# Most overated fighter



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

We all love to talk up our favorite fighter, and especially for those of us who never flew one, the talk sometimes gets inflated all out of control. We've all seen/heard/read these folks who are just SOO stuck on a certain type that they think it could never fail. Well, here's your chance to blow their wings off by telling which WWII fighter you believe is most over-rated by the arm-chair tacticians!

Note! I can't possibly include all the types that might fit in this category, so I will leave a blank spot for "other" if you know of another one you prefer to trash-talk about!


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 21, 2008)

Oh..Boy here we go ... LOL.. Thats about the last thing I would ask on here..LOL...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> Oh..Boy here we go ... LOL.. Thats about the last thing I would ask on here..LOL...[/QUOTE


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2008)

It has been done to death before


----------



## magnocain (Jul 21, 2008)

I wrote an essay on the overratedness of the p51. Well... at least that was a big part.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

drgondog said:


> It has been done to death before



Well, I suppose so have most things. Make up an interesting poll and I'll be happy to vote in it. I have voted in many of the current polls up there now I'm just trying to have a little fun. Lighten up! We should all be friends here!

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 21, 2008)

Here's the previous one: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-overrated-aircraft-wwii-7707.html (poll still open)

Not specifically fighters, but the P-51 still has the most votes.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 22, 2008)

Mustang x100000000 !!!

edd


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2008)

I would not know where to start on this one. I consider all the aircraft on the list as having something good about them. Its strange to me that the Mustang gets such a big amount of criticism. I know that it gets rammed down our throats constantly, but it DID do a big part of winning the air war over Europe. Shouldnt that give it special standing???

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 22, 2008)

I feel that the P-51 has been touted as the be-all, end-all fighter of WWII; yes, it was a great fighter, possibly the greatest, but it didn't win WWII single-handedly, as some would have you think. The legend goes something like "we would have lost WWII without the P-51". Nonesense! Yes, it helped, but late models of the P-38 and the P-47 (particularly the N) would've been able to more than hold their own over Germany during the latter stages of the War.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 22, 2008)

I believe the P-38 and P-47, not just late models, but most models, were holding their own over Germany.

But my vote would be P-51, just because it doesn't deserve the "legend" it has. I believe on one of these many many posts, someone pointed out that the Corsair was superior to the Mustang in almost every category.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 22, 2008)

Early in the war, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero attained a legendary reputation because Allied pilots used the wrong tactics against it, but when Allied pilots learned to use their own planes' strengths against the Zero's weaknesses, even early war types like the F4F and P-40 were able to combat it.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 22, 2008)

if the war started in 1942 ill sure voted in p-47. but the 109 start the war as best fighter and ended with a surprising k version, with a outstanding performance. of course the grat design of 109 is also amazing, could not be the best fighter or the best plane at the end of war but was the greates project and the most reliable also.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 22, 2008)

I think Oreo meant (as mentioned in the underrated thread) which, in terms of current oppinion (now, not durring the war), is the most overrated.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think Oreo meant (as mentioned in the underrated thread) which, in terms of current oppinion (now, not durring the war), is the most overrated.



Yes, that is what I meant. Over rated in current popular opinion. Opinions changed frequently and quickly during wartime, with the great "flywheel affect" of the rumor mill adding weight to every tale of gloom or gladness. When all was said and done, opinions began to cement themselves on the face of popular awareness, often influenced by widespread knowledge of statistics, anecdotes, or more often, the popular writings of historians, and misled, more often than not, by word of mouth from old "eye-witness" first-hand rumor hearers and spreaders, who were unaware of the truth of the matter when they first heard about it, and have since heard others repeat the lie until facts and true memories are glossed over with oft-heard repetitions of falsehoods. Thus we have read, repeatedly, that the P-39 had a maximum speed of 330 miles per hour, could not function above 16,000 feet, was not safe to do basic aerobatics in, was likely to be fatal to its pilot in a crash landing, was very difficult to control in all flying situations, and was extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.

We are told that the P-38 had poor performance below 30,000 feet and was not reliable to fly above 30,000 feet. We are told it was a deathtrap when flown against the Luftwaffe, much like the Bf 110 in 1940 against Spitfires. And we are led to believe that the PBY catalina was the greatest thing on the water, and could hold its own against all comers, regardless. We are led to believe that the fw 190 was no good as a dogfighter but had to be used against bomber streams with constant supervision by Me 109 pilots. we are told that the AVG in China fought the Japanese on a regular basis before Pearl Harbor, when in reality they did not contact the Japanese in combat until some two weeks after Pearl Harbor.

Well, let's try to set the rumors straight!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 23, 2008)

P-38 poor performance at low altitude? Where did you hear that? I have been around warbirds for many years and I never heard that kind of tripe. I have heard some crazy things, but not that.


----------



## seesul (Jul 23, 2008)

Me-262 IMHO
Speed is not all you need to win.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 23, 2008)

As far as I know (and what I’ve read) the P38 was brilliant at low level. Much better than most US fighters (for sure the P51 and P47) 
Anyway I personally belief it was much, much better than most think it was.

edd


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2008)

Well some war documentaries are pretty fond of the P-51, way too fond to be specific. Yes the P-51 did a lot, and it was a great fighter, esp. when it first entered service. BUT by mid 44 there were so many other fighters which outperformed it that it only stayed effective because the circumstances of the war allowed it to be. In short by mid 44 the P-51 was no more the fastest fighter in the skies, which is what made it so special when it arrived (Plus the range). However the fact that the Germans lacked both fuel trained pilots plus were forced to concentrate on the bombers allowed the P-51 to be useful till the end.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 23, 2008)

It can't possibly the 51 as it's the aircraft that neutered the LW


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

Throw the Corsair into Europe and see what happens. While I like the Mustang, Soren nailed it on the head. Yes it had the range, but so did the Hellcat and Corsair, which people seem to forget. They could have easily done what the Mustang did, but they were only used (in large numbers) in the Pacific. Let's look at some of the statistical info differences between the Corsair and the Mustang, shall we?

*P-51D Mustang*

Max Speed: 716 km/h (445 mph) at 7620 m (25 000 ft)

Range: 525 km (326 mi) on internal fuel; 1210 km (752 mi) with two 491 L (108 gal) drop tanks

Service Ceiling: 12 770 m (41 000 ft)

Payload: two 227 kg (500 lb) bombs OR eight 75 mm rockets, but not drop tanks

*F4U-1D*

Max Speed: 684 km/h (425 mph) at 6100 m (20 000 ft)

Range: 1 633 km (1 015 mi) (I don't know if this is with or without tanks)

Service Ceiling: 11 280 m (37 000)

Payload: 1 800 kg (4 000 lbs) of bombs or rockets without tanks

As you can see, the Mustang has a slight edge in 3 of 4 categories. I don't know how much the altitude figures in with excorting bombers, as I'm not aware of the alt they usually flew at, and speed doesn't win dogfights, plus I would hazard to say the Corsair was better in a dive. But the Corsair could carry _3 500 lbs_ more than the Mustang, which makes it a much better multirole fighter. For range, the distance between London and Berlin is 581 mi, so they could both do it. And I don't know who voted for the Corsair, but I would call it one of the more underrated planes.


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2008)

Pbfoot said:


> It can't possibly the 51 as it's the aircraft that neutered the LW



Yes it can cause it wasn't the best like so many believe. The thing that neutered the LW was that the Allies had a fighter which could escort the bombers right into the heart of Germany, staying above the bombers and dropping down on the interceptors busyt trying to shoot down the bombers. And the LW's lack of trained pilots fuel also played a big part in the Mustang's success. 


Like Bill has pointed out as well, the orders to concentrate solely on the bombers really hurt the LW, had they been allowed to attack the escorts the war could've been significantly prolonged. 

The attack on the bombers should've been left to the Zerstörrers while the fighters would concentrate on the escorts. Göring however ordered the LW fighters to concentrate solely on the bombers, a big mistake. (Along with Hitlers decision to delegate the Me-262 the role of fighter bomber)


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 23, 2008)

The 51 was just fine for the task it did and it did neuter the LW whatelse needs to be said , I'm sure it was not the best in everything but it had enough of everything to do the job. Talked to a gent that flew 2 tours in Spits and the Mustang IV in post war RCAF and he said the Spit was a better flying aircraft and dogfighter but when was the last time you heard of a Spit, 109, 190 etc flying 8 - 9 hour missions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 23, 2008)

Those range figures for the P-51 are combat radius, not range. ANd that figure for the F4U-1D (which I've seen before) is nonspecific in more ways than just configuration.

However, the point that the P-51 was not the only fighter capable of performing escort is still correct. (though it was probably the best for this role, particularly with cost included)

We have a good thread on comparing possiblilities of alternative escorts.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Those range figures for the P-51 are combat radius, not range. ANd that figure for the F4U-1D (which I've seen before) is nonspecific in more ways than just configuration.
> 
> However, the point that the P-51 was not the only fighter capable of performing escort is still correct. (though it was probably the best for this role, particularly with cost included)
> 
> ...




Thanks for pointing that out, I have limited resources, and I'm sure there are far better sources out there, I just wanted to make my point. I didn't realize there was a differece between radius and range.


----------



## ponsford (Jul 23, 2008)

HoHun has made a very convincing case of the F4F being overrated and the weak counter arguments lead me to cast my vote for the F4F as the most overrated fighter. That said, my view is that the Ta 152 is easily the most overrated fighter in this forum, however, that aircraft is not on the ballot.


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2008)

Ta-152 overrated ? How so ponsford ?


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The 51 was just fine for the task it did and it did neuter the LW whatelse needs to be said , I'm sure it was not the best in everything but it had enough of everything to do the job. Talked to a gent that flew 2 tours in Spits and the Mustang IV in post war RCAF and he said the Spit was a better flying aircraft and dogfighter but when was the last time you heard of a Spit, 109, 190 etc flying 8 - 9 hour missions



Well Pbfoot that's not how many people see it, they think the P-51 is the best thing to ever fly. Truth be told the P-51 wasn't anything special, it just had the range speed to do the job needed be done, and like already explained many different factors attributed to its success.


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ta-152 overrated ?... ?



I could be wrong ...But did it even really get used in the war...


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Truth be told the P-51 wasn't anything special, it just had the range speed to do the job needed be done,



Nail on the head... Range and speed thats what made it special...And I would not be a big P-51 fan...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> I could be wrong ...But did it even really get used in the war...



(Re the Ta 152) imo, the volume of an a/c's use in service or combat does not contribute to its worth, value, capacity, or overratedness. I speak of aircraft in terms of the merits of the plane itself, and how it compared to other planes, and its ability to do the task(s) it was designed or ordered to do, particularly in the face of opposition. The Ta 152 did see service, and so its service can be evaluated, whereas something like the Boeing F8B can not, since it never made it past prototype stage and certainly never got into combat. I don't think the Ta 152 is overrated, it was an extremely capable aircraft, and we could debate its merits exhaustively when compared to other types, such as Me 109K, Spit 14, P-51H, Hawker Sea Fury, P-47M. What would be over rated would be if people carried on and made a huge fuss about the Boulton Paul Defiant, and how great it was, and how Britain could have won the war in 1941 if they had just had twice as many Defiants instead of Spitfires, and were constantly praising it and talking it up and doodling pictures of it all over the place, and making exuberant movies about it, and so on, like they actually do about such planes as the p-51 and Spitfire, which may deserve it, but if they carried on like that about the BP Defiant, then THAT would be overrating an aircraft. The excitement and exuberance about the Ta 152 is, I think, more or less merited based on the fact that it was one of the greatest piston engined fighters ever fielded, in terms of performance, and it is also true that the very fact it saw so little combat lends to the popular mystique about the type. Just my opinion, and no, it isn't my favorite plane. Neither is the Defiant.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 24, 2008)

Mosquito IMHO. 

When I read fans of the airplane, the overall impression I get from the descriptions is an early example of a supercruising stealth bomber-fighter-interceptor, all in one, capable of delivering bombloads that make a B-29 shy, at accuracy levels that would make Stuka crews envious, while Hitler, Göring and Göbbels would stand on a pulpit at a big nazi rally and furiously shaking his fist towards the sky.

In other words, its image is that of a mix of an Aurora bomber, the Blackbird and the F-22 Raptor. And while the historical aircraft was sound and very useful, the post-war mythicism blown that all out of proportion.

P-51, Spitfire, Ta 152H, He 219 are all good contenders for the title too. I don think the Me 262 can be overrated - it was simply in a class of its own, and punished American bomber formations with near-inpunity to its speed at the time the USAAF's numerical superiority grew so depressing that conventional LW piston engined fighters simply did not stand a chance.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> Throw the Corsair into Europe and see what happens. While I like the Mustang, Soren nailed it on the head. Yes it had the range, but so did the Hellcat and Corsair, which people seem to forget. They could have easily done what the Mustang did, but they were only used (in large numbers) in the Pacific. Let's look at some of the statistical info differences between the Corsair and the Mustang, shall we?
> 
> *P-51D Mustang*
> 
> ...



The Corsair is a great ship - but when making comparisons you need to document the weight and model number of the a/c and the fuel load for the speeds and ranges you are quoting... as well as boost and fuel.

The altitude was huge for the ETO and escort duties were right in the strike zone of the P-51 best performance for B/C/D/K and H.

Speed is huge also. The ability to choose to fight or run given the ability to spot the adversary first is very important - but both of these aircraft are very close in overall performance and it really depends on the models if you wish to cite an advantage in turn, climb, dash and acceleration for either one.

I haven't seen the dive comparisons. .75 Mach is recommended do not exceed for 51 but a/c exceeded .83-.85 in tests and probably in combat with popped rivets and wrinkled skin on return. As the 51 was cleaner than the F4U it should dive faster - but I haven't seen the data.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well some war documentaries are pretty fond of the P-51, way too fond to be specific. Yes the P-51 did a lot, and it was a great fighter, esp. when it first entered service. BUT by mid 44 there were so many other fighters which outperformed it that it only stayed effective because the circumstances of the war allowed it to be. In short by mid 44 the P-51 was no more the fastest fighter in the skies, which is what made it so special when it arrived (Plus the range). However the fact that the Germans lacked both fuel trained pilots plus were forced to concentrate on the bombers allowed the P-51 to be useful till the end.



Curiosity compels me to ask enumeration of 'so many other fighters that out performed it'? in Mid 1944.

Curiosity further compels me to ask for citation of operational statistics demonstrating that thesis.

in Mid 1944, which of the numerous examples of production aircraft were specifically out performed say the P-51B-15 at 20-30,000 feet? say over Berlin?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> Nail on the head... Range and speed thats what made it special...And I would not be a big P-51 fan...



Range and speed made it special but it appears a lot of folks miss a point that, for example, a 51B-15, had exceptional climb rates at both low and high altitude until it got over 30,000 feet, and would roll well, turn well, dive well and accelerate - Usually one of those would work for you in combat.

I tend to think the Mustang is over hyped by media types that don't understand every aircraft is a collage of compromises and the Mustang was no different - it was not the best in every category against all comparisons but it was good to exceptional against each conventional fighter in significant combat ops during WWII.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2008)

Bill, if you notice, I already directed Catch-22 to some better info.


And the P-51 would need a heavier armament to be a good interceptor. (though as the Mustang Mk.IA and P-51/F-5 were armed with 4x 20mm Hispanos this is already a prooven possibility)


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Curiosity compels me to ask enumeration of 'so many other fighters that out performed it'? in Mid 1944.



Well in terms of speed there were the Me-262, Dora-9 Bf-109 K-4, and in terms of climb rate there was the Me-262, Dora-9, Fw-190A7, Bf-109 G-10/14 K-4. However the crucial part is that in August 44 the Mustang wasn't the fastet fighter in the air anymore.



> Curiosity further compels me to ask for citation of operational statistics demonstrating that thesis.



What do you mean ? Like I said it stayed effective because a numbers circumstances of the war allowed it to be, such as the quality of the average German pilot, Germany's accute fuel shortage and the situation in the air where the LW fighters were ordered to concentrate on the bombers AND the P-51's great performance at bomber alt.



> in Mid 1944, which of the numerous examples of production aircraft were specifically out performed say the P-51B-15 at 20-30,000 feet? say over Berlin?




Billyou make it sound like I'm criticizing the P-51, I aint, and I never said the P-51 was obsolete. What I said and is saying is it was a great fighter with great speed range and esp. good performance at the alt of the bombers at 25 to 30,000 ft. However it wasn't the best thing in the air as some believe,. that's all.


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Range and speed made it special but it appears a lot of folks miss a point that, for example, a 51B-15, had exceptional climb rates at both low and high altitude until it got over 30,000 feet, and would roll well, turn well, dive well and accelerate - Usually one of those would work for you in combat.



The P-51B-15 and Fw-190 A-5 were about equal in climb rate, while the Fw-190 turned better at low to medium alt and rolled much better, however the P-51 was faster at all alts.



> I tend to think the Mustang is over hyped by media types that don't understand every aircraft is a collage of compromises and the Mustang was no different.



Exactly Bill! I couldn't agree more!


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well in terms of speed there were the Me-262, Dora-9 Bf-109 K-4, and in terms of climb rate there was the Me-262, Dora-9, Fw-190A7, Bf-109 G-10/14 K-4. However the crucial part is that in August 44 the Mustang wasn't the fastet fighter in the air anymore.
> 
> *Of those, the Me 262 is clear - and the first time the Allies were seeing it was September - which to me was stretchin Mid 1944.
> 
> ...




Nah - I just rresponded to the 'so many other fighters out performed it in mid 1944' when the reality is that this particular Mustang was competitive against all the German prop jobs through out the last year of the war.

It was out performed by the Ta 152 in most important air combat comparisons but the skill of the pilot would have been more of a factor than the raw performance - essentially true for all the above comparisons.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Bill, if you notice, I already directed Catch-22 to some better info.
> 
> 
> And the P-51 would need a heavier armament to be a good interceptor. (though as the Mustang Mk.IA and P-51/F-5 were armed with 4x 20mm Hispanos this is already a prooven possibility)



It would have been easy to reconfigure the 51B-H to 4 20's, but the 51 did just fine against every bomber it faced so the six 50's were effective enough


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

Bill, the Me-262 intered service with the LW in April 1944 and was first let loose on the Allies in August the same year.



> Nah - I just rresponded to the 'so many other fighters out performed it in mid 1944' when the reality is that this particular Mustang was competitive against all the German prop jobs through out the last year of the war.



It wasn't competitive with the Ta-152H, Dora-13 Bf-109 K-4, which I'm sure we agree upon.

However the P-51B-15 is pretty much the only Allied fighter (Besides the Spitfire Mk.XIV) which was competitive with the FW-190 Dora-9.


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

> What is the A-5 and 7 and 109K-4 at those same altitudes and max boost at that time (May-July 1944- Mid 44).. when did G-10 and K-4 equip operational squadrons in multi Gruppe quantities?



The Fw-190 A-5/A-7 featured a 4,110 ft/min climb rate and 580 km/h top speed at SL, however the BMW engines performance fell off more rapidly with altitude.

The Fw-190 Dora-9 featured a 22.5 m/s (4,440 ft/min) climb rate and 615 km/h top speed at SL with MW-50, however I'm not sure it was available until October 44. 

The Bf-109 K-4, G-10 G-14 featured a ~4,500 + ft/min climb rate (1.8 ata) and 585-590 km/h top speed at SL in mid 44, and by late 44 (1.98ata [K-4]) the climb rate increased to 5,000 + ft/min at SL, and speed to 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Fw-190 A-5/A-7 featured a 4,110 ft/min climb rate and 580 km/h top speed at SL, however the BMW engines performance fell off more rapidly with altitude.
> 
> The Fw-190 Dora-9 featured a 22.5 m/s (4,440 ft/min) climb rate and 615 km/h top speed at SL with MW-50, however I'm not sure it was available until October 44.
> 
> The Bf-109 K-4, G-10 G-14 featured a ~4,500 + ft/min climb rate (1.8 ata) and 585-590 km/h top speed at SL in mid 44, and by late 44 (1.98ata [K-4]) the climb rate increased to 5,000 + ft/min at SL, and speed to 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt.



You would recognize that all those numbers are competitive and distinctions are a function of engine condition? That for example 4500 vs 4200 fpm is 5ft/sec - how long if both had max performance before the one in front runs out to say a 900 ft/300 yd lead - 2 1/2 minutes?

609kmh at SL translates to ~377mph - about 1.4 ft sec? in speed, or 445 mph at what altitude? if same as 51B-15 then we are talking another 1ft/sec. What are the weights?

It seems that such performance differences are negligible and given the variabilities in late war German QC and fuel quality would be less chance of combat performance at peak test flight numbers?

You might see why I took exception in describing big performance differences between Mustang and Fw and Me 109's. Period. Fw 190D-13 truly needs to be compared to the P-51H as both entered service about the same time.


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

Well the P-51B-15 was competitive to the German propjobs until the Ta-152H Dora-13 entered service.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 24, 2008)

The Dora 9 had very similar performance to the P-51 B/C/D/K. It required short-duration emergency boost to reach its 440-445 mph top speed. P-51 did not, I believe. There are also examples of individual pilots boosting their Mustangs higher than recommended in combat, for instance, to try to catch a Me 262-- sometimes successful, depending on altitude, conditions, and pilot capability. Mustang ace Leonard "Kit" Carson, in his book "Pursue and Destroy" says that the official speed of 440 mph for a 51B was somewhat arbitrary of a number, and that he personally did some calculations and observations while wringing the max performance out of his bird (he was an engineer before becoming a pilot) and he calculated his B could safely go 458 mph at a certain altitude. I don't have the book here with me to quote specifics, and that is his word against whoever else. However, I still agree the 'stang is somewhat overated. The P-47 could have done the job, with the proper range mods, and even the Spitfire could have been reworked into a 2,000 mile fighter. It just wasn't a real priority to them, I guess. The Bf 109K, in its various subtypes was an extremely good static performer, albeit with very poor range. Its max speed was in the same ball park as the first generation Merlin engine Mustangs, but slower than the H which had max speed of around 480-490 mph. One can only wonder what might have happened if Willy M had put a 4-bladed paddle prop on the 109K???? And why didn't he?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 25, 2008)

The D-9 acheived its top speed at a much lower altitude than the P-51.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jul 25, 2008)

Most of the late-war props reached speeds in excess of 700 km/h, but i wonder if it really mattered if you reach 750 or 784 km/h. Sure 30km/h difference was a lot early in the war, but how many pilots could still effectively control their straight wing aircraft at those speeds let alone shoot at something?

That being said I kind of don't want to call the P-51 overrated. It gave the allies as much of an advantage over the Germans as the Fw 190 did 2 years before, but it came at a much more crucial time and was exploited to the fullest. You just got to ignore all the popular media hype about it.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 25, 2008)

Oreo said:


> The Dora 9 had very similar performance to the P-51 B/C/D/K. It required short-duration emergency boost to reach its 440-445 mph top speed. P-51 did not, I believe.



Both peak performance were achieved at maximum power, in case of the Dora, allowable for 10 minutes (with the booster enough for 30 min), in case of the Merlin P-51 for 5 minutes. Of course after some time at lower power the WEP could be used again, and these limits were not set in stone and IMHO were more than generous allowance for the duration of any combat.




Oreo said:


> The Bf 109K, in its various subtypes was an extremely good static performer, albeit with very poor range.



It had similiar range if not improved range as the previous 109F-K, ie. around 1000-1100 miles w. droptank, and 6-700 without. This is of course shorter range than the very long ranged USAAF figthers, but I would not call it 'very poor' - its range and endurance were entirely satisfactory for its operational roles.



> Its max speed was in the same ball park as the first generation Merlin engine Mustangs, but slower than the H which had max speed of around 480-490 mph.



I believe these figures are rather optimistic factory projections for the H variant made before any of them even flew. The actual speed of the H in operational configuration from flight tests was around 450 mph at altitude, quite similiar to the 109K as a matter of fact.



> One can only wonder what might have happened if Willy M had put a 4-bladed paddle prop on the 109K???? And why didn't he?



Willy M put a 3 bladed prop with very wide blades on the late high alt 109s, incl. the K. One can just wonder why he did not opt for a 4 bladed propeller instead, but I guess German designers probably opted for improved 3 bladed designs on the grounds of the aero engine outputs they worked with and because of the greater effiency of a 3 bladed design. Advanced thin bladed and swept propellors were developed by VDM and tested on the 109K, with 460 mph top speed projected.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Both peak performance were achieved at maximum power, in case of the Dora, allowable for 10 minutes (with the booster enough for 30 min), in case of the Merlin P-51 for 5 minutes. Of course after some time at lower power the WEP could be used again, and these limits were not set in stone and IMHO were more than generous allowance for the duration of any combat.
> 
> *Actually not true Kurfust - the flight tests I have looked cite max continuous boost on all the climb to altitude tests so the 30,000 foot run at 75"/3000rpm for the May 1944 P-51B-15 Tests with 150 octane ran at least 12 minutes. Although a 'thing' isn't true by ommission there are no reports in the recommendations at the bottom of the report citing engine damage or other issues.
> 
> ...



Efficiencies of props are a complicated discussion. Do you have any data on the 109 props?

My point to Soren is that a discussion of performance with equivalent aircraft have to have very precise boundary conditions surrounding the debate.

Discussing a 109K-4 against a P-51B-15, as an example, need altitudes, weights, assumptions of engine performance at optimal, fuel and boost, etc.

I know that there are envelopes of altitude and equivalent combat loading where the 109K exceeded that particular Mustang - and vice versa - Ditto 190D-9 and D-12 and D-13. Given these contrasts and similarities it is difficult to make a case that there were 'many' conventional fighters with 'better to much' performance not only in mid 1944 but at the end of the war... especially with supercharged engines which were designed and geared for selcted altitude for best performance - and different from each other.

There was never a point in the ETO battles where 109 or 190 pilots said to themselves - 'Oh great, there are only Mustangs to fight - happy days are here again".


----------



## Oreo (Jul 25, 2008)

Let's not forget that as the P-51D series evolved, they kept increasing the power of the engines slightly. Seems like the last D's were at least 200 hp more at altitude than the first D's. No doubt this just kept up with added weight and/or drag of subsequent equipment. . . .

Let us not forget that any given individual aircraft will have different performance on different days, based on maintenance, weather, atmospheric conditions, the quality of fuel, pilot attention to detail, engine life (just broken in, or old and worn out?), and so on. Also the difference between two individual planes coming off the assembly line one behind the other can be significantly different, as well. Consider the fact that engine or propeller tolerances might not be identical, the airframe might not fit together quite the same way, different paint jobs might affect performance, small equipment changes and so on can add up to differences of a mile an hour or so. Pilots used to talk about waxing the fighter's wings to (they hoped) wring a few extra mph out of it. items like superchargers, etc, were sometimes so finnicky that they would affect performance between individuals of the same type. Within those boundaries, it is easy to see how sticking to certain arbitrary performance figures is problematic, and the question comes to be-- Was the Me 109K, quoted at 452 mph, having a good day, or a bad day, when compared to the P-51D, which was quoted at 437 mph, and was that highly vaunted aircraft having a good day or a bad day when it ran its flight test? And then, does 15 mph make much difference in combat anyway, and at how many altitudes was the 109K faster than 51D?

Also, I think the range quoted for the 109K-4 in my book is 356 miles on internal fuel, and, no, that is not radius, that is range. Then again, one of the moderators told me to use my book as a doorstop-- even though it contains some 50 pages of dense info on the Bf109 series. . . . .


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

With the std. prop the performance of the Bf-109 K-4 at 1.98ata was 609 km/h (378 mph) at SL and 719 km/h (446 mph) at altitude, while climb rate was 5,000 + ft/min at SL. 

The speed of 727 km/h (452 mph) was reached with the thinner Dünnblatt schraube which increased speed for the sacrefice of climb rate.

Bill,

I think we are in good agreement. 

However I'd like to point out that the average German pilot in late 44 to 45 never thought his job was a piece of cake, and since training was scarse many new pilots were obviously scared knowing they were up against well trained enemy pilots flying in competitive a/c.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> With the std. prop the performance of the Bf-109 K-4 at 1.98ata was 609 km/h (378 mph) at SL and 719 km/h (446 mph) at altitude, while climb rate was 5,000 + ft/min at SL.
> 
> The speed of 727 km/h (452 mph) was reached with the thinner Dünnblatt schraube which increased speed for the sacrefice of climb rate.
> 
> ...



I do agree also. 

What I meant when reacting to several to many fighters in 'Mid 1944 being superior" was to use the example of the p51B which had the same airframe throughout, still comprised 20% of the 8th AF at VE day and was still competitive even to fighters like the K-4 and D-9 introduced a year later.

What made the Mustang perhaps Most Important, as contrast to Best is that it was most competitive to even better over the Other guys capital - from late 1943 forward in the biggest air battles against the toughest adversaries, who in turn were fighting for survival over their own homeland.

The other factor in performance discussions per se is that the Mustang was usually fighting with as much as twice the amount of fuel as its adversary at take off.

Media typically over hype the Mustang, Bomber crews did not, or if they did it was personal reasons surrounding survival, 

Thoughtful pilots that flew all the top fighters realized that each one had significant merits, and if flown by skilled pilots, were all dangerous machines in combat. After that, it was either a matter of preference or what you were assigned and the tactical situation in which you entered combat.

The Mustang assisted the pilot in giving great capability, but the pilot made the Mustang what it is today from an historical perspective


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 26, 2008)

P-51. it was a good plane dont get me wrong. Just very overrated


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2008)

I forgot to metion my vote for the Mossie as the most over rated Fighter.

Simply it was one dimensional as a night Fighter and while it is easily one of the best and most important combat aircraft it doesn't deserve the rep it gained in some circles as a fighter.. 

I'm ok once the assertion or description wanders to night fighter but that is another thread topic altogether.


----------



## Negative Creep (Aug 1, 2008)

The Zero. Early success was as much down to the allies being taken by surprise and their inferior equipment and tactics as anything else. It didn't take long for it to be equaled then mastered and proving that maneuverability is not the be all and end all of combat


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 1, 2008)

But is it that over-rated in today's popular oppinion?


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 1, 2008)

Th!rdeye, I'd like to hear your reason for voting for the Corsair as the MOST overrated. How? The Corsair did most everything, at a minimum of well, and somethings it excelled at. How could an overrated plane have a 20+ year operational service? The only other plane on this list that can claim that is the Mustang.

Obviously I'm biased to the Corsair. I just want to hear your argument.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2008)

My vote will be going to the Me 109. My reasons are this. Germany started the war, and in the period 1939-42 needed an offensive fighter with the necessary range to take the war to its enemies. Instead, it got two fighters (the Me 109, and the Me 110), neither of which could fulfil that role properly.

The Me 110 lacked the neccessary performance, particularly turning ability, and the 109 lacked the range. The result was that Germany was forced to fight its air battles as essentially an adjunct to the army, in relatively close range to the front, where an opponent could choose if, in what strength, and with what assets he would contest that airspace. The germans were unable to take the war into distant enemy airspace very effectively. 

This surely contributed to higher than necessary losses for the LW, and in my opinion contributed materially to the eventual defeat of the LW. The obvious case in point is the BoB, but there are others.

Despite this, I still see in this thread almost godlike status assigned to an aircraft that whilst undoubtedly a piece of marvellous aeronautical engineering, simply failed to deliver the goods to its owners. It had one strategically fatal fault, that should ahve been addressed prewar but was not, and as a re4sult of that failure contributed materially to the4 eventual german defeat 

Guess what type of aiurcraft the the germans needed in 1940, something like the mustang, perhaps a zero with armour, anything that had the legs to take the fight to the enemy at range. Even if this abiliuty had been achieved at some loss in performance, I believe it would have been a better choice than the one actually made.


----------



## Juha (Aug 2, 2008)

IMHO in the end much depend were one lives, in USA popular oppinion probably overestimates P-51 and B-17 etc, In GB Spitfire, Hurricane. Lancaster, Mosquito and Wimpy. In Germany maybe Bf 109 and Ju 88 and those very late war prorotypes and paper projects, in Russia Yak-3, La-7 and Il-2.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 2, 2008)

All the 109 needed to be useful as an escort for a BoB situation was to have drop tank equipped models introduced. (not to mention utiizing top cover or roaming escort instead of close escort) 
The Bf 110 is another story though... and the Fw 187 would probably have done well as an escort for the BoB, but was more expensive than the 109. You could go to the He 100, but while considderably faster and a bit longer ranged, it would have taken time to switch over and probably wouldn't be available till around the time of the Fw 190. (and would still be cutting it close w/out drops)
(I think the Fw 187 -in single seat config- would have been much more useful, with the Ju 88 fulfilling the other roles the Bf 110 was more capable of than the Fw 187 would be -ie nightfighter-)



Anyway this thread if for most overratd by current popular oppinion, so that may change things.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2008)

How much would the drop tank degrade the performance of the 109? My understanding was that drop tanks were introduced towards the end of october, with no appreciable change in the loss rates (admittedly the LW Jagd were already just about on their knees by then with reportedly less than 200 fighters on average left in an operational state). 

It is a VERY big stretch to argue that the 109 had sufficient range to be classified an effective offensive fighter IMO, even with LR tanks. And if it was such a simple excercise, why wasnt something done earlier?????

Neither was the Spitfire etc, but then only the germans were planning an aggressive war, so one would expect them to incorporate some adequate planning in their preparations, so as to provide LR tanks earlier, or make modifications to the aircraft itself so as to increase its range


----------



## The Basket (Aug 2, 2008)

Must be remembered that all first generation monoplanes were very short ranged. Put the most powerful engine in the smallest airframe and you have short range. 

The 109 was an interceptor and so therefore not designed with range in mind. The battle of Britain scenario was a difficult one as the Germans never planned for it.

You can't blame the Germans for having the 109 in 1939 but you can in 1945.

Hype is all it...the Hurricane won the Battle of Britian while the Spitfire got the glory. And the Mustang won the won in 1944? Cool...overlooking the fact that there was plenty of war even before the Mustang flew. 

If you look closer, the fighters that won the real deal were the Wildcats and the Hurricanes and the P-40s. 

The Mustang wasn't there at Stalingrad or Midway or BoB so it didn't win the battles that won WW2.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 3, 2008)

The Basket said:


> You can't blame the Germans for having the 109 in 1939 but you can in 1945.
> 
> Hype is all it...the Hurricane won the Battle of Britian while the Spitfire got the glory. And the Mustang won the won in 1944? Cool...overlooking the fact that there was plenty of war even before the Mustang flew.
> 
> ...



Very good points. And don't forget the Gladiators!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 3, 2008)

The Germans had tested drop tanks on 109's in the Spanish Civil war, but up to the BoB there hadn't been need for any such, and with policies not oriented toward escorts (ie "the bomber will always get through"  ) and the assumption that the Bf 110 was a competent fighter...

And again the number of tactical mistakes made by the Germans durring the BoB. (in terms of the 109 alone, utilizing close escort instead of top cover, puting the escorts at a disadvantage, or possibly using sweeping/roaming escorts intermitent with the bombers)

And as to performance degridation, once the tank was dropped, there would be a little loss in speed (and very slight loss in climb and maneuverabillity) due to the fusalage rack/pylon, but not too serious. 


Also as to all the early monoplane fighters having short range: the P-36 (and P-40 -Tomahawk/Model 81-) had relatively high fuel capacities with combat ranges of 800-850 mi and max range (at minimum cruise settings) of over 1,000 mi. (over 1,200 mi claimed for P-40B -134 imp, 160 US gallon capacity-)

Not to mention the F2A, the first model with over 1,300 mi with 161 US gal (over 1,500 mi claimed) range on internal fuel for the lightweight F2A-1, and over 1,600 mi on the F2A-2. (now with 242 US gallons internal)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Must be remembered that all first generation monoplanes were very short ranged. Put the most powerful engine in the smallest airframe and you have short range.
> 
> The 109 was an interceptor and so therefore not designed with range in mind. The battle of Britain scenario was a difficult one as the Germans never planned for it.
> 
> ...



It would be better to say the Wildcats, Hurricanes and P-40's were major contributors to the Allies not Losing the war in the 1939-1943 period. Those Battles did not Win WWII.

I also voted the Mustang as over hyped, along with Ta 152, as great as they both were - but the Mustang did win the battle for air supremacy over Germany at a time when the entire US Strategic doctrine was at risk.


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2008)

As far as the Corsair being overated, because this forum is biased, for good reasons, toward the ETO and it's AC, the Corsair may be the most under appreciated fighter of the war. Almost all of the premier single engined fighters in the war became multirole fighters. This was of necessity but the 109s, 190s, Spits, P40s and so on all were adapted to the ground attack role even though the original design probably was not optimised in that direction. Strangely, the original missions flown by the Mustang were ground attack even though I don't believe Dutch Kindleberger designed the fighter for that role. Anyway, if a multirole fighter is the epitome as far as piston engined fighters are concerned in WW2, the Corsair may be underappreciated as it might have been, all considered, the best fighter of the war. As far as the great unwashed public is concerned (and that includes most of the people who make TV stuff on both sides of the pond) the Mustang is probably the most overated but it is undeniable that the P51 played a major role in winning the war. I have forgotten which AC I voted for but, with all the excellent opinions stated and supported, this may be an unaswerable question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

How is the forum biased to the fact that the Corsair is overated, when most people here do not think the Corsair was overated. I think only one person voted for it.

My vote by the way goes to the P-51D. It was one the best fighters of the war and ever built, but I just feel that it is overhyped and made out to be more of an uberfighter than what it was.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 3, 2008)

I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion. 

Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France. 

The P51 is over-hyped, but it did achieve it's operational goal, of long range escort and air superiority over Germany. The Spitfire also gets a lot of hype, but it was designed as a home defense fighter, and it also achieved that goal. The 109 fell short of what was required of it. If it had been successful, this posting would be in German. (that's a tired cliche I know, but it's relavant


Battle of Britain, Midway and Stallingrad might not have been the battles which won the war, but they were definately turning points, arguably the three most important battles of the war, insofar as they showed the allies that both Germany and Japan could be defeated, basically by individual nations within the Allies. BoB/Britain, Stalingrad/Soviets, Midway/ USA.

It is a common assertation, that Germany made a tactical error during BoB by insisting on close escort. Really, the close escort order was in effect for only part of the Battle, and they were already experiencing serious losses before that, hence the order. Keep in mind, the Soviets used close escort throughout the war and they were quite successful with it. I think lack of range for the 109 was more of a factor than orders from Goerring.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion.
> 
> Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.
> 
> ...



See I disagree with you because of one aspect. The Germans were not going to win air superiority with any aircraft. They could have had the Spitfire or the P-51D and they were not going to win.

So I do not think you can blame the 109 on that. I think it comes down to tactics and inferior numbers (not in all campaigns of course).


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2008)

I think this forum is biased a little because the members concentrate on the ETO partly because many are from Europe or like you Chris reside in Europe. Nothing wrong with that and understandable. In fact, as far as WW2 is concerned, particularely the air war, if you look in the public library(which I do) the vast majority of the books on WW2 are about the ETO and some historians seem to treat the Pacific war as kind of a back water. In terms of humans involved and casualties it was. Therefore, I don't think the performance of the Corsair or Hellcat is as familiar to some of the members, partly because the Corsair never fired a shot in the ETO and the Hellcat very few. Once again this is understandable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> I think this forum is biased a little because the members concentrate on the ETO partly because many are from Europe or like you Chris reside in Europe. Nothing wrong with that and understandable. In fact, as far as WW2 is concerned, particularely the air war, if you look in the public library(which I do) the vast majority of the books on WW2 are about the ETO and some historians seem to treat the Pacific war as kind of a back water. In terms of humans involved and casualties it was. Therefore, I don't think the performance of the Corsair or Hellcat is as familiar to some of the members, partly because the Corsair never fired a shot in the ETO and the Hellcat very few. Once again this is understandable.



You correct in that aspect.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I'd like to comment on some of the excellent points being raised in this discussion.
> 
> Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.
> 
> ...




I think your points are well thought out and agree. 

Chris also had a point about tactics, although I feel the Germans had the numbers they needed to defeat the USAAF over Germany absent the Mustang but their tactics were not well thought out to maximize what they did have. 

In retrospect their tactics during BoB were also flawed to point of losing that campaign when they had the RAF in dire straits.

The bottom line - they had equivalent performance, local superiority over Britain and over Germany and lost both campaigns.


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2008)

The early WW2 European fighters, like the BF, Hurricane and Spit were designed with engines of relatively low horsepower. In fact, the first BF flew with a Rolls engine because the DB was not ready yet. As a result, the fighters were small, light and as a result, of limited fuel capacity. I don't believe they had armor and self sealing tanks. Those tanks were heavy and limited fuel capacity even more. The Japanese encountered the same problem with the A6M but were even more constrained by horsepower or lack there of. IMO, that was the genius of the Japanese in that their small, lightweight fighter had performance similar to the BOB British and German fighters except from land bases it had a combat radius on internal fuel of more than 400 miles. Of course the Germans and British could add armor and some self sealing tanks because they were getting more and more horsepower and still have good performance. The Japanese could not readily get more HP and the armor and SS tanks had to wait and when they came the A6M could not match the performance gains of the BF and Spit although the range advantage was still there. In late 1940, when the A6M began to become operational, for a carrier borne fighter to have the overall performance of the Zero was exceptional engineering.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2008)

I believe that if the germans had opted for a fighter with sy a nominal 800-1000 mile range, like the P-36, or the D-520, then it would have achieved a completely different outcome over britain, at the least. Technologically this was possible in the mid to late thirties, as evidenced by types like the A5M, A6M, P-36, and Dewoitine 520. Why did the germans opt for a type which,, even by the standards of the pre-war period was so extremely short legged. Kool K hinted at it in one of his posts that it related to the "bomber will always get through" thinking that prevailed at the time, including Britain and Germany.


I just wonder if the Germans could have achieved more if they had had a fighter more suited to their operational needs.

I am not saying that the 109 was an inferior fighting plane. I think it unfair to say that. It fought very well, however I also believe it was the wrong plane for the LW because it could not fulfil all the mission types that it should have....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

Well even with the range, there were tactical errors in the implementation of fighters by Germany in the BoB. (not to mention problems in the bombing strategy used)

And again, drop tanks were a simple (and tested) solution to the problem, but not considdered necessary at the time. While the 109's range wouldn't be incredibly long it should have been sufficient for the BoB. With the 300L tank, fuel load would be increased by 75% on the Bf 109E. (although range increase would be somewhat less due to added drag of the tank)


One other note:
From Renrich


> In fact, the first BF flew with a Rolls engine because *the DB *was not ready yet.



I believe the 600 hp BMW 116 V-12 was the original choice for the Bf-109, but that engine was regected. THe Jumo 210 was then selected, but was not yet available so a RR Kestrel was used on the V1. The Jumo 210 was used on all production models up to the 109D.

I have conflicting info on the 109D. According to Wikipedia:


> The V10, V11, V12 and V13 prototypes were built using Bf 109B airframes, and tested the DB600A engine with the hope of increasing the performance of the aircraft. However the DB600A was found to be unreliable, and as the improved DB601A was to become available soon,* the DB600A was dropped.*
> 
> Developed from the V10 and V13 prototypes, the "Dora" was the standard version of the Bf 109 in service with the Luftwaffe during the period just before World War II. Despite this, the type saw only limited service during the war, as all of the 235 Doras still in service at the beginning of the Polish campaign were rapidly taken out of service and replaced by the Bf 109E, except in some night fighter units, where some examples were used into early 1940. *Variants included D-0 and D-1 Models, both with a Junkers Jumo 210D engine *and armed with two wing-mounted and two nose-mounted 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns.[29] The D-2 was an experimental version with an engine mounted machine gun but this installation failed again. The D-3 was similar to the C-3 with two 20mm MG FF cannon in the wings.


(why the 210D and not the more powerful 210G/Ga?)

However this site says otherwise WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn

It claims the Dora was powered by the DB-600Aa.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2008)

The 109 was good enough.

It is easy today to say the Germans got it wrong.

The Bf 109 for short range and the Bf 110 for long range.

Trying to make long range fighter in the 1930s would have been too heavy and slower than needed. So if you want speed, go light. 

If the 109 was planned as an interceptor then it was successful.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2008)

It was planned as an interceptor, but this was the wrong choice. But technologically it was possible to produce a fighter of moderate performance, and moderate range, aka P-36, D-520, MS406, all of which possessed superior range to the 109, and were also its contemporaries.

What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

> Trying to make long range fighter in the 1930s would have been too heavy and slower than needed.



Umm, the Fw 187...

To name Germany's. But a major consideration in almost every country was taken for twin engine fighters in the 30's, notably improvements in a/c designs were coming faster than engines powerful enough to meet requirements for a high performance single engine fighter (withought severly limiting the size of the a/c) additionally modern twin engined bombers had gained a slight edge in speed performance over contemporary fighters for a breif period, adding to the attraction. Resulting in the Fw 187, Westlad Whirlwind, and P-38. (as well as others like the Fokker G.I) Though the P-38 cuts it very close in terms of "late 30's)

THese were all generally faster and longer ranged than the single engined contemporaries, though less maneuverable (most pronounced in roll rate, though the early P-38's were pretty poor turners -prior to the maneuvering flaps-). The biggest disadvantage compared to single engine fighters would be cost and time to manufacture. (possibly also added training/orientation time)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

parsifal said:


> What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????



You might want to ask Kurfurst about that (maybe PM, though this general topic -the comparisons, not just on the 109- deserves its own thread).

IIRC the 109 had already had a fuel increase on the E model, from 250L to 400L. And a rear fusalage tank could be fitted to later models. (in place of the MW-50 tank)


----------



## Juha (Aug 4, 2008)

Kool kitty
IIRC Jumo 210D was used in 109Ds because the production of the fuel injection 210G/Gas was too low.

IIRC the story that serial production 109Ds were powered by DB600Aas is an old myth orginating from Green's and maybe also from Nowarra's old books. 

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 4, 2008)

parsifal said:


> It was planned as an interceptor, but this was the wrong choice. But technologically it was possible to produce a fighter of moderate performance, and moderate range, aka P-36, D-520, MS406, all of which possessed superior range to the 109, and were also its contemporaries.



Thing is though the 109 was almost 100 km/h faster than the MS 406, and some 50 km/h faster than the D 520. They were quite literally wiped out over France.. so perhaps on the second thought, more fuel for less performance wasn't such a good trade after all.

Thing I don't understand though. The 109 is being criticized for being a short range interceptor, which was what actually _everyone_ was building in the 1930s in Europe. They were meant to shoot down fast monoplane bombers, which would operate alone, unescorted, as in _everyone's _doctrine. Technically, 1930s engine outputs did not allow for long range fighters/interceptors yet, every one of those (Bf 110, P-38, and others produced by France, Holland and Britain that were so miserable we do not even know their names today..).

I have difficulty finding out as to why the 109 is being singled out of the whole bunch, and blaming the design for something that it was never designed originally to do in the first place, like many others. It was also rather successfully modified later to cope with these new tasks with the addition of a droptank, which BTW it did far earlier in mid-1940 than any other contemporaries. It was not until 1942 the RAF fighters begun to mount drop tanks, even they certainly missed them during 1941 with the first raids on France. I am not sure when the Russians begun to use them, and I don`t think the USAAF would deserve particularly high marks for just noticing what was happening in Europe in the air 1939-1942, ie. unescorted bombers getting shred to pieces and the early P-47, conceived for the same role as the 109E, coincidentally also having very similiar range as the early 109, and no droptank, as the early 109E/Spit/Hurri/Devo520 etc. They basically started the whole evolution of attack doctrine from the beginning, instead of just studying the Wilhelshaven raid..

So I just don`t get it why to single out the 109.



> What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????



The E with a droptank had 840 miles.. 1000 miles range? You are talking about the stock 109F/G/K.. 







Now the funny thing is this. The early Jumo 109Cs had fairly OK range with little fuel, the Emil, which I cannot quite explain, had reduced range, even though its fuel capacity was increased considerably. Yet the subsequent F and later versions, with the same fuel capacity had something like 50% greater range than the Emil...  One possibility is that the Emil range figures were calculated differently, with greater combat reserves, consumption tolerance, or that the 601A was not a particularly economic engine of the series..



dragondog said:


> The bottom line - they had equivalent performance, local superiority over Britain and over Germany and lost both campaigns.



I do not think it holds true that they had numerical superiority in either of these campaigns. Also I do not think there can be a valid analogue between the two, despite superficial similarities.


----------



## Soren (Aug 4, 2008)

I agree totally with Kurfurst.

PS: Calling the 109 a failure is bordering on the insane! It's perhaps the most successful fighter of all time, creating more aces than any other a/c in history and staying competitive till the very end of the war. There's a reason Erich Hartmann and many other aces prefered this a/c, and that reason is that it was an excellent fighter throughout WW2.

Like Adler said, no aircraft was going to win the war for Germany, one simply can't blame Germany's defeat on any machine, Germany lost because of lack of trained pilots fuel. Without trained pilots fuel it doesn't matter how good your a/c are.


----------



## Soren (Aug 4, 2008)

The Bf-109 is not overrated, is is underrated and has been so since the end of WW2 because of worthless British tests claiming it to be a piece of sh*t. Funny how this "piece of sh*t" shot down more Spitfires then vice versa though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Bf-109 is not overrated, is is underrated and has been so since the end of WW2 because of worthless British tests claiming it to be a piece of sh*t. Funny how this "piece of sh*t" shot down more Spitfires then vice versa though.



Hey don't take it so personal!

It is not like anyone said "Soren is overated!"


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2008)

I agree that is unfair to and innaccurate to try and argue that the 109 was not competitive in air combat. But what it could not do effectively was to undertake what in the trade today is called force projection.....it could not take its very considerable air combat capabilities, and place it in the middle of the enemy's back yard so to speak,

This goes a long way to explaining why in the Battle For France and the Low countries, , total Luftwaffe losses were running at something like 1700 aircraft in 7 weeks. I believe this huge tally wa because the bombers were so often left to fend for themselves without fighter escort. even in fighter versus fighter engagements, the losses were not so one sided. And of course, over britiain, the inability of the 109s to loiter is well known. 

The reason why the 109 is singled out for this criticism is because germany was planning for an aggressive war (whilst the others like the Spit were not), and yet appeared to design a defensive fighter. Moreover in terms of range, the 109 was at the bottom end of the scale. i just cannot understand why that would be considered a satisfactory solution, when the obvious need was for some legss. the japanese certainly thought that to be the case, and designed an aircraft (the zero) in which major compromises were made in other areas (like armour protection!!!) just so that the zero could project itself long distances into the enemy airspace. Perhaps the 109 didnt need to go that the extreme of the zero, but it could have put a bit more effort into the range issue, IMO. 

The 109 was a superb in air combat, (but so too was the Mustang). But whereas the Mustang completed its designed mission (ie LR escort fighter), the 109 could not. As an offensive fighter, it was not successful, and in order to complete its necessary mission profile it had to be. Yet the 109 is considered by many to be the fighter par excellence, and of near legendary status, when, if you look at the issue in the cold light of day, it could not deliver what had to be delivered for germany in 1939-42. 

Its not the losses of 109s to spitfires thats important (although as an aside I do challenge the argument that many more Spits were lost in the BOB than 109s, because of performance differences......the numbers were not that different, and the Spits had other fish to fry) its the number of Luftwaffe aircraft compared to the number of RAF aircraft. At the end of the battle, in generally accepted now as early november, something in the order of 2000 German aircraft had been lost, to something like half that number of RAF aircraft. Moreover, the lions share of LW losses were from its bomber groups, which makes it patently clear that the fighters assigned to protect them could not. Again to be fair, the 109s were too few in number, but they also could not loiter over the targets, and deal with the waves of RAF fighters that just kept coming at the germans the whole time they were over the target area


----------



## Marcel (Aug 4, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> (others produced by France, Holland and Britain that were so miserable we do not even know their names today..).



Try Fokker G.I, not quite a miserable fighter. Maybe you mean which *you* cannot remember.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

Neither was the Whirlwind. And the Fw 187 would have been a far better fighter than the Bf 110. (though the Potez 631 was a bit lacking)

Hence my previous post:


kool kitty89 said:


> Here




I've wondered how the G.I would have compared if developed further. (particularly if modified to a single seat fighter)

The Whirlwind had problems due to declining priorety of the Peregrine development with RR, and loss of interest from the air ministry.


----------



## JoeB (Aug 4, 2008)

Maybe most objective definition of 'overrated' is how often a given audience will misunderstand actual facts about a plane's operational history. Even if everybody has different opinions based on the same agreed facts, that's not as important as misunderstanding of fact. Which facts are misunderstood will depend on the audience, though.

I voted Spitfire with a reasonably well informed audience in mind, because there tends to be IMO the most stubborn refusal to admit to the often mediocre operational record of mid-mark Spitfires, and the relative lack of importance of the later mark Spits to the outcome of the war, even among such people. In first case there's still a strong tendency to quote Spit success in terms of Brit claims whereas in many cases in period ca. 1941-43 the results look quite different from the German side, or considering both sides' reported losses only. In the second case post 1943 the Spitfire was increasingly really successful in fighter-fighter exchange ratio but the real action v the German fighter force shifted to Germany and the Spit couldn't reach (until bases were established near the German border late in the war). The Spit's overall success in the BoB is a valid reason to consider early mark Spits successful and important fighters. Also, from a purely technical POV late mark Spits were excellent a/c compared to contemporaries. But again the rose colored (or often 'coloured'  ) glasses on the plane-for-plane operational success 1941-43 and operational importance after 1943 is why it wins my overrated award.

On P-51, if someone's level of background and interest is limited to 'rah rah' individual a/c books that present *all* planes' operational records in the best possible light based on claims, and junky TV documentaries, then OK the P-51 is overrated, perhaps massively depending how junky the sources. But it's less overrated by refusal to accept its real record, among people who should know better, than the Spitfire is, IMO.

The Zero is claimed to be overrated compared to some monumental reputation...except very few people especially Americans or Europeans seem to credit it such a reputation. So I don't understand what it's supposed to be overrated compared to, in such an audience. Eventually a/c like the P-40 could meet it on equal terms in air combat...OK but the P-40 was basically a later airplane. And no other contemporary real fighter, certainly not the P-40 or F4F, could come anywhere near matching the radius of the Zero. That was a key factor in Japanese conquest (especially supported by *land based* Zeroes) of a pretty notable % of the earth's surface in just a few months; conquests it took the Allies, even with overwhelming industrial superiority, a few years to regain. Many discussions of the Zero fail to admit that at all or, 'OK long range, that's nice but...'. No, it wasn't just nice but a major influence on the early Pac War at a strategic level. The Zero is in the running for most *underrated* major fighter of WWII IMO.

I don't see the Bf109 as competing for either prize. There's seems a fairly widespread recognition that it had success in some periods/theaters of the war (or wars, WWII and Spanish Civil War), and didn't in others, for a variety of reasons. Like the Spitifre, pretty different a/c all called 'Bf109' were fielded over a long (in those days) period, but there seem to be fewer Bf109 fans who insist it was always a successful fighter across that whole period (which it wasn't) than Spit fans who claim the same (it also wasn't). Although there are people who do overrate the Bf109, as is true with *some* people for just about any fighter.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2008)

JoeB said:


> On P-51, if someone's level of background and interest is limited to 'rah rah' individual a/c books that present *all* planes' operational records in the best possible light, and junky documentaries, then OK the P-51 is overrated, perhaps massively depending how junky the sources. But it's less overrated by refusal to accept its real record among people who should know better, than the Spitfire is, IMO.



 

I don't fit any of your description above and I think the P-51D is overated.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Neither was the Whirlwind. And the Fw 187 would have been a far better fighter than the Bf 110. (though the Potez 631 was a bit lacking)
> 
> Hence my previous post:
> 
> ...



Good point about the Whirlwind.

The G.I would never have been developed into a 1 seater. It was considered to use DB601's as engines, which would have given it a much higher speed. It's replacement was already under construction, the G.2, which was engined with DB601's. I believe it was even a 3 seater. Unfortunately it was destroyed before trial.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2008)

I am not a fan of the 109 but it is a 1935 and earlier design so it can hardly be said that it didn't meet the requirements of a war it wasn't designed for four years later.

If it is designed as an point interceptor then you can't blame the 109 if it was limited as an escort fighter.

The 109 was designed for speed so big engine, small fuselage. Like a racing car.

You can blame the Luftwaffe for using the 109 wrongly and not replacing it with a more modern machine but the 109 in the 1930s was solid. It was a good cutting edge design.

There is over 5 years difference between the designs of the 109 and Mustang and that is a light year in design and actual combat experience. If the Mustang wasn't a better warplane than the 109 then the boys at NAA should have been fired!

Always loved the Fw 190 as a fine piece of engineering. Kurt must have sat down and built the best fighter he could. Clear canopy, heavy guns and solid rugged wide landing gear. Considered close to perfect and I ain't one to argue.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 4, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Try Fokker G.I, not quite a miserable fighter. Maybe you mean which *you* cannot remember.



I mean that there is no particular reason to remember it, unless, of course, you happen are a Dutchman.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 4, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> I mean that there is no particular reason to remember it, unless, of course, you happen are a Dutchman.



 you're right. Too bad, only 23 were used by the dutch. But it was an interesting a/c though. It didn't have the disadvantage the the Bf110 had, being lack of manoeuvrability. LVA reports that it could "turn with the D.XXI', not a bad feat if you consider the D.XXI was considered very manoeuvrable itself. The LW should have made more use out of it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

May have made a good night fighter too.


----------



## renrich (Aug 4, 2008)

Good post Joe B especially your points about A6M. What a lot of this discussion really amounts to is "If you can't get to where the fight is, you don't really matter." When bi plane fighters were the vogue, in the early 30s and some of the fast twin engine monoplane bombers came out with more speed than the fighters tacticians said that the bomber needed no escorts. Then the designers came out with the Hurricane, BF and Spitfire which apparently were all meant to knock down that unescorted bomber. Long range was not a necessity for those fighters. The Japanese were really trying to create a long range escort and air superiority fighter for the distances in the Pacific and they succeeded admirably. We should have taken that example as a lesson and realised they would eventually build really good cars!


----------



## JoeB (Aug 4, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don't fit any of your description above and I think the P-51D is overated.


I didn't say better informed people didn't think the P-51 was overrated, I just said better informed people don't especially tend to overrate it themselves. I don't think you understood my point IOW, but anyway I don't see what's particularly  about it either way. 

'Overrated' is a product not only of the actual facts of a plane, but also how it's 'rated', but rated by whom?: everbody including people who've only ever read or watched on TV about one plane, people who seriously study the topic, or people somewhere in between, what audience? I'm saying let's consider people who are at least fairly well informed. Assuming so, I don't think those kind of people particularly overrate the P-51, themselves, as much as they tend to some other planes, like the Spitfire.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2008)

renrich said:


> We should have taken that example as a lesson and realised they would eventually build really good cars!




LMAO when i reqad that richard.   I take it your not a fan of the japanese "riceburners" then? Dont know what you call them in the US, but models like the Datsun 120Y and 180B are swimming to the surface for me


----------



## Oreo (Aug 4, 2008)

JoeB said:


> I didn't say better informed people didn't think the P-51 was overrated, I just said better informed people don't especially tend to overrate it themselves. I don't think you understood my point IOW, but anyway I don't see what's particularly  about it either way.
> 
> 'Overrated' is a product not only of the actual facts of a plane, but also how it's 'rated', but rated by whom?: everbody including people who've only ever read or watched on TV about one plane, people who seriously study the topic, or people somewhere in between, what audience? I'm saying let's consider people who are at least fairly well informed. Assuming so, I don't think those kind of people particularly overrate the P-51, themselves, as much as they tend to some other planes, like the Spitfire.
> 
> Joe



Informed people (unless they are biased) do not over-rate things they are informed about. Generally, over-rating takes place by uninformed people. Since we are "all" informed people here :: we ourselves ought not to ever over-rate anything. . . . .


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

The Mustangs problem is that it has become the Discovery channels lovechild and this has taken away the fact it is still a top line fighter with excellent range flown by aggressive pilots.

Talking about Spitfires or 109s then you have to talk about the theory in which these fighters were built for. Neither design had been shaped by modern combat and the fast speeds and G forces meant that some beleievd dogfighting was physically impossible. The Biplane was still seen to be capable and there was no need to change that view in 1935.


----------



## renrich (Aug 5, 2008)

Basket, nice post and I agree. I am a fan of rice burners and own two. I meant that the early war AC the Japanese fielded, Kate and Zeke to name two could have been a message to our auto industry that Japan would be a formidable advesary if it decided to become an international player in autos.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 5, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Like parsifal, I think the 109 is overrated, and if fact could be considered an overall failure. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter, (Luftwaffe was designed to support ground operations, and it needed air superiority to do that), but the 109 failed in it's air superiority role in BoB, Malta, North Africa, and eventually in Russia, over the channel (where the FW190 took it's place mid war) and in their own air space over Germany in 43/44/45. Really, all of the 109s success (strategically and tactically, I'm not talking about individual successes), were against older obsolete airforces such as Poland,the Low Counties and USSR in 1941/42. Toughest nut it cracked was France.


Great reasoning: The 109 is crap because Germany didn't win the war.

I quote JoeB: "There's seems a fairly widespread recognition that it had success in some periods/theaters of the war (or wars, WWII and Spanish Civil War), and didn't in others, for a variety of reasons." Where in any book good or bad, any television show or any movie is the Bf 109 ever represented as overall supreme or without opposition? None. In fact it's probably a bit underrated in public opinion because that opinion likes to focus on either the BoB or the year of 1944, the worst periods for the Bf 109. 

How anyone can call the 109 overrated or even an overall failure is beyond me and I can only think these people must be politically motivated.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2008)

JoeB said:


> Maybe most objective definition of 'overrated' is how often a given audience will misunderstand actual facts about a plane's operational history. Even if everybody has different opinions based on the same agreed facts, that's not as important as misunderstanding of fact. Which facts are misunderstood will depend on the audience, though.
> 
> I voted Spitfire with a reasonably well informed audience in mind, because there tends to be IMO the most stubborn refusal to admit to the often mediocre operational record of mid-mark Spitfires, and the relative lack of importance of the later mark Spits to the outcome of the war, even among such people. In first case there's still a strong tendency to quote Spit success in terms of Brit claims whereas in many cases in period ca. 1941-43 the results look quite different from the German side, or considering both sides' reported losses only. In the second case post 1943 the Spitfire was increasingly really successful in fighter-fighter exchange ratio but the real action v the German fighter force shifted to Germany and the Spit couldn't reach (until bases were established near the German border late in the war). The Spit's overall success in the BoB is a valid reason to consider early mark Spits successful and important fighters. Also, from a purely technical POV late mark Spits were excellent a/c compared to contemporaries. But again the rose colored (or often 'coloured'  ) glasses on the plane-for-plane operational success 1941-43 and operational importance after 1943 is why it wins my overrated award.
> 
> ...



Good summary Joe... for all of it


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

Defining whether a plane is "overrated" is more difficult than first glance would suggest. To me, whether an aircraft is overrated depends on whether the "popular myth" is so far removed from the reality. In other words, did a given aircraft do what its propoents say that it does. So the formaula to apply for "overatedness" would be a series of questions that goes something like this

_1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?_ The aircraft with the greates gap, is, IMO the most overrated type....


----------



## JoeB (Aug 5, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Informed people (unless they are biased) do not over-rate things they are informed about. Generally, over-rating takes place by uninformed people. Since we are "all" informed people here :: we ourselves ought not to ever over-rate anything. . . . .


I said reasonably well informed, not perfectly informed. And by no means did I exclude bias, that's a very big 'unless' you're assuming there  .

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

So applying this methodolgy, I thought it might be useful to look at some of the contenders

first one off the rank is the P-51

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"

Some people claim that the P-51 was responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 1944-5

2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"

The Mustang played a big part in the destruction of the german Fighter force in 1944, however it was greatly assisted by the P-47 and P-38s, and in the tactical sphere by aircraft of the RAF, and other aircraft of the other allied airforces. Moreover, the conditions that made the Luftwaffe brittle in 1944 had been won, at cost in the preceding years by all manner of aircraft in tha allied inventory
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
The Mustang can rightly claim the lions share for defeating the the LW in 1944. However it is far fetched to suggest or imply that it did this without great assistance

I would rate the difference between the myth and the truth as moderate


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

The A6M

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"

The zero was markedly superior to all its opponents when introduced, but was overcome later by aircraft of supeior performance, better tactics, and improved pilot training

2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"

The zero was markedly superior to its opponents when first introduced, and the psychological shock that a carrier based fighter could outperform land based equivalent. that it was of japanese origin was almost unbelievable for many. Later it was outclassed by better aircraft, that were in poarticular better protected. The Zero had some serious design and performace faults that could be exploited
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
Very little. The only untrue myth I can see, was that it was not really outclassed by the wildcat

I would rate this as a minor diffrence between fact and fiction


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

What are the myths about the Spitfire that people have read????


----------



## Soren (Aug 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey don't take it so personal!
> 
> It is not like anyone said "Soren is overated!"


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2008)

parsifal said:


> So applying this methodolgy, I thought it might be useful to look at some of the contenders
> 
> first one off the rank is the P-51
> 
> ...



I wouldn't disagree, for the same reasons you and Basket articulated.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 5, 2008)

Wait, are you telling me the Lightning only shot down 260 planes in the ETO????? If that's true, I had no idea it was that few.


----------



## Soren (Aug 5, 2008)

Drgondog said:


> Absolutely correct. It is fair to say that the greatest part of the assistance was the bombers as 'bait' - which many 8th AF crews today feel that Doolittle/Spaatz did to them with the famous directive "seek them in the air, on the ground" in January 1944.



Agreed.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

So no P-51 and would the war differed?

I doubt...

The most over rated are certainly all the German miracle jets which did next to nothing. Say 540mph and wave a magic wand....make all the B-17s disappear.


----------



## Soren (Aug 5, 2008)

The jets are not overrated. The reason they didn't impact the war was because they weren't allowed to, first by Hitler then by the lack of fuel and trained pilots. A mere 50 jets aint really going to change much when up against thousands of bombers fighters, and that fuel trained pilots was in short supply didn't help matters either.

That having been said the jets couldn't have won the war for Germany, but they could've chased the western Allies out of mainland Europe had they been used correctly from the beginning.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

What did jets do in WW2...zip.

Doesn't matter what the deal is because zip still equals zip.

Ifs and buts don't win wars.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2008)

The Basket said:


> What did jets do in WW2...zip.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the deal is because zip still equals zip.
> 
> Ifs and buts don't win wars.



Zip is the point of your post...

Fact is that that as an aircraft they were not overated. They were better than any aircraft in the sky. Only a fool would say that performance and aircraft wise the Me 262 was overated.

As Soren pointed out they were not effective because Hitler wanted them used as bombers, by the time he realized his mistake and had them used as interceptors it was too late.

Now if you said tactic wise they were overated, I would agree because of what I said above.

Besides using your statement above you might as well say *ALL* jets, allied and axis were overated in WW2, which I will still have to disagree with you because jets were the future of aviation. Fact is fact...


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

The 262 had the potential to be a great fighter. But it didn't shoot down enough enemy aircraft or fulfill its role.

So the 262 is not in the same league as the Spitfire or 109.

A fool? It was foolish of the Germans to trust an untried technology when more traditional aircraft could have done more.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

The Spitfire
(didnt get any feedback, so this is just my interpretation)

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
It won the battle of britain, and dominated the skies over Europe later in the war
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
It was the highest performaing aircraft avalable to the british in 1940, achieved a good kill to loss ratio in the battle, and subsequent, was able to improve its overall performance considerably during its operational life.

It did not "dominate" the skies over Europe. It did dominate the skies over friendly controlled territory, such as England and Malta
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?
I love the Spitfire, but i have to concede that the difference between the fact and the fiction is considerable. I would rate this overatedness as moderate to high


----------



## The Basket (Aug 5, 2008)

Spitfire did nice within the limited range it had. Did nicely when it could.

Propoganda wins wars too.

The Spitfire became a symbol of British fighting spirit.

So we say yes the myth was created but is it the myth or the metal that fights the battles...


----------



## Oreo (Aug 5, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Wait, are you telling me the Lightning only shot down 260 planes in the ETO????? If that's true, I had no idea it was that few.



I don't think it's true. Don't know where he got his numbers. I heard more like 1,000 or so, in Europe and Med combined, but the P-38's victory to loss ratio was about 1:1 in europe and med compared to about 2.5:1 for P-51 and between 1.5 and 2:1 for P-47. Of all fighter types used in ETO and MTO, the stats I saw (don't have em in front of me) the P-38 had the worst loss to sortie ratio, and the P-39 had the best, although the P-39 had only, I think, around 14 kills in the MTO! Those stats also showed the p-61 had about 2:1 K:L ratio, Spitfire about <1:1 (maybe .8:1) in U.S.A.A.F. hands (does not include Eagle Squad stats, E.S. was operating with RAF). Beaufighter in US hands also was <1:1. The P-40 (USAAF) in MTO was also <1:1.

That book said complete records were not available at that time for the USAAF in the PTO or CBI.

It's important to remember the K:L ratio includes aircraft lost to Flak, and possibly over-target operational losses (collisions, engine failures, loss of fuel, etc). Therefore the Spit, P-40 ratios, etc. may well have been closer to 1:1 or better in actual air:air combat. It also shows the P-38 to have been quite a worthy plane since we know it was used a lot in a FB roll, which would have had many Flak losses and so on. Fighting the LW was difficult, and for our planes to have any ratios over 1:1 is amazing in itself.

The book with those stats, I do not have, had it out of the library once. I think it was called American Combat Aircraft. It had "all" the combat A/C from the USA from earliest days (WWI) through the time it was written, 1970's.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2008)

The Me 109 

1) "What is the claim made for the aircraft?"
That the 109 was able to demolish all opposition in front of it, whether that be over friendly territory or enemy, in the period 1939-42, with the exception of the skies over britain, and even over these skies it was through no fault of the Me 109. Later it gave good account of itself in the defensive battles over germany and occupied Europe
2) "What is the truth about the aircraft?"
The me 109 was a superb fighter aircraft, designed as a defensive fighter in the mid-30s. However, whilst it could achieve domination in the early war period over German territory, or in a tactical sense as part of the battlefield control, it did not dominate the skies over Europe at any time, because it lacked the range to do anything of the sort. Even during the periods of its greatest successes the air force that it was a part of suffered heavy losses, which in part stemmed from the fact that its principal fighter could not provide proper cover for the bombers. This, for me expalins why the Luftwaffe suffered such heavy losses over places like Poland, France, the Low Countries, Malta, and Britain
Later in the war, in the role intended for it, the 109 proved to be an ideal bomber destroyer , and fought heroically against some pretty long odds. But even here, the truth is that it could not successfully complete its mission. There are a lot of reasons for this, and most of them have nothing to do with the 109s characteristics, but the facts are that it could not at any time lay claim to strategically "dominate" the airspace it flew in, as is so often claimed for it 
3) "What distance is there between the myth and the truth?

Similar to the Spitfire, i am a great admirer of the 109, as a piece of aeronautical engineering, and able to achieve some impressive feats in the air during its operational life the claims made for it by some, and the reality are poles apart. This is why I rate as the most overrated aircraft of the war. Its not because I want to denigrate the aircraft, have an agenda, or anything else. its because I look at the claims made for it, look at the reality, and realize that there is a huge differnce between the two positions.


----------



## Juha (Aug 5, 2008)

Soren
where you have got the idea of only 50 jets, if from that Galland quote in the end of your messages, forget it, he seemed to have “forgot” JG 7 and KG(J) 54 altogether. 

Generally, IIRC Jumo 004B-4 design was “frozen” ie it was decided that its design had reached level that its reliability fulfilled minimum level needed for operational engine, in June 44. Before that it was impossible to mass-produce jets even if plans called series production of Me 262 to beginning in Jan 44, because there was no massproduction of jet engines. Milch had seen that all early 262s were fighters until the fact dawned to Hitler on 23 May 44. Still the first fighter-bomber unit (3./KG 51) and the first fighter unit (Kdo Nowotny) began operating around same time, IIRC late July 44. When one remember that in early Sept 44 there were still over 100 262 airframes waiting for engines it seems that Hitler’s dictate on May 23 had little effect to deployment of 262 as a fighter, maybe a month. In Sept 44 it was again possible to deliver new 262A-1as (fighters) with production engines to Kdo Nowotny. When one looks the results of Kdo Nowotny in Sept and up to 7 Oct 44 it claimed something like 20 kills but lost 13 Me 262s, of which 6 in combat. When Nowotny was killed on, was that 8th, Nov 44 the unit was sent to rear for extra training, so it seems that it was committed too early. And to train fighter pilots to Me 262 took more time than LW had anticipated, so the combat debut of JG 7 was delayed. And the last strength figure I can remember, on 9 Apr 45 LW combat units had some 200 Me 262s of which over 160 were fighters. IMHO Me 262 fighter was in main delayed because of technical problems, especially on Jumo 004B, natural difficulties in introducing radically new a/c to service and need to train fighter pilots to twin engine a/c with very temperamental engines. 
ADDITION: 9 Apr 45 Me 262 situation: 163 day fighters (JG 7, KG(J) 54, JV 44), 21 fighter-bombers (KG 51), about 9 NFs and 7 Tac Recce. Max day fighter effort was Apr 7, 59 sorties, Me 262s claimed 5 lost 2. Best day seems to be 31 March 45, JG 7 flew 38 sorties and it seems that Me 262s shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters against 4 losses.

On Spitfire, I think I first time in certain degree disagree with JoeB. Firstly IIRC here in Finland in late 60s and early 70s IMHO Bf 109 was overrated not Spitfire. I and my friends were well aware on the problems RAF had with its Spit Vs “clipped, clapped…” probably because of Closterman’s books and also probably because of J.J. Johnson’s Wing Leader. German technology was in very high regard here in that time.

IMHO Spit V was the low point of Spits career, the quality leap from Mk II to Mk V was clearly less than that of from 109E to F. But then the quality leap from Mk V to Mks VIII/IX was clearly bigger than that of from 109F to G. So IMHO Mk VIIIs/IXs were better than early 109Gs. And even if Mk Vs had negative exchange rate in NW Europe they were instrumental in saving Malta and when they arrived to NA they at least made life more difficult to JG 27. And in 41-42 was there better Allied fighter to combat LW? The late war Spits were short legged when compared to P-38, -47D/N and -51 but so were all European fighters. Long range heavy bomber day raids were not so fashionable here. And enemies were near.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Aug 5, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The Spitfire
> (





> The Me 109




These two aircraft, designed in the mid thirties, are the only fighters I know that was also formidable fighters in '45 against late model fighters. They stayed competitive through probably the greatest ten years in aircraft design. And, they continued active in military use after the war. They cannot be overrated.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2008)

Your getting performance mixed up with the hype. Did the 109 dominate europan airspace? no. Did the Spitfire win the battle of britain? no. Did either of these aircraft even do half the things people say they did? no. Therefore are they overrated? you bet, even if thy are technologically advanced. This is why this poll is a bit tricky....its not about performance in a lot of cases (unless someone is trying to overstate the performance of a given type)


----------



## The Basket (Aug 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Zip is the point of your post...
> 
> Besides using your statement above you might as well say *ALL* jets, allied and axis were overated in WW2, which I will still have to disagree with you because jets were the future of aviation. Fact is fact...


Yes...jets did nothing in WW2. As you say jets were the future. But the Germans needed a fighter, not a future fighter.

The Me 262 could not, under any realistic scenario, have won Germany the war. The idea which has been spread about that it could is simply not true.

The german military was doomed in 1941 at the gates of Moscow. That was the game right there. Declaring war on the USA at the same time...that was just adding fuel to the fire.

The 109 was built in huge numbers, shot down more aircraft and lasted for 10 years. It was the opposite of a failure. For sure, it couldn't do this or that but it did what was asked of it and that is all.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 6, 2008)

No fighter, under the same historical circumstances, could have won the air War for Germany.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> ...it did not dominate the skies over Europe at any time, because it lacked the range to do anything of the sort. ...



Of course it had range. Did not dominate, I would say it gave a pretty rough time to enemy aircraft over France and the Med in 1941, over the desert in 1942, over Russia between 1941 and 1943. Schweinfurt and Ploiesti also come to mind.

What it lack was numbers, not range. Still the thing probably knocked down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history.



parsifal said:


> Even during the periods of its greatest successes the air force that it was a part of suffered heavy losses, which in part stemmed from the fact that its principal fighter could not provide proper cover for the bombers.



Of course it could, later in the war. It could even provide proper cover in 1940 in England, achieving air superiority, but its force projection _then_ was limited. Later variants had much longer range, about 2.5 times as much. I posted a range table before; take a map and draw some distances. _It was not a short ranged fighter during most of the war._ It between September 1939 and August 1940.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 6, 2008)

Kurfurst, what was the capacity of the rear MW-50/Auxilliary fuel tank again? How often was a fuel tank fitted in place of the MW-50 tank?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Kurfurst, what was the capacity of the rear MW-50/Auxilliary fuel tank again?



115-118 liter volume was the maximum for fuel, as on FW 190. If MW50 was filled, 70-85 liter was used (MW is heavier than fuel)



> How often was a fuel tank fitted in place of the MW-50 tank?



Absolutely no idea. The 109K could use the MW50 tank for both purposes (there was switch in the cocpit between 'Aux. Fuel tank Mode' and 'Booster tank Mode'.) I do not think it was done too often for practical reasons and lack of need, though the possibility was there.

The longest ranged variant would be the G-4/R3, G-6/R3 long range armed fighter recces and the G-2/4/6 /R1 long range JaBos. These sported a 1-1 300 liter droptank under each wing.

But as noted, even the most basic and numerous fighter variants could achieve up to 1600 km range, perhaps more. This was more than sufficient for their tasks IMHO - the Emil _without droptank_ had apprx. 660 km range...


----------



## Juha (Aug 6, 2008)

Wasn't MW50 tank totally unprotected. Not that mattered when filled with MW50 but when filled with fuel... Not a nice thing to have during air-combat or in any situation when under enemy fire.

And I'm a bit sceptical on that 1600km range in other than ferry purposes if even in that. IIRC it wasn't use during the attacks on convoys in MTO or to escort LW bombers in their attacks on for ex. Alger, some 500-550km from LW a/fs in Tunisia or on Sardinia.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 6, 2008)

Yes the MW50 tank was unprotected, however it worked differently than aux. tanks in Allied planes: like the drop tank, it would just re-filled the main (protected) tank with fuel as it was consumed. I would reckon in 15-30 mins the rear tank would be empty.


----------



## Juha (Aug 6, 2008)

Hello Kurfürst
but fumes probably remained in the tank and it was the fumes that might have been fatal. It is a right fuel fumes/air mixture which is explosive. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 6, 2008)

On Bf 109G range, max flight time between stops when Finns ferried Bf 109G-2s from Wiener-Neustatd to Finland in March 43 was 1h 20min, that was between Wiener-Neustatd and Breslau (Wroclaw) and that was too much for 6 out of 16 Bfs, but at least some seems to have took off with not full fuel tank. Those 6 had to make an extra fuelling stop near Breslau.

And when Meimberg’s 11./JG 2 began its transfer flight to Mediterranean in early Nov 42, it did not flew to its first night stop, Mannheim, in one a bit under 500km hop from Poix, but made a refuelling stop at Rheims and even so arrived at low fuel at Mannheim. End results were 2 damaged Bf 109Gs, it was dark when they arrived, and the probably fatal transfer to the Eastern Front to a LW Assault Regiment to those who were responsible of traffic control at Mannheim a/f on that evening. If the 1600km range was realistic why they flew Poix-Rheims-Mannheim-München-Treviso, then down along Italy and then to Sicily, why not from Poix to say Genova and from there to Sicily, if Vichy was still no go area, if 1600km range was a real thing. Sicily is some 1550 km from Poix. The 11./JG 2 story is from Meimberg’s memoirs.

Juha


----------



## airboiy (Aug 6, 2008)

what about the "kamakazie 109's"? they were emils stripped of their armor and guns, but there were no explosives. the pilots would jump out of the planes at the last second and parachute down to safety while the planes would destroy the bomber they were aimed at. they were pretty effective, but Germany used them a few days before surrenduring.8)


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 6, 2008)

I wouldnt think there overrated though........I dont know how to spell it but RammKommando


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2008)

Might give some information on thye range and endurance of the me 109G, compared to the Spit IX. Those with more experience will know where i got this, but some of the less initiated might never have seen it....

The data is from a series of related webapages, the more important of which, in rlation to this issue are

Me 109G-6 Tactical Trials

Me 109 G Flight Tests

I might warn that there are some here who argue these tests and results are suspect, but i leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves as to the veracity of these test results, which call on both Allied and German sources


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 6, 2008)

The Basket said:


> A fool? It was foolish of the Germans to trust an untried technology when more traditional aircraft could have done more.



No it was foolish of Hitler not to start full scale production and use them as fighters from the beginning...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 6, 2008)

Those seem to match pretty well with Kurfurst's figures, except the fast cruising figures are longer (and at a slightly higher speed) and the long range figures are a bit lower. (and at a lower speed)


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?


----------



## marshall (Aug 7, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?




I belive it's from this site

WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

marshall said:


> I belive it's from this site
> 
> WWII Aircraft Performance



Thanks! I bookmarked it!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 7, 2008)

And the top table is from Kurfurst's site:

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 7, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Interesting. Wish I had access to all this stuff! Where do you get it? Who would have thought a K could go 1,250 miles?



The one I posted is from a Brit. report on a G-2/trop (Black Six) which you can find on my site. A month later they revised the economic cruise figures to something like 1000 miles, similiar to the later doc, but there is no reasoning given, and its difficult to understand wheter the first ones were measured in error, or the testbed(?) G-2's condition, which wasnt very shiny to start with, detoriated in the meanwhile. 

And, as there is no German range tables (yet) for the G or K to compare the Brit intel figures to, so they is all we have to do.

In any case, the F-4's range with droptank at eco-cruise was noted as 1600 km by the German, or ca 1000 miles. G-series was foreseen to be somewhat better the F-4. 

And for completeness, here's the 109E (w and w/o droptank). Droptank-capable E-7s were introduced end of August, 1940.


----------



## renrich (Aug 7, 2008)

According to my sources, P38 had 438 kills in ETO and 1431 kills in the Med. Don't know if those figures include ground AC destroyed.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> According to my sources, P38 had 438 kills in ETO and 1431 kills in the Med. Don't know if those figures include ground AC destroyed.



Air and ground for ETO for 8th would be 421 - USAF 85 reference for air and USAAF 8th AF VCB for ground awards for the ones I cited. The difference (if all air scores) between my figures and your source could be the 9th AF P-38 scores. They had more 38's longer than 8th AF and an extra "178' would make sense.

I suspect 1431 air for MTO as they didn't credit ground scores officially.


----------



## renrich (Aug 7, 2008)

Considering the P38's reputation and it's actual results and the number produced, 9538, and their original cost and their cost to maintain and the amount of gasoline they used and the length of time for a pilot to become proficient, maybe the P38 was the most overated fighter of WW2.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> Considering the P38's reputation and it's actual results and the number produced, 9538, and their original cost and their cost to maintain and the amount of gasoline they used and the length of time for a pilot to become proficient, maybe the P38 was the most overated fighter of WW2.



Could be. I know a lot of people at the time thought so, esp. in the ETO. It was the plane that got me interested in aircraft, though!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 8, 2008)

With those range figures on the 109E, there would have to be a reserve of something like 135L (enough for ~20 min of combat), otherwise it would mean fuel efficiency would be significantly better when carrying a drop tank. (which doesn't make sense)


----------



## Eurofighter (Dec 17, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I believe the P-38 and P-47, not just late models, but most models, were holding their own over Germany.
> 
> But my vote would be P-51, just because it doesn't deserve the "legend" it has. I believe on one of these many many posts, someone pointed out that the Corsair was superior to the Mustang in almost every category.[/QUOThat is totally true, both the P-38 and the P-47 could hold their own against the best German fighters but the issue here is that when the bombers desperatly needed a long range capable fighter to escort them neither of the two could fill this necesity and the P-51 while it had the range it also could mix very well with its German counterparts giving it the place it deserves as one of WWII's most succesful fighters.


----------



## cuccos19 (Oct 10, 2009)

Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that, it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time. I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 10, 2009)

cuccos19 said:


> Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that,it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time.
> *No, there was no other plane that was affordable, with long range and as fast, in the same time. Just what was needed for USAAC in Europe.*
> 
> I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...
> ...



I agree, you post is pathetic


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2009)

cuccos19 said:


> Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that, it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time. I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...



From personal experience in flying the 51, it was simply a dream to fly - very responsive at all speeds and very manueverable. Having said this, it required trimming when changing throttle settings or increasing/decreasing speeds significantly.

As to 'not rusting your ass for a single engine escort deep in enemy territory' what did you have in mind? The only other fighter that could reach Berlin (or reach London from Berlin) was the P-38. You want to compare between the two as far as results are concerned?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2009)

cuccos19 said:


> Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that, it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time. I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...



Kind of funny how you talk about the P-51. Don't take me wrong, to me it is a bit over rated as well, however...

1. You call it a "hunk-of-junk". How the hell was it junk. It was *one* of the best of fighters built in WW2. Please explain how it is a "hunk-of-junk". Use facts and sources please.

2. You would not trust yoru ass in a single engined escort fighter deep over enemy territory. Why not? It performed just fine as a single engined aircraft over enemy territory. Please explain how it was unreliable for such duty. Use facts and sources that show that it was unreliable and unsuited for such duties.

3. You say it is vulnerable to gun fire. What aircraft is not! Come on, you have to use better reasons...

4. You say it was tricky, sluggish and tiring to fly. Explain this using facts and sources. I do not think you can.

Like I said, I too think it is an over rated aircraft, but it was certainly not the way you describe it. The only reason I find it over rated is because I think a lot of aircraft are overlooked because of the P-51D. 

As I stated though it was a fine aircraft. It was not unreliable or sluggish or anything like that. *So if you are going to make a post like that, you might wanna back it up. I don't think you can.*


----------



## German Ace (Oct 16, 2009)

The P-51 is way over rated. Doesn't even deserve the reputation.

Don't get me wrong, its a good plane, but not as good as everyone thinks it is.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 16, 2009)

Negative Creep said:


> The Zero. Early success was as much down to the allies being taken by surprise and their inferior equipment and tactics as anything else. It didn't take long for it to be equaled then mastered and proving that maneuverability is not the be all and end all of combat




I would agree that the A6M had a feared mystique that the allied command had to destroy. The legend of the 'zero" was a priority of the allied airforce...and they had to bust the myth to arm their pilots with confidence. But was the zero really any less effective then other Axis aeroplanes? Most of Japanese top aces flew the zero, and they didn't all die (KIA) the moment the zero's secrets where unlocked...If Japan had the same industrial power as the USA had behind it, how would the allies have fared against huge numbers of A6M's (quantity has its own quality)? Technology is constantly evolving and an aeroplane that was tactically relevant for one fight, might be overpowered in another...Are all WW2 fighters "crap" just because an F16 with sidewinders would blow it away?

As much time and effort that went into destroying the legend of the A6M...was also put into building the Spitfire up. But as we all know the Hurricane did far more damage to the Luftwaffe then the "Spit" did...How would the UK have done against Germany in the "BoB" if they had, had all the Hurricanes that could have been built if they didn't put the resources into making the Spitfire?

I would equally agree that it was essential for the morale of the 8th for the US Airforce to believe in the power of the Mustang...All three of these aeroplanes had a powerful legend behind them.  *Few things in life can live up to the legend*.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2009)

German Ace said:


> The P-51 is way over rated. Doesn't even deserve the reputation.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, its a good plane, but not as good as everyone thinks it is.


If you're speaking in terms of shear performance when compared with some of its contemporaries, you have a point valid for debate, but in the greater picture it brought the fight to its opponents with just enough performance and numbers that enabled it to clearly gain aerial superiority, and with regards to the ETO, broke the back of the Luftwaffe and there is where its reputation is instilled.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2009)

German Ace said:


> The P-51 is way over rated. Doesn't even deserve the reputation.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, its a good plane, but not as good as everyone thinks it is.



And why is that? The P51 was great or good in so many aspects, it has to be considered among the best planes of all time.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And why is that? The P51 was great or good in so many aspects, it has to be considered among the best planes of all time.



I'm going to be "un-technical" about an answer...but I think that a lot of people hold this opinion because the legend of the P-51 was one of the last great myths born about an aeroplane. That and a lot of people have an emotional issue with America "winning the war" (wink)... the P51 was a kick-ass aeroplane, but their really wasn't a "best" single aeroplane.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2009)

Simply - it was the right fighter at the most crucial time in US Airpower history and it took control of the German airspace over Germany against the best that Germany had to offer.

Was it the best interceptor - no, was it the best fighter bomber - no; was it the best air superiority weapon over the enemy's airspace - Yes. Could daylight strategic bombing have survived without it - probably not but the P-38J-25 and L may have been adequate until the much longer range P-47s were available.. but that 'alternate' reality didn't occur.

What 'couldda' happened - did happen

Debate what you wish, look at the results


----------



## German Ace (Oct 16, 2009)

In the P-51's great numbers, there didn't lay very many killls per plane.


Compared to a Germany's planes.


I am not going to get into an argument now, I know how aeroplane forums are.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2009)

German Ace said:


> The P-51 is way over rated. Doesn't even deserve the reputation.



While I agree that it is over rated (only because other aircraft are looked over because of it), please explain what reputation it had. Also explain how it does not deserve it.

Facts are facts:

1. It was fast.
2. It was very maneuverable.
3. It had the range to take the fight to the Germans.
4. Because of that, it technically was the aircraft that broke the Luftwaffe's back.

Like I said, I don't think it was the best fighter of the war (on a one on one comparative basis), but it was not a crap aircraft like some want to make it out to be.

As Bill pointed out, it was the best aircraft for the job. It gained control of the skies. That says something in itself. The P-51 shot down more German aircraft than any other allied aircraft. That also says something...

Like I said, I too think the P-51 is a bit over rated, but lets not be a revisionist here. That is just wrong...


----------



## Marcel (Oct 17, 2009)

cuccos19 said:


> Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that, it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time. I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...



It's always interesting to see new idea's  But please care to explain how you got to this conclusion as it would give more value to your post.

How was it tricky (I know about the problems with center of gravity when flying with full fuel-tanks, but which a/c would not have had that problem). 

All aircraft are vulnerable to gunfire but I wasn't aware that the P51 was worse than others. Unless you mean that the inline engine was more vulnerable, but in that case it also counts for B109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Yak series, P40 to name a few.

Which other fighter could reach Berlin and do what the mustang do? Some twin engined fighters could do that, but how well did they fare against the B109's and FW190's as compared to the P51?

edit: didn't see you guys already responded, just added mine to the stack 

Flying alone, strapped in a seat for many hours is tiring in all high performance a/c, so how was this any different from other a/c?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2009)

German Ace said:


> In the P-51's great numbers, there didn't lay very many killls per plane.
> 
> 
> Compared to a Germany's planes.
> ...



So, compare and spend some time citing your findings of LW 'kills per plane' over Germany from Jan 1944 through the end of the war in Europe.

Look into the period when the Mustang did not have 'great numbers' say Jan 1944 through May 1944 when there were 1/10 to 1/2 Mustangs to all LW single engine day fighters in just LuftFlotte Reich - and the LW could choose where to fight.


Show us what you have to back up your claims.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2009)

German Ace said:


> I am not going to get into an argument now, I know how aeroplane forums are.


Yep, it seems that there are the informed and uninformed, and those who really don't know what they are talking about. Which do you fall under?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2009)

Seems to me that the philosophical arguments that brings the knives out against the Mustang are similar in motivation to those that attack the Spitfire and hurricane over Britain in 1940.

The German apologists will do anything to re-write history....but fellas, these are the cold hard truths that need to be faced

1) In 1940, the Me 109 could not get the upper hand over the defending Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Me 109 enjoyed a superiuority of numbers in that fight. I admit there were factors other than the aircrafts performance at work that led to the German defeat, but this also dos not detract from the clearly excellent characteristics of the British Fighters. Please note: I am not denigrating the German fighters. Just that try as some people might, they cannot re-write history and argue that the German fighters were superior. For a myriad of reasons they were not.

2) In 1944, the Me 109s and FW190s could not maintain even air parity in the battle of Germany. They were kicked from pillar to post with increasing ease by the Allies, which in the daytime meant the US, and the overwhelming majority of that action over Germany was undertaken by the Mustangs of the eighth air force. Even some basic research will reveeal that contrary to some of the spurious arguments I have seen in this thread, the P-51 did not enormously outnumber the defending German fighters. It could however, outfly nearly all of them, only a very small number of largely experimental types and the like can lay claim to being able to outperfomr the Mustang, and none had anywhere near the impact on the outcome of the war. 

It might be plausible to argue the Mustang was overrated, but it is sheer bunkum to argue that the Mustang was not a great, indeed war winning aircraft.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 17, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I would agree that the A6M had a feared mystique that the allied command had to destroy. The legend of the 'zero" was a priority of the allied airforce...
> 
> As much time and effort that went into destroying the legend of the A6M...was also put into building the Spitfire up.


Very good points; one of the keys to 'overrated' or underrated is the efforts of war time propaganda and media accounts, the flavor of which still influenced aviation writing in the West (and everywhere else, but let's focus on the West for now) for decades after the war, even now affects attitudes. Most people here have mainly read or started out reading at least in English and other Western sources. 

As you imply, during the war itself it was actually important to the Allied war effort that the Zero be talked down, not viewed as 10 foot tall opponent, lest it permanently damage morale, of pilots or general public. The narrative that was selected was one where Japanese fighters as epitomized by the Zero, and as a symbol of the the Japanese military in general, got in a few quick and unfair sucker punches against unprepared Allies, but then the 'good guys' quickly turned things around. The Zero quickly turned to a pumpkin: a story with limited truth to it. As has been discussed on this forum, there are numerous examples of Japanese Navy and even Army fighter units spanking Allied ones even in 1943, later still in some cases. The standard story where the Zero fades somewhere between Midway and end of 1942 into an easy to defeat opponent is a mix of literal interpretation of honest but quite serious overclaims, and just plain warmed-over war time propaganda. It accelerates the truth by 1-2 years. And it ignores how the Allies brought their enormous superiority in resources to bear more effectively as the war went one (the resources to build a multiple as many planes, the resources to carefully train a multiple as many pilots); plus matchups of the Zero increasingly against Allied a/c which entered service considerably later. And those were the main factors bringing down the Zero, not 'tactics'.

The Zero is probably the most underrated major fighter of WWII, certainly among a few candidates for that spot, from Western POV. It might reasonably be called overrated in Japan where accounts based on their own overclaims are sometimes still published as fact, but it's simply an ill informed choice to put it up for most overrated, from a Western POV, to put it bluntly.

Mirror image for the Spit, it was important for the British and Allies to believe strongly in that plane. Its shortcomings, insofar as they were they seen through the fog of overclaims, tended to be glossed over, and that still filters through in British writing especially, and a lot of English language writing about British airplanes is by Brits. The 'Spitfire' is really a series of pretty different airplanes. The early ones were pretty advanced compared to contemporaries (and saw important air combat), so were the later ones (but they didn't see a lot of really important air combat). But the Mid Mark Spits were pretty mediocre compared to most of their opposition, and almost surely had a true kill ratio v German fighters well under 1:1 (even early Spits probably below 1:1 too, but not as much and were accomplishing other important things). The mid Mark Sptis also had a disastrous record v the Zero, but that's a fairly minor footnote. The Spit has to be at or near the top of the list for most overrated WWII fighter from Western POV. 

In both cases a lot of the reason derives from the after effects of Allied war time propaganda on English speaking readers. 

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The German apologists will do anything to re-write history...



So is anyone that prefers German aircraft a "German apologist"?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So is anyone that prefers German aircraft a "German apologist"?



Chris - Just because you admire German aircraft (I think we all do) I don't think anyone remotely thinks you rewrite history which is the other part of the two part qualification


----------



## piet (Oct 17, 2009)

ME262.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Chris - Just because you admire German aircraft (I think we all do) I don't think anyone remotely thinks you rewrite history which is the other part of the two part qualification



Just trying to understand, because I hear that word floating around quite a bit on these forums these days.

Just my humble opinion as well, but I think if you gave the Germans the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire and gave the Allies the Bf 109, Fw 190, etc.. nothing would have changed. The outcome would have been the same.


----------



## Bug_racer (Oct 17, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just trying to understand, because I hear that word floating around quite a bit on these forums these days.
> 
> Just my humble opinion as well, but I think if you gave the Germans the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire and gave the Allies the Bf 109, Fw 190, etc.. nothing would have changed. The outcome would have been the same.




I beg to differ !

germans- lack of raw materials , lack of trained pilots , lack of good quality fuel
US- homeland isnt bombed day and night , ample manpower , lack of resources isnt a real problem

if you did a swap the P51 would be less powerful with far less experienced pilots fighing overwhelming odds !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> I beg to differ !
> 
> germans- lack of raw materials , lack of trained pilots , lack of good quality fuel
> US- homeland isnt bombed day and night , ample manpower , lack of resources isnt a real problem
> ...



I think you are missing out on my point.

I said that if the Allies had the German aircraft and the Germans had the Allied aircraft, the outcome would have been the same. The Allies would have still won..

If you don't understand what I am saying, then just ask.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> I beg to differ !
> 
> germans- lack of raw materials , lack of trained pilots , lack of good quality fuel
> US- homeland isnt bombed day and night , ample manpower , lack of resources isnt a real problem
> ...


German aircraft had a broad range of powerplants that produced impressive power. But he was referring to a complete swap of machines.

I think the point being made here, is that regardless of the aircraft, the war would have still ended the way it did, even if Germany were producing the P-51D, P-47, etc in their original design and the Allies were producing the Bf109, Fw190 and so on, plus the bombing conditions, wartime shortages and pilot attrition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> German aircraft had a broad range of powerplants that produced impressive power. But he was referring to a complete swap of machines.
> 
> I think the point being made here, is that regardless of the aircraft, the war would have still ended the way it did, even if Germany were producing the P-51D, P-47, etc in their original design and the Allies were producing the Bf109, Fw190 and so on, plus the bombing conditions, wartime shortages and pilot attrition.



Thank you...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just trying to understand, because I hear that word floating around quite a bit on these forums these days.
> 
> Just my humble opinion as well, but I think if you gave the Germans the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire and gave the Allies the Bf 109, Fw 190, etc.. nothing would have changed. The outcome would have been the same.



The outcome may not have been different but the battle for air supremacy would have been over London - not Berlin


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The outcome may not have been different but the battle for air supremacy would have been over London - not Berlin



The US industrial power in both production and pilot training would have still swamped the Germans. And just think if we had the Corsair flying from British bases in 1943.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So is anyone that prefers German aircraft a "German apologist"?



No, not all, Adler, and i was at pains to say I was not putting down Geman aircraft per se. But the tone of what some are saying (not everyone, and that includes you.....there are just a few that I have sights on), appear to me to be clearly biasing the debate to say tha Mustang did not have a profound effect. I think that it did....in fact I believe it was THE single most important aircraft to win the daylight air war. 

I am not even saying that Mustangs role has not been overrated, but the guy that says the performance of the Mustang was cr*p clearly needs to re-examine his position....it was a war winning aircraft, not a dog.......


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2009)

When Bill, JoeB or Eric talk, I just sit down, listen and learn stuff about WW2 . Thanks, fellas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The outcome may not have been different but the battle for air supremacy would have been over London - not Berlin



Don't take me wrong, I completely agree with you there. I just think that some people overlook a lot of things when discussing these topics (tactics, pilots, fuel, etc...). There was nothing wrong with the Luftwaffe aircraft, and with the right pilots and tactics they too could have regained control the air.



parsifal said:


> I think that it did....in fact I believe it was THE single most important aircraft to win the daylight air war.
> 
> I am not even saying that Mustangs role has not been overrated, but the guy that says the performance of the Mustang was cr*p clearly needs to re-examine his position....it was a war winning aircraft, not a dog.......



Agreed on both accounts. It was a marvelous aircraft that took the fight to the Germans. That last bit is something that most fighters could not do.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2009)

Chris - I got your point and 100% agree. I was just thinking about the simple difference in US vs European airpower doctrine regarding long range fighters.

Long range escorts were only effective when accompanied by the Strategic daylight bombing doctrine to draw up the opposing fighter forces - and then effective only if one could defeat the defenders. 

Simply, that is the prime reason the Mustang made the impact it did. Pilot training and increasing pilot experience combined with entering the fight at its best altitude was huge.

It would have been a nice aircraft for the VVS but not as effective daily battling 190s and 109s on the deck. Ditto for Luftwaffe Mustang if the bomber force they were escorting were operating at 15-18000 feet over Britain.

I love the airplane but I'm not not blind to its 'relative' strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> When Bill, JoeB or Eric talk, I just sit down, listen and learn stuff about WW2 . Thanks, fellas.



That was a nice thing to say Tomo - thx


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> .... Long range escorts were only effective when accompanied by the Strategic daylight bombing doctrine to draw up the opposing fighter forces - and then effective only if one could defeat the defenders.



I know this is off topic;

Incorrect. A long range fighter can appear anywhere in the German airspace and can hunt and roam as it wants. The presence of P51's and P38's was the beginning of the end for the LW. That's when the attrition really began and unless Germany could replace pilots faster than what the factual record is, they're still going to be defeated.

And consider this; even if their had been no heavy bomber campaign after the late 1943 debacles, the LW will still have to oppose the allied invasion of France and they would still have to run through a gauntlet of thousands of allied fighters which would have eliminated them in June 1944, and not piecemeal from Jan 1944 to May 1944


----------



## renrich (Oct 18, 2009)

I ditto what Tomo said. Most enjoyable discussion and well thought out posts. To add two cents. I think what drives the idea of P51 being the most overrated fighter is for some, the popular media's attitude which is mostly uninformed. On TV and in many not very well researched books and online, there are many opinions expressed that say the P51 was by far the premier fighter of WW2. The P51 Mustang was a beautiful airplane, sexy looking and the pilots that flew it, naturally for the most part were and still are enthusiastic advocates for the airplane. Narurally the informed can look at the Mustang and pick a number of scenarios where the Mustang could be outclassed by other models of fighter planes. The facts are that the Mustang as a long range escort fighter did yeoman duty (to steal from Kern Tipps) and had a big impact on the war winning strategy. It was an inspired design but it's very popularity to the masses raises the hackles of many who are interested enough to really get into the nuts and bolts of WW2 history.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Chris - I got your point and 100% agree. I was just thinking about the simple difference in US vs European airpower doctrine regarding long range fighters.
> 
> Long range escorts were only effective when accompanied by the Strategic daylight bombing doctrine to draw up the opposing fighter forces - and then effective only if one could defeat the defenders.
> 
> ...



Agreed, I think that is the biggest reason why the Luftwaffe failed in the BoB. If the Bf 109E had had the range of the Mustang, coupled with a different idea in tactics the Luftwaffe would have won. Of course this is all just speculation and "could have, should have, would have" stuff...



renrich said:


> The facts are that the Mustang as a long range escort fighter did yeoman duty (to steal from Kern Tipps) and had a big impact on the war winning strategy.



Agreed. Fact is fact and as an escort fighter it was the premier machine.


----------



## imalko (Oct 18, 2009)

I wonder if the course of BoB would be different if German Bf 109 fighters were equipped with drop tanks in 1940 as it became standard from 1941 onwards? I find it strange (to say the least) that Bf 110 had drop tanks as early as 1940 but Bf 109s didn't when Bf 110 even without an drop tank already had much greater range then Bf 109.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 18, 2009)

imalko said:


> I wonder if the course of BoB would be different if German Bf 109 fighters were equipped with drop tanks in 1940 as it became standard from 1941 onwards? I find it strange (to say the least) that Bf 110 had drop tanks as early as 1940 but Bf 109s didn't when Bf 110 even without an drop tank already had much greater range then Bf 109.


Curious that they didn't
they were available and in August 1940 the Bf109E-4 was being replaced by the E-7, fitted to accept a centre-line 66 Imp Gal drop tank. They were made from plywood and tended to 'unglue' with the inevitable fire hazard that ensued; pilots were understandably a little suspicious of them.
I say curious because the Bf110 had provision for 2 x 66 Imp Gal drop tanks outboard of the engines but I've not read of any complaints from their crews concerning these tanks flying apart and hosing the aircraft down with fuel.
I wonder what, if any, was the difference in construction between the tanks for both aircraft types.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I know this is off topic;
> 
> Incorrect. A long range fighter can appear anywhere in the German airspace and can hunt and roam as it wants. The presence of P51's and P38's was the beginning of the end for the LW. That's when the attrition really began and unless Germany could replace pilots faster than what the factual record is, they're still going to be defeated.
> 
> ...



That has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make about long range Fighter Sweeps. Over the Invasion front nobody needed a lot of range which meant Everybody (RAF, 8th/9th AF) had a chance with the LW - mostly at low altitudes. 

An additional point to consider, the 78th and 353rd FG, both flying Jugs, got their worst thrashings in the opening days at Normandy - Ditto 4th FG w/Mustangs who got clobbered on the deck over France on June 6 and August 18. These weren't even fighter sweeps - they were fighter bomber sweeps and low level area patrols

These are the only days remotely approaching the 20th and 55th FG Lightning thrashings air to air against the LW in the Nov 43-Feb 44 timeframe.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 18, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Curious that they didn't
> they were available and in August 1940 the Bf109E-4 was being replaced by the E-7, fitted to accept a centre-line 66 Imp Gal drop tank. They were made from plywood and tended to 'unglue' with the inevitable fire hazard that ensued; pilots were understandably a little suspicious of them.
> I say curious because the Bf110 had provision for 2 x 66 Imp Gal drop tanks outboard of the engines but I've not read of any complaints from their crews concerning these tanks flying apart and hosing the aircraft down with fuel.
> I wonder what, if any, was the difference in construction between the tanks for both aircraft types.



Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think it was tried on a limited basis...the RAF countered by attacking (intercepting) fighters over the channel and making them "drop tank" before the strategic benefit of the extra fuel came into play.  That and the plywood fuel tanks leaked.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2009)

Comparing the defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940 to the victory over Germany in 1944 is interesting, but cannot be put down to any singlefactor. There are a myriad of reasons for the two outcomes

Here are some of the factors as I see them

1) Lack Of Reserves...relatively speaking, the Luftwaffe enjoyed a greater advantage in front line forces relative their enemy in 1940 than the Allies enjoyed over Germany in 1944. But they lacked an effective reserve, which meant every plane lost or damaged was much harder to replace.l In both 1940 and 1944, the Allies enjoyed a huge superiority in the available reserves, which meant that pilots could be turned around even when their mount was lost or damaged

On a similar vein, the Germans never had an adequate pilot training program. They just could not replace losses fast enough, and through the war tried to counter this by cutting back on training hours. This proved a disaster for the Luftwaffe and Germany. But it was a problem not easily addressed....the Germans never invested in support services nearly as heavily as the Allies, because they could not afford to, and lacked the oil to put a large force for training into place anyway

2) A failure to appreciate the effects of British Radar defences. By comparison the allies appreciated the effects of German radar and took elaborate steps to lessen irts effectiveness

3) A failure to concentrate forces. Typically the Germans attacked with strikes of around 200 aircraft each with a bombload significantly less than a B-17 or B-24. By comparison, it was not that uncommon for the allies to attack with a thousand bombers or more. Attacking in large formations reduces the effects of the defending fighters and makes the strike easier to defend. In the BoB the Germans attacked with multiple strike, using a fighter force inadequate to the task (should have been at least three times larger than it was). 

4) Bombers that could not defend themselves properly. Whilst the US heavy bombers proved unable to fly completely unescorted, they nevertheless were blessed with formidable defences and were hard to shoot down.

5) A lack of clear strategy, and a strategy that was unrealistic to the capabilities of the force being engaged. In the beginning of the BoB the Germans set out to destroy the RAF as a fighting force. I dont believe the Luftwaffe had the strength or the means to do this. Even in its darkest days the RAF always had the option of pulling back out of range of the 109s and using about 3-4 days to recover. Given that Sealion was not ready (in a loose sense) until late October, there was no real threat arising if the british did withdraw. Its one of those common furphys that the germans had the RAF in its sights, but was denied by Gorings incompetence. I actually think Goring was ahead of the game, By September, only one of the British airfields had been knocked out, and none of the radar stations. The British were losing fighters, but they were replacing them much faster than the Germans were replacing their losses.

Attacking British cities would have reqiuired a heavy bomber force, which the Germans simply did not have.

By comparison, the Germans in 1944 could not retreat, due to the long range of the Allied air force. They were losing 1000 aircrew per month and could do nothing about it

6) Limitations of the aircraft. Ive already alluded to the shortcomings of the German Bombers. Their fighters also had limitations. The Bf 110 could not complete its allotted role of long range escort, and the 109 was too short ranged to do the job in its place. by comparison the Mustang in 1944 could excort Bombers allover Europe and fight competitively when it got there. There are few other aircraft that can claim that in this period. 

Lots of other reasons....but I have to mow the lawn, or risk crashing and burning myself.....


----------

