the K-4.... Johnson in the D-9 and Barkhorn in the 47-M.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jun 4, 2007)

.... and Goldrake in his robot and Ed Striker in the SHADO UFO Skydiver...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Put Hartmann in the P-51 and Pretty in the K-4.... Johnson in the D-9 and Barkhorn in the 47-M.



I think I'd rather have Pretty in the K-4 and chase her with Preddy in the 51..

I would like to take one moment to dissect the numerical advantage discussion. First let's take the 8th AF at three Points in time.

Jan1 1943 - zero operational fighter wings (except 4th with SpitV) as everybody basically left for Afrika and the RAF had to provide escort. Huge Luftwaffe advantage over German targets (as in zero Allied Fighters escorting B-17s and B-24s to Germany)

Jan1 1944 - One Mustang FG (354th on TDY from 9th) but two P-38 wings capable of escorting to German targets but Allison engines/turbo issues and compressibility issues reduced numbers of 38s over target and reduced combat effectiveness - huge advantage of LW Fighter Arm over USAAF at the target... all escorted targets were well short of Berlin, Regensburg and Munich putting aircraft and Petoleum out of reach for escorts.

Jan1 1945 - 14 Mustang Wings/one P-47 wing capable of escorting heavy bombers to any occupied target in Europe, RAF and 9th AF capable of supporting Strategic air and the combined 12th and 15th about on par with 8th in total capability. Daily raids of 1500-2000 bombers and 1100 to 1500 USAAF Mustangs resulting in complete numerical superiority against the LW.

How did this happen?

One view is this:

Jan11, 1944 the 354FG on loan from 9th AF, Mid Feb the 357FG comes on line, late Feb/early March the 4th and 355th FG come on line and finally in April the 352FG receives its Mustangs.

USAAF puts at first maybe 40-50 Mustangs in the air per group to cover Deep Bomber penetrations over the target by end of Jan, resulting in a growth to 100 available at the end of Feb, 200 available at the end of March and 250 at the end of April

Forget the fact that 'effectives' were averaging 65-70% of launch due to mechanical problems of the new Mustang during those months.

8th AF had about 30 BG's growing to 40 with 2/3 B-17s and 1/3 B-24s.

1, then 2, then 4, then 5 Mustang wings incl 9th AF available to escort 30+ BW to, over and from target until P-47 range enabled them to take over

Each BD of the 3 would be able to compress 10 BG (at most) into a 40 mile track- each Bomb Division would have either one (or none) P-51 groups to support them over target until end of March, then maximum of two per Division until June - This is fact of life during raids to Leipzig, Regensburg, Berlin, Merseburg, Augsburg, Posnan, Munich, Stettin etc fro the period Jan11, 1944 through April 30, 1944. Three P-38 wings were also operational so boost the 'possible' American Fighter presence over those target to three wings to cover 7-10 bomb groups per division.

The Luftwaffe could easily bring to bear 300 fighters on any single point of the bomber stream in that time frame and never be opposed by more than 30-40 Mustangs at most.

Would you agree that the Luftwaffe in this case had not only local air superiority at any point of the bomber stream but also approx parity w/escorts capable of reaching the target?

But the 109s and 190s and 110s and the 410s were slaughtered, losing so much of the experienced s/e fighter pilots but also even harder to replace t/e crews that could no longer survive in the same airspace with Mustangs - even helping the RAF the following night!

My point has always been that a small but extremely effective force (hate to use this term) broke the back of the LW day fighter arm in Germany - REQUIRING drawdown from Ost Front to try to stem the tide. Breaking Back to me means killing far more experienced and talented German pilots than the Training Arm could replace - necessitating Bomber and Transport pilots being pressed into service creating a graveyard spiral.

So, did USAAF 8th FC have 'overwhelming' numerical superiority? No, not when these events took place - a single fighter so often praised as The Greatest" wasn't the Greatest - it simply was the best at the altitudes that the LW was forced to compete.

And to answer the question posed in this thread "Better than the 190 and the 109?"

Yes

There were better performance versions that came after the Fw190A6 and the Me109G6 - but those two a/c were simply inferior to the P-51B at 25,000 feet and proved it against competent and experienced LW pilots over the deepest targets in Occupied Europe.. Not the P-47, or P-38 or the Spitfire or Tempest - the Mustang..

And then it roamed at will from Strauburg east of Berlin to the airfields at Oberpfaffenhofen and Landsburg around Munich - there was no place to assemble freely, no place safe for flight schools or moving rolling stock across Germany. LW couldn't defend Munich to the south, or Stettin and Posnan to the east.

Long winded but the Luftwaffe was tough and smart - even in later stages of war they were able to 'outnumber' the USAAF at the point of attack up through the Bulge - but by then the overall numerical and experience advantage was too far in the balance of the Allies for their efforts to make a difference - except to the crews they shot down that day.

But not in the first five months of 1944 when the Luftwaffe lost control of the air.

Regards,

Bill - often wrong but rarely uncertain

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 4, 2007)

> I think I'd rather have Pretty in the K-4 and chase her with Preddy in the 51..



Um....I can't find any pilots under the name of George Pretty. Only George Preddy. 

Do you mean George Preddy chasing George Preddy?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 4, 2007)

Ive been watchin this little story with great amusement... Atleast Bill was able to point it out.... The original poster, madmax, wrote Pretty and it kept on going.... It is infact George Preddy...

Nice one Bill..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Ive been watchin this little story with great amusement... Atleast Bill was able to point it out.... The original poster, madmax, wrote Pretty and it kept on going.... It is infact George Preddy...
> 
> Nice one Bill..


 I been trying to watch the hockey game and read this.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 4, 2007)

Good first period, lots of bangin bodies....

My kind of hockey...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Good first period, lots of bangin bodies....
> 
> My kind of hockey...




Yep - too bad about Pronger, I don't think he should of been suspended but if the Ducks are real Stanley Cup caliber, they don't need him...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

I'm breathlessly awaiting the famous "Long winded, High Pompous Factor" Award for that post but I just couldn't hold it back on "Pretty". She was a fox, survived the Preddy engaement and I think I might have had her back in the early 60s (40ish aint all that bad to a punk teenager)

Regards,

Bill


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 4, 2007)

Pronger getting suspended was a joke, one of the reasons why the NHL sucks @ss....

Bill, ur crackin me up...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 4, 2007)

I'm watching the NBC version Pierre maguire between the benches is great . Oh yeah Ottawa is a winey bunch pretending its Canadas team well that just aint true . Pronger got hosed


----------



## Jackson (Jun 4, 2007)

Galland: I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force.

(the 109 G/K whatever was obsolete)

A 1994 WWII Magazine Interview



The 109 G/k could barely go much faster then 400 mph/850 Kph

OK maybe 430, with decent gas..not on 87 octane coal syn


anyway, I will go with the Galland opinion..

and the 190 did not have the altitude, hence the Ta152


The manueverabilty was not the thing , if so the 262 would never have been built..

I mean at 90 mph/ 150kph the Fokker D-7 had better manueverability than an F-15. But, I know which one I would rather fight in today's world.. even with the same guns.


same goes for a 109..


and yeah, I am a fan of the 109 190..


I gather the pilots loved the 109.. but we all know which one was harder to kill. (Take Hartman as an example)



Mebbe I should have read the whole thread before jumping in with my big mouth.. 


After a while the US quit building the P40..


As far as LW pilots 44-45

There were more 262's than experienced pilots.


----------



## grampi (Jan 26, 2016)

wmaxt said:


> [quote="Soren]
> 
> The Bf-109 was a MUCH better pure fighter than the P-51.
> 
> ...



The P-51 was designed as a replacement for the P-40 even down to the requirements for the use of the same engine and prop. The merlin and extra fuel came later and worked out exceptionaly well.

I agree it was no wonder plane but it was every bit as good as the Bf-109 and with a better pilot compettitive with the Fw-190. This was proven many times in combat.

wmaxt[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think many people go way overboard the other way when it comes to the P-51. Yes, the P-51 has been somewhat overrated by the history books, but to say the 109 or the 190 were better fighters I think is just flat out wrong. Were there SOME performance aspects where they were better, sure, but to say that OVERALL either were better fighters...I'm not buying it...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jan 26, 2016)

Soren said:


> An American pilot even said he could easely take on two or three P-51 Mustangs in his 109.



I believe you overrate the 109 as much or more than you claim the P-51 is overrated....


----------



## grampi (Jan 26, 2016)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45!
> 
> The Fw-190 was very versatile too able to effectively fill many rolls.
> 
> ...



The 47 was at least the 51's equal in what regard? I don't recall it being the 51's equal or superior in anything other than diving or ruggedness...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

grampi said:


> I believe you overrate the 109 as much or more than you claim the P-51 is overrated....


One thing all these aircraft had over the P 51 was availability at altitude prior to 1943 and 1944 for the P 51D. Speaking as a Brit we needed to stop raids on UK in 1940 not 1943. The 109s record of being a LW front line fighter from before the start to the end counts for a lot in my book. The P51 was exceptionally good at something the US desperately needed a good plane for, long range escort missions. However it won by weight of allied numbers not by individual performance. To perform deep penetration raids a bomber group needed four waves of escorts many of which were P47s or others and by the time the P51D was arriving in Europe the Germans had the Me262. I am not dissing the P51, just sayin'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jan 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> One thing all these aircraft had over the P 51 was availability at altitude prior to 1943 and 1944 for the P 51D. Speaking as a Brit we needed to stop raids on UK in 1940 not 1943. The 109s record of being a LW front line fighter from before the start to the end counts for a lot in my book. The P51 was exceptionally good at something the US desperately needed a good plane for, long range escort missions. However it won by weight of allied numbers not by individual performance. To perform deep penetration raids a bomber group needed four waves of escorts many of which were P47s or others and by the time the P51D was arriving in Europe the Germans had the Me262. I am not dissing the P51, just sayin'.



I don't disagree with anything you said, however, the 51 wasn't as inferior as a combat fighter as some in this thread have claimed, and in some cases, it was superior...in other words, it could hold its own against anything the Germans had except for the 262...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

grampi said:


> I don't disagree with anything you said, however, the 51 wasn't as inferior as a combat fighter as some in this thread have claimed, and in some cases, it was superior...in other words, it could hold its own against anything the Germans had except for the 262...


I don't think any were really saying it was inferior, I prefer not to get into discussions about performance, unless there was a big difference then other factors were more important. The Hurricane was inferior in almost all respects to the 109 but did its job perfectly adequately in 1940 despite being approx 30 MPH slower.

The P51 didn't have to be superior, it just had to be there, even an Me262 could not press home an accurate attack in the presence of an escort. The P51 couldn't catch it except when landing but the 262 couldnt slow down while attacking bombers either. Similarly with LW prop fighters the extra armour carried to protect from bombers return fire hampered them in combat with escorts. From what I have read if an escort and a defender get locked in combat then neither are doing their job. The escorts job is to stay with the bombers and prevent attacks not get involved in 1 on 1 combat. Similarly the defenders job is to attack the bombers or "escort" those attacking the bombers.

Later tactics by the USA where the P51s and others actually hunted down the LW in front of the bomber stream and at their bases were unusual and reflected the massive numerical superiority that the allies had. The LW would have liked to do the same in the BoB but they simply didn't have the numbers to do it.


----------



## grampi (Jan 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I don't think any were really saying it was inferior, I prefer not to get into discussions about performance, unless there was a big difference then other factors were more important. The Hurricane was inferior in almost all respects to the 109 but did its job perfectly adequately in 1940 despite being approx 30 MPH slower.
> 
> The P51 didn't have to be superior, it just had to be there, even an Me262 could not press home an accurate attack in the presence of an escort. The P51 couldn't catch it except when landing but the 262 couldnt slow down while attacking bombers either. Similarly with LW prop fighters the extra armour carried to protect from bombers return fire hampered them in combat with escorts. From what I have read if an escort and a defender get locked in combat then neither are doing their job. The escorts job is to stay with the bombers and prevent attacks not get involved in 1 on 1 combat. Similarly the defenders job is to attack the bombers or "escort" those attacking the bombers.
> 
> Later tactics by the USA where the P51s and others actually hunted down the LW in front of the bomber stream and at their bases were unusual and reflected the massive numerical superiority that the allies had. The LW would have liked to do the same in the BoB but they simply didn't have the numbers to do it.



Soren has stated several times in this thread that 109 was superior to the 51...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2016)

There were some times when 109 was superior, on some instances the P-51 was superior. Eg. prior late 1943, the 109 was better not just in climb, but also in speed, bar lower altitudes. The P-51A and subsequent were offering far better range/radius than 109 can offer.
Once with Packard Merlin aboard, the P-51 was faster, coupled with generous fuel carried it was the right aircraft at the right place and time.
Had the 109 been so much better performer than the P-51 (and by extension better than Spit IX, P-47, P-38 ), the occupied Europe would've been littered with downed P-51s, and we know that was not the case.

We might consider the 109 and P-51 swithcing places. The P-51 would do well in Luftwaffe service (blunt the P-47s and P-38s, plus RAF and VVS), while the Bf 109 would not be able to escort USAF bombers, be it against European or Japanese targets, at distances of 650 miles and beyond.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

grampi said:


> Soren has stated several times in this thread that 109 was superior to the 51...


Everyone is entitled to an opinion, as I said I prefer not to get into detailed discussion, history proves that all aircraft mentioned scored kills on all the others. Height, experience and seeing the enemy first trump almost any performance difference even on a 262.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> One thing all these aircraft had over the P 51 was availability at altitude prior to 1943 and 1944 for the P 51D. Speaking as a Brit we needed to stop raids on UK in 1940 not 1943. The 109s record of being a LW front line fighter from before the start to the end counts for a lot in my book. The P51 was exceptionally good at something the US desperately needed a good plane for, long range escort missions. However it won by weight of allied numbers not by individual performance. To perform deep penetration raids a bomber group needed four waves of escorts many of which were P47s or others and by the time the P51D was arriving in Europe the Germans had the Me262. I am not dissing the P51, just sayin'.




I think you need to read drgondog's well thought out (and supported) post of 9 years ago in this thread. Clearly it (the P-51) did not "win by weight of allied numbers not by individual performance". I don't mean to be snarky but your statements go totally contrary to his analysis of the facts he posted above. The P-51D didn't arrive in theater until the Germans had the 262? Really?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I think you need to read drgondog's well thought out (and supported) post of 9 years ago in this thread. Clearly it (the P-51) did not "win by weight of allied numbers not by individual performance". I don't mean to be snarky but your statements go totally contrary to his analysis of the facts he posted above. The P-51D didn't arrive in theater until the Germans had the 262? Really?



I did read it, drgondogs posts are(were?) excellent, to support a long range mission needed 4 waves of fighters to get to the target and back plus I believe there were additional withdrawal flights to bring in stragglers. That requires massive numbers of fighters and pilots and fantastic logistics and administration to avoid cock-ups. The P51 was used to escort bombers to and from Germany on deep penetration raids to Germany but an individual aircraft could not do it it was an operation by the whole of the allied military, at maximum effort the RAF was used too. The US always had numbers on their side because they chose the point of attack which gives the LW far more area to defend than they had aircraft pilots and fuel to do. 
The P51s record as an escort fighter speaks for itself, it was the best. Its position as best prop driven fighter can be argued it was certainly up there with the best, its position as best fighter as an individual aircraft after the 262 was introduced cannot be argued (apart from range) but it didnt matter, there were enough P51s (and other allies in recaptured Europe) to chase the 262 all the way back to base.

from wiki re 262
On 19 April 1944, _Erprobungskommando_ 262 was formed at Lechfeld just south of Augsburg, as a test unit (_Jäger Erprobungskommando Thierfelder_, commanded by _Hauptmann_ Werner Thierfelder)[3][35] to introduce the 262 into service and train a corps of pilots to fly it. On 26 July 1944, _Leutnant_ Alfred Schreiber with the 262 A-1a W.Nr. 130 017 damaged a Mosquito reconnaissance aircraft of No. 540 Squadron RAF PR Squadron, which was allegedly lost in a crash upon landing at an air base in Italy.[36] Other sources state the aircraft was damaged during evasive manoeuvres and escaped.[37]

from wiki re P51B/C/D

P-51Bs and P-51Cs started to arrive in England in August and October 1943. The P-51B/P-51C versions were sent to 15 fighter groups that were part of the 8th and 9th Air Forces in Englandand the 12th and 15th in Italy (the southern part of Italy was under Allied control by late 1943). Other deployments included the China Burma India Theater (CBI).

The P-51D/P-51K started arriving in Europe in mid-1944 and quickly became the primary USAAF fighter in the theater. It was produced in larger numbers than any other Mustang variant. Nevertheless, by the end of the war, roughly half of all operational Mustangs were still P-51B or P-51C models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2016)

For what it's worth, the Me 262 started flying operational sorties in June/ July 1944 and it was still being operated by a test and evaluation squadron(_Jäger Erprobungskommando Thierfelder)_. The P-51D began to arrive in Europe in quantity in March of 1944 with the 55th FG being the first unit to receive it. I believe they fully converted to the P-51D in July of 1944


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For what it's worth, the Me 262 started flying operational sorties in June/ July 1944 and it was still being operated by a test and evaluation squadron(_Jäger Erprobungskommando Thierfelder)_. The P-51D began to arrive in Europe in quantity in March of 1944 with the 55th FG being the first unit to receive it. I believe they fully converted to the P-51D in July of 1944


Thanks Flyboy, an individual aircraft or even a squadron makes no difference to either side neither does a couple of weeks, they went in service at about the same time but not in the same numbers which was what mattered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 27, 2016)

I think that is important to remeber that Messer 109 K4 entered in service is very small numbers, probably the comparison of P-51D is more logical against a G-10 or g-14 variant.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 27, 2016)

Alright, I stand corrected on the 262, no offense meant. Perhaps I read your post wrong as well, I took you to mean the 51D coming in theater way later than it did, my bad. Reading 101 for me.

*edited because 'reasons'.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Alright, I stand corrected on the 262, no offense meant.


None taken, the point is that the LW got the 262 at about the same time as the P51D but the 262 never ever became operational in the true sense, problems with engines, fuel, pilots accidents and combat losses meant the US never faced hundreds let alone thousands defending Germany, I think I have read on here that it was more normally less than 50.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> I think that is important to remeber that Messer 109 K4 entered in service is very small numbers, probably the comparison of P-51D is more logical against a G-10 or g-14 variant.


As I said comparison of individual planes performance is of limited value, however superior a LW plane was or wasnt they didnt have the numbers to make a difference. Things like rate of climb may matter for the LW getting up to fight but the P51 had been up there for hours before they met (as an example)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> As I said comparison of individual planes performance is of limited value, however superior a LW plane was or wasnt they didnt have the numbers to make a difference. Things like rate of climb may matter for the LW getting up to fight but the P51 had been up there for hours before they met (as an example)



Indeed, in the massive allied air superiority context attained by P-51, 47, etc on 1944 and 1945 you can hardly obtain a definitive way to validate the peformances of some german planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2016)

grampi said:


> Soren has stated several times in this thread that 109 was superior to the 51...


Soren was also a bit unstable hence he's no longer around...


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren was also a bit unstable hence he's no longer around...



After reading some of his comments in the older threads I'd say there is much truth in this statement...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> After reading some of his comments in the older threads I'd say there is much truth in this statement...



Not denying that Soren was knowledgeable and did make valid points. He was also wildly biased and tried to argue with documented evidence. You have 10 years worth of posts to go though to see this.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 27, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Had the 109 been so much better performer than the P-51 (and by extension better than Spit IX, P-47, P-38 ), the occupied Europe would've been littered with downed P-51s, and we know that was not the case.


That doesn't follow. By the time the P-51D showed up the LW was already attritioned to death, training had been cut years earlier, fuel was in short supply, production was done by slave labor and quality was poor, and there was a lot more allied aircraft, while Germany was bombed to pieces. So even if the P-51 was inferior the overall strategic situation meant that the better trained US pilots in overwhelming numbers simply swamped the remnants of the LW until it finally died.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2016)

You got me scratching my head - where did I mentioned P-51*D* specifically?


----------



## grampi (Jan 27, 2016)

wiking85 said:


> That doesn't follow. By the time the P-51D showed up the LW was already attritioned to death, training had been cut years earlier, fuel was in short supply, production was done by slave labor and quality was poor, and there was a lot more allied aircraft, while Germany was bombed to pieces. So even if the P-51 was inferior the overall strategic situation meant that the better trained US pilots in overwhelming numbers simply swamped the remnants of the LW until it finally died.



Also all true, but again this is no indication that the 51 was inferior or superior to the German fighters...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2016)

Looks to me that P-51B is for some reason pushed aside in this discussion.


----------



## Balljoint (Jan 27, 2016)

A few background points working against the Me-109 include Hitler’s decision to rely on FLAK rather than LW interceptors, Doolittle’s decision to release the P-51 and other escorts from close bomber escort to wider ranging LW hunting, the mission of the interceptor to engage the bombers and avoid the defending escorts and, as has been mentioned, the need for weighty armor on interceptors.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> You got me scratching my head - where did I mentioned P-51*D* specifically?


Perhaps my fault, I was just pointing out that as the P51D was introduced the Me262 was also, just to say it couldn't lay any claim to best fighter in absolute performance though its position as best escort fighter was never challenged.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

Balljoint said:


> A few background points working against the Me-109 include Hitler’s decision to rely on FLAK rather than LW interceptors, Doolittle’s decision to release the P-51 and other escorts from close bomber escort to wider ranging LW hunting, the mission of the interceptor to engage the bombers and avoid the defending escorts and, as has been mentioned, the need for weighty armor on interceptors.


The biggest point working against the Bf 109 was the massive number of planes and pilots lost in take off and landing accidents, I have read that if the LW hadnt lost so many planes and especially young pilots they could possibly have won the BoB and from that the whole war. See below for links
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

..
Yes Adler (and all) its a joke, although I must admit I have read all sorts of rubbish that say the 109 was prone to accidents,


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Looks to me that P-51B is for some reason pushed aside in this discussion.


A confession here, I am 55 years old and was always keen on aviation from the age of about 7 (my big brother made models) I didnt hear about the P51B and C until I was in my twenties. In my teens I got a model as a present of a Mustang Mk1 (Allison engined Raf tactical recon from revell I think) it was so far away from a P51D that was shown in every magazine and TV programme I thought it was a screw up by the model company.

For the model makers here when was the first P51B/C model produced, I simply dont remember one as a child or young adult, it didnt seem to exist outside of people that were actually "there".


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 28, 2016)

grampi said:


> Also all true, but again this is no indication that the 51 was inferior or superior to the German fighters...


Indeed


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 28, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> You got me scratching my head - where did I mentioned P-51*D* specifically?


You didn't. I did. But that was the model that mostly served and inflicted losses on the LW.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 28, 2016)

Balljoint said:


> A few background points working against the Me-109 include Hitler’s decision to rely on FLAK rather than LW interceptors, Doolittle’s decision to release the P-51 and other escorts from close bomber escort to wider ranging LW hunting, the mission of the interceptor to engage the bombers and avoid the defending escorts and, as has been mentioned, the need for weighty armor on interceptors.


The reason FLAK was Hitler's favorite by the end of the war was the lack of fuel, pilots, and general casualties inflicted by overwhelming numbers of highly trained US pilots swamping German defenses. FLAK was a low loss way to inflict damage by 1944 compared to fighters.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

wiking85 said:


> You didn't. I did. But that was the model that mostly served and inflicted losses on the LW.


Some think that by the time the P51D was fully operational the LW was already close to collapse with operation Bagration in the east and Normandy already successful it was being overwhelmed on all fronts.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 28, 2016)

Some might find this of interest,
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2016)

wiking85 said:


> You didn't. I did. But that was the model that mostly served and inflicted losses on the LW.



It did inflict heavy losses.
With that said, the influence of P-47D (from mid 1943) and P-51B/C (from Dec 1943) was far greater for the outcome of ETO air warfare. The units flying those models managed to remove LW as a coherent fighting force, thus opening the way for P-51D to rout the Luftwaffe.
Granted, LW lost many planes and pilots even before mid 1943, mostly due to RAF and VVS (that suffered even more in process), plus non-combat losses.



wiking85 said:


> The reason FLAK was Hitler's favorite by the end of the war was the lack of fuel, pilots, and general casualties inflicted by overwhelming numbers of highly trained US pilots swamping German defenses. FLAK was a low loss way to inflict damage by 1944 compared to fighters.



The (heavy) Flak was also a low gain, high wastage way to infict damage

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

wiking85 said:


> The reason FLAK was Hitler's favorite by the end of the war was the lack of fuel, pilots, and general casualties inflicted by overwhelming numbers of highly trained US pilots swamping German defenses. FLAK was a low loss way to inflict damage by 1944 compared to fighters.


Maybe he was also thinking that the difference between a flak gun and an anti tank gun is really just in the ammunition used, I think Berlins flak towers were among the last places to fall to the Soviet army.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Some think that by the time the P51D was fully operational the LW was already close to collapse with operation Bagration in the east and Normandy already successful it was being overwhelmed on all fronts.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 28, 2016)

Whay do you guys think about this? According to the men on the video Skip Holm said to him he could face 5 or 6 Mustangs in a dogfight in a Buchon.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 28, 2016)

What is curious for me is that the American evaluation of the Ki-84 tends to back up essentially the same the guy on the video said Skip has said about the 109 (I have cited the Ki-84 because I think it was similar to the Bf 109). Basically the Americans considerated that the Ki-84 was similar in speed to their fighters but had a much higher rate of climb and better agility. I guess that the late war 109s were in a middle term between the Ki-84 vs the P-51 in regard to agility while comparable or better than the Japanese fighter vs the Mustang in terms of rate of climb. On the other hand, I think I have never read any document of the USAAF saying that the P-51 had those weakness against the German fighter.
**


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 28, 2016)

Jenisch said:


> Whay do you guys think about this? According to the men on the video Skip Holm said to him he could face 5 or 6 Mustangs in a dogfight in a Buchon.




I had a response to this all typed up but deleted it as I don't want to get banned after being here only a week.


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 28, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I had a response to this all typed up but deleted it as I don't want to get banned after being here only a week.



Ah, please, nobody would ban you if you answer with respect!

Anyway, about the Skip Holm subject, I'm skeptical of course. The Americans employed the Thach Weave tactic against the Zero in the Pacific and as far as I know they managed to deal with them using it. And I guess the Zero outclassed the Wildcat more in terms of rate of climb and specially agility than the 109 outclassed the Mustang in those aspects. And as for Skip Holm, if he really said that, he must have been referring to turninfights specifically, without any tactical refinement.
.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

I am minded to quote (or paraphrase) a member here "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong". However good or bad a Buchon was relative to a P51 it was not superior in the way a B109G was to a Hurricane and no German ace in any Bf109 would take on 5 or 6 Hurricanes, he has 1 pair of eyes in a 3 dimensional combat.

The Tempest was superior to the FW 190 but I remember reading a report by a Tempest pilot, spotting a flight of 4 FW190s he broke the wires on the throttles and got out of the place knowing he couldnt be caught, being in the fastest aircraft means you choose when to fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I am minded to quote (or paraphrase) a member here "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong". However good or bad a Buchon was relative to a P51 it was not superior in the way a B109G was to a Hurricane and no German ace in any Bf109 would take on 5 or 6 Hurricanes, he has 1 pair of eyes in a 3 dimensional combat.
> 
> The Tempest was superior to the FW 190 but I remember reading a report by a Tempest pilot, spotting a flight of 4 FW190s he broke the wires on the throttles and got out of the place knowing he couldnt be caught, being in the fastest aircraft means you choose when to fight.



From Skip Holm's website:




> The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily.



Skip Holm

But again, I guess he is talking specifically about the Buchon here. I guess the late war 109s were more closer to the Mustang in terms of speed than the Buchon was, not to say rate of climb. As for the control forces, I don't know if the Germans improved this in the late war variants, a improvement that if occured makes me wonder if the Buchon also has had. Also: I don't know how the power curves of the 109 and P-51 compare because the power output of two aircraft can be different in different altitudes will certainly affect the turning radius and rate of climb of an airplane. And in some cases the difference in power output of two aircraft can be quite significative (e.g. Fw 190 A series vs Bf 109 in high altitude).


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2016)

Jenisch said:


> From Skip Holm's website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These discussions have a habit of of spiraling in many directions. In principle power was the deciding factor, the highest powered Buchon had 1600BHP and was a hybrid. The P51D had 1720 BHP and 6x 0.5in MGs. Anyone volunteering to take on 6 in individual combat is a fool, I recognise that I am not a pilot and especially not a pilot of WW2 AC but that is completely foolish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrapeJam (Jan 28, 2016)

When one says "agility", one also must ask "at what speed". Surely at low speed the 109 could easily outperform low boost P51D in sustained maneuvers, but most combat occured at high speed where the 109 had very heavy control force and thus it's maneuverability at high speed was severely limited where as the P51D dances at high speed.

And the P51D running at high boost at 75"hg with 150 octane fuel had barely worse climb rate compared to late BF 109G/Ks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I had a response to this all typed up but deleted it as I don't want to get banned after being here only a week.



Then say it in a respectful adult manner. Not hard to do...


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 29, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> When one says "agility", one also must ask "at what speed". Surely at low speed the 109 could easily outperform low boost P51D in sustained maneuvers, but most combat occured at high speed where the 109 had very heavy control force and thus it's maneuverability at high speed was severely limited where as the P51D dances at high speed.
> 
> And the P51D running at high boost at 75"hg with 150 octane fuel had barely worse climb rate compared to late BF 109G/Ks.



But a civil P-51 nowadays with limited power and ordinary fuel would be considerably outclassed by a 109 Buchon in rate of climb, isn't?


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 29, 2016)

From Wik, about the 109 K-4:



> The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min, without MW 50, and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50.



Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the P-51D, also according to Wik:




> 3,510 ft/min (17.8 m/s) at 7,000 ft (2,133 m)



North American P-51 Mustang variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Practically the same rate of climb. However What constitutes "initial rate of climb"? It's sea leval power? Because the P-51 figure is from 7000ft.​


----------



## Milosh (Jan 29, 2016)

What was the boost for the P-51D?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 29, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then say it in a respectful adult manner. Not hard to do...



Perhaps.

My disrespect was for the bozos in the video. Jenisch and pbehn pretty much hit the nail on the head for what I was going to say, well done guys.

People that make blanket and somewhat moronic statements (like in the video) I tend to lose any faith in their credibility and also lose interest in pretty much anything they have to say. I'm far from perfect but I don't suffer fools easily.

I'll stop now.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2016)

When discussing a theoretical combat between two planes powered by a Merlin Engine I would have thought it logical to assume that they both have the same engine, boost and fuel. If you are being correct historically then the Buchon was post war and so the P51K is the model to compare it to. If engine output is identical I cannot see any airframe outclassing a P51 or a Bf109 to such an extent that it could be outnumbered 6 to 1 and win, unless you define winning as getting out alive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> My disrespect was for the bozos in the video. Jenisch and pbehn pretty much hit the nail on the head for what I was going to say, well done guys.
> 
> ...



Well the world is a wonderful place and there are going to be lots of differing opinions. You will have to live with that, and learn to look at then objectively.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2016)

pbehn said:


> When discussing a theoretical combat between two planes powered by a Merlin Engine I would have thought it logical to assume that they both have the same engine, boost and fuel. If you are being correct historically then the Buchon was post war and so the P51K is the model to compare it to. If engine output is identical I cannot see any airframe outclassing a P51 or a Bf109 to such an extent that it could be outnumbered 6 to 1 and win, unless you define winning as getting out alive.



I think that statement applies to all the top fighters of WW2. The performance advantages and disadvantages of all of them where a very thin envelope. Throw in a good pilot who knows how to use his aircrafts advantage over the aircraft he is up against and it becomes even thinner.

I think a lot of people just want to crunch numbers and do so based off of their preconcieved bias, regardless of it is for the P-51, 109, 47, 190, Spit, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I that statement applies to all the top fighters of WW2. The performance advantages and disadvantages of all of them where a very thin envelope. Throw in a good pilot who knows how to use his aircrafts advantage over the aircraft he is up against and it becomes even thinner.
> 
> I think a lot of people just want to crunch numbers and do so based off of their preconcieved bias, regardless of it is for the P-51, 109, 47, 190, Spit, etc.


I agree, when arguing about two aircraft a poster may have a point however I cannot see any case being made for two aircraft with the same engine, the airframe does not make that much difference unless you get silly and compare fairey battles to P51s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2016)

The airframe makes plenty of difference. 
Compare P-39 and P-40 - P-39 was faster in dash speed. Spitfire was faster than Hurricane or P-40 with similar horsepower. P-51 was still the fastest on same power when we compare it with 109, Spit or P-40. Or we can toss in the P-63, that was never as fast as Merlin Mustang despite being of later date.
Then we have the rate of roll, some aircraft being better (Fw 190, P-40, P-63), some not so stellar (P-51, 109, Spitfire with normal wings, on high speed the Zero). 
One airframe makes possible to install considerable fuel tankage without much of worry for centre of gravity, even the nominally similar P-51D and P-51H are very different beasts in this category. Tempest II with extra fuel (= both leading edges used for tanks) was a far less problematic thing to fly than Spitfire with rear tanks containing the fuel. This will make one aircraft better for long range work than another, despite the similar nominal ranges/radii.
The dive capability, that really has nothing to do with engine, but it is a very useful thing to have. Champions being Spitfire, P-51, the German duo was not shabby in this department, P-47 was okay, P-38 was a lousy diver.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2016)

Folks - this has been entertaining. Not one to hold anything back, I've met Skip Holm on several occasions. A very talented, knowledgeable but yet arrogant individual. Although I would consider him an excellent pilot with a long and distinguished career that many would envy, his statement about taking on 6 P-51s just shows his arrogance and IMO stupidity. He's done some dangerous and out right stupid things over the years that totally tarnishes his accomplishments. He doesn't seem to care about what others think of him so I'll give my two cents for what it's worth.

Pilot in Stunt Case May Get Wings Clipped

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f658e143-be93-4b08-90b0-491d74a3cbf7

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jenisch (Jan 29, 2016)

USAAF report of testing a captured Bf 109G-6/trop, dated March 1944:



> Conclusions.
> 
> The ME-109G has a high rate of climb and good level flight performance. Its range is very limited as only 105 gallons can be carried internally and flights of over 300 miles leave little gasoline for reserve.
> 
> ...



Kurfürst - U.S.A.A.F. Material Command - Pilot's Comments on ME 109G[-6/trop], AAF No. EB-102

Curious, they criticized it's turning radius. It must have been in regard to high speed maneuvers. Anyway, I don't want to say this report is anything conclusive (even because it appears the engine of the airplane was not in good condition), but it's still interesting.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2016)

A couple of observations regarding the last four pages of threads.
First, and most important - the P-51B-1, -5 and C-1 were Depot modified with the 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank put those Mustangs in a slightly precarious combat situation until the tank had been drained to about 25 gallons. To get past Berlin and Leipzig and down past Munich on target escort, the pilots had to retain as much as possible and depend entirely on the external 75 gallon tanks except for takeoff and formation assembly. This meant that the Mustang always entered combat with a full internal load out - which no other fighter did! This is an important factor as many of the big air battles occurred when the P-51B/C still had 250+ gallons of internal fuel. 

Second, the P-51B/C was responsible for 100% of the Mustang scores - air and ground - prior to June, 1944. The P-51D first flew in early March and was arriving in the ETO In late April for Depot mods at BAD2 and dribbling into the 8th and 9th AF in small numbers late May, 1944. It was the Primary target escort fighter but the P-38J with 55 gallon Leading Edge tanks did have enough range to get to Berlin but only 'just' and except for a few long range raids, it was relegated to target support for those bomb wings going to say Brunswick or Ludwigshafen or Mulhausen while the 51's carried the escort to Stettin, Posnan, Munich. Consequently, the few Mustang Groups in 8th/9th AF were getting the lions share of 'opportunities' and doing so with a diluted force because they had to perform target escort for 30+ BG in a 100 mile trail at different targets at the end of the string.

Next, from an evolution/introduction standpoint the FW 190D, Ta 152 and Bf 109K were 'tweeners' between the P-51B/C/D/K and the P-51H. Another factor which should be considered is comparing any of those above to the Mustang III which the RAF modified with the R.M. 14 S.M. to chase V-1s. It out ran, out accelerated, out climbed all the above. Only the P-51H generating 2200 Hp with 90" Boost could out run this P-51B version.

The 109 pre-150 Octane fuel and 72" boost always out turned and out climbed the P-51D from a level start, full combat load at 250mph and throttling up to 1.42ata/67". It had the same, but lesser advantage over the P-51B/C due to the weight differences (600 pounds less than D/K). Where the comparisons are less clear is a.) when the combat load has changed appreciably. The wing/lift loading of the Mustang at 1/2 internal fuel is less than the BF 109G/K at 1/2 internal fuel so that a 109 engaging a P-51 halfway home on the return leg is going to experience a different set of comparisons, and b.) when the power curves between the DB 605 differs from the 1650-3 or -7 and both aircraft are travelling at say 400mph TAS. At that point the drag load on the aircraft favor the Mustang as it had more available thrust remaining comparatively than the 109 until the G-10/K-4. At 30,000 feet the P-51B/C that had the 1650-3 had just reached its critical altitude while the DB 605 passed that point at 22,000 feet and the Mustang had a distinct advantage (as well as P-47D) over the 109G, including turn at medium to high speed.

Last - a major part of the disparity of combat results fighter versus fighter included the following factors. First, the LW was forced to engage the Mustang where the power curve disparity was greatest - namely above 22000 feet. Even worse for the FW 190A series. Second, the pilot experience and skill set pool for the LW was decreasing as the US/RAF pool was increasing. A caveat, however, is that much of the LW core that was thrown into the breach as replacements from Fall 1943 through May 1944 came from other experienced Staffels transferred intact from Sud and Ost to LF Mitte/Reich as the LW attempted to defeat US Strategic capability to destroy critical German industry. Last, but perhaps most important was that LW Command emasculated LW combat leaders by ordering them not to engage US fighters. On the surface that should limit most losses to bombers and accidents, but a.) the aggressive nature of US fighter pilots was never blunted during the early actions, b.) escaping from fighter aircraft that are faster is not as easy as anticipated and those that attempted to leave to live another day just died tired from the effort.

As to Skip Holm. he was trying to sell a barn full of 109s when most of his uTube promotion hit the air. Additionally, the Warbirds don't engage in WWII Battle conditions with $2-5M dollar airplanes and the cost of rebuilding a Merlin can exceed $400K.. Take off power at 61" in 51 is about as good as it gets. Another factor to consider is that there are VERY few P-51s in the air today that weren't 90% totaled and rebuilt multiple times. What are the odds of a rebuilt bird being 100% factory spec as far as the airframe/wing is concerned?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2016)

One point I forgot to address is about the P-51K. It could have been easily presented as a P-51D-5-NT, -10-NT, -15-NT as the only difference was the AeroProducts prop/spinner controls from the Hamilton Standard prop in all the other B/C/D airframes. From a serial number standpoint, the P-51K-1-NT is number #201 in the P-51D-5-NT... so we are talking about summer 1944.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> The airframe makes plenty of difference.
> Compare P-39 and P-40 - P-39 was faster in dash speed. Spitfire was faster than Hurricane or P-40 with similar horsepower. P-51 was still the fastest on same power when we compare it with 109, Spit or P-40. Or we can toss in the P-63, that was never as fast as Merlin Mustang despite being of later date.


Tomo. I agree completely. The spit was faster than the Hurricane on the same engine and the P51 was faster than the spit on the same engine. However I said does not make THAT much difference. With reference to the discussion about a buchon taking on 6 P51s, show me a P51 pilot taking on 6 Hurricane MkIIs and I will show you a fool. They have 24 cannon between them and one hit can ruin your afternoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks - this has been entertaining. Not one to hold anything back, I've met Skip Holm on several occasions. A very talented, knowledgeable but yet arrogant individual. Although I would consider him an excellent pilot with a long and distinguished career that many would envy, his statement about taking on 6 P-51s just shows his arrogance and IMO stupidity.



I took the whole statement as one on his prowess as a pilot rather than the merits of the aircraft. Since it is a hypothetical situation I hypothetically allow the P51 pilots to be chosen from the 6 top aces on the marque.

The claim on his wiki page is interesting.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 29, 2016)

> First, and most important - the P-51B-1, -5 and C-1 were Depot modified with the 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank put those Mustangs in a slightly precarious combat situation until the tank had been drained to about *85 gallons*



Is that a mistype for the bolded 85 gallons? I recall it was 35 gallons.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 30, 2016)

drgondog doesn't do mistypes or misprints.

Your recall is wrong.


----------



## grampi (Jan 30, 2016)

I find it interesting that when climb performance is mentioned, it's almost always presented as a time to climb figure from the ground to a certain altitude. While static climb performance is important, it isn't the climb performance that's important in a combat situation. Zoom climb is far more important in combat, and in this category the 51 could outclimb anything in the sky (short of jets, of course). In fact, this was part of the reason American pilots were taught to keep their speed up in the Mustang...as long as it was fast, it had almost every advantage over the 109s and 190s...


----------



## Juha (Jan 30, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I am minded to quote (or paraphrase) a member here "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong". However good or bad a Buchon was relative to a P51 it was not superior in the way a B109G was to a Hurricane and no German ace in any Bf109 would take on 5 or 6 Hurricanes, he has 1 pair of eyes in a 3 dimensional combat.
> 
> The Tempest was superior to the FW 190 but I remember reading a report by a Tempest pilot, spotting a flight of 4 FW190s he broke the wires on the throttles and got out of the place knowing he couldnt be caught, being in the fastest aircraft means you choose when to fight.



Situations were different and pilots were different, some played more hazard than others. Both ways could produce extreme successful pilots but odds for survival were better for those more calculating types. But sometimes those charging types were successful

e.g. see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/414_hall_2may45.jpg

Not sure on the results but the place and date matched with the loss of two Ta 152Hs and one badly damaged and crashlanding Ta 152H from the JG 11 (3/4 of the Ta 152 strenght of theJG 11)


----------



## Milosh (Jan 30, 2016)

CORSNING said:


> drgondog doesn't do mistypes or misprints.
> 
> Your recall is wrong.



How can a tank filled with 85gal be drained to 85gal?

pg 67

_View: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual#scribd_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2016)

Milosh - the P-51B-1-NA and all the early P-51B-5 and C-1 had no internal fuselage tank at the factory - just the 92 gallon wing tanks (each wing). The Field mods performed all the way through 43-7112 and 42-103778 were to install the 85 gallon fuselage tank on a modified lower radio shelf floor. After that all the P-51's headed for PTO/MTO and ETO (not including US Training Command) had the 85 gallon tank installed on all subsequent P-51B/C/D/K at the factories.

SOP because of the stability issues for the full 85 gallons creating and aft CG issue - was to attempt to drain down to 25 gallons in the 85 gallon tank. It was not always done based on range considerations.

I noticed that you were correct to highlight my misprint of "drain 85 gallons to 85 gallons"


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 31, 2016)

Milosh,
I did not read your post carefully. My mistake.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 2, 2016)

On the Mustang fuselage tank, I once read (somewhere) that the early versions had no baffle system so the fuel would slosh around dangerously. Is this true or just another myth. Thanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2016)

The fuselage tank with baffle was introduced with P-51H, so the rumor might be true.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2016)

The first 85 gallon tank(s) (quantity not known by me) did not have baffles. Somewhere I have a AAF Flight test report dated February 1944 that indicated satisfaction with the applied mods to prevent/diminish 'sloshing' as the fuel drained down.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 3, 2016)

Since the P-51H was mentioned, it's top speed was really 787km/h (about 489mph) as some sources state or it was less as other sources show?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2016)

The post-war data sheets note 410-412 kt max speed - 472-474 mph, with water injection used (90 in Hg = 1800 HP at 26000 ft, with ram). Without water injection, one test shows 450 mph (67 in Hg = ~1300 HP at 30750 ft, with ram).
Onthe other hand, there is a test where only 451 mph is attained with water injection.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 3, 2016)

The 487 mph. maximum speed published by many authors comes from an estimated North American report. You can strip down any WW2 fighter and make it go faster. As a fighting vehicle even in clean condition using water injection and 90"Hg manifold pressure the maximum speed of the P-51H was 'officially' listed as 473 mph./22,705 ft., to the best of my knowledge at this time.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2016)

Two points to be noted - the first is that the 1650-9 as delivered in 1945 experienced issues related to the operation of the Simmonds manifold pressure boost control unit and the Bendix-Stromberg updraft injection carburetor. The flight tests mentioned above (July, 1945) were disappointing relative to the expected Perfomance estimates by NAA, indicating significant reduction in power delivered compared to Bench specs. 

As a result of the July 1945 tests the P-51H NAA 8284-A of November 1945 Analysis re-examined the NAA 8284 September, 1944 report. It was calculated to account for the reduction in HP due to replacing the Bendix-Stromberg with the standard carburetor. The result which was validated in flight tests was 471mph at 90"-WI at 22000 feet FTH and 447mph with 67" at 29000 feet at combat gross weight with racks, but no external stores.

As an aside, the Parasite drag of the P-51H was nearly 10% less, despite greater surface area of wing, fuselage and empennage. Had a 1650-7 been flight tested with 72" Boost with 150 Octane fuel, it probably would have achieved in the 460+ mph range - clean.

By the time Packard sorted out the -9 (mid 1946), the 150 octane fuel necessity had dwindled to zero and AAF went back to 130. The result IIRC is that the engine was limited to 80", down from 90", with WI which delivered closer to 1800 Hp at FTH. The subsequent 1947 and beyond ops were restricted to 80" with WI and never achieved 487mph (clean, no racks) but did consistently achieve 470+mph at FTH

The P-82 had the same basic engine, 1650-11/21 and the 465mph flight speed in 1945 was afflicted with the same performance issue in the Simmonds boost control. By the time that was sorted out the future production versions were saddled with the two speed/two stage Allisons that never achieved consistent reliability, even at 67", forever emasculating the P-82 from potential Merlin performance levels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

