# 109G Vs Spitfire IX in '42



## Vincenzo (Mar 12, 2009)

Comparison of two of the best fighter of '42 (only variants that actually fightning that year), IMHO the top two fighter of year.
The G-2 was same of G-1 w/o presurrized cockpit (G-4 same of G-2 with different radio set).
Data from official source only (pilot notes test datasheets and so)
Spit IX - 109 G1 
weight (full fuel and ammo): 3377 kg - 3042 kg
wing area: 22.48 mq - 16.1 mq
fuel: 386 liters - 400 liters
engine: Merlin 61 - DB 605 A
max power: 1409 HP (metric) at 7.16 km (5' power set) - 1230 HP at 7 km (30' power set)
consumption max cruise set: 364 liters/hour - 331 liters/hour
climb: at 6096 m. in 6' 30'' (the plane was 15 kg over the weight but w/o guns drag, climbing power 60' set) - at 6000 m. in 5'42'' (combat power 30' set) 
climb: at 12192 m. in 20' 12'' (as above) - at 12000 m. 24' 2'' (it is not same plane of above)
max level speed: 649 km/h at 8315 m. (5' power set, plane as above ) - 660 km/h at 7000 m. (30' power set)

some gustav had GM-1 for high quote operations (maybe standard for G-1) it's give +30 km/h at 8000 m. and + 40 km/h at 10000m.

weapon 4 Browning .303 (350 rounds each) 2 Hispano II (125 rounds each) - 2 MG 17 (500 rounds each) 1 MG 151/20 (200 rounds).

Your opinion ? what's the best?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 12, 2009)

Very few Bf-109G2 were operational in 1942. Generally spoken, they were slower, slower climbing, had less acceleration and handling than the Bf-109F4. In 1942, the -109F4 was already cleared to 1.42 ata, while the -g2 was derated to 1.30 ata and thus had less performance. The -f4 was also the more numerous fighter variant.
This also allows a better comparison as now both power ratings are for 5 min.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 13, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Very few Bf-109G2 were operational in 1942.



maybe but more gustav that spit IX



delcyros said:


> Generally spoken, they were slower, slower climbing, had less acceleration and handling than the Bf-109F4. In 1942, the -109F4 was already cleared to 1.42 ata, while the -g2 was derated to 1.30 ata and thus had less performance. The -f4 was also the more numerous fighter variant.



this is a advantage for luftwaffe their old fighter was ~good like the new of RAF. 
I comparate gustavs and IXs because they were the newest models go to unit near the same time (gustav slight before)


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 13, 2009)

a data 
1st august 1942 only 2 squadron (max ~40 fighters) on Spit IX and 268 Gustavs with jagdwaffe


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2009)

Since You have specified 1942, the Spitfire IX is likely an F IX with Merlin 61, cleared to +15 lbs boost/in^2.

With that engine both planes appear to be evenly matched -performancewise- from sealevel to the Spitfire´s MS gear FTH (ca. 5000m). From there to ca. 8000m the lag between MS and FS gear gives the gustav an advantage, above ca. 8000m, the Spitfire holds an advantage (unless the gustav is equipped with GM-1, of course...).


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 13, 2009)

AFAIK: 
at MS gear FTH IX run 612 km/h, gustav ~630 km/h, 
at FS FTH gear IX run 649 km/h, gustav ~650 km/h, 
at DB 605 FTH gustav run 660 km/h spit IX 615 km/h. 
Spit IX climb at 6096 m in 6' 30'', gustav at 6000 5' 42'' (or 5' 14'' in other test). 
IX at 7804 m in 8' 54'', gustav at 8000 in 8' 30'' (7' 46'' other test) 
IX at 10058 m in 12' 24'', gustav a 10000 in 11' 54'' (it's the other test no data for the first test) 
IX at 10973 m. in 14' 42'', gustav at 11000 in 15' 41'' (as above)
IX at 12192 m. in 20' 12'' gustav at 12000 in 24' 02'' (as above)

So i can see gustav is fastest until 7500 m. after speed it's near until 11000 (at 10973 IX run at 621 km/h gustav run at ~615 km/h), over no data.
gustav climb best until 10000 m. after Spit IX go fast. With GM-1 gustav go best at all quote. (i writed gustav but obv i talking of G-1/2 only)


----------



## Juha (Mar 13, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274 says that Spit F IX climbed to 6096 m in 5' 36" at Combat rating, that is backed up by a test report.

And how fast was G-2, some German reports say 650km/h, some 660km/h.

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Mar 14, 2009)

The follwoing graph is composed from all Spit FIX-tests aviable at Mike Williams site (all with radiator flap closed) and all Bf-109G1/2/4 tests aviable at Kurfürst site (Erla tests corrected for radiator flap position). It shows an average speed curve for both planes as evidenced by the aforementioned tests. Since there are more Bf-109 tests, the standart deviation is larger for that type, too (not shown here but in an older thread). At the bottomline, the Bf-109G2 could mainten it´s top speed for a longer duration (30 minutes instead of 5) but otherwise both planes are evenly matched.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 14, 2009)

As of 1 August 1942 (figures 31 August), Bf 109s with first line LW units:

Bf 109E types: 83 (almost all in backwater areas like Finnland or Norway) (36)
Bf 109F-1/F-2: 188 (137)
Bf 109F-4: 288 (255)
Bf 109G: 215 (304)

Of the G models, as of August 1942, the G-1 and G-1/R2 pressurized, GM-1 equipped models (52 at the start of the month, 68 by the end of the month) were all deployed in the Western theatre in France and NW Germany.

G-2 were all deployed in Russia, but by the end of the month a single one was deployed in France, and some 28 in the MTO, in Sicily.

IMHO the graph by delcyros shows the relative level speed performance characteristics very well. There are some worser and better figures for both aircraft of course, but generally it is true that the Bf 109G was superior to the Mk IX F of 1942 up to 8000m, especially in climb. 

Above 8000 m the Mk IX, by the virtue of the its high altitude engine was a better fighter. Here however it should be mentioned that in the period Mk IXs were only present in England, and the Bf 109Gs they would face in France would be Bf 109G-1s with GM-1 high altitude boosts, not G-2s, and GM-1 would be needed to factored in. 

And while GM-1 was not an instant-boost to performance (the system needed a few seconds to come to life), it provided a massive power increase above rated altitude. I am quite certain that with GM - 1 factored in, the Gustav was quite superior at high altitude - to give some idea of the performance, tests show that 680 km/h could be achieved with GM-1 injection on the Bf 109G-1/R2 at 1,3ata.


----------



## Juha (Mar 14, 2009)

Hello Delcyros
thanks a lot for the comparasion graph!

Combat rating Spit F IX __________Bf 109G-1, from Kennblatt
Climb to 3048m 2’42”____________to 3000m 2’24”
_____to 5486m 5’00”
_____to 6096m 5’36”_____________to 6000m 5’14”
_____to 7010m 6'36______________to 7000m 6'23"
_____to 9144m 9’12”_____________to 9000m 9’36”
_____to 10973m 12’36”___________to 11000m 15’41”
_____to 12192m 16’36”___________to 12000m 24’02”

IMHO G-1 clearly without GM1. With it G-1 would have climbed slower below FTH (weight) and clearly better above FTH (more power).

ADDITION: Tried to look the weight of GM1 system from Fernández-Sommerau's Bf 109 Recognition Manual and noticed that he claims that GM1 system was removed from 109G-1.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274 says that Spit F IX climbed to 6096 m in 5' 36" at Combat rating, that is backed up by a test report.
> 
> And how fast was G-2, some German reports say 650km/h, some 660km/h.
> ...



i used same test of BS274 (BF it's a wrong in paint on plane) with climb rating, combat rating was cleared only for 5'.
Report of 649 km/h it's for a plane w/o full retractable tailwheel and for luftwaffe document this a penalty of 12 km/h at FTH


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2009)

delcyros said:


> The follwoing graph is composed from all Spit FIX-tests aviable at Mike Williams site (all with radiator flap closed) and all Bf-109G1/2/4 tests aviable at Kurfürst site (Erla tests corrected for radiator flap position). It shows an average speed curve for both planes as evidenced by the aforementioned tests. Since there are more Bf-109 tests, the standart deviation is larger for that type, too (not shown here but in an older thread). At the bottomline, the Bf-109G2 could mainten it´s top speed for a longer duration (30 minutes instead of 5) but otherwise both planes are evenly matched.



same source I used for data.
i used data for BS274 on williams site for IX and Datenblatt für Me 109 G-1 Ausführung and Kennblatt für Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 G-1 mit Motor DB 605A on Kurfurst site for gustav, what you used?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> As of 1 August 1942 (figures 31 August), Bf 109s with first line LW units:
> 
> Bf 109G: 215 (304)



i found this as 1st august
24 with I/1
13 with 11/2 (eleven not II)
15 with 11/26 (as above)
40 with I/52
5 with II/52
33 with III/52
9 with 15/52
37 with I/53
39 with I/54
37 with II/54
16 with III/54
(and 11 at rechlin komand i haven't counted this in total of 268)


----------



## davebender (Mar 14, 2009)

What strikes me is the DB605 engine has a nice smooth power curve. The RR Merlin engine has a large jag at about 15,000 feet. That has to give the Me-109 an advantage around that altitude.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2009)

Speed

Spit IX (from BS274 test) 
1829 m. 544 km/h 
2438 m. 559 km/h
3048 m. 574 km/h
3962 m. 595 km/h
4694 m. 612 km/h
6096 m. 612 km/h
7010 m. 615 km/h
7620 m. 630 km/h
8352 m. 649 km/h
9144 m. 647 km/h
10058 m. 641 km/h
10973 m. 621 km/h

G-1 (datenblatt)
0 m. 535 km/h
2000 m. 583 km/h
4000 m. 624 km/h
6000 m. 647 km/h
7000 m. 660 km/h
10000 m. 638 km/h

G-1 (kennblatt, w/o semi rectr. tailwhell= -12 km/h at FTH)
0 m. 525 km/h
1000 m. 544 km/h
2000 m. 563 km/h
3000 m. 583 km/h
4000 m. 602 km/h
5000 m. 622 km/h
6000 m. 642 km/h
7000 m. 649 km/h (FTH +12 =661 km/h)
8000 m. 648 km/h
9000 m. 643 km/h
10000 m. 630 km/h
11000 m. 609 km/h
12000 m. 555km/h


----------



## Juha (Mar 14, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
now in combat situation Spit pilot would probably have used combat rating, wouldn't he. Messerschmitt's problem was that DB 605 had rather bad early problems and its t/o and emergency power (1,42 ata) was soon barred and was allowed again for a short time around July 43 and then barred again and then finally allowed in Oct/Nov 43 in LW.

Hello Dave
the nice power curve of DB 605 was because of its ingenious hydraulic coupling for the supercharger impeller, like in DB 601.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> now in combat situation Spit pilot would probably have used combat rating, wouldn't he.
> 
> Juha



yes but only for 5' minutes so can't take the 20000' with combat he need switched to climbing rating before. or more easily he used the combat rating only in dogfighting so he climbed only for a short time before of change manouvre


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 14, 2009)

davebender said:


> What strikes me is the DB605 engine has a nice smooth power curve.



It is because the supercharger speed was driven via a hydraulic clutch and adjusted accoring to the supercharger needs on the DB engines.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i found this as 1st august
> 
> ....
> 
> (and 11 at rechlin komand i haven't counted this in total of 268)



Apparantly I missed some, need to check again! 8)


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 16, 2009)

delcyros said:


> The follwoing graph is composed from all Spit FIX-tests aviable at Mike Williams site (all with radiator flap closed) and all Bf-109G1/2/4 tests aviable at Kurfürst site (Erla tests corrected for radiator flap position). It shows an average speed curve for both planes as evidenced by the aforementioned tests. Since there are more Bf-109 tests, the standart deviation is larger for that type, too (not shown here but in an older thread). At the bottomline, the Bf-109G2 could mainten it´s top speed for a longer duration (30 minutes instead of 5) but otherwise both planes are evenly matched.



Saw you don't reply at what you used for build the graph, i try to ask how you build the grapf? on Williams site there are only 2 test for Spit IX with merlin 61 and one (BS 428) it's for a plane in underweight (~500 pounds). there are many test on Kurfuerst site on gustav but the most give only a point speed.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2009)

Sorry for beeing late, Vincenzo.
I used a simple program, called curvefinder for the gaphs. You use to enter any two- or threedimensional set of datainputs and it shows a dispersion diagramm. From that diagramm I used a subroutine of the program to display a mean curve, drawn around the inertia centers of the datapoints.
The dispersion diagramms with all datapoints are buried in another thread.
For the Spitfire F IX I used the only two Mike Williams sources, BF274 and the Boscombe Down trials with and without 500lbs bomb (actually only counted without bombs here) dating to march 1943.
For the Bf-109g I used all related trials from Kurfürsts site. The dispersion diagramms for the gustav are more spread out but I don´t have a problem with this, rather contrary, this is what I would expect from individually differently performing planes.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 16, 2009)

Thank for reply
How you corrected the weight of BS 428 ? the data of test are for a plane lighter 555 pounds of normal.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2009)

I didn´t corrected that. Weight differences in such an area (7%) are not insignificant but for all out level speed far from decisive. Differences in top speed between two individual planes are more significant than those indicated by 7% weight differences, which would translate to in between 1.0 and 1.5% speed difference, depending on design cl.


----------



## smuack (Mar 17, 2009)

What about the torque of this two engines.It was a major difference between Merlin and DB605 ?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2009)

delcyros an other question you have corrected the data for gustav test without retractrable tailwheel?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 17, 2009)

There are no corrections attributed for retracted tailwheels. Some have a retracted, some have fixed tailwheels but not always do we have the information whether they are retractable or not.
For the 1942 timeframe, most planes had retractable tailwheels, this would tend to make the performance graph looking conservative for the gustav.
If You have a complete set of those informations, please share them.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 17, 2009)

i have no more of that on kurfuerst site, but i read them many times
my opinion are:
Datenblatt info (calculated) for retract. tailwheel
Surface comparations: at time (jul. '42) the production was with retract. tailwheel, it's noted in test trouble with speed mesaurements , but was ok for the indeed test surfaces comparation.
DB 601 DB 605 comparation: (sept. '42) as above retract. tailwhell, it's noted that the planes was not standard there are many tests with this plane.
British test: (retract. tailwhell) it's noted there was a hole in a blade of prop and trouble with radiator 
Kennblatt, fix tailwheel 
Finnish test, fix tailwheel (photo)
Erla test, was april '43 so i think fix tailwheel (was standard from january) 
Subtypes data, was august '43 so i think fix tailwheel
Performance summary: fix tailwheel it's writed

p.s. in the Erla test the radiators was open more of normal


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Nov 9, 2010)

In most cases, particularly in 1944, I would say that the Spitfire overpowered the Bf 109 seeing that in only improved its speed and climbing performance while the bf 109g got heavier and slower due to an increase in armament, armor and bulges. But early variants such as the G-2 and G-4 I would say were superior to the early varaints of the spitfire mk ix. G-2s and G-4s, although being less maneuverable than the F-4s, they much faster, had better climbs and were faster in a dive and still having handling characteristics very close to the F-4. As for the spitfire, it did improve performance in almost every single way than the Mk V but was still generally outrun, outclimbed and outdived by early Bf 109Gs. I think the early variants of the Bf 109G were great follow ups from the F series, and it is annoying to see that they didn't get as much fame as they should have: they were probably the best single-engine fighters of late 1942; even better than the Fw 190A-4.


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 9, 2010)

The LW's aircraft (even the aging designs like the 109) seem to hold up pretty well at the mid-war stage and later variants (like the 109G14 and K) along with the Focke Wulf 190D on paper at least (and assuming no sabotage, something far from guaranteed) also appear to be capable of holding their own with late war allied aircraft.

But the problem the LW has from 1942 on is surely not a technical one but the bleeding white of its squadrons manpower - crucially losing, steadily over time, so many experienced crew that could never be replaced - and the inability of the air-schools to match allied training standards and quantites?


----------



## Juha (Nov 9, 2010)

I wonder how early Gs could be “much faster, had better climbs” than F-4 when up to Oct/Nov 43 they had less power in low and medium altitude, 1310 vs 1350hp because the use 1.42 ata take-off and emergency power was blocked in DB 605A up to then but very early on and in July-early Aug 43. The FTH of 605A was higher than that of 601E, so at high altitude G1-4 were faster than F-4, but max speed were in 1942 appr 660km/h for F-4 and 650km/h for early G.
Bf 109G-1/-2 were more or less as fast as Spitfire F IX (Merlin 61) up to 5.000m, between 5. – 8.000m 109G was faster but above 8.500m Spit F IX was faster.

Juha


----------



## billswagger (Nov 9, 2010)

Comparing top speeds that are in the vicinity of 10kph is always frustrating considering that the instrumentation of the aircraft can skew the numbers. 
The top speeds are so close that acceleration would be the deciding factor. 

History has shown the Spitfire was usually faster, and could catch up to a 109 in level flight but that the 109 had a better initial dive and could pull away from the spit in short dives. 

Climb usually went to the 109 because it had a better angle of climb, which often left Spitfires underneath them. The Spits were not incapable of matching the rate of climb if they did not follow at the same angle. 
I'm not sure how that applies to the G series because of the added weight. 

The spitfire also out turned the 109, though the degree of the turn advantage diminished with altitude. 
This usually restricted the 109 to vertical fights, but if the Spit was faster then the 109 was evenly matched in the vertical against the Spit. 
Tactically speaking, which every plane was higher held all the cards.
In the depictions of the 109 and spit presented here for 1942, the performance gap still favored the Spit.


Bill


----------



## parsifal (Nov 10, 2010)

Bill

A good summary in my opinion. As I understand it, the Spit IX was developed in part at least, to counter the low level raids being undertaken by the LW in the Summer of '42 in Southern England, particularly by FW 190As. I would be very surprised if the 109 could outfight the Spit IX at low altitude, given that the FW190 could outmanouvre the 109 at low altitude, and the Spit could outmanouvre the 190 at that height (below 5000')


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2010)

WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn
Me-109F4. 6,393 lbs Normal take off weight.
Me-109G10. 6,834 lbs. Clean condition. I assume this is the same as normal take off weight without any installed Rustsatze (field conversion sets).

That's not much of a weight gain. Meanwhile engine power increased from 1,350 hp (Me-109F4) to 1,800 or so (depending on specific engine) for late war Me-109Gs.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 11, 2010)

The biggest difference in comparing a Spit IX with Merlin 61 to a 109G2 is whether or not the 109 is running at 1.3 ata or 1.42. If running 1.3 ata the G2 is not the equal of the Spitfire in climb or level speed. At 1.42 ata the G2 only lacks about 300 feet per minute in climb rate (average), and reaches it's top speed at 22000 ft while the Spit reaches top speed at 27000. The Spit has a higher ceiling, 43400 ft compared to 39370. They were a pretty close match performance wise. 

Once you start getting into the 1943 engines, Merlin 63, 66 and 70, the climb advantage definately goes to the Spitfire with climb rates well in excess of 4000 ft per minute. Top speeds are still pretty close at altitude, with the LF Spits getting the edge at low alt.

davebender: The horsepower rating of the 109G2 would be 1455 hp at 1.42 ata and 1310 hp at 1.3 ata. A clean fighter (109G2) would weigh 6734 lbs.


----------



## davebender (Nov 11, 2010)

More confirmation that the Me-109G series did not get significantly heavier. 

I'm not saying the Me-109G was perfect. But it was certainly not overweight and underpowered compared to contemporary fighter aircraft.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 11, 2010)

The Bf109B had a flight weight of 1995kg.
The Me109K-4 weighed 3400kg.

That is a weight increase of 170%.


----------



## davebender (Nov 11, 2010)

What does the limited production Me-109B have to do with the mass production Me-109F, Me-109G and Me-109K? The engine and airframe were completely different.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 11, 2010)

Just showing the *overall* weight gain.


----------



## Glider (Nov 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> More confirmation that the Me-109G series did not get significantly heavier.
> 
> I'm not saying the Me-109G was perfect. But it was certainly not overweight and underpowered compared to contemporary fighter aircraft.



Its weight gain may have been comparable to other aircraft but in terms of performance I understood that the G6 didn't have as good a performance as the G2. Granted it swapped the LMG which were of limited use for the far more effective13mm, but it isn't often that a plane of lower performance replaced one of higher performance.
At a stage in the war when the opposition were making considerable gains in both performance and firepower, this was a major problem for the Luftwaffe. 
Rightly or wrongly I have always felt that from this stage on the Me109 was playing catch up.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2010)

Indeed - the power-to-weight ratio remained about the same from 1941 to mid '44 for Bf-109 series. So while the 109Fs have had the best performance vs. contemporary opposition, the advances in aircraft technology of all 3 major adversaries either equaled or surpassed the main German fighter (now the 109G) within 1-2 years.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 12, 2010)

IIRC when introduced the G-2 made 620-630 km/h at 1.3 ata. The contemporary F-4 made about the same at the time (iirc the higher ata for the 601E was not cleared until later, but I'm not sure). When the G-6 came to widespread use 1.42 ata was cleared for use (?) meaning the G-6 could fly something between 640-650 km/h.

So effectively, progression was too slow, but the new types were not really_ slower_ than their predecessors in service. The problem was rather that handling got worse and allied fighters got faster. Though really the comparative tests held by the british on the captured G-6 with pods show for me that the G-6 could still hold up with the Spitfire. The test results are only slightly in favor of the Mk. IX, but the G-6 had the gun pods, so I assume had they used a standard G-6 both would be about on par. The real game changer were the Mustangs which were definetly a class ahead in terms of speed and at least on par in every other aspect (low speed turning aside).

BTW: The P-51 B is a bit faster than the D as well.


----------



## Glider (Nov 12, 2010)

riacrato said:


> IIRC when introduced the G-2 made 620-630 km/h at 1.3 ata. The contemporary F-4 made about the same at the time (iirc the higher ata for the 601E was not cleared until later, but I'm not sure). When the G-6 came to widespread use 1.42 ata was cleared for use (?) meaning the G-6 could fly something between 640-650 km/h.
> 
> So effectively, progression was too slow, but the new types were not really_ slower_ than their predecessors in service. The problem was rather that handling got worse and allied fighters got faster. Though really the comparative tests held by the british on the captured G-6 with pods show for me that the G-6 could still hold up with the Spitfire. The test results are only slightly in favor of the Mk. IX, but the G-6 had the gun pods, so I assume had they used a standard G-6 both would be about on par. The real game changer were the Mustangs which were definetly a class ahead in terms of speed and at least on par in every other aspect (low speed turning aside).
> 
> BTW: The P-51 B is a bit faster than the D as well.



My mistake, I was going from the following chart on Kurfursts site which seemed to show an advantage to the G2.

Kurfrst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen

Compared to the performance of the Spitfire, the Spit does seem to have an edge at most altitudes.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html


----------



## Milosh (Nov 12, 2010)

If this link hasn't been posted, worth the read,

The performance of the F-4
Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 1 - Introduction


----------



## davebender (Nov 12, 2010)

North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> P-51Bs and P-51Cs started to arrive in England in August and October 1943


I disagree. Germany lost aerial superiority in the Mediterranean and over N.W. France well before the P-51B arrived.

The Mustang was a fine late war aircraft. But IMO it's impact on WWII is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I disagree. Germany lost aerial superiority in the Mediterranean and over N.W. France well before the P-51B arrived.
> 
> ...



The leaders of the 8th and 15th AF, and the B-17 and B-24 bomber crews, would seriously dispute your assertion. The Luftwaffe had total air superiority over Germany until the Mustang became operational. What might have tipped the balance was an earlier arrival for the P-38J with manuever flap and boosted ailerons - but that didn't happen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2010)

I think you are arguing geography.

The Luftwaffe may very well have lost air superiority over much of France, Italy and the Low countries while keeping it over Germany itself before the Mustang and/or large numbers of late model P-38s showed up. 

However, escorting bombers to and from the Germany border or Rhine isn't going to do much for a bombing campaign with greater Germany as it's target. Keeping the bombers safe over France while letting them get shot down over Germany isn't going to affect the loss rate to a large extent. 
Alternative to the Mustang/Late P-38 is an earlier invasion of France so you can stage the short legged fighters closer to extend the "air superiority" into Germany. There are number of reasons why that wasn't going to happen.


----------



## davebender (Nov 12, 2010)

Spitfires provided most Allied fighter cover for amphibious landings on Sicily and Italy. They were perfectly capable of providing fighter cover over Normandy also. And that's really what matters. Get the ground pounders safely ashore in overwhelming numbers.


----------



## jim (Nov 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The leaders of the 8th and 15th AF, and the B-17 and B-24 bomber crews, would seriously dispute your assertion. The Luftwaffe had total air superiority over Germany until the Mustang became operational. What might have tipped the balance was an earlier arrival for the P-38J with manuever flap and boosted ailerons - but that didn't happen.



No,Luftwaffe had lost control of the german sky since summer 1943 . The best they achieved was to inflict heavy losses on deep penetration raids but failed to stop even one of them . Bombers damaged their targets in EVERY raid . And their losses ,while very heavy for the european standarts, meaned nothing for the huge american industry. And after each day of heavy fighting almost the whole german fighter force was out of serviability for several days. Back to back raids could be almost without organised resistance. They could not even stop the recce flights. Not to talk about the british night terror attacks that forced day units to share (and lose!) their aircrafts with Wilde Sau units
In addition had to face dispersion raids , attacks by mediums in their airfields on the same time of the deep penetrations ,Spitfires, P47 with drop tanks and a gap in the evaluations of DB605 and BMW 801 which meaned that both Bf109 and Fw190 were in this time frame in their lowest competivnes . Luftwaffe was defeated on all western fronts by late summer/early autumn 1943. P51 arrival only reduced the losses of the bombers(US had unlimited numbers anyway) , and this could have been done by P38s (even without improvements their numbers would be enough as P51),P47s, or simply more and more bombers. Alleid victory was not a result of an aircraft type, but an war of attrition imposed on the germany , supported by the american industry. I beleive too that P51 has far more fame than it deserved and today its capabilities are exagerated. Just my opinion.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 12, 2010)

jim said:


> No, the Luftwaffe had lost control of the German sky since summer 1943 . The best they achieved was to inflict heavy losses on deep penetration raids but failed to stop even one of them. Bombers damaged their targets in EVERY raid . And their losses, while very heavy for by European standards, meaned nothing to the huge American industry. And after each day of heavy fighting almost the whole German fighter force was out of serviceability for several days. Back to back raids could be almost without organised resistance. They could not even stop the recce flights. Not to talk about the British night terror attacks that forced day units to share (and lose!) their aircraft with Wilde Sau units.
> 
> In addition they had to face dispersion raids, attacks by mediums in their airfields at the same time as the deep penetration raids, Spitfires, P-47 with drop tanks and a gap in the evaluations of DB605 and BMW 801 which meaned that both Bf109 and Fw190 were in this time frame in their lowest competitiveness. Luftwaffe was defeated on all western fronts by late summer/early autumn 1943. P-51 arrival only reduced the losses of the bombers (US had unlimited numbers anyway) and this could have been done by P-38s (even without improvements their numbers would be enough as P-51), P-47s, or simply more and more bombers. Allied victory was not a result of an aircraft type, but an war of attrition imposed on Germany supported by the American industry. I believe too that the P-51 has far more fame than it deserved and today its capabilities are exaggerated. Just my opinion.


Jim
the Luftwaffe certainly had not lost control of German airspace in summer 1943. Escorts with drop tanks were making only their first forays into Germany around mid-43 and the bombers up to this point were suffering losses that were unsustainable, regardless of production figures - the mid-1943 raids on Schweinfurt and Regensburg by a force of approx 380 bombers left 60 destroyed and a further 87 scrapped on their return.

I would like you to substantiate your claim that a day of fighting would leave 'the whole german fighter force was out of serviceability for several days'; from mid-43 onwards I don't recall reading of any 8th AF account that read 'raid unopposed - there and back'.

Recce flights esp high-altitude, were difficult for anyone to intercept, regardless of the condition of their airforces. Reflected energy in WWII radar sets from high-altitude plots was weak and even if pinged, they had to get something up there that was i. in time to do anything and ii. wouldn't be seen by the recce pilot, who could head for home in a generally faster machine (unarmed, clean finish, special tune).

Germany was defeated by a war of attrition but aircraft type played a large part in it. Imagine no P-51 or even P-38, you are left with a Spitfire which, while certainly potent, would be useless in the war over Germany, if only because it couldn't make it that far. The P-47 will get you to the border.

The P-51 was the only type that could fly to Berlin and meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. Imagine at the start of the war, an Air Ministry requirement for a Hurricane-sized fighter that could fly at 437mph and get you from a field in Cambridgeshire to the airspace over Berlin for the fight they had in mind, and then back. There was nothing overrated about the P-51, it was, for its time, a marvel of engineering.

I would summarise by returning to your point Jim, the Luftwaffe was still very much a coherent and potent entity in 1943 and still very much in the fight.


----------



## davebender (Nov 12, 2010)

> Imagine no P-51 or even P-38, you are left with a Spitfire which, while certainly potent, would be useless in the war over Germany


Spitfires operated over Germany after Anglo-American ground forces over ran France. Just as Spitfires operated over Sicily from Malta and then operated over southern Italy from Sicily.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> Spitfires operated over Germany after Anglo-American ground forces over ran France. Just as Spitfires operated over Sicily from Malta and then operated over southern Italy from Sicily.


Do I get the impression you've missed something here?


----------



## Glider (Nov 12, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Jim
> Germany was defeated by a war of attrition but aircraft type played a large part in it. Imagine no P-51 or even P-38, you are left with a Spitfire which, while certainly potent, would be useless in the war over Germany, if only because it couldn't make it that far. The P-47 will get you to the border.
> 
> The P-51 was the only type that could fly to Berlin and meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. Imagine at the start of the war, an Air Ministry requirement for a Hurricane-sized fighter that could fly at 437mph and get you from a field in Cambridgeshire to the airspace over Berlin for the fight they had in mind, and then back. There was nothing overrated about the P-51, it was, for its time, a marvel of engineering.
> ...



Just a thought. I did read of some late war Halifax daylight raids to Germany that were escorted all the way by Tempests operating from the UK with 2 x 90 gallon drop tanks. Not to Berlin but to targets in the west of Germany.
I admit I could be wrong and will try to find out where I read it but its an interesting thought.

Edit The raids were on synthetic oil plants in the Essen area on 11th September 1944 and the Tempests were from 150 wing


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 12, 2010)

Glider said:


> Just a thought. I did read of some late war Halifax daylight raids to Germany that were escorted all the way by Tempests operating from the UK with 2 x 90 gallon drop tanks. Not to Berlin but to targets in the west of Germany.
> I admit I could be wrong and will try to find out where I read it but its an interesting thought.


That would be interesting
if you can find it though on the face of it, I don't think the RAF escorted by Tempests sounded any better off than the USAAF escorted by P-47s


----------



## Glider (Nov 12, 2010)

COlin
Our postings crossed, I updated the previous posting with the details of the raids. However, I would back the Tempest against the P47 if only because of its better climb. Both were very fast, both could dive as if the hounds of hell were after them and both were well armed. However the P47 didn't shine at climbing and that is no small advantage.
It does however make the Tempest an option, if the P51 hadn't been around.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 12, 2010)

Spitfires, P-47s, Tempests all had range to escort bomber formations at least part of the way to Germany, but it was the Mustang that had the legs to escort to just about every corner of the Reich, AND have the loiter time to hang around for the circuses that developed around the bomber formations. This is what hurt the luftwaffe more than anything from late '43, that ther was no point in the bomber mission where the bombers were left unnattended.

The RAF lacked the capability to provide LR escort for most of the war, because they developed Night Bombing as their primary strategic weapon. From 1941 they had been working on achieving air superiority over France and North Africa (and subsequently over Italy). By early 1943 this had largely been achieved, thanks in large measure to the efforts of the Spitfire formations. Without that contribution the US LR escorts would have had a much harder time of it.

Both aircraft probably represented the pinnacle of their respective roles, but both had fundamentally different roles. Both roles were of critical importance in the defeat of the enemy


----------



## Hop (Nov 13, 2010)

> Recce flights esp high-altitude, were difficult for anyone to intercept, regardless of the condition of their airforces.



The Germans had great difficulty in carrying out recce missions over Britain from the summer of 1941 onwards. In the whole of 1943 they managed 187 recce sorties over Britain, and suffered 33 losses doing so (nearly 18%).


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2010)

Hop, is it possible to put some perspective on the numbers you posted for 1943 by posting the number of Allied recce flights over German controlled territory?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 13, 2010)

jim said:


> No,Luftwaffe had lost control of the german sky since summer 1943 .
> 
> *Ah, that would be the reason that 8th AF suspended deep penetrations after Black Thursday, October 14, 1943? When once again 20% of the Force went down or was scrapped? *
> 
> ...



The point you seem to be missing is that the Mustang was the dominant factor CAUSING the attrition, and the attrition rate, in the crucial six months before D-Day. The Mustang was the reason that 8th could prosecute the campaign against oil and chemical plants in Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Mustang was the reason that no German airfield or reaction force was 'safe' from intrusdion while trying to take off and land, or assemble to initiate an attack on the bombers. Ditto for barge and rail transport.

The P-38 in late May 1944 was capable of doing those things on a more or less equal basis versus the Fw 190 and me 109 - but it simply was not up to the task when the Mustang was introduced into the ETO at about the same time.


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Spitfires, P-47s, Tempests all had range to escort bomber formations at least part of the way to Germany, but it was the Mustang that had the legs to escort to just about every corner of the Reich, AND have the loiter time to hang around for the circuses that developed around the bomber formations. This is what hurt the luftwaffe more than anything from late '43, that ther was no point in the bomber mission where the bombers were left unnattended.
> 
> The RAF lacked the capability to provide LR escort for most of the war, because they developed Night Bombing as their primary strategic weapon. From 1941 they had been working on achieving air superiority over France and North Africa (and subsequently over Italy). By early 1943 this had largely been achieved, thanks in large measure to the efforts of the Spitfire formations. Without that contribution the US LR escorts would have had a much harder time of it.
> 
> Both aircraft probably represented the pinnacle of their respective roles, but both had fundamentally different roles. Both roles were of critical importance in the defeat of the enemy



I don't deny what you have said and was in no way trying to dumb down the contribution of the 8th Air Force and the P51 pilots. I believe that there is a lot of rubbish spoken about the P51 performance being exagerated. Its range gave it the ability to roam all over Germany and at the altitude the bombers flew it was more than a match for the German fighters.

It was just speculation that if for some reason the P51 had not been developed the RAF did have in the Tempest a fighter that could escort daylight raids deep into German territory and be more than equal to the defending German fighters. Mind you it did help that RAF Bombers normally flew at around 20,000 not 30,000 ft8).


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Hop, is it possible to put some perspective on the numbers you posted for 1943 by posting the number of Allied recce flights over German controlled territory?



I don't know about the number of flights but if I remember correctly, they did map every inch of occupied Europe every 6 months with greater effort at key points and times. Plus of course before and after photo's for each and every raid and the unsung but equally risky weather flights.

It must have been a serious number of flights.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 13, 2010)

davebender said:


> North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I disagree. Germany lost aerial superiority in the Mediterranean and over N.W. France well before the P-51B arrived.
> 
> The Mustang was a fine late war aircraft. But IMO it's impact on WWII is greatly exaggerated.



I was talking about performance mostly. In my opinion throughout the period of 1940 up until late '43 there was never a real dominance of one air forces fighter designs in the west. In the east the Bf 109 was dominant for a long period, in Africa it was dominant too, at least to some extent and for some time. In the west, give or take, the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, P-38 and Thunderbolt were overall more or less on par eventhough people love fighting about which was the best.

The Mustang had a performance advantage over the 109 that was imo significant and a range advantage over all fighters that was even more significant. Enough to make a difference. Sure tactical and strategical situation as well as pilot skill are way more important, but still. It may be hyped a lot, but in the end, it was the best fighter post 1943 and that's when the war was won by the Allies.


----------



## Juha (Nov 13, 2010)

Hello Milosh
RAF PR sorties 1943, 2,989 sorties flown, area covered: from Narvik to Spanish border and to Budapest and Belgrad, of those sorties flown 2,252 were successful. During the last six months of the year 12 P.R. a/c of No. 106 Wing were listed as missing.

Juha


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 13, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I was talking about performance mostly. In my opinion throughout the period of 1940 up until late '43 there was never a real dominance of one air forces fighter designs in the west. In the east the Bf 109 was dominant for a long period, in Africa it was dominant too, at least to some extent and for some time. In the west, give or take, the Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire, P-38 and Thunderbolt were overall more or less on par eventhough people love fighting about which was the best.
> 
> The Mustang had a performance advantage over the 109 that was imo significant and a range advantage over all fighters that was even more significant. Enough to make a difference. Sure tactical and strategical situation as well as pilot skill are way more important, but still. It may be hyped a lot, but in the end, it was the best fighter post 1943 and that's when the war was won by the Allies.



The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history. The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous. 

The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.

A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.


----------



## jim (Nov 13, 2010)

Mr Colin 1
1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.Production figures of Boeing prove this. Also us ability to train pilots was enormous .US possesed 157000pilots in 1945. Politicaly everything is sustainamble in times of war with proper use of propaganda. (e.g. people beleived and still beleive Japan was responsible for the Pasicic war)Besides bomber crew losses were very low in comparison with infantry losses. American bomber offensive would have continiue with or with out P51
2)German controllers called every available jagdgruppe In Northwest Europr/Germany to face every deep penetration raid.They flew far from their bases and were ordered to fly second mission if possible from any available airfield. At the end of the day there were hudrends indivintual fighters scatered in dozens airfields.It took 24-48 hours to regroup ,repair their aircrafts , replace losses etcetera.
3) Recce flights were practically impossimble for the germans until the appereance of Ar234 and Me262 which had some chance to escape Alleid fighters.
4)Lw could inflict losses? Yes Could prevent damage to any factory? No. Could prevent the Hamburg disaster(for military reasons of caurse)?No.Recce flights?No What exactly you mean with the word "air superiority"?
5)Lw was in serius fuel problems since 1942 far before any attack on production centers.Already pilots training program sufferd teriibly. Both Hartmann and Lipfert report that when deployed in the front in the fall of 1942 were barely able to follow their element leader .In 1943 it was even worse. During the battle of Kursk the Sclachtgruppen had to limit their support to the army because of the fuel status. So an air force with no fuel, ineffective training ,facing numerical inferiority from 1:5 to 1:10, with no acces to raw materials crusial for alloys used in turbosuperchargers,turbojets, magnetrons,Goering as chief, was an defeated air force. Perhaps not dead ,but defeated .Survived another year eating its own flesh.
Mr drondog
1)Statistis can be mislaeding 20% or 30% or 40% for 2-3 missions .So what? Thousands new bomberswere on the way.
2)As far as i know night bombing was rejected by the americans as ineffective against military targets.(But it was very effective against civil population as discovered by the british)
3)Bf 109G6 ,Fw190A5-6 , wasn t not enough to be equal or near equal to their foes. Because of the numerical inferiority should offer some edge in flight performance as in 1941/42.
4)German factories produced more aircrafts in 1944 than ever before and the limiting factor was,as before , fuel.Which was not enough even before the bombing of the production centers. So Doolitle campaign only accelerated the events helped by tactical errors by the Jagdwaffe.
5)Aerial superiority over Normandy would secured by the Alleis even without P51 . On D day LW flew 100 missions over the Normandy. Without the spring battles over Germany lets say
that would fly 2000 missions. Alleis flew 14000. Is there any point to further disgus?
Mr Glider
I firmly consider P51 overated. P51H even more.I consider its claimed performance totaly unrealistic But its just my opinion . I may be wrong .Dont call me rubbish


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 13, 2010)

jim said:


> Mr Colin 1
> 1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.Production figures of Boeing prove this. Also us ability to train pilots was enormous .US possesed 157000pilots in 1945. Politicaly everything is sustainamble in times of war with proper use of propaganda. (e.g. people beleived and still beleive Japan was responsible for the Pasicic war)Besides bomber crew losses were very low in comparison with infantry losses. American bomber offensive would have continiue with or with out P51



Jim losses in 1943 were unsustainable, consider the losses as a percentage, then consider mounting a similar raid the next week then the next, in a few weeks you have no pilots It dosnt matter what your industry can produce it matters how quickly you can produce experienced pilots. To produce a bomber pilot is comparable with a university graduate in cost and effort from both sides it takes YEARS not months. The only sustained daylight bombing campaign was that of the USAAF after 1943 because the LW and the Japanese were defeated. If the LW had put up 1000 fighters per day in Big week then big week would have been big monday.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The Mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a Merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the Mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but don't rewrite history. The 109 wasn't dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the Mustang which is ridiculous.
> *The Allison-Mustang was what?
> It was 35mph faster than the Spitfire Mk V at 15,000ft, its 4-hour endurance was double that of its peer. It covered the Dieppe landings and though under Army Cooperation Command, it was becoming noticed by Fighter Command wrt answering the tip-and-run raiders coming in along the south coast.
> 
> ...


*Once again, some specifics would be nice. On the point of your cannon-armed Mustangs, more specifically, the RAF used Mustang 1As, again a case of choosing the right fight for your type. Army Cooperation Command was disbanded in June 43 and the Mustang inventory was transferred to Fighter Command, who in turn seconded them to 2nd TAF. These were used to support the D Day landings in intensive operations in support of ground forces, moving through France and Belgium and into Holland. These would have been 2, 168, 268, 414 and 430 Sqns, totalling a 100-strong force of Mustangs, with 26 Sqn reverting to Mustang Is in October 1944 to photo-recce the V2 launch sites in Holland. These squadrons kept their Allison Mustangs until the end of hostilities in Europe and much of the technique of tactical reconnaissance was pioneered by, and credited to, the Allison Mustang.*


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 13, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *Once again, some specifics would be nice. On the point of your cannon-armed Mustangs, more specifically, the RAF used Mustang 1As, again a case of choosing the right fight for your type. Army Cooperation Command was disbanded in June 43 and the Mustang inventory was transferred to Fighter Command, who in turn seconded them to 2nd TAF. These were used to support the D Day landings in intensive operations in support of ground forces, moving through France and Belgium and into Holland. These would have been 2, 168, 268, 414 and 430 Sqns, totalling a 100-strong force of Mustangs, with 26 Sqn reverting to Mustang Is in October 1944 to photo-recce the V2 launch sites in Holland. These squadrons kept their Allison Mustangs until the end of hostilities in Europe and much of the technique of tactical reconnaissance was pioneered by, and credited to, the Allison Mustang.*



I think you just provided the specifics, the mustang wansnt considered as a front line fighter in 1943 /44 it was a photo reconnaisance or ground staffer. When the merlin was being fitted to the mustang the griffon was being fitted in the spitfire. Your post seems to confirm the mustang was a round support fighter (TAF)


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Your post seems to confirm the Mustang was a ground support fighter (TAF)


TEC
my post does nothing of the sort, it defines which version of the Mustang was good at what. Far from being a 'dead duck' the Allison Mustang enjoyed an exemplary career supporting ground forces all the way to Holland and defining the art of tactical reconnaissance.

The Merlin Mustang's role is more clearly defined on the forum.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 13, 2010)

jim said:


> Mr Colin 1
> 1)Losses of bombers in 1943 were heavy but sustainable.
> *The US public would never have swallowed it. I would venture onto uncertain ground and say it would have been political suicide for Roosevelt and a potential early exit from the war for the US, whose electorate considered Europe's war to be Europe's business for the most part anyway*
> 
> ...


_*Fuel shortages weren't beginning to bite as early as 1942 or even 1943. That's a scary analogy in bold*_


----------



## riacrato (Nov 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history. The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous.
> 
> The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.
> 
> A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.



The Mustang was never "a dead duck". The Allison engined variants were very fast down low and up to ~4500m. I never said the 109 was dominant in the BoB don't put words in my mouth and how about being a little more respectful altogether? The 109 was overall significantly better than the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Hurricane of which there were plenty initially when compared to the Spitfire.

What is a 1944 Spitfire? Better check the relative strength numbers again. And the RAF used Mustangs only for ground attack? Now who's being rediculous?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2010)

Colin, the Ar 234 was the first a/c to photograph the entire Normandy landing area. This was done by Lt erich Sommer on Aug 3 1944.He made 3 passes covering a strip 18 miles wide. Thsi was more that what the whole Lw recce force had accomplished in 2 months. It took a team of 12 photo interpreters 2 days to produce an initial report.On Sept 10 1944 he flew a photo recce of the Thames Estuary.

Kommando Sperlng is worth a search.

Thanks Juha. It would seem that the 1943 Lw recce missions were, as some say, nuisance raids.

Not the best scan (source unknown),


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The mustang was a dead duck until it was fitted with a merlin engine, a bubble canopy and a reasonable gunsight, the mustang was the best escort fighter without doubt but dont re write history.



As others have mentioned the Mustang was far from being a dead duck with the Alison. It had by some margin the best low level performance of anything in the air. The RAF put a high value on PR and kept them as long as possible in the role as nothing matched it in the Tac R role almost until the end of the war.
As for the Bubble Canopy being a requirement P51 B/C did an excellent job. 



> The 109 wasnt dominant in the BoB or in North Africa maybe in the east for a while. You are putting down the opposition to advance the case for the mustang which is rediculous.


The Me109 was dominant in N Africa until Spits were issued, any analysis of the campaign would support that.


> The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed.


Are you saying that the RAF outnumbered the Luftwaffe in the BOB by 5 to 10 to 1? If so I direct you to the This Day in the BOB thread.



> A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.


In 1944 the RAF mainly used Cannon Armed Mustangs for Tac R and occaisional escort missions covering Mosquito strike aircraft. The Tac R requirement was urgent and conversions of Typhoons, Spit IX and Spit XIV were tried but all fell short often on range. The Allison Mustang were kept flying as long as possible. To use them on GA was a waste of an aircraft impossible to replace.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 13, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Colin, the Ar 234 was the first a/c to photograph the entire Normandy landing area


I'll be honest with you
that did spring to mind some time after I made the post, but only from artwork that I have seen somewhere. I think the Sommer's Ar234 is in company with an Me262


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2010)

jim said:


> Mr Glider
> I firmly consider P51 overated. P51H even more.I consider its claimed performance totaly unrealistic But its just my opinion . I may be wrong .Dont call me rubbish



I wasn't calling you or anyone else rubbish, However, I do say a lot of rubbish is spoken about the P51 being overated.
It did a unique job which no other fighter in any airforce could do. At the height the US bombers flew it was at least as good as and normally better than anything the opposition could put up against it. It gave the USAAF the ability to take the fight to the opposition and dictate the terms of the fight. To do this and then to have the ability to defeat the enemy on their own ground or airspace is a priceless advantage. An advantage that was as important in the air battles over Germany as it was in the age of the Romans. 

Whatever people think about the merits or otherwise of the P51 the above statement is undeniable.

I happen to believe that if the P51 was up against an equal force of Spit XIV's then it would have been at a disadvantage. However even then the USAAF would be able to dictate where and when the battles took place and may well have won the campaign.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 13, 2010)

To deny that the Mustang was insignificant during the war, is ..how to put it nicely...naive. When daylight bombing was suspended in Oct '43 until escorts could be found, there was only one aircraft that was able to answer the challenge by Feb 44 - the P-51. And even if it had the range, it certainly wasn't a Cessna going against the Bf109s and Fw 190s at the time. The USAAF needed escorts with the range and able to mix it up with the LW. That is why the P-51 is regarded as most worthy. You may have a personal dislike but you can't ignore the facts.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2010)

Njaco said:


> To deny that the Mustang was insignificant during the war, is ..how to put it nicely...naive. When daylight bombing was suspended in Oct '43 until escorts could be found, there was only one aircraft that was able to answer the challenge by Feb 44 - the P-51. And even if it had the range, it certainly wasn't a Cessna going against the Bf109s and Fw 190s at the time. The USAAF needed escorts with the range and able to mix it up with the LW. That is why the P-51 is regarded as most worthy. You may have a personal dislike but you can't ignore the facts.



Daylight bombing wasn't suspended. It was restricted to targets that escorts could also reach.

The USAAF in WWII

Foe example, on Nov 3 Mission 119 was dispatched to the Wilhemshaven, Germany


----------



## davebender (Nov 13, 2010)

Feb 1944 to May 1945 = 15 months. 22% of the total European war period.
Sep 1939 to Jan 1944 = 52 months. 78% of the total European war period.
Something besides the P-51 provided the Western Allies with aerial superiority for most of the war. Without that aerial superiority it would have been impossible to drive the Axis out of North Africa, invade Sicily and invade Italy.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2010)

for once i substantially agree......except that the p-51 was crucial to the final victory


----------



## NZTyphoon (Nov 14, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The mustang was a great escort fighter that is all it was, if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed. Even in 1943 Germany was collapsing during 1944 it was losing badly in 1945 it had clearly lost.
> 
> A 1944 spitfire out performed a mustang in everything except range. The RAF used mustangs in 1944 armed with cannon for ground straffing because that is all they were good for.



There are some serious misconceptions here - where to start? Firstly what is meant by "_A spitfire outperformed a mustang in everything except range_?" Which version of the Spitfire, which version of the Mustang? The  Allison engined P-51A  was about as fast as a  Spitfire L.F XI , albeit at a lower altitude. In 1944 the only Spitfire which had a comparable performance to a P-51B/C/D or K in terms of maximum speed was the  Spitfire XIV . Yup, the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable and could climb faster but had a very poor range and endurance by comparison.

The RAF used Mustangs for more than "ground strafing" - not forgetting, for instance, that the Mustang IIIs (P-51B/C) of 122 Wing 2nd Tactical Air Force were used on fighter sweeps and as fighter-bombers, being successful at both missions, until, in September 1944, they were exchanged with Hawker Tempests of the ADGB (Air Defence Great Britain) and were then used for long range escort duties for the rest of the war. It is also overlooking the contribution of  133 (Polish) Wing Mustangs. From early to mid 1944 Mustang IIIs of the ADGB were also used, with some success, for chasing V-1s. The reason the RAF held on to the Allison engined Mustangs until 1945 was because they were unrivalled as low-altitude Tac-Air reconnaissance aircraft

"_ if the mustang was faced with defence out numbering it by 5 or 10 (as in the BoB) to one it would have failed._" 
How do you make this assumption / is there any tangible evidence to support such a claim? Assuming, in the first place that Spitfires were actually outnumbered 5 or 10 to one during the B of B (arguably yes), Spitfires weren't the only type of fighter used by the RAF during the Battle: as McKinstry points out in his book on  the Hawker Hurricane 
"Sydney Camm's plane was_ the key weapon of Fighter Command_ [italics added]....If the Hurricane had not been available the RAF would have been too limited to mount an effective defence...because there were insufficient numbers of Spitfires..."(page 2) 
Had the Spitfire actually been the only single-engine, single-seat fighter used by the RAF, and outnumbered by 5 to 10 to one, the Luftwaffe would have gained air superiority over SE England.


----------



## Juha (Nov 14, 2010)

Hello
In a world without P-51B/C/D/K and before Tempest Mk V GB might have build more Spit Mk VIIIs and less Mk IXs and kept most of Mk VIIIs in ETO instead of sending them all to MTO or to Far East.. Spit Mk VIII had the range of 740mls with internal fuel vs that of Tempest Mk V’s 760mls. And both had the option of 90 Imp gal in drop tank(s). That without late Mk VIII’s rear fuselage tank. Spit Mk IX’s range with internal fuel only was 420-434mls and 900-914mls with 90Impgal drop tank. Mustang Mk III had the range of 890 mls with internal fuel only and it could carry 125 Impgal in drop tanks with them its max range was 1445mls, so it still had clearly superior range but Spit Mk VIII had range for escort missions to Western Germany.

Hello NZTyphoon
On Hurricane, without it FC might have for ex Gloster F5/34s which might well have been a better fighter but there would probably have been fewer of them. Spit and Hurri were not only options available to FC in late 30s

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2010)

Hello Juha what escort radius did the Spit MkVIII have with the extra internal fuel and the biggest slipper drop tank it could carry. I imagine it would still come up short compared to a Mustang but it would be interesting to see how far into Germany it could go with a decent amount of combat time available.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 14, 2010)

jim said:


> Mr drondog
> 1)Statistis can be mislaeding 20% or 30% or 40% for 2-3 missions .So what? Thousands new bomberswere on the way.
> 
> *The 'so what' is that every mission that went as deep as Regensberg and Schweinfurt suffered those losse and the 8th had still not commenced a campaign against Leipzig area refineries, much less attacks on Berlin.
> ...



You have a right to your opinion. 

The real performance of the P-51H was far superior to the P-51D. Over rated is always possible but you have set the comparison criteria to claim either as 'overrated' or 'unrealistic"


----------



## Juha (Nov 14, 2010)

Hello Fastmongrel
with 90 Imp gal drop tank and without rear fuselage tank max range for Mk VIII was 1265mls. The ferry slipper tank was 170 Imp gal, but that size was purely for ferry use. 90 gal was biggest for combat use for Spits, IMHO Mks VII and VIII could have utilised drop tanks up to 120-125 gal size in escort jobs but IIRC there were no that kind of drop tanks around. I don't have info on ranges with rear fuselage tank easily at hand. But IIRC Supermarine got the idea of rear fuselage tank from Mustangs. As escort radius my guess is that 1265mls max range means something like 450mls escort radius in ETO enviroment.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Nov 14, 2010)

Why?

The P-51 was crucial to saving the U.S. heavy bomber force from destruction. That keeps the American heavy bomber barons in business but it has little to do with defeating Germany. The Red Army will seize Berlin during 1945 even if the P-51 had not been invented.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 14, 2010)

Glider said:


> COlin
> 
> It does however make the Tempest an option, if the P51 hadn't been around.





Juha said:


> Hello
> In a world without P-51B/C/D/K and before Tempest Mk V GB might have build more Spit Mk VIIIs and less Mk IXs and kept most of Mk VIIIs in ETO instead of sending them all to MTO or to Far East.. Spit Mk VIII had the range of 740mls with internal fuel vs that of Tempest Mk V’s 760mls. And both had the option of 90 Imp gal in drop tank(s). That without late Mk VIII’s rear fuselage tank. Spit Mk IX’s range with internal fuel only was 420-434mls and 900-914mls with 90Impgal drop tank. Mustang Mk III had the range of 890 mls with internal fuel only and it could carry 125 Impgal in drop tanks with them its max range was 1445mls, so it still had clearly superior range but Spit Mk VIII had range for escort missions to Western Germany.



The critical data point for escort mission capability is internal fuel supply. Since drop tanks are typically jettisoned at first contact with the enemy, a successful escort must be able to engage in combat for an effective amount of time and be able to return to base. When comparing the internal fuel for the Tempest V and the Spitfire VIII to the P-51B/D, this is what you get. The information on the Tempest V and Spitfire VIII was retrieved from the internet. If there is better information or if I have used the wrong gallon, let me know.

Tempest V. The maximum internal fuel for the Tempest V that I could find is 162 gallons US.

Spitfire VIII. The maximum internal fuel for the Spitfire VIII is 144 gallons. I could fine no reference to a “rear” tank. If you have info on this, please let me know.

P-51B/D. The maximum internal fuel for the Mustang is 269 gallons. Some of this fuel must be burned off before combat for stability.

I have, on another thread, performed a rough analysis of American aircraft for the escort mission. Using some of that data, I calculated the following escort performance for a 400 mile mission, Western Germany.

Tempest V. Using the same fuel consumption as the P-51, about 66 gallons needed for 400 miles, the Tempest would have around 100 gallons of fuel for combat. At Normal Rated Thrust (NRT), this would be about 30 minutes fighting time. Decent.

Spitfire VIII. Using the same calculations the Spitfire would have about 64 gallons of fuel for combat, or about 30 minutes at NRT.

Mustang. I had previously calculated that the Mustang, on a 600 mile range mission, would have over an hour combat time at NRT. At 400 miles, combat time would be about an hour and a half, or three times the combat time of the other two fighters. I think this indicates the impact the P-51 had to long range escort and, just as importantly, long range interdiction. At 400 miles, it would take three Tempests or Spitfires to provide the same length Combat Air Patrol over a German airbase as one Mustang.

There is an interesting quote when the RAF compared the endurance and range of the Tempest to the Mustang III (P-51B)

Tempest V Performance Data



> By comparison the Tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks, has no range. When the extra fuel is available it should have a little more than half that of the Mustang III fitted with two 62.5 gallon long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 gallon body tank.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Nov 15, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Hello NZTyphoon
> On Hurricane, without it FC might have for ex Gloster F5/34s which might well have been a better fighter but there would probably have been fewer of them. Spit and Hurri were not only options available to FC in late 30s
> 
> Juha


Hi Juha

Although the Hurricane and Spitfire were not the only options in the late 1930s - not forgetting that with all the problems involved with producing the Spitfire in 1938-39 the Air Ministry was keen on stopping production and replacing the Spitfire with the Westland Whirlwind - the reality is that these were the only front-line single-seat single engined fighters available in 1940. 



davparlr said:


> Tempest V. The maximum internal fuel for the Tempest V that I could find is 162 gallons US.
> 
> Spitfire VIII. The maximum internal fuel for the Spitfire VIII is 144 gallons. I could fine no reference to a “rear” tank. If you have info on this, please let me know.
> 
> ...


Are you working in US or Imperial gallons?

From the _Pilot's Notes for Spitfire VII/VIII, AP 1565 P N, Air Ministry December 1943_: Fuel tanks = Top Tank - 47 Imperial Gallons; Bottom Tank - 49 Gallons; two wing tanks (13 gall)- 26 gallons = 122 gallons internal fuel plus drop tank of 30, 90, 170 gallons. There was never a "rear tank" fitted to the VII or VIII.

*2650 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 71 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost: 66 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 60 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:53 gal/hr

*2,400 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 66 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost:61 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 55 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:49 gal/hr

*2,200 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 61 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost:57 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 51 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:45 gal/hr

Air miles per Imp gallon = 4 at 260 mph at 15,000 ft at 2,650 rpm 
AMPG = 7 at 170 mph (recommended I.A.S) at 15,000 ft at 1,800 rpm

_Pilot's Notes for Tempest V AP 2458c, May 1944:_ Fuel = Main tank-76 gal; 2 inter-spar tanks (28 gal each)- 56 gal; wing tank port forward wing root (after first 100 Tempest Vs) - 30 gal= 162 Imp gal plus 2 45 gal drop tanks

recommended speed for maximum range = 210 mph I.A.S reducing to 190 mph I.A.S at 20,000 feet
Air MPG = 5.6 at 2,300 rpm

_Pilot's Notes for Mustang III AP 2025G:_ Fuel = 2 wing tanks-76.5 gal = 153 imp gal [2 x 92 US gal=184 US gal]; fuselage tank (late models) - 71 imp gal [85 US] = 224 imp gal [269 US]


----------



## davparlr (Nov 15, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Hi Juha
> 
> Are you working in US or Imperial gallons?



Good question. In references on the internet it is often hard to determine which measure is being used. Certainly for the P-51 it is US gallons. I also believe the Spitfire was in US gallons, which corresponds to your data, as I tried to verify with fuel weight from test sheets. Apparently, according to your info, I used imperial gallons and need to adjust my calculations.



> From the _Pilot's Notes for Spitfire VII/VIII, AP 1565 P N, Air Ministry December 1943_: Fuel tanks = Top Tank - 47 Imperial Gallons; Bottom Tank - 49 Gallons; two wing tanks (13 gall)- 26 gallons = 122 gallons internal fuel plus drop tank of 30, 90, 170 gallons. There was never a "rear tank" fitted to the VII or VIII.
> 
> *2650 rpm Weak Mixture*
> +4lb/sq.in Boost: 71 gal/hr
> ...



Thanks for the great info, I have very poor British data. I'll look and see how close I came with my assumptions. Would you happen to have the data for normal rated power for the Tempest and Spitfire?


----------



## Juha (Nov 15, 2010)

Hello Davparlr and NZTyphoon
NZT already answered D’s question. Some points to add; Morgan’s and Shacklady’s massive Spitfire The History gives the volume of Mk VIII’s wing tanks as 2 x 14 Imp gal and so the total internal as 124 Imp gal. It also claims that MT818, which was delivered on 13 June 44, was the first Mk VIII with 75 gal fuel tank behind the pilot. The plane was when the tank was full unstable but not viciously so. It was estimated that the a/c becomes stable after 37 gals have been used from rear tank. Its stability was improved when flying the rear tank full when the standard oil tank was fitted instead of PRU oil tank with bulged bottom cowling. It was considered that the a/c might possibly be accepted by Boscombe Down.. Morgan’s and Shacklady’s book being clip and paste type book the story absurdly ended to that. So it might well be that Mk VIIIs with the rear fuselage tank never went to service, and if they went they most probably had 74 Imp gals in rear tanks like late Mk IXs and XVIs. IIRC Quill writes something on Mk VIII and rear fuselage tanks in his Spitfire book but I don’t have time to check what exactly. 

One thing on Mustang III figures, according to USA 100.000 max range for P-51B/C with internal 269 US gal was 1275mls and for -51D 1250mls, so probably British Mustang III figures were without the rear fuselage tank or more unlikely British figures were much more conservative.

Hello NZT
Quote: “the Air Ministry was keen on stopping production and replacing the Spitfire with the Westland Whirlwind”

one important reason for that was that FC was committed to introduce 20mm Hispano cannon as its standard fighter armament and it was first thought that the cannon cannot be installed into the thin wing of Spit.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Nov 15, 2010)

Review and update of previous escort calculations.

Data for Spitfire and P-51 is a good approximation for assumptions.

*Revised data.* Tempest, when corrected for imperial gallons, has a combat time at normal rated power at 400 miles of 45 minutes or 50% of P-51 combat time.

Note: All three aircraft should carry 70+ US gallons in drop tanks to ensure full internal fuel at target area. Also note that early mission engagement of enemy forces would affect time on target.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2010)

The Mustang III typically was not equipped with the 85 gallon fuselage tank - which greatly limited its participation in daylight escort roles to Eastern Germany, etc.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Nov 15, 2010)

davparlr said:


> Good question. In references on the internet it is often hard to determine which measure is being used. Certainly for the P-51 it is US gallons. I also believe the Spitfire was in US gallons, which corresponds to your data, as I tried to verify with fuel weight from test sheets. Apparently, according to your info, I used imperial gallons and need to adjust my calculations.
> 
> Thanks for the great info, I have very poor British data. I'll look and see how close I came with my assumptions. Would you happen to have the data for normal rated power for the Tempest and Spitfire?



No problem: I've given the figures for the Spitfire VIII using normal rated power at various boost and rpm settings - anything over + 7lbs boost (when the Merlin started using a rich fuel mixture) was considered to be military rated power and the fuel consumption went up dramatically: maximum continuous cruise was at +7lb/sq.in Boost, 2,650 rpm fuel consumption 80 gal/hr

*3,000 rpm Rich Mixture*
+18lb/sq.in Boost: 150 gal/hr
+15 lb/sq.in Boost:130 gal/hr
+12lb/sq.in Boost: 105 gal/hr (2,850 rpm)

Same story for the Tempest: Normal rated power was obtained at settings below +7lb/sq.in Boost: Rich mixture cruise was at +4½ lb/sq.in Boost at 3,150 rpm: fuel consumption was 125 gal/hr in M ratio at 5,000 ft, 132 gal/hr in S ratio at 15,000 feet: weak mixture cruise was +3lb/sq.in Boost at 3,150 rpm: M ratio at 5,000 ft, 100 gal/hr. 

*M ratio at 5,000 ft*
+3lb/sq.in Boost: 91 gal/hr at 2,900 rpm: 84 at 2,700 rpm
+1¾lb/sq.in Boost: 91gal/hr at 3,150 rpm:84 at 2,900 rpm: 78 at 2,700 rpm: 72 at 2,500 rpm: 66 at 2,300 rpm
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 58gal/hr at 2,300 rpm: -2 lb/sq.in Boost: 49gal/hr at 2,300 rpm: -4 lb/sq.in Boost: 42gal/hr at 2,300 rpm

Mustang III
maximum continuous cruise was at 46 inches Hg Boost at 2,700 rpm = 67 imp gal/hr or 81 US gal/hr at 2,000 ft (for every 2,000 ft up to 10,000 add 1.5 gal/hr) weak mixture: between 10 and 20,000 ft it was 40 inches Hg at 2,700rpm = 62 imp or 75 US gal/hr: between 25 and 30,000 ft at inches Hg Boost at 2,700 rpm = 63 imp or 76 US gal/hr

Pilot's notes for the Spitfire and Mustang (including Mustang III) can be found  here

BTW the formula for converting British lb/sq.in (psi) ( inch lbf/in² is more accurate, but wasn't used) Boost to American inches of mercury (inches Hg or IN Hg also ") Boost: One pound-force per square inch equals 2.036 inches of mercury: the normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 lb/sq.in, so a reading of +6 means that the air/fuel mix is being compressed by a supercharger blower to 20.7 psi . +25 means that the air/fuel mix is being compressed to 39.7psi so:

80.8 inches Hg=+25 lb/sq.in boost
66.5 inches Hg=+18 lb/sq.in boost
60.4 inches Hg= +15 lb/sq.in boost
46.2 inches Hg= +8lb/sq.in boost
44.18 inches Hg=+7lb/sq.in boost
42.1 inches Hg=+6lb/sq.in boost 

the Americans usually worked in round figures so in the pilot's check list in the_ P-51B-1 Pilot's Flight operating Instructions_ for take-off the pilot used a maximum boost of 61 IN Hg at 3,000 rpm = +15 lb/sq.in - same in the _Mustang III Pilot's Notes AP 2025G_


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2010)

It is really cool to have all this wealth of data provided without going way to partisan re. this or that favourite plane. Thanks, people.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 16, 2010)

Some late model Mk IX Spitfires had 154 or162 gallons of internal fuel. The two normal 48 and 37 gallon tanks, a 33 or 41 gallon rear tank, and two 18 gallon tanks in the wings.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2010)

See: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg


----------



## NZTyphoon (Nov 16, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Some late model Mk IX Spitfires had 154 or162 gallons of internal fuel. The two normal 48 and 37 gallon tanks, a 33 or 41 gallon rear tank, and two 18 gallon tanks in the wings.



Just thinking of the pilot having to manage a fuel system with several tanks. The Seafire 46 (and 47?) must take the prize for having the most complicated fuel system of _any_ piston-engined single-seat fighter - when fully loaded there were the normal 36 and 48 gal upper and lower fuel tank:
four wing tanks of 2 x 12½ and 2x 5½ gal:
rear fuselage tank of 32 gal: 
two 22½ gal combat tanks under the wings:
and a 50 gal drop tank under the fuselage: 
TEN fuel tanks in total, 247 Imp gal. 

The instructions in the Pilot's Notes (AP 2280 F G) include:
(b)_ Main fuel system including rear fuselage tank full_.
Start and warm up and take-off on the lower fuel tank.
Change over to the rear fuselage tank at a safe height (of 2,000 feet) by turning ON the rear tank , switching the booster pump switch to REAR and then immediately turning OFF the lower fuselage tank.

When 2 to 3 gallons remain in the rear fuselage tank turn ON the lower fuselage tank, switch the booster pump to MAIN and then turn OFF the rear tank . Proceed as in (a) above.

Cf Corsair IV: Main Tank (inc. reserve of 42 gal) 197 Imp gal, Centreline drop tank 142 Imp gal = 339 Imp gal. There were also two underwing drop tanks totalling 274 gal = 613 gal plus optional wing tanks totalling 95 gal = 708 gal in six tanks.

The Seafire 46 highlights the main problem of adapting what was a short-range interceptor to a medium range carrier fighter. The minimum fuel consumption was 41 gal/hr at -2 lbs boost at 1,800 rpm, so the 5½ gallon wing tanks combined theoretically gave 16 minutes of endurance.
The Corsair's minimum consumption was 32 gal/hr at 22 In Hg and 1,800 rpm, with a 42 gal reserve - theoretically over an hour .


----------

